Howard Dean's recent attack against the centrist Democratic Leadership Council as the "Republican part" of the Democratic Party and of the Clinton years as "damage control" on social policy shows how ill fit he is to lead the Democratic Party in 2004.
Dean seems to have embraced ideological indulgence and shown a striking disregard for reality. The fact is that the Democratic Party must show itself to be a governing party, not an ideological showcase for every special interest political group in our country. Democrats do not act like a governing party if they lead a return to the era of party tolerance for big deficits, unfunded entitlements, class warfare and cultural elitism. I fear that this is the path on which Dean is taking the Democratic Party. It is a path that will lead to, I believe, the most culturally polarizing election in modern presidential history if he is the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
The Democratic Party is at its best when it governs not from the right, or the center, or the left, but, rather, from what works best to achieve a working, governing majority that can produce results for all Americans. That is what President Clinton achieved while in office, despite his ethical setbacks. During the Clinton-Gore years, this nation experienced unprecedented prosperity, saw a $290-billion deficit turn into a once projected $5.6-trillion surplus (thanks in part to budget deficit plans in 1993 and 1997) and monumental changes in leading cultural indicators involving crime, welfare dependency, abortion and teenage pregnancy.
If the Democratic Party wants to launch itself into the political wilderness, then it can follow the path chartered by Howard Dean and, surprisingly, former Vice President Al Gore. It is a path marked by retreats from trade agreements and a return to the popular notion of the Democrats as the party of higher taxes, class warfare, cultural elitism and ambivalence on national security.
Dean claims to want inclusion, but then attacks even those Democrats who disagree with him as "Republicans." In 2004, Democrats must choose a candidate able to reach out and close the culture gap that exists between the two parties, and which the president, cynically wrapped in the flag and faith itself, is ready to politically exploit. As a Democrat who wants to see his party win and form a winning governing majority, I choose the working majority path that led to the first Democratic president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt being re-elected.
-- Luis Viera, Temple Terrace
Dean promotes people power
Re: Dean isn't quite all things to all people, Dec. 20.
Mark Shields comments that "... Howard Dean had impressed Democrats as a man willing, able and even eager to make a strong case against the Republican president and his policies. But they were not sure what the Vermonter is for." This analysis of Dean left me wondering if pundits cannot grasp the strength of Dean's message that he is "for" all of us grasping the greater truth that we, the citizens, have the power and responsibility of directing government policies.
Dean repeatedly says it is not what politicians may promise to do that is important; it is what we, the people, see as our collective goals uniting us, such as education, health care, pollution control, equality for all. Dean stresses that it is not millions of dollars or powerful corporations who have this power, but each one of us exercising our responsibilities as citizens.
Dean's goal is to give all citizens confidence that we have the strength to recognize our potential power, not fear the consequences of challenging those who may retaliate and threaten us as we take away their misused political power.
Howard Dean is neither a liberal nor conservative; he is basically an American, proud of our rights as stated in the Constitution, declaring that we, the people, have the power.
-- Kathleen Brady, Tampa
Is Dean the best Democrats can do?
Re: Dean's diversions, editorial, Dec. 26.
It seems when a liberal newspaper like he St. Petersburg Times writes an editorial criticizing the Democratic front-runner, Howard Dean, it means one thing for us Republicans: elation.
You mention how Dean's "rash comments betray a lack of discipline - perhaps a whiff of arrogance . . ." How about a lack of intelligence? If the Democratic Party can do no better than a gadfly like Dean as a front-runner, party members had better stay home in November 2004.
-- William G. Quinn, New Port Richey
Democrats air their differences
It is amazing to see the gloating that is going on among some Republicans that the Democrat candidates are criticizing each other, lately including Joe Lieberman and Howard Dean.
In my opinion, however, this indicates that the Democratic Party is really an open party where differences of opinion can be aired. The Republican Party, now entrenched under George W. Bush, allows no disputes. The Republicans have raised huge amounts of money for the primaries which they do not even need. They know who their candidate will be and they label as unpatriotic, un-American, or traitors anyone who disagrees with him.
The primary elections are coming up, and this is the time for all different viewpoints to be heard. It is good that there is a large field of Democrats to choose from. How unfortunate it would be if there was only one candidate, as the Republicans have.
So keep on talking and explaining differences and listening to platforms. The Bush administration has only two elements to work from: ignorance and fear.
-- Lucy Fuchs, Brandon
Restricting foreign travelers is wise
Re: When all diplomats live in fortresses, does it mean the terrorists have won? by Thomas L. Friedman, Dec. 23.
Where has this man been hiding to be offended by a fingerprint request? After years of (to me, criminally) neglecting our borders, we finally start some sensible measures and he thinks we're getting paranoid? If Turkey had had a fingerprinting program for its visitors we might not need to defend and isolate the embassy there so well.
Wake up, Tom, there are people already here who want to destroy us and we haven't found many of them yet. You want to let their support groups in en masse just to show we're an open society?
Our history of free travel was offended by a bunch of whack jobs, led by still more who know they have the duty to destroy us. They also have the means, and we have to slow them down until they can be caught - in spite of our laws that favor total freedom of action.
Upon reading this story in the St. Petersburg Times Business Section - a piece reprinted from the New York Times - regarding Conrad Black, and the investigation into his conservative Hollinger International, and its board of directors, I was inspired to ask, "Where's the beef?" Despite the breathless treatment from the New York Times' reporter, it appears that Black has conservative friends, some of whom have even served on the Hollinger board of directors. The fuss over it reminds me of the chicken-little sort of coverage that liberal news outlets accord to New York Post owner Rupert Murdock, whenever he buys another radio station, or as was recently the case, a satellite TV network.
Actually, this New York Times story seems to be nothing more than a hit piece, a chance to take a crack at some well known conservatives, little more. Wasn't this evident to St. Petersburg Times editors?
I'm finding myself tempted to ask if the St. Petersburg Times - or for that matter, the New York Times - is ready to undertake such an in-depth look at the Poynter Institute, or the Sulzberger family.
-- Jim Parker, Tampa
Juvenile Justice needs accountability
Re: Not very helpful, editorial, Dec. 25.
Thank you for shining the spotlight on the systemic problems within the Department of Juvenile Justice that have dominated Secretary Bill Bankhead's five-year reign. Bankhead's proposals and recommendations are good; but all of the rules, regulations and procedures in the world will not change the culture of corruption in the DJJ. The integrity of the department's administration is lacking. Who can trust that the DJJ personnel will make good decisions for our youth in their care and custody? Citizen oversight is critical for accountability in DJJ. Bankhead has been somewhat responsive to lawmakers only because he must. His administration cannot ignore the presence of the House Select Committee on Juvenile Detention Facilities the way it has consistently ignored those directly affected by the department's failings. Bankhead would likely not be in the serious quandary he currently is in, if he had all along viewed his own facility employees as helpful instead of "disgruntled"' and if he had viewed parents and advocates (www.justice4kids.org) as a guiding light instead of as "troublemakers."
The predominant issues plaguing the DJJ are of the common-sense variety. Why would any adult, in any circumstance, ever have to obtain permission to call 911 to get medical assistance for a dying child?
Elizabeth Judd, Union Staff Representative for the Juvenile Detention Officers, testified at the Sept. 10 Miami legislative committee hearing that "guards fear going outside the chain of command" and "analytical critical thinking is not allowed." Her testimony rings loud and clear. Bill Bankhead, when will you rid the DJJ of this culture of fear?
-- Cathy Corry, Clearwater
Turanchik's plans are laughable
Re: Turanchik seeks project concessions, Dec. 20.
So Ed Turanchik wants to replace low income housing with an upscale development in Tampa. A fraction of the current residents of Central Park will be lucky enough to qualify for Ed's World, with the rest scattered throughout the city, forced to relocate away from any community ties that they might have.
Turanchik doesn't really know where those people would go, and neither does the city of Tampa. Turanchik thinks that the city should use federal grants intended to create low income housing for posh condos that would result in a huge net loss of low income units. He also thinks that the city should pay to landscape his development. And he wants all fees and permits waived. And the city gets nothing except more yuppie housing and the problem of relocating hundreds of low-income residents. Most of the current residents of the area that Turanchik wants a sweetheart deal to develop don't get jack.
Is this guy kidding or what? He needs to be laughed out of town.
-- Lesley Cox, Tampa
Let's be fair about religion
Re: Bush prays at White House menorah lighting service, Dec. 23.
I'm confused. Why is it that President Bush can light a menorah, a widely recognized religious symbol, and have a Jewish ceremony performed on international television in the White House, but Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore can't display the Ten Commandments in another government building? The president's speech about Judaism promotes a specific religion and that seems to violate the Constitution, according to previous Supreme Court rulings.
I welcome and encourage freedom of religious beliefs and expressions. Let's be fair to all and give equal protection to those who stand for their beliefs.
-- Jay Campbell, Lecanto
Share your opinions
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.
