My open letter to Molly Ivins

Dear Molly Ivins

I read your endorsement of Howard Dean today.

http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/pe_columnists/article/0,2071,NPDN_14960_2475972,00.html
It is your privilege to see a winner in Dean just as you saw a winner in Nader in 2000.
You are not however entitled to your own facts.
First of all, I am old enough to remember when campaign finance reform (CFR) was a good thing. Granny D was walking, Nader, you and others were a part of a real movement to get this done. In fact, it was so important to you that you dared the Democrats in the senate to pass it "or else, they'll prove Nader was right: there is no difference"
Bush had to sign the bill in a closet, he was so upset and prayed the courts would kill it. The God who selected him, answered his prayers by sending along your winner, Howard Dean to help. CFR is dead - but who cares anymore?
I guess it wasn't all that important after all.
The other facts you mold to fit your agenda. You write
"Then along came Gen. Wesley Clark, and lots of people were excited. But I never have thought anyone should start in politics at the top. All those rich guys who run for office want to start at governor or senator, instead of running for the school board. Arnold Schwarzenegger aside, it's really not as easy as it looks. "
There are two major falacies here:
First, it is your chosen candidate who is rich (Park Avenue stockbroker dynasty), not Wesley Clark. Born in a modest family he reached his present position on his own merit. No medical deferments for him - he did it the hard way , living modestly throughout (even had to build his own car)
Second: when you call his candidacy "from the top", you are erasing me and hundreds of thousands of people out of existence. You see, we drafted him - it doesn't get any more "from bottom" than that.
So, the" insurgent vs the establishment" meme may sound cute to you (and Murdoch, and Podhotetz, and Safire, and Rush Limbaugh), but it has nothing to do with reality. There is a movement behind Wesley Clark - whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.
In conclusion, I doubt the 2004 election will be a shouting match. With your "winner" it would be a repeat of Mondale "I'll raise your taxes" with a whiff of Dukakis in the tank. Dean already lost his first confrontation on the sealing of the records - I guess transparency is pasee too.
But what do I know? I thought Gore would win in 2000.

I like it that Molly is admitting she is indeed a liberal - as opposed to the book convention contention to O'Reilly, in which she said she wasn't. I have it on tape, can back it up! But aside from that, I think everybody is entitled to bet on whatever horse they want to.

Instead of Gore?

she did a vote exchange to vote for Gore in Texas.

bc I like the idea of breaking the 2 party system... now, I wouldn't advocate giving Nader anything

but cautioned swing-state progressives to consider their vote carefully.

If so what a loser.

.

Or is it too much work...the slam is easier.

I remember her warning that Chimp would do for America what he did for Texas: Fuck it up.

I do believe, however, that even she was surprised by how bad he turned out to be.






Release date: October 10, 2000. (A month before the election)

I was surprised, thought she was too smart to have bought the Dean bs. I had forgotten about her drinking the Nader kool-ade.

Alas, cooler heads, stronger hearts, clearer eyes can, will and must prevail.

... of Dean that she has often, in the past, supported someone with little to no chance of winning. I'm sure that was a reference to Nader, among others. She explicitly says she is being more practical this time, and endorsing someone with whom she's comfortable, but also someone whom she thinks can win.

I also disagree with the original poster's complaints that she is being hypocritical on CFR when she justifies Dean's circumvention of public money. Nothing of the sort. You have to play by the rules as they are. One cannot expect Howard Dean, nor any other candidate, to campaign according to the high principles of non-existent campaign laws... laws that, if passed, would be great, but simply are not in place now. If you do so, you will be handicapping yourself right into a visiting professorship job. Following the laws as they exist is not mutually exclusive with believing that they should be changed.

Neither Dean, nor his supporters can work themselves out of the campaign finance pretzel.

He's a hypocrite.

You can show us a single candidate with the windfall of fundraising success Dean has had who decided to take a different path.

No one has...and it is insane for a candidate to tell people to stop sending checks that want to support them, that is what he would have had to do.

It's easy to yell hypocrite when you are failing at fundraising and have never been in a position to need to make the decision that Howard Dean's campaign had to make.

when he thought Kerry just might opt out? Sorry, that's the quicksand Dean is stuck in.

Very definition of a HYPOCRITE.

...with believing that they should be changed.

Therefore Dean is not a hypocrite.

If you campaign as though you were in some equal-election-funding, publicly financed-campaigns, utopian democracy, then you will lose. Your opponent is campaigning in the real world.

By your reasoning, everyone who advocates campaign finance reform, yet campaigns according to the laws of the current system, is a hypocrite. What Dean is doing is entirely legal and a choice any candidate has... most would likely consider it were they not so dependent upon matching funds. It is not some obscure, questionable loophole, and it is also very much a gamble (in that he is giving up millions). Other candidates may not be taking the option Dean is (or even have the ability), but they are nevertheless participating in a highly flawed system. Does that mean they cannot advocate change? Of course not.

On this issue, hypocrisy is only possible if Dean really had a crystal ball to foresee what actually happened. I am quite confident that if his fundraising was on par with everyone else's, he would not be forgoing public financing.

No one had that foresight. Conditions changed radically.

We need someone who can respond to changing conditions.

Once a hypocrite manages to justify the hypocrisy to himself, that's a door closed, locked, cemented.

Well, there you have it!

Following the laws as they exist is not mutually exclusive with believing that they should be changed.

Therefore, BY DEFINITION, Dean is not a hypocrite.

If you can find one statement by Dean ever claiming that he would not follow the laws as they exist, but rather, follow the laws as he imagined and would like them to be, then perhaps he is being hypocritical. But that is not the case. What would you have him do? Make up imaginary campaign finance reform and be the only candidate following it?

I am not using "Deanlogic". I am neither a Dean nor a Clark supporter. I like them both. I think this criticism is baseless and, yes, illogical.

a) say one thing...

b) do something else...

c) insist you are still doing what you said you would do in "a"...

His stated reason was to battle Bush and then he turned around in Iowa breaking Primary caps. No Bush there.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/071300-110.htm

"As a veteran Texas voter, I am an artist in the art of lesser-evilism. I have voted for more dreary, worthless characters than I care to recall, on the excellent grounds that they were a shade better than the other guy in the race. And what I have learned is that the lesser of two evils `does' make a difference, especially to those of us on the margins of society.

To put it inelegantly, we live in a society where the sewage flows downhill, and those on the bottom are drowning in it. To those who are barely keeping their noses above the sewage, it makes all the difference in the world whether, for example, you pass an awful welfare reform bill or you pass an awful welfare reform bill with an especially nasty amendment by Phil Gramm attached to it.

...

For short-term strategy, let's get Nader the 15 percent support in the polls that the Debate Commission says he needs to appear in the presidential debates. The point here is to move the debate. I am so sick of having to listen to Newt-Gingrich, Rush-Limbaugh Republicans and the Democrats who keep caving to them that I'll vote Nader in a New York minute.

OK, that's because I live in Texas, where a vote for Nader is a "free vote." Our electors are going to Dubya no matter how Democrats here vote, so for us, this is the equivalent of a primary vote: Go with your heart."

Than 16 people crowded into a coffeeshop in central Illinois listening with ears and eyes wide open to a DVD running on my laptop and sharing excitement about the campaign going on.

This is real grassroots...Clark's campaign isn't here and the Kucinich Meetup folded...Dean's candidacy is the only option for the grassroots here right now...and we are "bottom up."

The "top" of the campaign gives us envelopes, stamps, writing paper and names of registered voters to write to...with extensive encouragement to write what we want to say about the Dean candidacy.

This campaign and candidate are not like any other candidate...forget trying to draw the comparision to someone else. We're moving forward on a sea of small checks (Clark's ratio of $2,000 to small contributors is much more skewed to the $2,000 than Dean), letter writing and door-to-door shoe leather.

it makes no sense to be "sensible" in the primaries. In the general election maybe, but not the primaries. Her explanation of her non-support for Dennis is totally inadequate.

It calls into question all the principles she's been supposed to have been standing for.

And I think she is making it clear she is being pragmatic.

I agree with that, but I think to say "pragmatism is a principle" is pure doublespeak.

Pragmatism is ok, but it's not principle. Just like forgoing the federal matching funds is ok, but it's not campaign finance reform.

Pragmatism is very close to being an antonym of principle, and opting out of the campaign finance reform system is opting out of the campaign finance reform system.

Pragmatism is recognized as a major American contribution to the field of philosophy.

A brief paragraph in World Book encyclopedia says:

"Pragmatism became the most important philosophical movement in the United States during the early 1900's, and it has had an enormous influence on American life. Pragmatism has been called a typically American philosophy because of its basic optimism, its emphasis on action, and its belief in a future that can be changed by human ideas and efforts. Many people claim that pragmatism expresses the essential American character."

in terms of political campaigns and voting, it's simply put "going with your head" as opposed to "going with your heart."

Fine.

My comment is not that one is better than the other, it is that these ideas are directly opposed. To say they are the same has no real meaning. It's doublespeak, as far as I'm concerned. If you can explain how pragmatism is principle, I'm ready to hear it.

Another comment is that the pragmatic argument is not very persuasive in the primaries. Voting for Kucinich in the primaries is not as risky as voting for Nader last time in the general election.

the world are pretty close to the same thing to me.

Pragmatism tends to assume the world is a changing place so set in stone ideas are not the way to approach the world - the way to approach the world is to believe that human beings can have impact that best deals with the changing world. The way to have that impact changes as conditions change.

One of the basic principles I live by is that one must be pragmatic to bring about the best possible world for everyone.

pragmatism may well be american...but this country is messed up and in a bad way...so maybe it is time we realized these cherished time old ideas we have been runnign this country on are flawed

pragmatism is the practice of allowing those with inferior ideas a voice at the table of reason

i only want truth and correctness, and if 70% of the population doesn't agree, than screw them...what is right is always right, and no reason is needed to justify it

Wow...what an EASY world to live in!!!

My world has a lot of shades of gray.


Your proposal to exclude all those that don't fit YOUR idea of "truth and correctness" is a perfect defnition of fascism, by the way.

Southern Americans didn't support the end of slavery

the majority of Americans don't believe in gay rights

Americans were against women having voting rights




three good examples, and many more can be found


if a person looks deeply enough in their heart, they see every answer of judgement with a clarity that is black and white

Where do bisexuals fit in your black and white world of gay rights? And those who want to form a triad relationship?

How do you determine the appropriate voting age? 18 is a magic number??

What was the black and white answer to the best way to reconstruct the South? Maybe you should have been there...it could have turned out better.

I really have very little patience for your fascistic "I know the right answer" way of governing. Even my parents can admit there was no clear black and white frequently in raising a child.

you are misconstruing what i said

the american people are against gay rights...rights for homosexuals is CORRECT, so it doesn't matter if 100% of people are against them

better said, all human beings are deserved of 100% equal rights...and no matter how many people are against them, they are correct

people need to quit riding the fence and being so relativistic about everything...have some conviction about things

Leading with an iron fist, squelching all who have different ideas.

Isn't that what's being advocated here?

I always hate that murky area where you get so far left that the methods for running things are similar to those of the far right.

This reminds me so much of the Goldwater slogan "In your heart you know he's right."

it makes no sense to be "sensible" in the primaries.

it makes perfect sense to be "sensible" in the primaries, don't forget election day is only 11 months away.

I love Molly. And as for the "unsealing of his governor's records"--to me that is a non-issue. Why should Dean have to do it? Why don't we just call on all governors to do it? Callin on Dean to unseal his smells political so that is why it doesn't matter to me.

...she is speaking about experience in government (and not the military).

I like Clark, too, and I wouldn't rule him out for her reasons. But your use of "from the bottom" is entirely different from her use of "starting at the top". She simply prefers someone with experience in governing. Someone who's first elected office would not be president. That is an entirely valid opinion. I remember many hear complaining about Bush's relative lack of governmental experience (and the fact that he got the Texas governorship largely on name).

As far as the "rich" reference, Dean being rich does not make Molly's argument inconsistent. She is not saying rich people should not run. She is saying she does not like it when people run for top executive offices at their first try in politics... LIKE "All those rich guys who run for office want to start at governor or senator, instead of running for the school board". That does not apply to Dean.

But not the trap we currently have -- it's a formula for GOP domination: the Dem accepts public funds and is limited in spending, the Repub accepts corporate bribes and spends a megabundle, the spending sways the election. That's why 85% of us advised Dean to reject public funds. Had Dean accepted the public-funding trap, I would have been looking around for a different candidate, one that would still be viable.

can't sell a product nobody wants. There is a reason that the phrase "oversaturation" exists in the media. Let our Usurper-in-Chief keep running desperate commercials until everyone is sick of seeing his smiling face on their TV. Familiarity breeds contempt and there is a fine level of contempt for Junior already. What will it be like when he's perpetually all over TV telling all of us how grateful we should be to him? Mmmm...

The Democrat candidate should buy fewer longer commercial slots and use the time to actually say something. No sloganeering or canned "rolled up sleeves, walking like s/he's really going somewhere" shots, no BS snippets of video "relating" to the people while a voice over talks for him/her. I'm talking about treating Americans like voters, not "rubes". This year, more than ever, there should be not a single hint of excess while we have the GOP flinging money around in a lame attempt to make us think GW is "just folks". It will get their attention more than any barrage of crap the Rove Gang could come up with. They have GW's record to account for and the truth would be rather inconvenient to "sales", so hucksterism is all they can use.

I would hope that all the Democratic candidates would understand that the leader Americans need is one who doesn't take the cheat. I'd like to see them all take Kucinich's route and opt for "face-to-face" time, actually getting involved and getting to really know the people he's asking to lead instead of going for the bucks and "face" time.

That's one thing I don't get: what's the whole hangup with so many Democrats about MONEY?

It's like everybody is buying the Republican meme of "we need to spend MORE MONEY to win", and that the only thing that matters about a candidate is her/his fundraising prowess.

It's that kind of thinking that got G.W. Bush the nomination over John McCain in 2000-- do we REALLY want to go down that path?

Gore technically WON in 2000, and spent $60m less than Dubya-- Dubya had to basically BUY the votes he got, since he couldn't win them over on the issues.

So why is it, all of a sudden, so many Dems are convinced that by trying to out-fundraise Dubya that we're somehow going to win?

Paul Wellstone won in 1990 with 1/10th the funds of his opponent. Do you know how he did it?

By being RIGHT on the issues and not being afraid to stand up for them, which inspired STRONG support for him in both the nomination and general election.

People in this country are DESPERATE for leadership: for a candidate who's not afraid to make unpopular choices and stand by them if they are RIGHT. Even if they don't agree with the candidate on all the issues, they'll still vote for her/him because they'll see that s/he has CHARACTER, backbone, and integrity-- do you think some waffler would get that kind of support?

:shrug:

Gore barely won against a verifiable moron.

it's better to have millions of supporters voluntarily send a candidate small contributions, than to have the government dole out money thru an arcane bureaucratic framework. Dean's way is more democratic and more "public" than the so-called public financing. i'm not against the concept of public financing, i'm just saying that Dean's way is even better.

He started by licking stamps on envelopes for Jimmy Carter's 1980 re-election bid, became Dem Committee Chair then state rep, then Lieutenant Gov then ascended to the Governorship via his predessor's death and finally won the Governorship on his own right in 1992 in his first re-election bid. He also got practice for this upcoming battle against Bush in his last re-election bid when he was targeted by the RNC and other rightwing groups.

His rise in the Dem Prez race also started from the bottom up. Last year Dean was "The Darkest Horse" and was given no chance to win. He started with $157,000 campaign chest and was an asterick in the polls. With the help of thousands of us average folks, whom he attracted with his courage to oppose Bush's Iraq war, his famous speech "Why are so many Democrats supporting Bush's agenda...", and innovative use of the Internet, Dean is now the frontrunner and being taking seriously by media and Dem Party Establishment leaders, like Al Gore, who are not blind to what is going on today.

Clark certainly didn't start out as NATO Supreme Allied Commander in the Army. He started at the bottom and worked his way up, although on a different track than Dean. And there are thousands of "us average folks" behind Clark as well, believe it or not.

Molly Ivins can endorse whomever she wants though. I just love her.

No matter your line of work, there is a path you usually follow. The comparison doesn't hold, though. You don't call in a master plumber to fix a hole in the roof.

Clark is an expert at what he does. I actually like the guy. He isn't a politician, though, and that's not the arena where he worked his way up. You don't invite a plumber to fix your roof, and I think that's what we're expecting of Clark.

Note, no offense meant, he's a good man.

It is your privilege to see a winner in Dean just as you saw a winner in Nader in 2000.

Please post a link to the article in 2000 in which she says that she thinks Nader will win.

Would you have even brought up her Y2K support for Nader if she'd endorsed Clark?

you would have though....

I voted for Nader in 2000.

I'd have been disappointed had she endorsed Clark, but I wouldn't have called her intelligence into question, as some have.

Guess she doesn't know much about winning.

... - a huge Nader supporter - when he supposedly "endorsed" Clark, but now try to dis Molly Ivins as a former Nader supporter, when she endorses Dean.

you might notice she said in the past she has voted on the basis of "ideology." She said the Bush administration is SO bad, such luxuries are no longer viable. This time, we can't vote solely on ideology, we have to pick a "winner."

:yourock:

to criticize one of the most vocal columnists in our favor.