Howard Dean - Doctor, Governor, Democratic Boss

After his humiliating flameout in the 2004 Democratic Primaries, who imagined that a year later, Dr. Howard Dean would be running the Democratic Party? I did not support him for president, believing his campaign had peaked too early and that he would run out of gas against Bush. As it turned out, he lost his momentum much earlier and never won a single state primary. Now that same famously outspoken politician intends to lead the Democrats out of the wilderness.

Dean has proven himself a champion fundraiser, but he needs to be more than that. His predecessor, Terry McAuliffe, raised a ton of money but nearly drove the party off a cliff with his lack of a cohesive and coherent vision. Dean needs to determine what the party stands for and how it is to make inroads in the Red States. The new face of the party needs to show Americans that Democrats do stand for things other than "we’re not Bush."
The right-wing part of the media has helped demonize Democrats, and Dean has the energy and passion to counter that. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, to name a few, will paint him as out of touch, as a radical, blah blah blah. Don’t believe it. Dean is a little left of center, yes, but that is not a bad thing. It does not mean he is a communist, which Fox News might have you believe.

Remember how his grass-roots campaign took off and utilized the internet in ways no one had seen before. Remember how passionate his followers became. John Kerry never inspired that kind of passion and still got 48% of the vote. Dean has already said he will visit Red States often. Kerry ran for president, and how long do you think he considered even looking at a state like, say, Kentucky? The Democrats are a national party, and they should start acting like one instead of targeting "safe" and "swing" areas.

He is volatile and will undoubtedly say things that conservative types will pounce on. I’m sure Ann Coulter is licking her venomous chops right now. I say fine – let him become the lightning rod. He seems to thrive on it. More importantly, he will be able to convey his passion to people and, I think, will make a fine leader for the party. I have reservations, to be sure, but the Democrats need something to energize them and pull them together, and I think Howard Dean will be able to do that. I will support him, and if you believe that Bush and his ilk are continuing to destroy this country, then you should too.

Bush's Journalist Stool Pigeons

First it came out that a conservative talking head named Armstrong Williams was paid by the Bush administration with taxpayer dollars to promote the Bush Education Plan. Let me repeat: THE ADMINISTRATION PAID A JOURNALIST WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PROMOTE ITS AGENDA.

Then, it comes out that conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher was paid by the administration with taxpayer dollars to defend the Bush administration’s position on marriage, specifically the strengthening of marriage.

Neither Armstrong nor Gallagher notified their readers of these conflicts of interest.

But wait, there’s more: conservative columnist Mike McManus was paid by the administration to train marriage counselors as part of the agency's initiative promoting marriage to build strong families.

Now comes word that one James Guckert, a White House reporter for the Talon News Service under the name "Jeff Gannon," is quitting his job. So what, you ask? Well, he has come under scrutiny because he is an employee of a Republican-owned news website that is closely linked with GOPUSA, a GOP activist organization. This man somehow got access to the exclusive White House Press Corps under an assumed name. Why would he need an assumed name? Well, he seemed to make a point of lobbing softball questions to Mr. Bush at press conferences.

At a news conference on January 26th, Guckert asked Bush how he could deal with Democratic congressional leaders "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality." Do you think maybe he was there to help make Bush look good to other reporters, who would then report how good he looked to their readers around the country?

Guckert admitted to having conservative beliefs. There’s nothing wrong with that, but when journalists’ beliefs lead them to become propaganda tools for the administration, something is definitely wrong. Williams, Gallagher, and McManus were wrong, and Guckert/Gannon appears to be. Is it just me, or does all this seem just a little shady?

Asked about Guckert, the White House offered no comment. Well, duh. Bush has said “Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet." Well, obviously, he doesn’t believe that. If he doesn’t even think his agenda is good for all American people, why should we?

Things I Wonder...

When did "liberal" start to mean "evil communist?" Was it around the time that Fox News Channel began?

Why is it okay for Republicans to want less government in peoples’ lives, unless it comes to personal issues like abortion or gay rights? Then they want more.

In light of the CBS fiasco, will anyone ever again try to figure out what really did happen to Bush in the Air National Guard?

Why was it really, really bad that Clinton didn’t inhale pot, but not a big deal that Bush didn’t snort cocaine?

Who helped Cheney devise the administration’s energy policy? What companies were they from, and why does he still refuse to say who they were?

Will the upcoming Enron trials highlight the Bush family’s relationships with Enron executives?

Why do people still believe Bush when he says he is a “fiscal conservative” when he has lowered taxes to decrease government revenue while blowing our deficits higher than ever?

What did Bush know when he owned the Texas Rangers, and his players were allegedly juicing up? Maybe he was willfully ignorant?

Will John Kerry have the nerve to run in 2008?

Will John Edwards, considering he turned invisible after he became Kerry’s running mate?

Will Al Gore? A Southern Democrat like him might have a second chance. There are many second chances in politics. Richard Nixon, in fact, had two second chances.

As the likely head of the Democratic Party, will Howard Dean focus the party and help set a cohesive agenda, or will he radicalize and therefore marginalize it?

How long before Bush has a Supreme Court nominee that will rile Democrats, which in turn will make Republicans label all Democrats “out-of-touch obstructionists.”

How is it that men who went out of their way to avoid Vietnam were so gung-ho about invading Iraq? How is it that it doesn't seem to matter?

Will the Democrats lose more ground in 2006? Notice that Bush is pushing his Social Security plan on tour in Red States that have Democrats up for reelection in 2006.

Why did Bush have such extravagant inauguration balls when soldiers that he sent to Iraq do not have enough body armor?

Why is it unpatriotic to criticize Bush's government? Is it because the man never, ever makes a mistake?

Saxy Chambliss won a Senate seat in Georgia after smearing his opponent as “unpatriotic.” His opponent, Democrat Max Cleland, lost three limbs while fighting in Vietnam. What I wonder is, how does Mr. Chambliss sleep at night?

The Big Scary Social Security Monster

I read up some more on the Social Security proposals, and I’ve concluded that I don’t like them.

Bush’s idea is that privatizing part of Social Security gives people control of their own money, and therefore removes government more from people’s lives, a basic conservative tenet. Of course, conservatives have no problem involving themselves in people’s private lives when abortion or gay marriage is involved, but I digress. It gives people more control over their money, but is that a good thing?

In theory, yes, but many people do not know the first thing about investing. How many people would put much-needed Social Security money into aggressive and risky funds, hoping for a big payout but losing the money? Conservatives would respond that that’s their own fault. Perhaps, but people need brokers to invest, and often need investment advice, none of which is free. These fees would eat into more money that people might need. Who benefits the most? Investment and brokerage firms. Hmmm.

More money invested in the stock market sounds like a nod to Big Business and the fat cats that support Bush. That can't be right, either. Certainly, Bush has the interests of the American people at heart, no?

One reason Bush wants to semi-privatize is that he refuses to raise the cap on Social Security taxes. Currently, people do not pay into Social Security for income over $90,000. Raising this cap would put more money into the program and help keep it solvent. But noooooo. Bush fears the wrath of God if he does anything but continuously lower taxes on the wealthy. Another alternative could be raising the age at which people would receive benefits. This is a tough call, and I haven’t heard many people bring it up.

Bush calls it a “crisis” and is trying to scare us into doing something we should not do. He has done it many times, and unfortunately, has succeeded many times. Let it end here.