Mullah Dobson Responds to Dean

In yesterday's edition, the Christian Science Monitor published a very short story--just 5 or 6 paragraphs--about a meeting the paper hosted with Howard featuring excerpts of his remarks, including this:

On religion and politics:
"The religious community has to decide whether they want to be tax exempt or involved in politics."

Newshounds, the folks who watch Fox so the rest of us don't have to, report that Focus on the Family founder and former president James Dobson was given 6 minutes to rebut Howard on "Your World with Neil Cavuto" yesterday afternoon.

In typical Fox fashion, the segment was titled "Did Howard Dean Threaten the Entire Religious Community?" (Honestly, I really need to take some Tums when posting entries like this.)

Spinning like a whirling dervish, Dobson used his free air time to distort what Howard said and made sure to mention that he doesn't get involved in politics.

What, never? No, never!

What, never? Hardly ever.

Newshounds:

For visual effects, Fox went to a split screen and aired video and muted audio of the 2004 "Dean scream" and tossed in a graphic during Cavuto's introduction that read: "Unholy Threat?"

Now if I could only find my videotape with the Democrats' "Justice Sunday" program on it.

Religious Group Claims Dean "Issued an ultimatum"

Fidelis, a Catholic-based advocacy organization, fired off a press release today over a statement they claim Howard made to the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday:

"The religious community has to decide whether they want to be tax exempt or involved in politics."

In presenting such a statement totally out of context, Fidelis President Joseph Cella claims:

"Howard Dean's statement makes it clear that he wants to muzzle America's churches and religious groups from professing what they believe on important issues facing our society. When it comes to debates over public policy and issues, Dean should be welcoming the voice of America's churches, not attempting to silence them. Instead Dean has shown utter disregard for people of faith by threatening the historical and treasured role of religious groups and churches in American public life."

"Under Howard Dean's rules, pastors, priests, and rabbis wouldn't have been able to mobilize people of faith to join the civil rights marches in Selma and Montgomery," said Cella.

I'll take a shot at providing the context of Howard's statement: The IRS prohibits churches from campaigning, unless they want to pay taxes as other political groups do. Fidelis sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to participate in politics but hang on to their tax-exempt status. Fidelis describes its mission as to "defend and promote the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and the right to religious liberty by electing pro-life, pro-family and pro-religious liberty candidates, supporting the confirmation of judges, and promoting and defending laws consistent with the Founding principles of the United States."

Mmmmkay. I wonder how Fidelis manages to accomplish that goal consistent with the IRS Guidelines?

I have no problem with religious people like Jim Wallis and Sister Joan Chittister being politically active. In fact, I think it's wonderful because they come to the table without the fire and brimstone that the Religious Right likes to rely on.

Where I have a problem is when churches endorse candidates either directly or through those helpful "voter guides" that don't mention a specific candidate but leave no doubt as to which one they endorse.

Here is where bringing the analogy of the civil rights marches is disingenuously used: The IRS prohibition against churches (and other 501(c)3 organizations) being involved in partisan politics concerns only races for public office, not issues. Churches and religious leaders can speak out on moral and political issues but they are not allowed to:

• Endorse specific candidates for office
• Tell their congregations to vote for or against specific candidates

Neither of these prohibitions would have prevented any cleric from legally participating in the civil rights movement and the marches in Selma and Montgomery.

For more information about activities that are and are not permitted under the IRS code, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has a guide.

Surfing the National Wave to Success in November

Howard Dean wants to nationalize the midterm elections this year by capitalizing on President Bush's low approval numbers and discontent with Republicans among the general public.

From the CQPolitics.com blog:

Dean, who met with reporters at a Wednesday breakfast organized by the Christian Science Monitor, conceded that "a national wave is necessary" for his party to win congressional majorities in this November’s elections. Dean said that there are two conditions for such a wave to occur: that people "want change" — which Dean said is borne out by polling data — and that the Democratic Party "has to be seen as the vehicle for change."

...

"[Republicans] can’t do it," Dean contended, noting that the GOP has had complete control of the federal government for most of the presidency of George W. Bush. "They can’t get out of the responsibility that they have for all the things that aren’t going the way they should be in America."

Howard stressed that he wants every Democrat candidate across the country to emphasize six major points that make up the party's unified agenda:

1. honesty and openness in government operations;
2. a strong national defense;
3. promoting American jobs through energy independence;
4. building a health care system that “works for everybody";
5. strengthening public education; and
6. promoting retirement security.

Howard also said that "this national agenda will include a "values piece" that probably will be unveiled in September."

Other topics Howard discussed:

• Declined to speculate about the 2008 presidential race, in which Dean described himself as the “referee” in a large field of likely and possible contenders. Dean said that he was focused on this November’s elections, in which Democrats must make net gains of 15 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate to win majorities. “I’m really focused on 2006. I want to win in 2006. I think we can take the House back, I think we may — we’re certainly going to pick up seats in the Senate, and we could possibly take the Senate back,” he said.

• Touted his party’s chances in Ohio, where Republicans are on the defensive amid questions about the ethical behavior of Gov. Bob Taft, Rep. Bob Ney and other members of the state GOP. Dean noted that Rep. Ted Strickland, the party’s pick for the open governor’s seat, and Rep. Sherrod Brown, who is challenging Republican Sen. Mike DeWine, face no serious opposition in the May 2 Democratic primary. Dean touted Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy, who is challenging Republican Rep. Deborah Pryce in the Columbus-area 15th District.*

• Accused Republicans of trying to use immigration as a “wedge issue” in this election and also announced a DNC Spanish-language radio ad campaign that calls for a “tough and smart” overhaul of immigration laws.

*CQPolitics is also reporting that EMILY's List has endorsed Mary Jo Kilroy and Kirsten Gillibrand, a lawyer who is challenging John Sweeney in New York's 20th Congressional District. Read the entire story.

Bill Frist: The GOP's Howard Dean?

Yesterday, Chris Cillizza asked the following in his blog "The Fix" on Washingtonpost.com:

Bill Frist: The Howard Dean of the GOP?

My answer: Not just "no" but "hell, no!" (Thanks, Sue Myrick)

Cillizza's column looked at how Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is turning to the Internet to reinforce his 2008 presidential bid. I would be surprised at a candidate who did not use the Internet as an integral part of his or her campaign nowadays because Howard made it fashionable to do so:

In the early run-up to 2008, however, it's Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), not McCain, who appears to be the candidate most closely copying the Internet blueprint of Dean circa 2004.

...

On Frist's Volunteer PAC site, he offers visitors several ways to interact semi-directly with him. First, Frist has a blog that is updated regularly through which he seeks to take the temperature of visitors on controversial issues like immigration and judges. To date, the blog has received more than 20,000 posts from readers, and Frist aides insist the senator regularly participates in the online debate.

The foundation of Cillizza's column is shaky though. Here is why he makes the comparison at all:

1. Frist has a blog.

2. Frist has a podcast--called iFrist-- to show he's on the "cutting edge." “It’s consoling to know that if my podcasts put you to sleep, at least I won't have to see you snoozing!” (That is a direct quote.) I wonder if Apple can go after him for infringement? Also, check out the cool photo of Frist with his iPod on the site. Does that look Photoshopped to you?
   

3. He’s adding grassroots functions: taking a survey on national security, signing a petition in support of President Bush or endorsing the reelection campaigns of Jim Talent (Mo.) and Rick Santorum (Pa.) with more to come, apparently.

As usual, georgia10 is dead-on in her assessment:

Yet when politicians like Frist venture online, their actions lack a personal approach, making their netroot endeavors appear motivated more by politics than a genuine desire to interact with engaged citizens. Consequently, sites like Frist's VOLPAC remind me of coarse impersonations of their successful Democratic counterparts. Feingold's iPod silouette on his Progressive Patriots Fund site is sleek; the picture of Frist chillin' with an iPod? Kind of awkward.

[]

It seem to me that the entire liberal blogosphere phenomenon loses something in its Republican translation. Where Dean, Edwards, Feingold and others use the internet as a means of citizen empowerment, Frist and others use it as a means of retaining power themselves.

Even Cillizza seems to realize the comparison doesn't hold up:

How effective any one of these online approaches will be in recruiting supporters (and donors) to Frist's 2008 cause is an open question. There is a at least one crucial difference between Dean and Frist. Like him or hate him, the former Vermont governor inspired passion and loyalty among those who believed in him. At best, Frist can be described as low-key, at worst boring. Can a man with the Tennessee senator's mien inspire people to activism via the Web?

At least Cillizza recognizes the key to Howard's success--a genuine ability to connect with ordinary Americans and engage them on what they care about the most. People before party. What a concept.

WTF?

Pardon my French but this is the only charitable thing I can say about Noam Scheiber's story in The New Republic Online (subscription required):

Last year, a major Democratic donor from the 2004 presidential campaign received a call from some operatives at Howard Dean's Democratic National Committee (DNC). Dean was coming to town in a few days, they told him, and they wanted to schedule a meeting. Political fund-raisers normally make such calls a month in advance, and so the seat-of-the-pants approach didn't go over well. "You can't call me the week before and say, 'Hey ... we'll be there Monday, want to hang out?'" says the donor. "They had all these fucking hippies.... These are people that are great to raise a few $500 checks, plan a party at a nightclub. But they're not the folks you need to give you [the resources] to do the things you want to do."

Give. Me. A. Break. As Matt Stoller says over at MyDD.com, "There are two claims: Dean can't deal with high dollar people, and he won't spend money on 2006."

More from Stoller:

The piece, though, is just ill-informed. Scheiber clearly talked to a bunch of insiders mad that Dean isn't a 'traditional' party chair. Well why should he be? The DNC Chairman is actually an elected position, and Dean made campaign promises to the people who elected him. These include (a) building up the state parties (b) not focusing on DC (c) not focusing on swing districts and states (d) and giving money and resources to state parties. I didn't like the proposals at the time, but Dean won fair and square. I respect that, and so should the rest of the party. But they don't.

While Reid and Pelosi and Rahm and Chuck might bitch about Dean 'not playing the traditional party chairman's role', where were they in February of 2005 when the elections were held? Why did they let uber-local pol Donnie Fowler become a near kingmaker? Why didn't they endorse or get involved in a serious way? There was an election for this position, a position that was clearly going to control hundreds of millions of dollars and party resources in the next few years. Was this election below them? Apparently. Well Dean was elected and he is doing what he promised.

It's time to let go of the canard that Dean is an outside-the-Beltway hick who doesn't know his ass from his elbow. It's long past the expiration date.

I'm amazed there are people who still don't have a clue about Howard Dean. It's their loss.

(HT to Atrios where I first read about this hatchet job.)

RNC Grasps At Straws to Answer Dean

In a breakfast meeting yesterday with journalists hosted by the American Prospect, DNC Chairman Howard Dean called on President Bush to release or declassify the final Defense Intelligence Agency report on the existence of mobile biological weapons laboratories so Americans could determine if they were misled:

The onus is clearly on the President to clarify the situation surrounding this report. Was this incompetence, meaning that he did not know something that he clearly should have known, or is this an instance of dishonesty where information was misused or withheld to support a political agenda?

In typical Republican fashion, RNC Press Secretary Tracey Schmitt issued a press release last evening in response to Dean's statement. In typical Republican fashion, the release doesn't answer the question.

RNC Response to Howard Dean's Misguided Attacks

Howard Dean's eagerness to pounce on the headline of the day with total disregard for the facts, illustrates once again that the Democrats are more concerned with sensationalism than the truth. The President, like many democrats at the time, was operating with and communicating the best intelligence available. While the President is committed to winning the War on Terror, Democrats remain committed to exploiting the news cycle for short-term political gain."

I suppose the RNC feels that their only defense is to be offensive because the Republicans still lack a real-world link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Aside from the fact that the release does nothing to substantively respond to Dean's request, Schmitt reflexively falls back on standard Republican tactics to falsely accuse him of hypocrisy but the so-called evidence is weak:

DEMOCRAT WMD HYPOCRISY
(NB: Note the use of "Democrat" instead of "Democratic," implying that Democrats are not truly democratic. This succeeds only in making the RNC sound ignorant.)

Before The War In Iraq, DNC Chair Howard Dean Called Saddam Hussein A "Threat" And Believed He Had WMD:

Howard Dean: "Everything the President says about Saddam Hussein is true. He's evil. He's a liar. He gases his own people." (ABC's "This Week," 12/22/02)

-- Dean: "'I would be surprised if (Saddam Hussein) didn't have' chemical and biological weapons." (Mort Kondracke, "Is Howard Dean For Real? Well, Not Entirely," Roll Call, 1/27/03)

-- Dean: "I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States." (PBS' "Newshour," 2/25/03) (emphasis mine)

-- Dean: "There are such a thing (sic) as international outlaws. I'm not sure China is one, but I am quite sure Iran and Iraq are." (CBC/PBS' "The Editors," 1/31/98) (Wow, that's a reach)

-- Dean: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. The question is, is he an immediate threat?" (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/29/02) (Again, emphasis mine)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Has Even Attacked Howard Dean On His WMD Flip Flop. KERRY: "The fact is ... Howard Dean said he thought there were weapons of mass destruction there. ... It's very easy to be outside of Washington and not have to vote." (CNBC's "Capital Report," 10/17/03)

The press release continues to pile on by adding quotes from other Democrats who agreed that Iraq had WMDs and considered Saddam Hussein a threat. If you can't convince `em, confuse `em, I guess.

I'm just going to bottom line this one: At the time Dean made many of these statements, he was relying on information from other people, including former Clinton administration officials, who he considered knowledgeable. (Source: Democracy Now) Nor was he in a position to review any intelligence--unlike John Kerry, who had served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and other members of the Senate, like Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Jay Rockefeller, all of whom participated in the debate and who heard the same lies the Bush Administration foisted on the entire nation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Inconvenient for the RNC's "case" against Dean is that as far back as August 2002, Dean said he would support a unilateral invasion of Iraq if Bush presented evidence that Saddam Hussein had either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver.

Dean believed that Bush should have worked through the United Nations, should have given more consideration to the concerns of U.S. allies, and never should have claimed that Iraq presented an imminent biological or nuclear threat to the United States. (PBS' "Newshour," 2/25/03)

Dean has supported fighting wars which are truly necessary to defend the United States from imminent threats, but he never believed there was persuasive evidence that Saddam constituted a threat which justified the war. There is no disputing that Dean was right about virtually every prediction and claim he made, every warning that he issued about why invading Iraq was ill-advised and counter-productive.

They Write Letters

The Associated Press is reporting that the phone-jamming scheme to prevent Democratic GOTV efforts in 2002 may have direct ties to the White House:

Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 -- as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down.

[]

Virtually all the calls to the White House went to the same number, which currently rings inside the political affairs office. In 2002, White House political affairs was led by now-RNC chairman Ken Mehlman. The White House declined to say which staffer was assigned that phone number in 2002.

The DNC blog has posted the text of a letter to RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman from the inquiring mind of DNC Chairman Howard Dean:

Dear Ken,

Yesterday, the AP ran a story entitled "Phone Jamming Records Point to White House." This story provides new details about the role of the New Hampshire Republican Party in the phone-jamming scandal and raises serious questions as to whether the RNC and the White House were actively involved.

As you know, on Election Day, a telemarketer hired by the New Hampshire GOP jammed telephone lines at five state Democratic and one firefighters union get-out-the-vote phone banks. The AP noted yesterday that the "records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 - as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down."

The AP story also stated that virtually all the calls to the White House went to the same number (202-456-6173) which currently rings inside the political affairs office. Although the White House declined today to say which staffer was assigned that phone number in 2002, you may be able to shed some light on the subject, as you were the White House Political Director during that time.

You have often spoken of the importance of making sure that every vote counts. In that spirit, we hope that you will take the necessary steps to clear up the lingering confusion surrounding the RNC and the White House's role in this scandal by answering these questions:

* James Tobin called the White House two dozen times in three days. Whom was he calling? With whom did he speak? Whom did he work with in the office of political affairs?

* Tobin worked directly with Terry Nelson, who was then political director at the RNC. When will Mr. Nelson answer questions about his role in the scandal? Whom else at the RNC did Tobin work with?

* Did the White House authorize this phone jamming scheme and, if so, who specifically did so? Or was the phone jamming authorized by the RNC?

* Was anyone on the White House staff or at the RNC involved in concocting, authorizing, implementing or concealing this scheme?

The overt effort by the New Hampshire Republican Party to suppress the vote on Election Day in 2002 is unconscionable. The people of New Hampshire deserve an apology. And America deserves to know exactly how deeply the White House and the RNC were involved in the planning and execution of this scheme. We hope you will provide the answers we need so we can move forward together.

Sincerely,

Governor Howard Dean, MD
Chairman

The letter was hand-delivered to the RNC offices down the street. I'm sure Ken is working on his reply right now.

Howard: John, Paul, George or Ringo?

I'm a big Beatles fan and even collect a little bit but this is just the oddest Beatles analogy I've ever read. It's a quote by Joe Trippi from today's Washington Post:

He said he no longer speaks with Dean, now chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The two had a falling out in the final months of Dean's campaign over tactics and style and have crossed paths only once since Dean dropped out of the race. "I have a healthy understanding for why the Beatles did not get back together," Trippi said. "We may have been the political Beatles."

Sounds to me like Joe's having a Pete Best moment.

Bill & Al: Together Again

Hotline on Call has the story.

Howard Dean Brings Together Gore And Clinton

Tonight, former vice president Al Gore will join ex-Pres. Bill Clinton at a gala fundraiser in New York (has any fundraising dinner in New York ever not been a gala?) for the Democratic National Committee.

The event honors Maureen White, who labored for five years as the DNC's finance chair -- under both Terry McAuliffe and current chair Howard Dean.

White is stepping down from her DNC perch. After a short break, she'll join the Senate re-election campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Gore, whose relationship with his former boss chilled, then warmed, then sort of evened out, is a last-minute addition to the line-by-line.

DNC Regional Field Organizer Anathea Chino has the hardest job. Chino will deliver a presentation on the DNC's 50-state organizing project to the audience of deep-pocketed donors and New York's political media elite.

The dinner will net the DNC about $1.3 million. [MARC AMBINDER]

Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish

With the news of Tom DeLay's resignation, lots of people are mining for choice Tom DeLay quotes. Here's one courtesy of U.S. Newswire:

DeLay: Dean's Ashcroft Slander an Embarrassment; Vt. Demagogue 'as Ignorant on Ashcroft as National Security'

9/2/2003 10:10:00 AM

---

To: National Desk

Contact: Stuart Roy or Jonathan Grella, 202-225-4000; both of the Office of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

SUGAR LAND, Texas., Sept. 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Sugarland) today condemned the comments of presidential candidate and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who said, "John Ashcroft is not a patriot," in New Hampshire yesterday.

"Howard Dean is a cruel and extremist demagogue," DeLay said.

"John Ashcroft loves America more than Howard Dean could ever know. John Ashcroft has sacrificed for his country, and devoted his life to serving it. He is as kind, generous, and patriotic a man as I've ever met. And Howard Dean is as ignorant on John Ashcroft as he is on national security."

"Howard Dean's comments are an embarrassment to the democratic process and the Democrat Party. If this cruel, loudmouth extremist is the cream of the Democrat crop, next Novembers going to make the 1984 election look like a squeaker."

At least Howard earns an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. Can't say the same for Tom DeLay...