Open Letter to Rep Dennis Kucinich
UPDATE: In the Question & Answer session after his speech to the Minnesota ACLU, Howard Dean expounds upon his comment -- "I hope the President's plan succeeds." You can hear it for yourself at the PBS tape of Dean's speech. The Q&A session is after his speech. http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/news/midday/2005/04/21_midday2.ram You need to use RealPlayer to hear this audio clip.
It's obvious that that newspaper reporter or editor or both truncated Dean's comments on our current situation in Iraq and his view of our responsibilities there.
This is why Dennis Kucinich should not have attacked Howard Dean directly. I would have had no problem with Mr. Kucinich criticizing all Democrats, who support staying in Iraq for whatever reasons they have, but to single out Howard Dean and to use a truncated quote of Dean by a newspaper reporter was wrong.
====================================================================================
May 5, 2005
Dear Mr. Kucinich,
I'm responding to your Open Letter to Howard Deanthat was posted on the Internet on May 4, 2005. This letter along with links to the original version of your letter and to the revised one will be in this letter. I think it's time someone chastises you out for your hypocrisy, and as a member of my town's Democratic committee, I feel obligated to do so and that is why I'm posting my Open Letter to you on the Internet.
I'm not a constituent of yours, but thanks to being inspired by Howard Dean, I'm now the secretary of my town's Democratic Committee.
While I'm not interested in running for elected office, I'm interested in rebuilding the Democratic Party from the grassroots up. Howard Dean gave me hope that there are Democratic leaders, who saw the Democratic Party in a state of atrophy and are willing to work with Democrats, both rank-and-file and local Democratic leaders, like my committee members, to resuscitate the Party from the grassroots up. That's why I asked my Democratic Committee to publicly endorse Howard Dean for DNC Chair, and my Committee responded by unanimously endorsing him.
I have read both your original and revised open letters to Howard Dean. It was very sloppy of you and your staff for publishing the original letter on the Internet with the major error -- the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war. We both know that 23 senators voted against the Iraq War Resolution. I also found it interesting that the Left-wing Media web sites, which posted both your letters, posted the revised one without noting that they were doing so, but fortunately, I saved a copy of the original letter and am posting a link to my copy of it at the end of this open letter. I will gladly show it to everyone, who uses your revised edition to attack Howard Dean, to prove that you are far from the perfect progressive your portray yourself as.
In both your Open Letters, you make the same mistake that you made about Howard Dean during the primary campaign. You assumed that Dean was totally anti-war and that is why anti-war progressives swarmed to his campaign.
You quoted Howard Dean, "Now that we're there [in Iraq], we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." And then you rhetorically asked, "Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?"
If you had paid attention to what Howard Dean had said during the primary campaign, you would know that nothing has changed in regards to Dean's position on the 2003 Iraq war and its aftermath.
Here is a quote from PBS Online Newshour interview of Howard Dean on Sept. 4, 2003 -- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debate03/part2.html -- that sums up Dean's position on Iraq:
I supported the first war in Iraq because one of our allies was invaded, and I thought we had a responsibility to defend them. I supported the war in Afghanistan; 3,000 of our people were murdered?As commander in chief of the United States military, I will never hesitate to send troops anywhere in the world to defend the United States of America. But as commander in chief of the United States military I will never send our sons and daughters and our brothers and sisters to a foreign country in harm's way without telling the truth to the American people about why they're going there. And that judgment needs to be made first, not afterwards.
We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home.
This was Dean's position during the primary race as well as after he bowed out of the race. Howard Dean never said during the primary that he was totally anti-war and I dare you to prove it.
Contrary to the distortions you spread in your Open Letter, Mr. Kucinich, Howard Dean's position on Iraq is consistent with what he said during the primary -- that we can't just pull out and abandon Iraq to chaos. The basis of Howard Dean's position is Afghanistan post-Soviet withdrawal, not Dean becoming "Republican-lite." Remember, Presidents Reagan and Bush I abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out, and Afghanistan turned into a "failed" state, which played host to Al Qaeda, who attacked us on 9-11-2001. Howard Dean's position makes valid points and must be considered when we decide to withdraw from Iraq. Iraq is much closer to Europe and Saudi Arabia, our major source of foreign oil, than Afghanistan is, so if Iraq followed the same path as Afghanistan, it won't just be the US who has a serious security issue to deal with.
After reading your letters, I drew the conclusion that you are just trying to pump up your ego to run for President again in 2008, and you're trying to paint yourself as the only "pure" anti-war hero in Congress. What I detect in your letter, Mr. Kucinich, is jealously towards Howard Dean's pre-primary success and the continuation of his popular support from many Democrats and progressives who opposed the 2003 Iraq war.
Another major flaw in your argument against Howard Dean is that you assume that the anti-2003-Iraq-War protester = longtime anti-war advocate. You are completely wrong about who makes up the anti-war and progressive groups today. While there are still elements of anti-war elements from the Far Left, the ones whom you court, many of us prefer to evaluate each situation as it arises on whether or not military action is the best or worse way to respond to the crisis. While we are reluctant to support war, we know that we live in a dangerous world and that military power is still needed to defend this nation and to help protect our allies. It just happened that with George W Bush's 2003 Iraq War, the Far Left and many moderates joined forces to oppose that war and the precedent it would set, but that doesn't mean that moderates have become members of the Far Left Wing.
You also need to consider that some Far Left anti-war advocates continue to support Howard Dean, even if they disagree with him on some of his positions. One anti-war/pacifist advocate, who is a Dean supporter to this day told me that she still supports Howard Dean because "Howard Dean is always who he says he is and Howard Dean knows how to look at a problem and fix it."
Just because us, moderates, and the Far Left joined forces to protest the 2003 Iraq War, does not mean that we are united on our opinion of "what to do now in Iraq." I believe that the United States is in a Catch-22 position, thanks to President Bush. There is no easy way out, however, I do believe that we need to send a message to our troops that torture is morally wrong, and they should stop it immediately, even if it means disobeying orders from a superior. We also need to rein in our corporations, who are squandering ours and Iraqi resources, get Iraqis employed with meaningful work, and stop trying to convert Iraq into an American colony.
Mr. Kucinich, many of us who protested the 2003 Iraq War don't and never have supported you or many of your positions, like your long history of anti-abortion votes. As a former Catholic myself, I am aware that you are or were a Catholic and voted on abortion in accordance with Catholic teaching. Your change on abortion started happening when you were getting a divorce and you discovered that the Catholic Church frowns upon divorce too. It also helped your 2004 Presidential ambition and campaign purse to be pro-choice. This proves that you yourself are not a pure progressive and are susceptible to dark motives.
But since you consider yourself a Progressive Crusader and man of integrity, I wonder, Mr. Kucinich, if you will write a public letter commending Howard Dean for diversifying the DNC management team. Have you not seen the following article in The American Prospect?
The Chairman's Colorful CabinetHoward Dean is bringing minorities to the top of the minority party. That's rarer than you might think.http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9647Rebuilding the Democratic Party from the grassroots up to be a viable opposition party is a Herculean effort. I do not envy Howard Dean's task at doing so, but unlike you, Mr. Kucinich, Howard Dean is appealing to a broader group than just the Left Wing extremists and the Democrats in your own district in Ohio. Howard Dean is working for the good of all Democrats regardless of their position on Iraq. It's hypocritical for you to chastise Howard Dean in public when you will not do the same to all the Democrats who voted for the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, like Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Sen. John Edwards. Remember former Senator Edwards? He was one of the pro-war senators whom you asked your supporters in Iowa to throw their support to if you did not achieve viability in the Iowa Caucuses. Was that tactic due to your jealousy towards Howard Dean's pre-primary success or was it a sign of your hypocrisy about the 2003 Iraq War?
Sincerely,
Terry Barton, secretary of Killingly, CT Democratic Committee
Links to Rep Kucinich's revised letter from Commondreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0504-21.htmHere's the link --
http://tinyrippleofhope.blogspot.com/2005/05/kucinichs-original-letter-open-letter.html -- to a copy of the original Kucinich letter that I got from IndyMedia web site.
Kucinich's original letter: An Open Letter to Howard Dean
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/149374/index.php
Dear Chairman Dean,
Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we?re there [in Iraq], we?re there and we can?t get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What?s changed?
Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004.
Following this advice has kept us in the minority. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side (the President?s party always loses seats in the midterm election), the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the President to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. The "no light" strategy yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a President increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.
The President went into the 2004 election with tremendous vulnerability on the war, which the Democratic Party again sacrificed: by avoiding the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the party platform, omitting it from campaign speeches and deleting it from the national convention.
Why does failure surely follow from sweeping the war and occupation under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity like few others.
President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to hunt Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world. His war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our losses of September 11. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the September 11 attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. The President?s war and occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American lives, more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard than the war.
There is no end in sight for the occupation of Iraq. The President says we will stay until we?re finished. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service concluded that the United States is probably building permanent military bases in Iraq. The President refuses to consider an exit strategy. The Republican Congress gives the President whatever he asks for.
We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation. Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. The war will end when we say it?s over. The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.
That?s what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.
Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a long time to come.
Dennis J. Kucinich
Should Howard Dean be the next DNC Chair?
Let's get something straight first. Howard Dean doesn't need the DNC Chair position. The Democratic Party needs Howard Dean, his vision, his pragmatism, and his fearlessness to fight for core progressive ideals. The real question is "Where can Howard Dean make the biggest impact at reforming the Democratic Party?"
My e-friend, Bill Scher, who writes for www.LiberalOasis.com, advised Howard Dean not to take the DNC Chair ("Memo to Howard Dean," Nov. 9, 2004 http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/110704.htm#110904). Mr. Scher suggests "there's another job that's currently open that desperately needs to be filled...: Strategist and [butt]-Kicker At-Large (note editorial standards won't allow use of the 'A' word), or SAKAL for short. Only one other person has been a SAKAL, and it was for the other team in the early 1990s... Bill Kristol."
Kristol never ran for or held public elected office, but he's credited with making the biggest impact in reviving the contemporary GOP. Mr. Scher points out that
in the early 1990s, during the period when the GOP was completely out of power, [Kristol] hung his shingle on a different mini-think tank, the Project For The Republican Future. From there, he wielded great power by churning out combative strategy memos for the minority leadership, and buffeting those memos by being a constant media presence.
...Kristol, while fairly connected, was not fully welcomed ... by the GOP leadership. He muscled his way in. The House Minority Leader at the time, Bob Michel, was notoriously timid. (His whip, Newt Gingrich, was another matter).
Howard Dean fits the requirements of a Democratic Party SAKAL and has the charisma to build a network of progressive analysts and blogs to do for Democrats what Kristol's think tank did for the Republicans.
The other opinion is that reform will happen quicker if Howard Dean helms the DNC. The theory being that Howard could pull the Party back to its core values while the margins of the Democratic Party push. This push-me-pull-you strategy is a very tempting theory.
Social scientists look for "critical mass" when studying how and when social change happens. It's like fetal scientists studying a pair of healthy fetuses and looking for what triggered one to develop into a healthy newborn and another deformed or stillborn. Most reforms begin at the periphery of society not the middle because the margins are interacting with a changing environment and most likely to face a crisis before the center. The center, content with the status quo, resists change until it's breached by a life-altering crisis or the "fringe's" persistence makes their ideas appealing to the "mainstream."
If the majority of the DNC members don't see a problem with the Democratic Party asis, or if they think that the Party needs to chase the Republicans to the right of the political spectrum, then Howard Dean as DNC Chair will be a frustrating exercise for everyone and detrimental to reform.
The greatest danger of Howard Dean becoming DNC Chair is that his vision would be co-opted by the GOP-appeaser Democrats, like John Kerry did to Dean's 2004 campaign message.
The purpose of co-option by opponents of change is to neuter change by assimilating the aspects of a movement that least threatens the existing power structure and having the Establishment parrot the movement's ideas until their true origins and intent are lost.
If being DNC Chair means that Howard Dean has to bridle his tongue when it's needed to verbally lash the Neo-con Republicans for their mean-spirited and fraudulent policies and to whip the GOP-appeaser Democrats when they betray Democratic ideals and the public trust, then I suggest that Howard Dean decline the DNC Chair position and continue to use his PAC, Democracy For America, as the SAKAL vehicle to reform the Democratic Party. In Dean's case, freedom of speech is a mandatory requirement to encourage positive reform of the Democratic Party.
My post-mortem 2004 election analysis or Prescription for Change for the Democratic Party
There are some in both the Republican and Democratic parties, especially the DLC or Democratic Losership Coucil as I unaffectionately dub them, that believe that this election means that the Democratic Party veered to far to the Left and needs to move farther to the political right else the Democratic Party will go extinct. As a member of Killingly, CT’s Democratic Town Committee, I challenge this false analysis of the election results.
First, regardless of the outcome of the election, George Bush, like he did in 2000 with his controversial win, was going to declare a mandate whether he won by 3% or 30%. If Bush had lost, the Republicans, like they did to Bill Clinton, would have run a political guerrilla campaign against John Kerry. They publicly declared this strategy in 2000, if Gore had won.
Democrats need to follow Harry Truman’s advice – “Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive. And don't ever apologize for anything." Democrats need to be as aggressive against the “Red Ink� Republican “mandate� to make the wealthy wealthier and our deficit larger as the Republicans were to Bill Clinton’s policies, which built billions in surplus.
Second, John Kerry didn’t lose this election by being too far to the left. Quite the contrary, when he wasn’t waiting for Bush to lose the election with his own blunders, Kerry did his best to imitate George Bush, especially on foreign policy. The two main statements that derailed Kerry’s chances were 1) “I voted for the $87 billion package before voting against it� and 2) “If I knew then what I know now, I would still have voted for the war authorization resolution.� Combine Kerry’s defense of his Iraq War Resolution vote with his aide James Rubin’s assertion that Kerry would have invaded Iraq, like Bush did, but with a multinational force, Kerry, not the Republicans, neutralized the most important moral issue of the day, the immoral Iraq War.
Also by not making the Iraq War, the most immoral war since Vietnam, a centerpiece of the values debate, Kerry was incapable of hammering Bush as a deceiver, a la Nixon and LBJ, both of whom promised to get America out of Vietnam only to escalate the war after being elected. He also was ill prepared to fight for other civil rights and social values supported by Democrats. In short, by not attacking the immorality of the Iraq War, Kerry really ceded the values debate to Bush and the Christian Right.
In short, Kerry’s problem was not his liberalism but that he ignored Harry Truman’s maxim “You can't beat a Republican with a Republican.�
Third, spending too much time trying to woo Sen. John McCain, a Republican, as a VP candidate, was a waste of time, energy, and another violation of Truman’s maxim.
Fourth, John Kerry and his surrogates banked too much political capital on Kerry’s 30 year old military exploits. They totally ignored the lessons of the defeat of Max Cleland, a Vietnam Vet who lost 3 limbs in the Vietnam War, to a “chickenhawk� Republican, “Shameless� Chambliss.
Fifth, John Kerry lost the image battle with George Bush before he won the Democratic Primaries. Kerry looked like a pale imitation of Lurch, the butler from the 1960’s Adams Family series. His voice was hoarse and overall he appeared unhealthy. In contrast, George Bush puts on a very good John Wayne act. Kerry needed to emulate Gregory Peck’s humble hero, ex-sea captain and Eastern “dude� Jim McKay, in the Western, “The Big Country� http://www.movies2go.net/review/BigCountryThe.html, but the senator’s elitism and support for Bush’s militarism made that impossible.
Sixth, John Kerry underestimated the energy of Bush’s campaign ethic. While George Bush is the laziest president in American history, he is an energetic campaigner. Instead of aggressively campaigning to attack Bush from the moment he sealed the Democratic nomination and put Bush on the defensive, Kerry took vacations. In addition to the timing of the vacations, the manner of them hurt Kerry’s chances as well. The senator’s skiing vacation, which he took after he sowed up the nomination, and his Labor Day windsurfing vacation reinforced Kerry’s aloofness and elitism. Whereas, Bush vacations on his ranch and does photo ops with him chain sawing trees. These photo ops are designed to reinforce the Republican meme that Bush is tough, masculine, and identifies with “Weekend Warrior Man.� Kerry should have vacationed with Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter building homes for Habitat for Humanity, where he could have displayed his tough but compassionate masculine side in the company of ordinary Americans.
The future of the Democratic Party’s hopes of winning back America, doesn’t lie in moving towards the center, which in Republican and DLC-speak means heading farther towards the Right or in finding a “hero� from the South. The fact that John Edwards couldn’t even win his home state of North Carolina for Kerry shows the inadequacy of the “magic� a Southern Democrat has on the Democratic ticket. Bill Clinton had battle tested political experience and talent – Clinton retook the governorship of Arkansas after losing it -- that Edwards, a first time elected senator from North Carolina, never had. The answers to the future of the Democratic Party lie in the heart of the Democratic Party and in grassroots and local organization, not in some magic formula of putting a Southerner on the ticket.
The Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and FDR is the party that supports civil rights versus totalitarianism and the welfare of working people against the greed of aristocrats and “Robber Barons� of Big Business. The DLC wing of the Democratic Party has done it’s best to steer the Democratic Party away from it’s traditional mandate and to transform it into a pro-corporate organization or as Progressives say, “Republican-lite.� Democrats need to show to the public and challenge in practice the adulterous relationship between corrupt Big Business and the hate-mongers in the Christian Right. By exposing this corrupt relationship and courageously and continually challenging it with a sound progressive platform, Democrats will turn the “red� tide on our election map to blue.
The first step towards winning back America that the Democratic Party should take is to fire the DLC and DNC operatives, who have lost every major election for the Democrats except Bill Clinton’s presidential runs. In the real business world, those boobs would have been booted into the umemployment line after the 2002 fiasco. If one want to be compassionate towards these Democratic operatives and offer them rehabilitation, they should be forced to work at Walmart for minimum wage and no benefits so that they can empathize with the working class.
The second step is for every Democratic leader to take a seminar by George Lakoff (author of “Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives�) and Thomas Frank (author of "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America."). Democrats must learn how to reframe the debate to promote Democratic ideals as the ideals of ordinary Americans. Democratic policies and ideals are also more moral than Republican “robber baronism� and policies of hate and intolerance of the Christian Right. Rey Teixeira in his book “The Emerging Democratic Majority� has polls showing that most Americans support Democratic ideals and policies. Democrats just need their leading candidates and spokespeople to consistently “sell� those ideals better than the “Credit Card� Conservatives “sell� redistributing wealth to the wealthy and drowning this country in massive debt. Where is the morality of bankrupting this nation and mortgaging its future?
Also Democratic leaders need to practice personal ethics. Power can corrupt anyone, regardless of Party affiliation or religious background, and Democratic leaders need to remember that when they have the public trust, i.e. elected office, that they can not only lose it for themselves but they can damage the reputation of all Democrats when they succumb to temptation. The Democratic Party should be more concerned with a candidate’s personal ethics than his/her ability to win short-term elections.
The third step is to encourage Democratic candidates to be passionate about Democratic ideals and to show courage and wisdom against mass hysteria. Americans respect leaders who have strong but sound convictions, and that explains why Russ Feingold, the sole vote in the senate opposing the Patriot Act won handily over his Republican challenger; whereas, Kerry struggled to win Wisconsin.
The fourth step is for Washington based Democratic operatives to assist, not dictate to, local Democrats for advice on how to market traditional Democratic ideals and candidates to the electorate. First Democrats need to run a 50 state campaign, especially with its Presidential race. Writing off the South or any region only reinforces that region’s exodus from the Democratic Party and helps fuel the Republican’s false accusation that Democrats are elitist. Each state and region has different needs and beliefs. One-size-fit-all strategies from Washington based Democratic operatives don’t work in Kansas.
And the fifth step, Democratic leaders and individual members need to reclaim the word “liberal� from the malicious conservative pundits. A liberal is simply a person who is tolerant of different viewpoints and supports diversity. It doesn’t mean that a liberal will accept every viewpoint as his/her own and it doesn’t mean that liberals are naturally irresponsible. It means that a liberal is willing to listen to others and promote change for the benefit of the commonwealth and protect minorities; whereas, conservatives are hung up on tradition and supporting the status quo, even if the status quo and tradition are immoral and unjust. Liberals have a much more moral position than the hate-mongers who rule the Republican Party have, and it’s one that Democrats should be proud to defend.
A version of this analysis was posted on People for Change web site under title "Fixing the Dems: A Prescription" http://peopleforchange.net/commentaries/fixingdems (Note: my poster pseudoname is Larkspur)
