Many a truth is said in jest

by Prometheus 6
December 24, 2003 - 10:22am.
on News

Old Divides Growing in Dean, Centrist Rift
With some swipes at Democratic moderates, concerns mount over his ability to unite the party.
By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

December 24, 2003

WASHINGTON — The rapidly escalating war of words between Howard Dean and the Democratic Party's leading centrists is reopening old ideological divides suppressed during Bill Clinton's presidency and raising new fears about Dean's ability to unite the party if he won the nomination for president.

Party centrists were stunned Monday when Dean denounced the Democratic Leadership Council, a group that provided many of the key ideas for Clinton's "New Democrat" agenda, as "the Republican wing of the Democratic Party."

Dean's comments came just days after he delivered a speech widely seen as accusing Clinton of conceding too much ground to Republicans. The sharp verbal volleys from Dean against party centrists may help energize his liberal base as the first primary contests approach next month in Iowa and New Hampshire. But even Democratic moderates who have been sympathetic to Dean's campaign worry he could be pushing the party toward an internal upheaval that would severely erode his ability to compete as a general–election nominee.

Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, a Democratic political action committee, has been as close to Dean as any leading centrist in the party.

But after his latest criticism of the DLC, Rosenberg says, the front runner "has a choice. Is he going to present a new synthesis that incorporates all the best of all the traditions in the party … or is he going to be the leader of the counterrevolution?"

Added Leon E. Panetta, the former chief of staff under Clinton: "I think he's asking for serious trouble when he attacks Clinton and attacks the DLC. Whether you like their positions or not, the reality is you can't afford to divide the Democratic Party at this point. You've got a tough enough job fighting George Bush."

During a campaign stop Tuesday in Seabrook, N.H., where he received an endorsement from the 1,000–member New Hampshire chapter of United Auto Workers, Dean said he stood by his remarks about the DLC. On Monday, he called the DLC "sort of the Republican part of the Democratic Party … the Republican wing of the Democratic Party."

"The staff of the DLC has injected themselves into the race because they're supporting other candidates, but I think the membership of the DLC is anxious to take back the White House and understands that we have to be unified to do that," Dean said in Seabrook.

"I thought I was having a little fun at their expense. They've had eight months of fun at my expense, I figured I owed them a day at their expense."

Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, said Tuesday that Dean was joking in his criticism.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by S-Train (not verified) on December 25, 2003 - 11:26pm.

Like him or not, Dean is telling the truth. Why does the Democratic presidential nominee have to be a "centrist"? The Republican party makes sure they don't take all the "centrist" nonsense. It's all about getting the people motivated to vote for you and having them believe in your plan. What if Dean gets the 18 - 30 crowd out droves? Screw politics. It's about the people, not the electorate.

Submitted by Al-Muhajabah (not verified) on December 26, 2003 - 8:56am.

I've often wondered why people who say they are "anybody but Bush" are always willing to vote for someone more conservative than they are, but don't seem to think they can vote for someone more liberal than they are. Instead of progressives having to grin and bear it while voting for a centrist, why not centrists having to grin and bear it while voting for a progressive?

Submitted by Stradiotto (not verified) on December 27, 2003 - 6:50am.

I'm as tired of being called objectively pro-Bush as I am of being called objectively pro-"Evildoer du jour". Given the choice between right wingers who are willing to grant me one or two civil rights and dangerously insane right wingers who want to kill a lot of people and harvest my organs after torture, I'll do my grudging best for the former. I just want the terms to be clear :-).The limitation of options strikes me as artificial and dishonest, though unintenionally so.