BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Remake

16 comments on Remake

Remake
: Howard Dean is trying to deftly remold his war posture and it’s getting noticed. Glenn Reynolds quotes Dean: “We have no choice. It’s a matter of national security. If we leave and we don’t get a democracy in Iraq, the result is very significant danger to the United States. . . . bringing democracy to Iraq is not a two-year proposition.” And then he says:

Howard Dean is right. And he’s the leading Democratic candidate at the moment. And that’s bad news for the terrorists, whose only hope is that we’ll fool ourselves into thinking otherwise, and give up before the job is done.

And Michael J Totten points to this Washington Post story on the topic.

The challenge for Dean now is to transition from champion of the antiwar, anti-Bush left to electable Democrat without losing his steam and solid liberal base, according to Democratic strategists.

That will be a challenge, since he’s already alienated me and a whole lot of other Democrats. And making the right noises isn’t enough. He needs to be genuine. I’ll see right through him if he is not.

This transition is no easy task for the most outspoken critic of the Iraqi war…

No kidding.

I think what you’re seeing, from Totten at least, is simply the disaffection that comes from looking at the present Democratic field. Realistic Democrats, like us, are starting to ask ourselves whether we could go for Dean… and there’s no good answer, yet.

16 responses to “Remake”

  1. sean Avatar
    sean

    I don’t buy this new and improved hawkish Dean for a moment. He’s making the right noises now, but the anti-war activists in the Democratic Party are content to support a candidate who opposed getting into the war in the first place and aren’t yet demanding that he advocate full withdrawal. (Obviously, the anti-globalist and Green nutjobs are demanding full withdrawal, but they haven’t made any waves within the mainstream of the Democratic party — yet).
    The real question is this: what will Dean do if casualties mount in Iraq (either through attrition or, God forbid, a single Beirut-like incident) and the antiwar chorous WITHIN HIS PARTY begin to demand full withdrawal? Given his pander to the anti-war wing of his party to date, I strongly doubt he’ll suddenly stand up to them.
    Then there’s the Kucinich factor. His momentum was thwarted by Dean’s rise, but now that Dean is limiting his anti-war critique to what we should have done, rather than what he did, he has given Kucinich an opening. Any bad news in Iraq between now and February will provide a potential backlash against Dean’s current position, and an opportunity for Kucinich to pounce. I could be wrong, but my gut tells me that, if Kucinich makes a move for Dean’s peacenik support, Dean will jettison his “after-the-fact hawk” rhetoric faster than you can say Social Security reform.

  2. John McCrory Avatar
    John McCrory

    You really believe that Dean is “remolding” his message? You really think there is a “new and hawkish Dean.” All it takes to see what Dean has been saying all along is to read his speeches on his web site. As far as I can tell, his stance has not changed a bit, and I’d be interested to see if anyone can actually cite something Dean has said during this campaign about foreign policy on which he has changed his tune for ‘political reasons.’ The gauntlet is thrown.
    As Al Franken points out in his Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, one of the worst biases in the media is the “laziness” bias. It seems to me that a lot of reporters have shown this bias in dealing with this election, and Dean in particular. They found it easy to simply say “Dean = anti-war candidate = pacifist dove” and never bothered to read what the candidate actually said. And there’s really no excuse for that, since it’s all on his web site, and easy to find.
    For example, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25, 2003, Dean said:
    “The second major challenge results from a failure to plan for peace as fully as we planned for war. General Shinseki’s professional military advice that 200,000 troops would be needed was rejected. I would add at least 50,000 foreign troops to the force in Iraq.
    It is imperative that we bring the international community in to help stabilize Iraq. If I were President, I would reach out to NATO, to Arab and Islamic countries, to other friends to share the burden and the risks.”
    He also said, about Afghanistan:
    “The U.S. must redouble its effort to garner aid from the donor community and to increase to 30-40,000 the number of military troops our friends and allies commit to help us rebuild Afghanistan. For the United States to rely on warlords to keep peace in Afghanistan nearly two years after a successful military operation demonstrates an extraordinary lack of thoughtful vision.”
    That’s your anti-war candidate. Go ahead and read his whole speech. Dean said back then a lot of the same things that sensible folks around the country have said more recently.
    As for whether his emphasis has changed on what to do in Iraq, sure it has changed since he started his campaign, and I’d be a little worried about him if it didn’t. When he started speaking out about Iraq, we hadn’t yet invaded. Now we’re there whether one likes it or not, so sure, a smart person is going to take that into account and describe what ought to done now that the situation has changed. That’s the realist approach, no?
    Only someone really foolish would keep saying the same things over and over again after a situation changed or their original premises proved false.
    In contrast, President Bush never had much of a postwar plan; considering the reality of what our troops are facing over there, Bush is the one who ought to be ‘remolding’ his approach to Iraq instead of touting the 100 great things that have happened there since we invaded and continuing to go it alone and do it on the cheap.

  3. annie Avatar
    annie

    Howard Dean is a strutting popinjay, a typical doctor who thinks his word is God. He’s a minor governor from a minor state who throws raw meat to the crowd and doesn’t care that the raw meat is torn from the bodies of terrorist victims and U.S. troops. He gets headlines as a media darling, but he is no commander in chief and he will not protect this nation.

  4. Lola Avatar
    Lola

    Reaching out to the Arab countries? that’s like reaching out to the fox trying to get into the henhouses.

  5. Diana Avatar
    Diana

    Jeff, you are suffering from bloggeritis, which is what happens when you don’t get out enough. Dean hasn’t “remolded” anything. He is simply saying that we in IN Iraq and cutting isn’t an option. He was always a centrist governor in Vermont. Regarding Michael Totten, he’s just some punk who runs a pseudo-liberal blog. So what and who cares? Dean has tapped into the nervousnessness of the vast middle class about this war. I supported the war, but I have to be honest. He was much more realistic about it than I was.

  6. Diana Avatar
    Diana

    Sorry, clicked too fast. I left out the word “are” before IN and should have taken out the word “punk” before “pseudo-liberal blog”, which should have been….my apologies.

  7. sean Avatar
    sean

    John:
    I am aware of the statements Dean has SAID. What I am concerned about is whether he will actually follow through when the chips are down.
    Dean’s pro-occupation comments are, at the moment, within the mainstream of the Democratic Party — even among war opponents. But what does Dean do if the opposition to the occupation grows, especially if Kucinich (who is campaigning against occupation) starts to gain on him? Given Dean’s willingness to flip his position to please his constituents, and given that his opponents of the war are his key constituency, I very seriously doubt he will be willing to buck their opinion.

  8. Michael J. Totten Avatar
    Michael J. Totten

    should have taken out the word “punk”
    Yes, that would have been nice.

  9. John McCrory Avatar
    John McCrory

    Sean, the evidence overwhelmingly shows Dean is someone who worries little about what’s “popular” when he makes his decisions.
    Dean’s comments aren’t “pro-occupation.” Getting the U.N. and other countries involved, many people seem to agree, are essential if the reconstruction of Iraq is to not be an “occupation.” In fact, if opposition to Bush’s go-it-alone occupation on the cheap grows, Dean’s plan to internationalize the reconstruction into a cooperative effort should appeal to any Americans who feel we’re in over our heads there.
    As for: “Given Dean’s willingness to flip his position to please his constituents…” — name one example of how Dean has done flipped his position to please his constituents. Can you?

  10. Frank Patrick Avatar
    Frank Patrick

    There’s nothing inconsistent, or remolding, or flipping about being against how we got into the Iraqi quagmire and on meeting our responsibilities now that we have found ourselves in there. Everything I’ve heard from Dean so far has been about responsibility. If I remember right, even in the famous Meet the Press interview in which he was lambasted for his lack of details on military numbers, the implication of his response then (and since) was about needing more resources to create the peace.
    As far as this 52-year-old cynical, realistic Democrat-leaning Independent is concerned, Dean seems to be a pretty darn good answer. I’ve never even paid this much attention to primaries this early in the game until now. What has got my attention is the mix of middle-of-the-road moderate realist with the passion of a card-carrying radical saying things that jive with my view of national policies and politics.
    I’d like to believe I’m not alone. Of those in the hunt now, and of those whose names are mentioned as possible joiners, I don’t see anyone who has a better message, persona, and chance of giving Dubya a run for his and his friends’ money.

  11. Diana Avatar
    Diana

    personal apologies. (but please understand: in my world, anyone under forty is a…oh, never mind.)

  12. Diana Avatar
    Diana

    kucinich is a vegan. how can a vegan pounce on anything?

  13. Sean Avatar
    Sean

    John: I would agree that Dean isn’t someone who thinks about the effects of what he says before he pops off, but he very quickly backtracks once it threatens to blow up in his face (entitlement reform, anyone?)
    Interesting distinction on “pro-occupation.” It seems you would restrict the term to one who favors occupation by the US, while I was defining “pro-occupation” as anyone who favors remaining in Iraq as opposed to favoring an immediate pullout. Well, now that we’re on the same page…
    John, the key concern I have is this: what will Dean do if opposition builds within the Democratic Party for an immediate pullout? If the US will be there for 5 years pro-withdrawal sentiment is bound to build sometime on Dean’s watch (assuming he gets elected). How will he handle himself? And what if Kucinich makes hay (better Dianne?) of Dean’s opposition to an immediate pullout, and begins to eat at Dean’s standing in the polls? Will he reposition himself or will he stand his ground?
    I’ve made it clear that I think he’ll cave to his supporters, which to me makes him unrealiable as a national leader. Among my worries are Dean’s insistence that the United Nations be involved in the occupation (or whatever else you want to call it), which will only happen if the UN assumes greater control of the occupation/mission. His comment that he “supposes” Saddam being booted from power sticks in my craw. You appear to have a higher opinion of him than I do, so I’ll be interested to year your thoughts.

  14. R C Dean Avatar
    R C Dean

    “Getting the U.N. and other countries involved, many people seem to agree, are essential if the reconstruction of Iraq is to not be an “occupation.””
    The UN has, at best, a mixed record at nation-building, and it looks like their best guy just bought it in Iraq. What, exactly, is it that teh UN or any other nation brings to the table that is so essential? Certainly the Iraqis have no liking for the UN, France, or Russia, given their history of dealings with Saddam, so the major players are pretty well out of the game in Iraq (except for very limited roles, perhaps). Who’s left? What do they have that the US doesn’t that is so essential? Why does a collection of dictators confer legitimacy and effectiveness beyond what the US can do?

  15. John McCrory Avatar
    John McCrory

    First, the idea that Americans, or a majority of Democrats will ever insist on an immediate pull-out is a fantasy. I doubt even that many of those who opposed the invasion will ever believe quickly bringing the troops home and leaving Iraq (and the world) on its own to deal with the wreckage is the right thing to do.
    I don’t think Dean’s supporters are so fickle as you imagine. After all, these are the folks who didn’t follow the prevailing winds of opinion during the buildup to the war, even under the threat of mushroom clouds. It’s also relevant that the anti-war movement (and Dean’s supporters from it) aren’t simpleminded pacifists; most people outside the anti-war movement never understood that.
    Will Dean “cave into his supporters”? I don’t believe he will, based on the fact that he hasn’t before, despite plenty of opportunities. So on that one, let’s just disagree and see what happens.
    As for RC’s question about why the UN — The UN has the one thing we gave away when we unilaterally invaded: legitimacy in the eyes of the world. Lots of people refer to the UN’s “spotty record” of nation building, but in recent years, it has been a lot better than ours. I won’t go into all this, but suggest John Dean’s column from April 11th.
    The UN a “collection of dictators”? Someone here stuck in the Freeper echo chamber?
    If anything, doesn’t the present chaos suggest that rebuilding has to be a real international effort — but with the U.S. playing a significant role? Like in Bosnia?

  16. stoner Avatar
    stoner

    A true Democrat doesn’t do everything in his power to thwart the removal of a fascist tyranny in the heart of the Middle East that supports terror (at minimum direct support of Palistinian suicide bombers), hates America, and intends to develop WMD ASAP (or why did Saddam endure 12 years of sanctions). A true Democrat would be on board with the effort to fight terror through the spread of democracy, an endeavor in keeping with the highest ideals of America. Dean would’ve left Saddam there, despite an opportunity to take him out. Case closed. He’s unworthy of the nomination. ANd I’ll vote for Bush rather than him