You have to be a little nervous when the folks at The New Republican defend you, but they got it at least half right this time(excerpt):
"There are, however, two very different questions to ask about Dean's statements on Iraq. The first is whether they are politic--whether they have advanced his own or his party's electoral chances. Probably not--I am no fan of Dean as a national politician or party chair; and I would certainly concede that a Democrat in Georgia, Florida, or Nebraska might not want to run on what he says.
The second question, though, is whether his judgment on Iraq has been sound. And there I would say that it certainly has been. During the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and during the invasion and occupation, Dean has been almost consistently correct in his statements. He has been the Democrats' and the nation's Cassandra--willing to reveal bitter truths about which Republicans and his fellow Democrats would prefer that he remain silent." Another Howard, named Stern, defends Dean, too. Update II: Susan Hu on Booman Tribune brings in Ray Minchew, Jerry Springer, and others to the discussion. She avoids The New Republican, though, not that I blame her.
No comments:
Post a Comment