Monday, August 01, 2005
Some of the more thoughtful members of the Democratic hothouse AKA DailyKos are asking whether Dean's latest screed about the right-wing nuts on the Supreme court and the Kelo decision went too far. In case you forgot:
"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is," Dean said, not mentioning that until he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court this week, Bush had not appointed anyone to the high court.
Ok, anybody could have forgotten that all the members of the Supreme court were appointed by presidents other than G.W. Bush. And, truth be told, Kennedy, Souter and Stevens were appointed by Republican presidents-- to our shame. Still, I don't think you characterize the majority who supported this decision as 'right-wing' by any stretch of the imagination.
Apparently someone at the dailykos realized this and wrote a diary entry about it. Of course, this does not stop some of them from defending their clueless leader.
I'm 100% behind it. Why? Because it resonates, and I'm perfectly willing to go for a false statement that illustrates a truth.
The GOP is the party of Big Business. Big Business (business in general) is who benefitted from the Kelo case.
So, frankly, I say it's a great line of attack. Screw accuracy -- remind people that now big business can take their homes away to make a shopping mall, and that's A-okay by the GOP.[Emphasis added]
The SCOTUS appointed Quacky president in 2000. IMO, that makes them "Bush's Court". And in general they are pretty right wing. That make's them "Bush's Right-Wing Court".
So, as usual, Howard Dean is Right.
And even if I agreed that your nit-picks made Dean's statement a mis-statement, Dean captured the spirit of the argument correctly.Dean is one of the few people in this country trying to restore America's freedom and democracy. Why don't you save your venom for the Bad Guys? [Emphasis not added]
Indeed, why not save the venom? It is doing you so much good. The good news is that there are some willing to openly question some of the loonier prescriptions of Dr. Dean.
Dean had an opportunity to score a point by emphasising a principle to which bopth Democrats and Republicans could find common cause. He chose instead to fire possibily the lamest ever partisan attack. That's the first time his rhetorical excess has damaged his broader goals of grassroots renewal rather than simply masking them. This snafu therefore counts more against his record and does a great deal of damage to my esteem of him. Perhaps Dean hasn't emerged fully unscathed from the 2004 election, with principles intact, as when he began. That's a shame, because Howard Dean in 2003 inspired me to move mountains. Howard Dean 2005 is making me angry. And not with him. At him.
And the even better news is that the majority of the moonbats are still holding his water.