nbc thrashes dean

NBC throttled the "liberal bias" stereotype this Sunday when Tim Russert interviewed Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean (3rd interview in the transcript) with some of the best questions I've heard asked by an MSM interviewer, ever, and put enough scrutiny on Dean to show the politically oblivious hypocrite he is.

Dean was given the option to go on with the head of the Republican National Committee, was even approached by the head of the RNC personally, who was interviewed before him, but he refused. So instead we got Dean by himself, free to spin and misinterpret and flat out lie, with only Russert to hold him accountable. Russert did a pretty good job.

Russert started the discussion over moral values. Dean mentioned health care for a second, but went on to say that he was winning evangelical Christians based on their sympathy for environmental issues, and that the democrats "are the party of America's values." Whatever your belief on environmental issues, the "save the planet" mentality and the almost green-peace extremist bent of prominent democrats like Al Gore is manifestly NOT consistent with the values of the public at large, and absolutely not the opinion of evangelical Christians. The democrats do indeed have many platforms Christians could be rallied to, but the environment is absolutely not one of them.

The best part of the interview came when Russert asked about the total disorganization of the democratic political agenda. Dean through some nonsense his way about how the democrats had a strong plan for national security, blah blah blah, and how freedom was wonderful, and that's when Russert threw down:

MR. RUSSERT: But those are words that will appeal to people. But when you go behind them, for example, what is the Democratic position on Iraq? Should we withdraw troops now? What do the Democrats stand for?
DR. DEAN: Tim, first of all, we don't control the House, the Senate or the White House. We have plenty of time to show Americans what our agenda is and we will long before the '06 elections.
("I have no idea, so I'll blame the republicans and ignore the question.")
MR. RUSSERT: But there's no Democratic plan on Social Security. There's no Democratic plan on the deficit problem. There's no specifics. They say, "Well, we want a strong Social Security. We want to reduce the deficit. We want health care for everyone," but there's no plan how to pay for it.
DR. DEAN: Right now it's not our job to give out specifics. We have no control in the House. We have no control in the Senate. It's our job is to stop this administration, this corrupt and incompetent administration, from doing more damage to America...
("I have no idea, so I'll blame the republicans and ignore the question.")
MR. RUSSERT: But is it enough for you to say to the country, "Trust us, the other guy's no good. We'll do better, but we're not going to tell you specifically how we're going to deal with Iraq."
DR. DEAN: We will. When the time comes, we will do that.
MR. RUSSERT: When's the time going to come?
DR. DEAN: The time is fast-approaching.

No, Howard; the time is now. The time was last year, the time was the year before that. The Democrats have absolutely no base, no cohesion, other than a unified disgust for every idea and judicial nominee Bush puts forward, regardless of it's merit. Dean articulated the non-platform of the current democrats perfectly: to stop the current administration, for any reason, at any cost. And speaking of judicial nominees, that's where Russert drove the questioning next, asking Dean if democrats should keep the option to filibuster Alito on the table. Dean responded affirmatively, saying that while Alito was a good man, his opinions showed bias and weren't "mainstream", and Russert came out with the following:

MR. RUSSERT: When Bill Clinton was president, he nominated two people to the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who was general counsel for the ACLU part of her career, and Stephen Breyer, who worked for Ted Kennedy. And look at these votes, Dr. Dean, overwhelmingly approved, 96-to-3 and 87-to-9. Republicans, even though they disagreed philosophically with those two liberal jurists, said the president has nominated them and we'll support them because he won the election and he has a right to put people on the bench who reflect his judicial philosophy. Why shouldn't the Democrats have the same respect for President Bush's outcome?
DR. DEAN: Well, that is, in truth, not what the Republicans did. In those particular cases, they made those votes. They stonewalled hundreds of judicial appointees that Bill Clinton made, hundreds of them that never came up. They wouldn't even take them up. The Republicans wouldn't even give Harriet Miers a right to an up or down vote. How dare they make a case for an up or down vote on Judge Alito?
MR. RUSSERT: But they did support those liberal jurists.
DR. DEAN: I don't care who they supported.

"Stonewalling" is hardly the same thing as "filibustering". No one is accusing the democrats of filibustering "hundreds" of nominees - we're talking about the score or so that the minority spent 7 years refusing to allow come to a vote, and now a single justice nominated to the Supreme Court. Harriet Miers? Not approving someone's credentials and asking her to step down are HARDLY the political or moral equivalent with abusing the filibuster. The Republicans voted in a former general counsel for the ACLU, Howard!! From the Repbulican perspective, there are few respected and legal professional organizations in the world more non-mainstream than most of the ACLU. And yet Ginsberg made it to the bench with little opposition, because before now, the tyranny of the minority was not an acceptable way to run American politics. Clinton was the president. The president appoints the court. Unless the nominee is absolutely out of line, Congress approves the nominee. End of story.

Russert brought the interview to a close on the issue of Dean's leadership, specifically as it relates to fundraising:

MR. RUSSERT: Money, the mother's milk of politics, as it's been referred to, here's The Washington Post article. "The Democratic National Committee under Howard Dean is losing the fund-raising race against the Republicans by nearly 2 to 1 ..." ...What is wrong with your fund-raising operations?
DR. DEAN: Nothing. It's going great...
MR. RUSSERT: But if you're being outgunned 2-to1 in the 2006 elections, how can you possibly succeed?
DR. DEAN: We did last time.

No, Howard; you didn't. You didn't "succeed" at all. Not even barely. The democrats are still the smallest minority they've been in decades, and Bush beat Kerry by larger margins than he did Gore. All of Hollywood came out to support the "anyone but Bush" campaign, and you still lost. Now you're simply lying, Howard. You're a sucky fundraiser. Admit it.

Throughout the interview, Dean made laudable comments about fighting corruption, fighting partisan politics for the sake thereof, and increasing transparency. He said both sides should be held accountable for these things, put to the test, and forced to behave like responsible statements. Admirable moralizing, Howard. Your rhetoric is correctly on the pulse of American tension and accurately giving voice to our fears and frustrations, and the Republicans and the President certainly are partially to blame. Partially. When the Democrats are ready to back up your impressive ranting with some spine, some action, some policy, some cohesion -- then you'll have a party and a purpose and a point. Until then, Dr. Dean, you're just another politician, another liar, another talking head, another part of the problem -- not the whole problem, but part of it -- and even then, Dr. Dean, you're still a sucky fundraiser.