Washblog

The conversation between Pelz and Dean had nothing to do with an actual pullout timetable or what the actual plan would be.

Here's my translation:

Pelz: "Hey Guv! Are we for or against the goddam Iraq War! Goddamit, my people are getting fucking restless. Either the Party backs the War, in which case you can expect fuck-all from Progressives, or the Party opposes the war, and I think that will fucking work, man. So let's get on it, buddy!"

Dean: "Yeah, Okay, I'll tell Hillary. That'll be a ANOTHER fun conversation with her. It's not like I don't hear from Progressives. I know Progressives and I know you're a progressive. Thanks for supporting my campaign. I never liked you.

You know what the problem is and you know where the problem is, and it's not in your Washington, it's in mine, so don't fucking embarrass me. The 'Win back the House and Senate from Bush' message is all we've got, so let's hit it hard. We'll give it an Iran spin, it'll be fine."

Pelz: "Hey, Buddy, I don't care if you like me or not. I supported you and I am State Chair. I am getting KILLED, man and you want to know that I am gonna send a message to the folks back home. If I'm gonna get fucked by this, you're gonna get fucked, too."

Dean: "Hey Dwight, you wanna shut the fuck up there, pal? You know what a 'camera' is? It's the thing I live in front of AND YOU DON'T. You've made your point, now stop it."

The problem, folks, is that there are a lot of Democrats running who formally support the war in Iraq and have "no regrets" about their pro-Bush Iraq War votes.

The Democrats have not, as a party, taken an anti-war stance. It's not about a plan. It's about commitment to the issue. In their minds Iraq is still a potential winner for the Republicans. All they dare to do is keep suppoorting it until it goes so badly people demand we pull out.

by dlaw on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 02:49:20 AM PST

Do "diary" your conversation with the senator.

by DWE on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 06:52:38 PM PST

Dwight Pelz' characterization of the Bush administration as "smash and grab" governance at a recent meeting was perfect.

That's now how I see this administration -- smash and grab.

Good for him for standing up for the obvious when others are not willing to.

by noemie maxwell on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:26:52 AM PST

They're both right.  Dwight was dead-on to stand and question him, and the party does need to talk about it, but Dean's right that the discussion about official Party strategy needs to happen behind closed doors - not to keep it from us, but to keep it from becoming a nightmarish shitstorm in the media (and if you look at what Dean said, this is what he was talking about).  

Yes, policy does evolve.  Nothing is born fully developed, especially something about which there is little clear consensus.  The only consensus we have about Iraq is some vague form of "get out".  Among activists, Party leaders, electeds, and random folks, people want out, but no one can quite agree on how to do it.  Now?  Three months?  Six month partial withdrawal?  THERE IS NO CONSENSUS.  As this blog is witness, this is a messy, difficult conversation; it's one thing for us to hash it out amongst ourselves with only the occasional David Postman or Joel Connelly watching, it's quite another for the Chairman of the Democratic Party and other Party leaders to hash it out, with all the passion and anger and widly varying opinions, in front of the world's media, which is more than happy to run the "Democrats brawl over Iraq agenda, splintering over policy" headlines.  

John Murtha introduced a great resolution; few people wanted any part of it.  Why?  Lots of people simply didn't agree with it.  Some felt it didn't go far enough, some felt it moved too fast, or was too specific, or too vague.  So even if someone decides to lead the way, it doesn't magically make people's minds up.  This is a difficult, arduous, decision for people to make.  Not "if", but "how", and "how fast".  It will cost lives no matter what they decide, and every move they make before the media's eyes can cost jobs, lives, or add time to the get-out scenario.  Unfortunately, caution is painful, but (IMO) necessary.

That doesn't mean we should be shut out of the conversation - I certainly don't think that.  But I see no need to invite more public disasters than we already have while we figure out what the hell we can even agree on.  

And as for talking to people in the 47th - yeah, you should tell them 2006 has to be the year of transition.  You don't have to word it like a politician; you'd sound like a schmuck.  Because you and I know that the bottom line is we need to get the hell out, or at least get a good start on it, THIS YEAR.  But let's face it, talking to Gladys from down the street is different from facing the world's media; Gladys is way less likely to take your personal version of that phrase to heart without twisting it around for extra ratings.  

Dean's not being wobbly.  Whatever your opinion of the methods, he's being strategic.  

Switzerblog'll knock you out!

by switzerblog on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:47:34 PM PST

If this "concensus" Dean speaks of is to be found behind closed doors, just who is going to come to a concensus?  Obviously, not us.  

His use of the term the "Esteemed Fourth Estate" strikes me as odd.  I need a little education here.  Just who is the "Fourth Estate"?  Does it refer to the public?  If so, Dean's employment of the term "serious discussion" is very offensive.  Does he think the public is a bunch of children, who must be protected from the serious thinking of the adults?  Does it refer to the Democratic Party grassroots?  If so, if anyone has a stake in the issue, we do.  

The "Esteemed Fourth Estate" sounds disgustingly like "The Great Esteemed Leader" or "The Teeming Masses"...like a bunch of communistic jargon...that's my personal opinion, however, and I digress.

I see an unsettling similarity between today's Democratic Party as headed by Howard Dean, if that is indeed his thinking, and the one that supported the repression of the Free Speech movement of the late 1960s.

by Richard Champlin on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 01:27:13 PM PST