He Is No George Bush!
Howard Dean made a foreign policy address last night in Los Angeles which this author, John Tirman, thinks has the punch in criticising Bush's judgement that can take Dean from being an "anti" insurgent to a prospective statesman.
Howard Dean's first major speech on foreign policy on Monday in Los Angeles was delivered amid the immediate aftermath of Saddam Hussein's capture, and a more symbolic twinning of events could scarcely be imagined. The Dean speech was quietly spun as his attempt to re-position himself toward the center, while his major Democratic opponents were scurrying even further to the right in their attempt to identify with the event's popular appeal, denouncing Dean along the way.But Dean's speech, along with his signature opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, revealed him as the best Democratic alternative to Bush, while sustaining his bona fides as a progressive.
If the following is an example of what Dean can do rehtorically, there is reason to hope that he will indeed be a powerful alternative to Bush.
Dean said:"Empowered by the American people, I will work to restore:
The legitimacy that comes from the rule of law;
The credibility that comes from telling the truth;
The knowledge that comes from first-rate intelligence, undiluted by ideology;
The strength that comes from robust alliances and vigorous diplomacy;
And, of course, I will call on the most powerful armed forces the world has ever known to ensure the security of this nation."
The above is a fairly sharp piece of rhetoric, reminding listeners of Bush's mendacity and unilateralism. It is far more powerful than his references in the Times and Post interviews to Bush's diplomatic "tin ear," an overly polite reference to the administration's relentless bullying of friend and adversary alike. Dean scored much more decisively in the Los Angeles speech by questioning Bush's judgment, and it is this theme that can raise him from the "anti" insurgent to the stature of statesman-candidate.
Tirman goes on to itemize the shortcomings of the speech, but puts them in the context of prior Democratic presidents Carter and Clinton who were bright but not confident in their foreign policy intuitions and of the current crop of candidates who cannot articulate their differences with Dubya.
