I'VE BEEN A GREAT FAN OF LIBERAL OASIS FOR YEARS NOW, but this is just completely bassackwards:
If the Democrats in Washington aren’t going to stand up for their party chairman, then it’s up to us.After Howard Dean noted that the Republican is “pretty much a white, Christian party,” Democrats seemingly couldn’t wait to rush to cameras and criticize the comment, leaving Dean on out a limb to defend himself.
This disloyalty builds on the bad precedent set over the weekend by Sen. Joe Biden and fmr. Sen. John Edwards, both who knocked Dean for saying a lot of Republican leaders have never made an “honest living.”
Oh, Edwards was sure to blog a day later to insist it was the awful media that unfairly blew up his comments.
Biden was sure to go on Imus to insist that he thinks it’s OK if Dean is a lightning rod.
Similarly yesterday, Dems like House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chris Dodd were sure to claim that they were just criticizing the comment, but they still support Dean.
Please.
C'mon, folks. Elected officials don't "stand up for their party chairman" -- their party chairman stands up for them. Because, believe it or not (and this concept really does seem to be a brainteaser for some Democrats), the primary purpose of a political party is pretty much to, you know, produce elected officials. And putting them at risk for the benefit of their chief cheerleader would be a little insane, no?
All this cult of personality stuff with Howard Dean is fine up to a point. Many of our strongest grassroots supporters genuinely love the guy, and that's great. But if it continues to lead to this kind of disparagement of our elected officials, Dr. Dean is once again going to find himself trying to function with little or no support outside of his personal base. And we all remember how well that worked out last time, right?
Comments
I agree that the initial comment "standing up for their chairman" is wrong, but disagree with your claim that the opposite is the case. Or at the very least, that it in any way follows that the chairman may not inconvenience some elected officials.
Concerning the matter at hand, I take it you wouldn't want to claim the Dems who spoke out against Dean absolutely had to do that, because failing to do so would endanger their seats (Edwards???). They could have, you know, just kept quiet or when pressed said they don't share the opinion of their chairman on this matter.
And that is, what IMHO the critique is actually about: Dean certainly speaks for some, and unless you are convinced Biden et. al. were pressed by their consituents to condemn his remarks, their attack on Dean was simply unnecessary. Dean did not attack them, they however did attack him. And that's what -albeit in poor phrasing - the cited entry is criticising. Rightly IMO.
Posted by: markus | June 9, 2005 07:06 PM