ON THE DEAN SPEECH
Here's a link to Dean's speech on Saddam's capture. And a few comments.

He's clearly no pacifist. He's supported a number of past wars, including the campaign in Kosovo, which I was pretty skeptical about.

He thinks the Bush administration's tax cuts for the rich and benefits to "favored corporations" will result in "fiscal and economic disaster." Clever that he elides "fiscal and economic" that way. It makes the statement almost plausible. But the fact is, we've just had the fastest-growing quarter in twenty years. The two years before that were admittedly less than stellar, but they are nowhere near being a "disaster." The Democrats are a little too off the mark on the economy for comfort. I suspect they're not just stupid. They're deliberately trying to fool the electorate into thinking the economy is worse than it is. But even that's not the real problem: of course politicians look at the bright side or the dark side as it suits their interests. What burns me is that, when they claim, for example, that this is "the worst economy since the Great Depression," they must think we-- or rather, *they,* that is, the Democrats' constituency-- are really stupid to fall for such lies.

Dean faults Bush for inadequate diplomacy, and emphasizes "working with allies." Can't say I agree. First, Bush has grown steadily less unilateral in the course of his presidency. Second, a lot of countries stood with us in Iraq: Japan, South Korea, post-communist "new Europe," Italy and Spain. Bush is getting along swimmingly with China, and, Iraq aside, has also gotten along quite well with Putin. Dean and the Democrats have this assumption that if America and its allies disagree, we're in the wrong. I hope the American people are justly offended at this assumption, particularly in light of the joy of Afghans and Iraqis at the better future we have helped them to win.

I would LOVE it if a Democrat would make anti-French-ness a centerpiece of his campaign.

Dean thinks that Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror, and that we should get back to focusing on security, narrowly defined. I think he just might be right that Iraq and Afghanistan were not wholly about security-- and that's why I'm so supportive. Bush stands for altruism in foreign policy; Dean and the Democrats for provincialism and selfishness.

That's all for now: I have a party to go to. But one last word: I'm not Dean-aphobic. I think we would do just fine under Dean, maybe better than under Bush, as long as the Republicans held Congress. Gridlock would be a great way to run the country for a few years, after the Bush administration's activism. I'll vote for Bush because I value truth over policy, and I hope the rest of America does the same, but either way, "it's gonna be a bright bright sunshiny day." Hail the capture of Saddam and long live liberty.