First Door on the Left

There is a lot of discussion in the media these days about Howard Dean’s perceived weaknesses in foreign policy.

Let’s go back to November 3, 1999. George W. Bush is running for president of the United States.

When we sent 7News political analyst Andy Hiller to New Hampshire to talk to Bush one-on-one, he came back with something different than we expected.

George W. Bush has money, momentum and charisma. If he has an Achilles heel, it’s foreign policy, where his experience is limited. So that’s what I wanted to talk about with him today — to see if questions about world hot spots put him on a hot seat.

As our interview began, Bush dismissed the notion he may be weak on foreign policy:

Bush: “No, I’ve got a clear vision of where I want to lead America.”

So I asked him to name the leaders of four world hot spots: Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. The president of Chechnya is a former colonel in the Soviet army (Aslan Maskhadov).

Andy: “Can you name the president of Chechnya.”

Bush: “No, can you?”

The leader of Taiwan’s government is President Lee Teng-Hui.

Andy: “Can you name the president of Taiwan?”

Bush: “Yeah, Lee…Wait a minute…Is this 50 questions?”

Andy: “No, it’s four questions of four leaders of four hot spots.”

The top man in Pakistan is General Pervaiz Musharraf, who overthrew an elected government.

Bush: “The new Pakistani general — just been elected — he’s not been elected… the guy took over office…it appears he’s going to bring stability to the country and I think that’s good news for the sub continent.”

Andy: “And you can name him?”

Bush: “General, I can name the general… ”

Andy: “And it’s…”

Bush: “General.”

Finally, I asked Bush to identify the leader of India’s government.

Andy: “And the Prime Minister of India?”

Bush: “The new prime minister of India is…uh….No.”

Which led to this:

Bush: “Can you name the foreign minister of Mexico?”

Andy: “No sir, but I would say to that I’m not running for president.”

Bush: “I understand. But the point is, if what you’re suggesting is…What I’m suggesting to you is that if you can’t name the foreign minister of Mexico, therefore you’re not capable of what you do, but the truth is you are…whether you can or not.”

While reasonable people could disagree about what Bush’s answers reveal, remember that no one knows everything, and no one’s supposed to. So what a test like this may tell us most is how a candidate reacts when he’s surprised and on camera. How did Bush do? It’s your call.

Now I am not saying that you should compare George W. Bush in 1999 to Howard Dean today. Dr. Dean is much more intelligent and will without doubt do a much better job in foreign affairs than Mr. Bush has done.

I just wanted to post this here as a reminder to those who are now saying that Mr. Bush is such a foreign policy expert. He was not in 1999, and he is not today.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean on Friday assailed the Bush administration for failing to set up a livestock tracking system he said could have averted the current mad cow scare and said he supports federal aid to help the American beef industry weather the storm.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press, Dean also said he wants Osama bin Laden to get the death penalty, seeking to minimize fallout from a New Hampshire newspaper story Friday in which he was quoted as saying the terror leader’s guilt should not be prejudged.

“As a president, I would have to defend the process of the rule of law. But as an American, I want to make sure he gets the death penalty he deserves,” Dean told the AP in a phone interview.

The former Vermont governor, who solidly leads the field of Democratic presidential candidates in both polls and money, said he was simply trying to state in The Concord Monitor interview that the process of trying bin Laden needs to be fair and credible.

In that interview, Dean was quoted as saying, “I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.”

Dean told the AP that sentiment doesn’t mean he sympathizes in any way with the al-Qaida leader. “I’m just like every other American, I think the guy is outrageous,” he said.

Dean also weighed in for the first time on the news earlier this week that a cow in Washington state has tested positive for mad cow disease, the first such case in the United States.

The former governor, whose state has a large dairy cow population, said the Bush administration failed to aggressively set up a tracking system that would allow the government to quickly track the origins of the sick cow, quarantine other animals it came in contact with and assure the marketplace the rest of the meat supply is safe.

“What we need in this country is instant traceability,” he said.

Dean said such a system should have been set up quickly after the mad cow scare that devastated the British beef industry in the mid- to late-1990s. The Bush administration was still devising its plan when the sick cow was slaughtered Dec. 9, and on Friday the government still hadn’t determine the infected animal’s origins.

“This just shows the complete lack of foresight by the Bush administration once again,” Dean said. “This is something that easily could be predicted and was predicted.”

Dean said as a result the beef industry will suffer enormously. Officials said Friday 90 percent of the foreign markets for American beef have been closed off because of the announcement.

Asked if he supported a federal economic aid package for the industry, Dean said: “The answer is, yes, of course I do. The question is how much? And we don’t know how much yet.”

WASHINGTON — The Constitution is a precious document that has endured for more than 200 years as our greatest democratic bulwark because it speaks to the essentials of good government structure: justice, freedom and fairness; a balance between federal and local rights; and the separation of church and state.

It is no place to embed social and cultural issues.

The Constitution was amended once to force Americans to conform to an idealistic vision of individual morality when, in 1919, the sale of liquor was banned. The demand for permanent sobriety was so unrealistic that the law was widely defied and criminal booze smuggling spread across the country. Mercifully, the amendment was repealed after 14 years.

Now President Bush wants to try a second constitutional experiment in mandating private behavior. It, too, is a bad idea.

Acutely conscious that the Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the religious right, Bush recently waded into the controversy over what legal rights gay couples should have. Although there’s already a federal law defining marriage as the union of a man and woman, conservative Republicans busily are promoting the notion of putting that language into the Constitution. The president volunteered that he would support such an amendment, even though it is not clear how it would be worded.

By contrast, the Democratic presidential hopefuls all support civil unions that would confer legal rights now denied to same-sex couples. It would enable them to inherit property, divide responsibilities for children and property and confer social recognition of a partnership.

As governor of Vermont, Howard Dean signed a bill legalizing civil unions, although he did so furtively.

Few public figures are prepared to advocate the use of the word “marriage,” which is the emotional barrier for many Americans otherwise tolerant of homosexuality. To many liberals, marriage is a legal issue. To many conservatives, marriage is a religious issue.

Bush’s position is oddly confusing. While he would back a proposed constitutional amendment, he would also leave to the states “whatever legal arrangements people want to make.” What “legal arrangements” is he talking about? Does he not understand that if the Constitution forbids it, the states would not be free to approve same-sex marriages, whether they use that exact word or a euphemism such as civil unions?

Asked specifically about civil unions, Bush uttered one of his fuzzy answers, saying it was a state issue “unless judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage.”

Conservative religious organizations contend that recognizing same-sex couples would be a threat to traditional heterosexual marriages. But it is a stretch to come up with a rational — as opposed to emotional — reason why.

The implied policy acceptance of homosexuality if coupling is legalized does not devalue the commitment of a man and woman in love. It has nothing to do with their relationship. It merely confirms another dimension to the diversity of modern life.

In a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 55 percent of those surveyed said they favored a constitutional ban against gay marriage, a sentiment that has been increasing since a Massachusetts court ruled in November that the state constitution permitted such unions. That ruling followed a stunning decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in June declaring anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional.

The reasoning of those who opposed gay marriage ranged from religious objections to inarticulate anguish.

“I don’t want my children to start getting ideas,” one man said. Yet if they don’t already have “ideas,” they are living in a bubble. Homosexuality is no longer a taboo on television. Nor is it a partisan issue. Both Vice President Dick Cheney and Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt have lesbian daughters.

Engraving an anti-homosexual message in the Constitution would be a sorry legacy for the Bush administration. The president should be ashamed of himself for even thinking about trivializing the Constitution in this way.

The end of the year is almost upon us and while, like many people, I feel an almost desperate need to say something positive about the past 12 months, for the life of me, I can’t manage to do so. Instead, let me offer a wish list for 2004 and hope:

• that all those who think the capture of Saddam Hussein has made the United States and the world safer will find some way in the next 12 months to explain why, eight days after his capture, the terror alert in this country was raised another level, with the danger of an attack described by the homeland security secretary as “perhaps greater now than at any point since Sept. 11, 2001.” Once more, Howard Dean is the only one who gets it right — the flak he’s taking notwithstanding.
• that Americans will have a chance to vote for someone other than a Southerner in the 2004 presidential elections. We’ve had a steady diet of Southerners in the White House; it’s high time that this privilege of the presidency is passed around a bit, in recognition that those of us who live outside the biscuits-and-gravy belt might also like a say in how the country is run.
• that the entire political spectrum — the left and the right, liberals and conservatives, gay and straight — will agree to take the issue of gay marriages off the table as an election issue in 2004. Wherever one stands on this matter, it is not one on which we choose presidents — or ought to. At the least, liberals ought to confound the right wing by refusing to play its game of demanding a moral litmus test on an issue that will be properly decided by the courts, not the White House.
• that the Democratic Party, which faces the opportunity to defeat the most unpopular president since John Tyler, will have the good sense to abandon its circular firing-squad approach in selecting the party’s presidential nominee and, instead, focus its ire on the object of half the nation’s electorate.

Here’s hoping that 2004 is kinder to all of us!

The following article appeared in my e-mail inbox today. It’s from Becky Burgwin. She does a pretty good job of outlining Howard Dean’s platform. As my Christmas present to you, I am going to post the entire article. If you are as yet undecided about who you are going to back in the 2004 presidential election, or even if you’ve already decided on somebody else, do yourself a favor and read it all the way through. Compare it to the policies of our current administration. Then ask yourself which really makes sense.

(Howard Dean has outlined some original and far-reaching plans that show him to be an innovator in areas in which our country needs the most help; energy, healthcare, childcare, education and national defense.)

As we all know, Howard Dean has broken all kinds of records for candidates running for office. He has raised the most money in the shortest period of time. He has made unprecedented use of the Internet affording him the widest base of grass roots supporters than any candidate in history. What some people, especially journalists, it seems, don’t seem to know is that he has incredibly bold and innovative ideas in every plank of his platform.

FOREIGN POLICY: Howard Dean has lived overseas and has spent a considerable amount of time in Asia, the Middle East, The Far East, Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa and Latin America. In Dean’s travels as Governor he met many world leaders. According to Gov. Dean one of the important elements to our national defense would be to stabilize many of the most seriously volatile countries…to help them fight poverty and disease. The U.S. currently spends less on this important task than any other country in the world. Dean believes that when nations are experiencing epidemics and famine, they destabilize and become a hot bed for extremist groups. Therefore, helping-disease stricken impoverished nations will not only help the world it will become an important tool in his war against terrorism

THE MILITARY: It’s obvious that we need to strengthen and grow our military so that we are not using divisions that were created for our national security in global skirmishes for which they are not trained. To accomplish this Dean will increase military salaries and benefits, making it more attractive for young people to join. Also, he will stop funding WMDs that are still in the testing phase and put that money into weapons and equipment we already have. Currently, in Iraq, our kids are wearing Viet Nam-era flak jackets.

WMD’s: He would expand the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which, currently, has a paltry budget of only 2 billion dollars. Keeping biological and nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists should be a very high priority. In his speech to The Pacific Council for International Policy on Dec. 15, 2003, he stated that he would see to it that they would be given, “30 billion dollars from the U.S. and 30 billion dollars from our allies,” towards their incredibly important work.

ALLIES: Dean repeats that the Berlin wall fell without a shot being fired. He feels that one of the reasons for this is that citizens of the Soviet Union and East Berlin wanted to be like Americans. “You’d be hard pressed to find anyone who wants to be like America today,” he says when assuring the voters that the major effort of his early presidency will be restoring our standing in the world and turning America back into a country to be emulated, not hated and feared. Then our allies will join with us in the fight against global terrorism, which is what should have happened after 9/11.

EARLY CHILDHOOD INTERVENTION: Another example of Dr. Dean’s innovative thinking is the program he implemented in Vermont called, “Success by Six.” It builds upon his theory that teachers can tell by first or second grade which student is going to college and which is going to jail. They offer every new mother, not just single moms, a chance to have a home visit. 91% say yes. They are offered parenting classes, job training, childcare, healthcare and programs to keep fathers involved at no cost to the family. After 10 years they have seen a 43% decrease in child abuse and a whopping 70% decrease in cases of incest. To find out if this program works in tougher neighborhoods, they implemented a pilot program in East Los Angeles and it is just as successful.

EDUCATION: When a Vermont high school requested money for state of the art equipment for their vocational department, the governor gave it to them but with some conditions. The department was to be housed in a building next to the high school and they were to conduct themselves as a community college. In other words people of all ages could go there. The seniors who have spare time in their final year could take classes there and earn college credits. By doing this they also get to work side-by-side with adults who seriously need to learn a new skill to support their families, therefore showing the younger ones how important it is to get a good education. It’s genius!

COLLEGE: Dean thinks it’s important to make broadband internet access available to people in the most rural parts of our country, thus enabling them to take all kinds of college courses…Russian, advanced engineering, business law or African poetry, and they can take courses from universities all over the country.

Dean believes that kids who have just graduated from high school don’t have goals beyond getting away from home. He wants to restore funding to Americorps and other programs that benefit impoverished areas in our country. After high school, kids could work for 2 years, experiencing life and earning money for college. Then at age 20, when they’re more likely to know what they want to do, they start college. It’s a win-win.

COLLEGE TUITION: Because many middle class parents know they can’t afford college, they give up by the time the kids are in 8th grade. Therefore, children don’t aspire to do anything beyond high school. Dean would enact a program in which a middle income families would never have to repay more than 10% of its income in student loans and never for more than 10 years. For those who want to go into public service, nursing, law enforcement, or teaching, for example, their tuition will never be more than 7% a year.

HEALTHCARE: Everyone knows that universal healthcare is one of the cornerstones of Dr. Dean’s campaign. According to Cici Connolly of The Washington Post, census bureau statistics show Vermont to be the best state for insuring children. Doctors who have private practices know how health insurance should work.

Dean doesn’t believe we should immediately begin a total overhaul of the system. Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, and Bill & Hillary Clinton all tried and failed. People need insurance now. In Vermont after trying and failing to develop a single payer system, he went with a Medicaid-like state funded program. It covers all citizens under the age of 33 who are not already insured. All people over 65 get covered by Medicare and get prescription benefits. The folks in between, aged 34-65, if not covered at work, can buy into the same program that the U.S. Congress uses and it will never cost more than 7 1/2 % of their adjusted gross income. He knows it’s not the perfect solution, but it covers almost everyone right away and leaves time for the total overhaul. And the cost…87 billion dollars to insure everyone in the country. Familiar number?? It should be. We just spent this on Iraq.

GUNS: Ah, the ever-nasty gun issue…Dean will keep all of the existing federal laws: The Brady Bill, assault weapon ban, and closing the gun show loophole. From there he’ll leave it to the states to decide because each state has different issues. Vermont is different than New York. California is different than Iowa. Even the NRA liked this one.

TRADE: According to Gov. Dean, when we implemented our open trade policy we only followed it half way. We need to insist that the countries that we send our manufacturing business to have the same labor standards that we have: the ability to organize and demand fair pay and good working conditions. Also these businesses must adhere to strict environmental regulations. Dean admits, “The bad news is it might make prices at Walmart higher but fewer companies will take their businesses offshore.” Best of all, because the workers, primarily women, will have better pay and working conditions, the country will be better off. In North Conway, NH on Dec. 18th he said, “It has been shown over and over that when you empower women fully in a society, you will have a stable democracy because stable democracies always work better when women have full and equal rights.” He got my vote right there.

JOBS: According to Dean we must give the tax breaks to the middle class. What makes us the greatest country in the world is that we have the largest middle class. It’s the middle class that keeps the economy running, not the uber-rich. Also, we must give the tax breaks to small businesses, not huge corporations, and also help them insure their employees. As happy and healthy employees become better workers, the business becomes more successful, more workers are hired and new jobs are created. 70% of all new jobs come from small businesses and they don’t move their companies offshore.

ENERGY: Improving our energy infrastructure will create jobs. Dean will insist that all SUVs adhere to strict mileage guidelines. He says, if we do this, we won’t need the oil from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. If we put 10% ethanol in every gas tank, we’ll use 2% less oil. All of these regulations and the search for more ways to create renewable energy will create jobs and make us less dependant on foreign oil. Which, my children, brings us full circle because if we are less dependant on foreign oil, we will be giving less money to countries that are raising their kids to hate America and become suicide bombers.

Every one of these amazingly innovative ideas could have easily been funded before the Bush tax cuts and the hemorrhaging of money into Iraq. Much work will need to be done to repair the damage caused by these unbelievably destructive blunders, but all of these ideas are brilliant and doable.

Every time I see one of Dean’s speeches, I see someone in the audience who’s crying or holding their hand to their mouths as though they had just won a million dollars. This is because they are suddenly realizing that this man is the real deal. In his speech on December 18th in North Conway, NH, his rhetoric could be compared to that of JFK when he says, “This election isn’t about me or George Bush or any of these candidates. It’s about you. And I want to know, are you going to do something about this or are you just going to complain? If one person is left behind in this great country of ours, then the United States of America isn’t as strong as it can be. That’s the kind of country I want back.” Howard Dean is righteous, he’s a patriot and he’s going to be our next president.

Happy Holidays!

Here’s another little jewel gleaned from the comments posted to the official campaign weblog. This comes from the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix.

MANCHESTER, N.H. – In an empty room where a small party for the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union is about to be held, Hilda Fleisher stands out.

It may be her bright pink turtleneck sweater, or the fact that the 72-year-old is wearing braces on her lower teeth. Or it may be the small pin that reads “Dean for America” on the collar of her fleece vest.

When asked why she is supporting Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, Fleisher’s remark stands out, too. “I just sorta oozed into it,” she says.

Fleisher says she did not choose to support Dean because he spent a night at her house, although he did.

“He cleaned the bathroom,” Fleisher recalls of her houseguest. “He made his bed.”

The reason she chose Dean, the front-runner in New Hampshire polls, is because she thinks he can defeat President Bush next year, and that’s her top priority.

Tough words from a former Republican.

by William Rivers Pitt

They say that confession is good for the soul, so here’s mine: Howard Dean was not my first choice of candidates to face George W. Bush in the 2004 election. He is not as liberal as I am – and yes, conservative media pundits, calling Dean a far-left liberal is far from an accurate portrayal of the man’s record – and as this is primary season, I was afforded the opportunity to choose among a broad field of contenders. Had I been given my druthers, I would have seen either Dennis Kucinich or John Kerry run away and hide with the nomination.

Which brings us to the old folk saying: “If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans.” In all electoral likelihood, it will be the former Governor of Vermont who will run away and hide with the nomination. No votes have been cast yet, and the official score in the primary race is still zero to zero to zero to zero to zero to zero to zero to zero. But if polling numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire are any indication, the front-loaded primary season designed by the folks at the DNC to pick a nominee as quickly as possible will be catapulting Dean into the driver’s seat well before pitchers and catchers report in for spring training.

Dean’s campaign has been, for my money, one of the most remarkable electoral phenomena in recent memory. He has forever changed the face of American political campaigning with his use of Al Gore’s internet. His fundraising abilities have been second to none. He has captured the hearts of the ultra-liberal base, and pulled more than a few Greens along in his wake, while being a centrist budget hawk with a 100% approval rating from the NRA. Figure that one out and you’ve got a stellar dissertation for your Political Science PhD.

Or maybe not. At the end of the day, there is one reason Howard Dean stands ready to grasp the brass ring in Boston. He stood up before the die-hard base of the Democratic Party before, and in the aftermath, of an unnecessary, criminal war. He stood up after two years of hide-the-ball from Bush and the boys regarding September 11. He stood up after that base had endured one of the most ruthless anti-liberal propaganda campaigns since Joe McCarthy held a key to the Congressional washroom. He stood up after this country got lied to again and again and again. He stood up within the confines of a mainstream news media structure that has done more to cover Bush’s backside than anyone could have possibly imagined. He stood up when too many of the other Democratic candidates sat on their hands and played it safe.

He stood up and roared, “I want my country back!”

Click on the headline to continue reading.

(Williams Rivers Pitt is the editor of truthout.org)

Unless Howard Dean gets caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy (to borrow the pungent imagery of ex-Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards), he appears at this point to be nearly unstoppable in his drive toward a Boston coronation. Which is why his principal challengers for the Democratic nomination are flailing desperately at Dean on the Iraq issue, with rhetoric dipped in vitriol that can only bring glee to George Bush and his handlers.

But the latest installment of the anti-Dean attacks, over the doctor’s comments following Saddam’s capture—particularly the howitzer blasts coming from John Kerry and Dick Gephardt—are wrong-headed. Moreover, those who make them are setting themselves up for a fall.

When Dean gave a major foreign policy speech in Los Angeles on Dec. 15, the doctor himself penciled into it the following phrase: “The capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer.” The next day, Dean made this comment a part of his stump speech and fleshed it out, declaring, “I hope very much this [the capture of Saddam] will begin to diminish attacks on our troops, but I do not think it will make America’s homeland safer.”

Kerry immediately pounced on this statement—but distorted it, denouncing Dean as one of “those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein” and who therefore was lacking “the judgment to be president.” Is the world better off without Saddam, and is Iraq? That’s not disputable—one less sanguineous dictator is always a good thing.

But there are plenty of odious despots in the world. The key question, then as now is: Was there a serious, imminent threat to the United States, great enough to justify a world-destabilizing war that delivered a body-blow to the international rule of law, encouraged other rogue nations to arm themselves with WMD as the only way to protect themselves from the world’s self-anointed policeman, left Iraq in ruins, and cost the lives of hundreds of American soldiers, not to mention the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis who had no role in choosing their government? It is even clearer now than when the war was launched that the answer is still No.

No chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction have ever been found in Iraq, and neither have the means to manufacture or deliver them. Not a shred of evidence linking Saddam to the 9/11 attacks has ever been discovered by Iraq’s American occupiers six months after they invaded the country. And the only evidence of any connection between the Ba’ath regime and Al Qaeda that has come to light is flimsy indeed, and consists solely of a document suggesting some low-level and inconclusive contact between Baghdad and a putative representative of Osama bin Laden (who, it should not be forgotten, was Saddam’s longtime ideological/religious opponent). Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida has just revealed that the Bush administration even told the Congress—in closed-door briefings designed to win the war vote—that Saddam had the ability to strike America’s shores with WMD.

All these claims at the heart of the Bush administration’s rationale for war have been revealed as phony. But who can forget Kerry’s hour-long speech in the Senate preceding his vote for a blank check for war, when the Massachusetts senator declared, “I believe the president.” The lies which Kerry and Gephardt, post-war, denounced as having “misled” the American people were lies swallowed whole by both of them when it mattered. Who, then, lacks the “judgment” to be president? Perhaps it’s an overly gullible senator from Massachusetts. Or a too-credulous Congressman from Missouri, co-author of the blank check, who eagerly ingurgitated the same untruths, and rushed to the Rose Garden to stand side-by-side with the president who manufactured them for his politically motivated drive to war.

Click on the headline to continue reading. (I, personally, would probably have chosen a different title for this column, but that’s just me.)

The following column appeared in The Arizona Republic. I am posting it here because I think it needs repeating. It’s time for the Democrats to stop doing Karl Rove’s job for him.

So, you’re George W. Bush and you’re reportedly champing at the bit to get at Howard Dean, the candidate you will bill as McGovern and Mondale all rolled into one. Dukakis, too.

You have to be looking on this Democratic presidential primary with misty-eyed appreciation.

What’s not to like? Everyone is in a tizzy to knock off Dean by casting aspersions on his conviction, honesty, openness, patriotism, foreign affairs and military savvy and lack of gravitas.

The primary started as an anybody-but-Bush campaign but has slogged into a stop-Dean-at-any-cost slugfest.

Earlier, this intraparty conflict was more Republican fiction than fact. Now, however, with Al Gore backing Dean, it has become Republican fantasy come true.

Dean opines in a major foreign policy speech that Saddam Hussein’s capture “has not made America safer.”

Quite true. Terrorist threat and the problems in the war and reconstruction remain.

No matter. Joe Lieberman, Johns Kerry and Edwards and Dick Gephardt, all saddled with having to explain their votes for war, saw this as opportunity.

“Howard Dean has climbed into his own spider hole of denial if he believes that the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer,” Lieberman said.

Bush – with copy written by Karl Rove, of course – couldn’t have said it better. Equate Dean with Saddam, both reduced to climbing, bedraggled and befuddled, out of spider holes.

About the same time, a television ad began appearing in Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire, all early caucus or primary states.

“Howard Dean just cannot compete with George Bush on foreign policy,” it says, featuring the face of Osama bin Laden. “It’s time for Democrats to think about that, and think about that now.”

Again, Bush/Rove couldn’t have done it better. Never mind that the last governor who became president, Bill Clinton, makes Bush look like Howdy Doody when it comes to foreign affairs.

The ad came courtesy of Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values, an organization whose donors remain mostly concealed. But some of its principals apparently have links to Gephardt and Kerry, both of whom deny any connection.

The message is that Dean is a lightweight and maybe a softie on terrorism, too.

OK, what does that make the folks he is in all likelihood going to trounce? The other message: Democrats are just so dumb for favoring a lightweight over such heavyweights as Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Kucinich.

Yup, we’ve got McGovern and Mondale all over again.

Oh, wait a minute, both those guys were members of Congress, just like Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Kucinich, although Mondale was also vice president for a time. And wasn’t Bush just recently a governor?

Dean visited The Arizona Republic Editorial Board last week. There’s nothing scary about him and he isn’t a “flaming liberal,” whatever that means.

Generally he was well within the parameters of Democratic comfort zones. He talked about globalizing workers rights to the same extent that we have corporate rights; the basics of immigration reform and the need to enter into negotiations with Mexico on the matter; job creation that relies partly on improving our roads and schools; health care for a maximum number; fiscal responsibility that doesn’t involve mortgaging our kids’ futures; and education policy that helps rather than just tells teachers how rotten they are.

And the thing is, Dean is probably going to win the nomination. Of course, he may implode between now and then, too.

But if Democrats contribute to this in the fashion they are now employing, they will have also branded the survivor with the description they’re trying mightily to tag the front-runner with. You know, how he’s not “electable.”

So, do us a favor, Democratic candidates: If it appears your campaigns come to naught in New Hampshire and Iowa, do your party a favor. Drop out. Maybe sooner. In any case, before the Feb. 3 primary in Arizona. Please, no claiming a second-place finish in one of the early primaries is really a resounding win. None of you is Bill Clinton. Drop out particularly if you aren’t polling in double digits anywhere else.

Something else to keep in mind.

Ralph Nader apparently is raising money to explore another presidential run.

He can’t win. He knows it. You know it. We all know it. His last run cost Gore the election.

Somebody, please, splash some cold water on this guy.

Send some special holiday e-greeting cards to your friends and family!

Howard Dean may not have the answers to all of our nation’s problems, but he does have an answer for one of the most important challenges facing each of us this holiday season: What do you get the Republican operative who already has everything? How about a generous donation to the Howard Dean presidential campaign? After all, nothing invokes the true spirit of the holidays more than a political contribution to the opposition party.

Because I contributed early on to Dr. Dean’s campaign, I recently received a direct mail fund-raising appeal that, with another contribution, provides me with the opportunity to send “special holiday cards” to my friends. These elegantly designed, fold-over cards bear an inside message that reads: “As a tribute to you this holiday season, a contribution has been made to Dean for America in support of Governor Howard Dean’s presidential campaign.”

According to the letter from the elves interning in Dr. Dean’s workshop, this is “a unique way to share the greetings of the season at the same time you spread the word about our campaign.”

It’s also a unique way to spread a little yuletide cheer to the Republicans on your Christmas card list. Think of making a contribution to Dean as the political equivalent of putting a little coal in the GOP’s stocking. Now I understand why Dean’s campaign opted out of the public campaign finance system – the holidays were coming. They understand how difficult it is to get the right gift for everybody on your shopping list.

I know my teenage sister wants me to buy her a cell phone, and my younger brother wants a skateboard. So right after I am finished shopping for them at the mall, I am going to start cutting checks on behalf of my good friends on the right side of the aisle.

Feliz Navidad, Governor Bush! Here’s a contribution to your brother’s opponent “as a tribute to you this holiday season.” Merry Christmas, Speaker Byrd! I know how much you must agree with Dr. Dean, so I’ll send him $50 “as a tribute to you this holiday season.” I’m making a list. I’m checking it twice. And every GOP operative who has been more naughty than nice is going to be a contributor to Dean’s campaign.

You have to be impressed by the Dean campaign’s efforts to compete with the Bush Machine’s fund-raising prowess. Dean’s online pitches, without being too intrusive, are savvy and entertaining. His direct-mail solicitations are inventive and effective. The holiday card program is the best one to date. After all, sending these holiday cards made me remember the true meaning of the season: that giving to Dean is better than receiving from the GOP.

Now I can’t wait to see what Dean’s campaign has planned for Valentine’s Day!

Just one correction — I believe the Speaker’s name is Hastert, not Byrd.

But what a great idea! If you’re still needing a few last minute gifts, consider a contribution to the Dean campaign in your giftee’s name. What better gift could you possibly give them than their country back?