The aftermath of the California recall has some Democrats saying some truly bizarre things. Take this, from the comments to this Calpundit post:
Okay, so let's say that we accept defeat graciously. Um, Cal, please, please tell me — when do we get to stop accepting defeat graciously? Where is it getting us? Texas, Colorado, California, Florida, Max Cleland, hell, Michael Dukakis — when do we get to fight back just as dirty? When do we stop getting raped by the GOP and then turning around and thanking them after it's over?
After the campaign to smear Ahnold (see the last post), I can't think of anything Democrats could do to fight any dirtier, short of actual bombs and bullets. I might, gently, suggest that they stop trying to fight dirty and consider finding some productive issues and honorable candidates for future campaigns.
Arthur Silber read these same comments and adds:
What I find more significant, and much more depressing, is that the reactions on all sides to the recall has revealed openly what has been true for a very long time. I realize that partisans on both sides will not acknowledge this, and that they would rather be dragged screaming to their deaths than think in terms of basic principles, but I shall state the issue nonetheless. The Republicans and Democrats agree on all fundamentals, and they are only arguing over details -- over who gets to rig the game, and who gets the spoils. And what we now see is open gang warfare.
To make things worse there's this statement from Howard Dean:
Today's recall election in California was not about Gray Davis or Arnold Schwarzenegger. This recall was about the frustration so many people are feeling about the way things are going. All across America, George Bush's massive tax cuts for the wealthy are undermining state budgets, causing cutbacks in services and increases in local property taxes. Were recalls held in every state, it's quite possible that 50 governors would find themselves paying the price for one president's ruinous national economic policies. Tonight the voters in California directed their frustration with the country's direction on their incumbent governor. Come next November, that anger might be directed at a different incumbent...in the White House.
Could he be more wrong? Remember, Bush hasn't cut spending at all, in fact quite the opposite. Davis's fault, other than being an all around unsavory character, is that he refused to control spending, no matter what that did to the tax rates in California. If Dean doesn't realize this he is really out of touch.
Posted by Walter at October 8, 2003 11:20 AMDon't mean to be a bother (just came over from Jim Henley's recommendation), but I don't see how Dean is wrong. Davis didn't control spending. Bush didn't control spending, and in addition he screwed up the tax base. I'm not seeing the disconnect you're seeing...
Posted by: Madeline at October 12, 2003 12:10 AMMadeline, you certainly aren't a bother. Let me focus on one part of the Dean quote.
"All across America, George Bush's massive tax cuts for the wealthy are undermining state budgets, causing cutbacks in services and increases in local property taxes."
That's just not true. Most of the tax cuts have yet to take effect. Federal services overall are increasing, and should be taking the pressure off local and state governments. The problems in California are a local concern, and the voters were wise enough to realize this. Even many Democrats! More Dean:
"Were recalls held in every state, it's quite possible that 50 governors would find themselves paying the price for one president's ruinous national economic policies."
Many states do have recall precesses, none but California have seen a massive move to oust a governor. The problem was Davis. I suspect that Dean is in denial because he shares much of Davis's political ideology.
Standard disclaimer; I don't care for Bush, or most other Republicans, or their policies. Regular readers already know this.
Hm. I've lived in California for the past 5 years (and in Colorado before that). It seems to me that the recall succeeded because people didn't like Davis (he was viewed as "the coin-operated governor" by Democrats as well as Republicans), and because the economy has sucked for the past few years, and Davis failed to reign in the spending that ballooned with the boom of the late 90s.
So, Dean is currently attacking Bush's tax cut when technically he should be attacking Bush's handling of the economy; I suppose the tax cut could be viewed as a symptom of Bush's economic plan.
What parts of Dean's economic politics do you think align with Davis's? I was kinda psyched that Dean spent so much time emphasizing his budget-balancing and frugality.
Posted by: Madeline at October 15, 2003 06:32 PM Dean also likes expanding the federal role in educaiotn and universal healthcare coverage, two very pricey propositions. It's easy to promise a balanced budget.
As an aside, I think it may be a tactical (as well as factual) error to attack Bush on the economy. It looks like the economy may be doing very well by November of '04.