They call him Howard Dean
I saw the Howard Dean interview on Meet the Press Yesterday, and I have to say that I was impressed. Not impressed enough to hitch my wagon to the Dean train yet, mind you, but impressed nonetheless.
Some thoughts…
I liked his style. Nothing he said seemed canned or rehearsed. His approach to the interview was conversational making him seem more of a “straight-talker”.
I also like the fact that he laid it right on the table that he was running for president. He didn’t talk about forming exploration committees to see if a run was feasible.
I enjoyed the way he answered questions definitively. He said “yes” and “no” more often than any politician I have heard speak in quite a while. There were no mollifying answers so as not to offend anyone. If he was for or against an issue, he stated so unequivocally.
He impressed me with his firm stance against President Bush on issues like the tax cut proposal and the economy. He actually said that parts of the tax-cut would have to be revoked. He did not get flustered or back down when Russert challenged him by claiming that he would be raising taxes.
I thought his states-rights-esque answer to gun control (basically every state should determine their own laws because what works for TN might not work for NY) actually made sense. I was less impressed with his claim every state should decide on gay unions. He has been lucky enough to preside over a state that was open to the idea of gay unions. Most states, my current home state, Texas, included, are not and, possibly never will be, open to enacting laws that give gay couples similar rights to heterosexual married couples. Dean said himself that this was a basic civil rights issue. In my opinion basic civil rights issues should be tackled on the national level.
He frightened me a bit at the beginning of the interview when he was talking about how we should be ready to give up civil liberties in the interest of national security, but he clarified that stance in way that I thought was reasonable.
In all, I thought he did himself some good yesterday. He still seems a little conservative for my taste, but I certainly will pay more attention to him. In my opinion he did better than John Edwards did on Face the Nation. I thought Edwards was unimpressive and was overshadowed by an especially cantankerous Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK).
From a practical constitutional standpoint, gay marriage is a national issue by necessity since marriage itself is not a state issue. So far the issue as to whether or not the civil union or whatever is actually a marriage that must be recognized by other states has been skirted. At some point, though, one state will call it a marriage, another will refuse to recognize it, and it will go to court.
As gay marriages are one of two issues that I fall to the left of the Democratic Party, I look forward to that day because I believe the good guys will win.
Whitlock
Comment by R. Alex | 7/22/2002
The states’ rights approach to gun policy sounds reasonable (the needs of Tennessee really are different from the needs of LA in this regard), but it’s really not. Consider the close proximity of New York City to New Jersey or of Boston to New Hampshire. The goal of getting guns out of the hands of gangs in the inner-cities isn’t going to be achieved if it just takes a brief trip across the state line to smuggle something in. That’s a recipe for making the pro-gun slogan “when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” perfectly true.
I don’t really think this is such a big deal, since it seems to me that Dean’s positions on taxes, health, and gays are far more important, but it’s not as elegant a policy dodge as it is a rhetorical one.
Comment by Matthew Yglesias | 7/22/2002
States rights vs Federal authority is a tricky issue and where you come down on it often depends upon which side of th issue you’re on.
For example: I see no contradiction in the fact that I’m all for states rights when it comes to John Ashcroft vs the California Medicinal Marijuana laws, but I want the Federal Government to use it’s muscle against the mish-mash of state laws around the country designed to circumvent Roe v Wade.
And many of my right wing friends will take the exact opposite positions re: states rights on both issues without any signs of cognative dissonance.
Comment by TC MITS | 7/22/2002
TC,
There is actually some heated debate in Republican circles on that. In the NRO Corner, for instance, there was an extended debate between Ramesh Pannuru and Andrew Strattaford as to whether or not congress should pass a law banning partial-birth abortion. Both agreed partial-birth abortion is wrong, but Andrew said it’s a statewide issue.
The entire drugs issue is becoming more of an age thing than a party thing. A number of chief proponents of legalization are Republicans and drug warriors are Democrats.
Matthew,
From a pratcial standpoint, you may be right about gun laws. From a constitutional one, however, it’s in the clear (as opposed to marriage, which states approach becomes constitutionally murky the second a state actually calls a gay marriage a marriage).
One could fairly ask though the moral clarity of taking guns out of the hands of everyone in the nation for a crime problem hundreds or thousands of miles away.
Whitlock
Comment by R. Alex | 7/23/2002