August 27, 2003

Howard Dean Surprises

Interesting article in the Washington Post about Howard Dean.

The challenge for Dean now is to transition from champion of the antiwar, anti-Bush left to electable Democrat without losing his steam and solid liberal base, according to Democratic strategists.
That will be a challenge, since he's already alienated me and a whole lot of other Democrats. And making the right noises isn't enough. He needs to be genuine. I'll see right through him if he is not.
This transition is no easy task for the most outspoken critic of the Iraqi war...
No kidding.


Dean insisted he is tougher than Bush on national defense, even if he opposed the war in Iraq. He said he supported the Persian Gulf War, the attack on Afghanistan and, unlike Bush, wants to confront Saudi Arabia over its ties to terrorist groups. "Our oil money goes to the Saudis, where it is recycled and some of it is recycled to Hamas and two fundamentalist schools which teach small children to hate Americans, Christians and Jews," Dean said. "This president will not confront the Saudis."

I can give Bush some slack on the Saudis. For a while.

We were stuck with troops and a base on their soil. We needed to move the base and get the troops out. And Saddam Hussein's ongoing threat to the Saudi Arabia's oil fields made that impossible.

Now we can move. And we are moving.

Howard Dean needs to acknowledge this. Moving our troops from Saudi to Iraq is what makes Dean's sought for confrontation possible.

President Bush must acknowledge this, too. He can only put this off for so long. Bush may have a plan. If so he'd better start talking.

Also, I want to hear what Dean would actually do about Saudi Arabia. Bad-mouthing the House of Saud isn't good enough.

If his answer is a good one, and if Bush keeps playing the role of their lawyer, Howard Dean will keep me on my toes.

Come on, Howard. I'm listening. Wow me. Show me what you got.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at August 27, 2003 01:14 AM

"Wow me. Show me what you got."

Dear Mr. Totten,

Have you and your fellow adventurers in Asia lobbied your legislative representatives to vastly increase taxes/ cut domestic programs to help Mr. Dean and/or Mr. Bush build up Iraq?

Are you insisting that the children of your acquaintance become fluent in Arabic and other central Asian languages so that we might better fight the decades long battle envisioned?

"'We have no choice. It's a matter of national security.

If we leave and we don't get a democracy in Iraq, the result

is very significant danger to the United States." says Dr. Dean.

What will the Democrat Party do now that it has no choice? Will it follow Mr. Biden and ask for money and men? Or will it go for a RMN-style "secret plan" for Iraqi re-building? Will Mr. Bush speak of the costs in blood and treasure in legislation and not just at fund-raising harvests?

I needn't a "wow"; an explanation and some legislation on the matter would avail.

Posted by: Virgil K. Saari at August 27, 2003 05:43 AM

And there we have the disconnect. Mr. Totten asks, "Why should I vote for Dean?": Mr. Saari responds, "Justify your position."

Alas, Mr. Saari, Mr. Totten's the buyer, not the seller. What the Dean campaign needs to do is show why the featured product (that would be Dean, mind you) is the best product for his explicit needs. Not their needs, or the product's needs: Mr. Totten's needs.

Just thought that I'd clear that up. :)

Posted by: Moe Lane at August 27, 2003 06:56 AM

Dr. Dean needs to be a lot more specific on how we are going to win the war on terror. Handling Saudi Arabia is an important part of it, but will he really be tough where it counts or just when its popular to expand his base? When it came to Liberia, his early position simply followed the U.N./French position. If this is his proposal for approaching subsequent global/national security issues, where might that kind of leadership take us?

Posted by: Dave at August 27, 2003 07:59 AM

Ahhh, already it begins. The problem is that Mr. Dean has zero credibility on foreign policy matters. Zilch. Nada. It's the lack of an informed opposition that is making things harder for us (that includes Republicans-- both sides are enriched by principled debate). Right now, democrats who aren't working out their own neuroses are worried about mainly which foreign policy will get them elected. Everybody can see this. Example: Former New York Mayor (democrat) Ed Koch on where his vote is going.

So now we come to Howard Dean. This new position is playing out like battered wife syndrome for the liberal war bloggers. To me, it seems such an obvious tactical ploy. What's next, if this doesn't catch fire?

I can't honestly say I have any idea what Dean's opinion of the Saudis will be, let alone what measures he'd support. Military action? What, bomb Mecca? Or anything short of it? Saudi Arabia's policy is a longer-term and more complex problem. The situations in Iran, North Korea, and Israel are far more immediate. And you can't just put everything on the front burner simultaneously.

So far, Dean has talked about three things: how he plans on winning (by being an ideologue), what he'll do in domestic policy, and how he opposed the war. Michael, please reread your old columns about Dean's positions. Then support someone like Lieberman or Graham, whose national security credentials are beyond reproach. The liberal foreign policy mavens (like you) will forever be marginalized unless you make it absolutely clear that your concerns (and our policy imperatives) can't be hand-waved away.

Tough talk comes all too easily to Howard Dean when it comes to national security. My question is this: what specific things will he do? What are his priorities? The Carter Administration taught us that you can only keep so many balls in the air at once. Unquestionably, Howard Dean has balls. But which balls?

Posted by: Rob at August 27, 2003 08:19 AM


Yes, Dean is in a hole in the ground. I'll be surprised if he can dig himself all the way out. I'll give him the chance, but I'm no sucker.

Two years ago Bush was at the top of my sh*t list. He dug himself partway out by reversing himself on some things. Dean can do the same, but it's up to him. It has to be real.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 27, 2003 09:00 AM

I'm still pretty skeptical about Dean, but you have to admit, it's fun to watch all the Henleys and Raimondos turn on him Salem-style.

Almost makes me want to venture over to Indymedia to see what they are saying about this.

Posted by: Bill Herbert at August 27, 2003 09:11 AM

I'll tell you what Dean has planned for the Saudis, what all liberals have planned for the Saudis. He's going to make them the next Shah of Iran. Elect Howard Dean and we'll have an Islamist goverment in Riyadh within a year. how will that compare with how disappointing an ally the House of Saud is right now?

Posted by: Brandon at August 27, 2003 09:17 AM

Patience please, a Dean Free America takes time.

This boy is being given the standard hump and pump by the media.

The next stage is dump.

You might have noticed that this 'man of the people' gets just a bit prickly whenever the questions become too specific and too pointed.

He will self-immolate at some point in the next few months with the match supplied by the media.

They are scorpions and they just can't help it.

In the meantime, Dean is an excellent place for all the wet Democrats to squander their money, time and attention.

I'm sure Rove et. al. watch this whole magical mystery tour and chant: "Dean! You go girl."

Posted by: Vanderleun at August 27, 2003 09:28 AM

"Show me what you got." ?

Alas, Michael, he's got Sweet Fanny Adams.

Posted by: Vanderleun at August 27, 2003 09:29 AM

Here's my take on the current Saudi-bashing craze:

For years the Saudi ruling class have used their vulnerability as a trump card- as Brandon points out, the likeliest alternative is even worse than the status quo. Like Musharraf, they have capitalized on our fear of whatever might replace them. Their oil resources give them power, certainly, but their precarious control over their oil resources gives them even more power, at least when it comes to US relations.
The threat of inflaming popular anti-US sentiment has let them dictate the terms of our relationship.

The Bush administration has, I believe, decided to play by the same rules. You think Richard Perle and the whole staff of the Weekly Standard are dissidents, bucking the Bush line, when they talk about Saudi support for terror? Get real. These conservative commentators are part of a deliberate effort by the administration to foster animosity against the Saudi ruling family, while keeping things cordial on the surface. Bush will continue to entertain the various Saudi potentates at his ranch, but when Abdullah mentions Saudi anti-US sentiment as a reason not to budge from his negotiating position, Bush can shake his head and say "I know just what you mean..."

Meanwhile, as Democrats jump on the bandwagon, they only help Bush's position vis-a-vis the Saudis. "Gee, Prince Bandar, I'm going to get beaten up in the election if you don't do more to cut off funding to Hamas. And whoever replaces me will only be worse- take that Lieberman guy, for instance..."

Posted by: Matt at August 27, 2003 10:20 AM


Last week Dean wrote an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal. In it he stated that the answer to our economic woes was "simple": All we needed to do was the exact opposite of the Bush Administration economic policies. I will freely acknowledge that some of the Bush Administration's economic plans are in fact a dog's breakfast. Writing in the Wall Street Journal that economic recovery is "simple", however, is intentionally rude. If it was simple, why isn't everybody doing it? It amounts to saying: "All you financial types are morons, you only need to engage in partisan politics to achieve economic prosperity!"

This is actually a fairly astute, and depressingly effective old trick. Anybody who cares about real economics will strenuously oppose Dean, the other 80% of the population will have proof that the evil business types are conspiring against the hero of the Democratic Party.

Dean has already impressed me. I think he is an amazingly effective con man. Easily the best in the field. That is not what I want as President, though.

Posted by: Patrick Lasswell at August 27, 2003 10:40 AM

Where’s Kimmet? Surfs up, dude! Let’s finish up in Iraq and quickly put our collective heads back in the sand. Dean still refers to liberating Iraqis from the Hellish nightmare as "foolish" and "wrong", but whoever will be elected in 2004 “has to live with it”.

Bush has yet to budget anything for war-related costs after 2003, and the doctor has figured out that rebuilding “Iraq is not a two-year proposition”. Perhaps Howard Dean will need to work on shoring up support for the occupation if he is elected, instead of repealing the Bush tax cuts. As the saying goes, “Show me the money”.

Posted by: Dave at August 27, 2003 10:52 AM

I haven't been this excited about a Democratic presidential candidate since Fritz Mondale.

Posted by: Fred Boness at August 27, 2003 11:29 AM

"What the Dean campaign needs to do is show why the featured product (that would be Dean, mind you) is the best product for his explicit needs."

> Actually, Dean just needs to show that he can do the job better than can the single (viable) alternative. He does NOT need to be good or great, just better (by which I mean, roughly, implementing policy (and perhaps also behaving) according to principles you respect). I for one am comfortable saying that- achievements included- Bush has been so damaging for so many aspects of American life that Dean almost couldn't be worse.

Let the pillorying begin...

Posted by: Rob La Raus at August 27, 2003 12:20 PM

The comments regarding specifics in Saudi Arabia are valid, but they present something of a chicken/egg dilemma.

It is not shameful to say that Gov. Dean's background is largely in domestic politics -- it's the nature of his resume. He has executive experience (and has been extremely successful in that role) and a lot of domestic work, but has little background in foreign policy.

Until recently, Gov. Dean's time was better spent laying out his philosophy in generalities than anything else, as voters hadn't even heard of him, so he needed to give them the big picture to try to intrigue them regarding the details.

It is now time for the Governor, like many Presidential candidates before him, to bring together experts in the areas where he has relatively little background so that he can educate himself on these issues more thoroughly -- and that is exactly what he is doing now (while, of course, spending time campaigning, seeing to his personal health, and looking after his family, as is appropriate).

The chicken-and-egg problem is that the Governor does not, due to a quirk of our electoral process, have access to all of the information he would need to create these policies in depth. He doesn't have the security clearance (just as, of course, President Bush lacked said clearances in 2000). So he will be able to say a lot of things, but there may be some information which is currently hidden from him (and, of course, from us) which might cause him to completely change course in a given area.

At any rate, you'll find that while Gov. Dean would not have invaded Iraq (and therefore has a major policy difference with the owner of this board), his policy toward reconstructing it is fairly defensible -- we're there and we have to commit the resources, whatever they may be, to ensure success, as the slow drift toward failure which the Bush Administration has endorsed is entirely unacceptable.

Honestly, though, if you're a fan of the invasion in the first place, you're not going to be a fan of Governor Dean. You have a policy disagreement with him, and that's the end of it.

(Statement of bias: I think the invasion of Iraq was a monumentally stupid and cynical undertaking and that President Bush outright lied to the American public in drumming up support for said invasion.)

Posted by: Kimmitt at August 27, 2003 01:19 PM


You are mistaken regarding the security clearances of Governors. Governors are the top of the military chain of command of their state's National Guard. Governors have need to know of the missions troops from their state are assigned to accomplish. Additionally, the activities of military bases on a given state also grants the Governor certain need to know. Additionally, the counter-espionage activities of the FBI, the immigration activities of the INS, and the law enforcement activities of the DEA and US Customs all give the Governor legitimate need to know.

The extent of that need to know varies directly with the geographic position and the population size of the state in question. The Governor of Texas, for instance, has a lot more going on in his state than the Governor of Vermont. The Governor of Vermont does have a greater need to know than the directors of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, although barely and mostly due to matters of State's Rights.

Of course, the elephant in the middle of the room nobody has mentioned is that the son of the Director of the CIA, the Vice President of the United States, and the President of the United States does tend to have greater access to power politics practical "how-to" tips than most other Governors. When you add brother of the President of the United States to the list, qualifications for the 2008 election are further put into perspective.

Posted by: Patrick Lasswell at August 27, 2003 01:57 PM

Thank you for the clarification regarding Gubernatorial security clearances; I was unaware of that wrinkle. However, I humbly submit that while Gov. Dean's security clearances vis-a-vis counterterrorism operations near Vermont are active and useful, he will still have relatively little information regarding CIA and US military intelligence and assets in the Middle East, which is the area currently being discussed.

Posted by: Kimmitt at August 27, 2003 03:27 PM

I have a problem with you making these negative comments about the good Doctor, Howard Dean. What would you suggest is the alternative Mr. Totten?? Four more years of ``Shrub'' and deaths/? Your'e saying Dean isn't perfect, so what, Bush is? Thats the kind fo attitude that got us into this mess in the first place. Come on.

Posted by: livinglib at August 27, 2003 03:47 PM

I have a problem with you making these negative comments about the good Doctor, Howard Dean.

What, are you trying to smash dissent?

Seriously though, Howard Dean needs to have more going for him than not being George W. Bush.

Likewise, George W. Bush needs to have more going for him than not being Howard Dean.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 27, 2003 03:58 PM

You want to see smashed dissent just try re-electing Bush and "four more years" of Aschroft! I can't believe this.This is not the way to trun our country around people

Posted by: livinglib at August 27, 2003 04:03 PM

Michael, are you actually contemplating a vote for Bush?! Please, say it ain't so (and I mean that).

I wholly agree that the Dems have been breathtakingly pathetic in recent epochs, but partisanship aside, I also see how Bush's radical agenda may well do long-lasting damage to this country if allowed to continue unabated- his indifference to public opinion or Americans' general welfare is patent enough, do you need a lame duck in 2007 openly doing yet more favors for friends?

I want the best Dem I can get to go up against Bush, but my questions is more like, Is Dean so awful that I actually trust Bush more, and the answer is "HELL no." In other words, I think you may be giving Dean too hard a time. Not being Bush is worth something. You want Dean to be "real," well, so do we all, but if we wait for a genuine humanist before we vote Dem, it'll be via mailed-in ballots from a condo on Mars.

Posted by: Rob La Raus at August 27, 2003 04:40 PM


"Not being Bush" is worth exactly nothing by itself. Saddam Hussein isn't Bush either, and that is not to his credit.

Howard Dean really needs to come up with something else. (Do not misunderstand. I'm not comparing Howard Dean to Saddam Hussein.)

I'm a left-liberal who is evolving into a centrist. Which means if anyone wants my support they have to earn it.

I am not a yellow dog. I don't toe party lines.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 27, 2003 04:55 PM

Dean's domestic record is vaguely deific.

Seriously; he cobbled together a pretty effective health-care program which insured 96% of kids (99% are eligible, but people don't always opt in), inherited a deficit, and bequeathed a surplus. Vermont is low on the income totem pole, but it rates extremely highly in quality of life issues and unemployment rates, even though it is a rural state and faces the ongoing decline of rural modes of production. Vermont is currently dipping into its rainy-day fund to pay for its services. Vermont has a rainy-day fund and is not going through the massive service cuts which other states are currently enduring.

Amusing factoid: Howard Dean is the reason Vermont didn't get caught in the big blackout; the Fed had pushed to get Vermont included on that grid in 2001, and then-Gov. Dean fought against it, saying that Vermont didn't need the help or the increased risk.

There's a lot more to Howard Dean than a few cute sound bites in the WSJ or his position vis a vis Iraq. He's a bright fellow with an impressive track record of success as a chief executive.

Posted by: Kimmitt at August 27, 2003 05:29 PM


I really one have one objection to Howard Dean. The problem is, it's a doozy.

I like the guy, personally. I wish I could trust him.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 27, 2003 07:17 PM

Before you all set the bar too high, it's good to remember that no matter how you feel about him now, George W. Bush's national security and foreign policy acumen circa November, 2001 was about as acute as my dog's.

And I have a stupid dog.

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at August 27, 2003 07:21 PM

Gah, November 2000.

Preview is my friend, preview is my friend...

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at August 27, 2003 07:21 PM

I will second Kimmit's comment. I see a lot of comments about Dean that clearly rely much more on speculation and the fun of analyzing the horserace than on a complete view of Dean's record. Above is a good example, in a comment characterizing Dean as a cynical con man. He ain't perfect, and there's no doubt that he's a politician, but no one who followed him in Vermont could honestly call him a con man. That's one of the nice things about "retail politics" in a small state (and why I still like the early NH primary) - you can't get away with that shit. You're far more exposed to the average voter in a state like Vermont; friends of mine in Burlington (I live on the NH/VT border) used to bump into him at the carwash and their favorite breakfast joint. If you're a bullshit artist, everyone will know it.

You (and I mean the collective 'you') can criticize his policies if you like (after being sure to find out what they actually ARE), or his electability as you see it, but seriously, I'm here to say, he has the character part down.

Posted by: cerebrocrat at August 27, 2003 07:23 PM

Just the fact that he's portrayed as coming from the left fringe of the party is a huge indication of how much people don't know about him. He opposed the war and favors gay unions. Me too. That doesn't make me an IndyMedia leftist any more than at makes him.

Curiousity aroused, I searched here and googled for "Howard Dean" and didn't turn up much. The only mention of some substance was Just Say No To Howard Dean, which merely noted that Michael would "vote against him. I'll vote Green or Republican or Libertarian, but I will not vote for Howard Dean during war time."

It's very, very possible that my search strategy is limiting my results. Either way, Michael, care to either point us to a posting that enumerates your objections to him, or state them again? I'm curious.

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at August 27, 2003 08:00 PM

Well Rob, Dr. Dean could be worse… and his position vis-à-vis Iraq is important since the Iraq war seems to be the central question du jour, and I ain’t got nothing against gay unions. Clinton is a “bright fellow” too, but his politics as chief executive arguably put our collective security at risk.

Example #1: In 1994, the Hutus launched their Rwandan genocide by hacking some U.N. peacekeepers to death as a warning to get out. They left and you know the rest (Hint: the result was not “cute” or a WSJ sound bite).

Example #2: Terrorists attack the WTC and Clinton responds by lobbing a few cruise missiles in the direction of al qaeda camps in Afghanistan. No tangible result – terrorists moveon, regroup. Somalia, laughing stock - terrorists emboldened, get cocky.

The responses of the angry left becomes pretty predictable based on a visceral hatred of American power. But no worries, mate. A lame defense of the neophyte doctor’s foreign policy positions gives them less than an Austrian cyborgs chance.... Uh… well maybe not.

Posted by: Dave at August 27, 2003 09:33 PM

Dave, I have been subscribing to the Wall Street Journal for eight years now and not once have I ever heard a sound bite issuing from it. Perhaps you get a different kind of morning paper, or you have a different WSJ in mind. I do suggest that if your morning paper is talking to you, it is time to seek a second opinion regarding your perscription mix.

What we really need from a President is the ability to intelligently delegate to trustworthy experts. While you may despise the current administration's policies, you cannot say that George W. Bush is unable to intelligently delegate to trustworthy experts and be taken seriously. George W. Bush does not micro-manage, and this may very well be the essential virtue needed to preserve the Union in the coming years.

Howard Dean has not shown that he delegates large tasks effectively. I live in Oregon, a relatively small state that still has six times the GSP of Vermont. I am not certain that Howard Dean has faced the challenges or had to delegate the scope of effort that would indicate he has the skill of running a nation.

Posted by: Patrick Lasswell at August 28, 2003 01:04 AM


Did you intend to address the last post to Kimmitt? Dave didn't mention WSJ sound bites...

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 28, 2003 01:47 AM

Howard Dean, another so-called "New Democrat," smallish state Governor who's pretending to be a lot of things he ain't.

Clinton, who ain't gonna let this rascal go very far, aside, I confess I'm lovin' every minute of this Deano debate among you liberals. What a hoot! Now listen closely, America had it's fun little "isolationist" era back in the nineties. Yes it was fun and all, but there comes a time when ya have to put down your toys and play the game for real, folks.

America's playin' this WOT thing for real, but little Deano wants us pull up our stakes and head back home for a little Clinton goodtime era II (or worse, a heavy dose of internal Socialism). It ain't gonna happen, it just ain't gonna happen.

All eyes on Hillary, dudes. She's The Power in the Democratic Party, whether you all wanna hear it or not. As she goes so goes the party.

Or something like that. :)

Marc S. Lamb

p.s. Nice new digs, Michael.

Posted by: Marc S. Lamb at August 28, 2003 02:25 PM


Howard Dean, another so-called "New Democrat,"

Who calls him a "New Democrat"?

smallish state Governor

Only biggish state governors need apply?

who's pretending to be a lot of things he ain't.

Such as?

Clinton, who ain't gonna let this rascal

Evidence for Dean's rascaldom?

go very far

Evidence for Clinton's future intervention?

America had it's fun little "isolationist" era back in the nineties.

Which began approximately when G.H.W. Bush abandoned Iraq to Hussein, and continued through September 10, 2001 under G.W. Bush.

but there comes a time when ya have to put down your toys and play the game for real, folks.

Does this statement relate in any way to any corner of reality? What are you talking about?

little Deano

Nothing like patronizing gym coach speak to bolster your argument.

wants us pull up our stakes and head back home

Evidence for this?

for a little Clinton goodtime era II

Evidence for this?

(or worse, a heavy dose of internal Socialism).

Evidence for this?

It ain't gonna happen, it just ain't gonna happen.

Well, you got that right, at least.

Kimmit, you owe me.

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at August 28, 2003 03:18 PM

How did I miss this?

All eyes on Hillary, dudes. She's The Power in the Democratic Party, whether you all wanna hear it or not. As she goes so goes the party.

Whooooah. Put down the bong, dude.

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at August 28, 2003 03:19 PM

Christopher, please forgive my sophmoric attempt to place Deano into proper political perspective. No doubt I've been bonging to much lately (with the Clintons rolling 'round my drug inced brain).

You're quite right, the Clintons will rally 'round the nominee even if it looks like he can win (Hillary can run in 2012 at age 65). They have always placed the interests of the party ahead of their own personal ambitions, right? So what if Bill signed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and sent the children of LBJ out on the mean streets of starvation and deprivation, right?

Those Clinton folks are the best thing that happened to the Democratic Party, after all. And Howard Dean has nothing to fear from their desire to return to the Big House, right?

Right. ;)

Marc S. Lamb

Posted by: Marc S. Lamb at August 28, 2003 06:50 PM

My ongoing theory regarding Conservative loathing for the Clintons involves liberal (heh) use of the psychological term "projection."

Posted by: Kimmitt at August 28, 2003 06:59 PM

Me "loathing for the Clintons"? You must be kidding. I love the man who signed NAFTA and the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Let's put this Clinton thing into perspective, folks:

Back in the waning daze of his tenure as American President, Bill and wife Hillary, weary of shopping on London’s trendy Portobello Road, stopped in a pub and hoisted a few tankards with the locals.

They then promptly left without paying the tab.

When I heard this story it reminded me of Clinton’s legacy: He entered office with the Democrats in control of two of the three branches of the federal government. He left with his party in control of none.

Zogby did a poll soon after 911. He found that 70% of America were glad it was Bush, and not Clinton, who was presently leading the nation in those dark days. That is Clinton's real legacy. The fact that he still serves as head of the Democratic Party is your problem, not America's.

Posted by: Marc S. Lamb at August 28, 2003 08:26 PM

Marc, is your entire world constructed of anecdotes and one-liners?

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at August 28, 2003 10:52 PM

I can certainly understand why you all won't listen to much of what I say about this Hillary v. Dean match up. What I don't understand however is how you seem to be missing this thing so badly.

Richard Reeves is a liberal, perhaps you'll listen to him spell it out?

Posted by: Marc S. Lamb at August 29, 2003 07:23 AM

Won't work for at least one of them, Mark: in another discussion, Kimmitt used the phrase 'projection and sad loathing' when referring to this specific article. Amusingly enough, I would agree that Reeves has been known to project, is quite often mildly loathsome and usually sad, and I'm glad to see the Left beginning to agree with me... :)

Posted by: Moe Lane at August 29, 2003 08:04 AM

I have come to the conclusion that Howard Dean is a complete idiot.

Posted by: Dave at September 9, 2003 02:12 PM


"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere

Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com

News Feeds


Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button


Tip Jar


Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn