Howard Dean sprang into action when the California results came in, issuing the following statement and getting it up on his blog 18 minutes after the polls closed:
"Today's recall election in California was not about Gray Davis or Arnold Schwarzenegger. This recall was about the frustration so many people are feeling about the way things are going. All across America, George Bush's massive tax cuts for the wealthy are undermining state budgets, causing cutbacks in services and increases in local property taxes. Were recalls held in every state, it's quite possible that 50 governors would find themselves paying the price for one president's ruinous national economic policies. Tonight the voters in California directed their frustration with the country's direction on their incumbent governor. Come next November, that anger might be directed at a different incumbent...in the White House."
What?
Talk about spin. Is it just me or was Dr. Dean out of his mind?
He normally seems right on the mark to me, but this seems insanity. Has there ever been an election more about one person? That man is despised out there. Seems to me (and nearly everyone else) that it was completely about Gray Davis.
And the best thing you could do to piss off all those California voters is tell them it was not.
Why would he want to do that?
(Spin? It would be good for me if it meant this, so . . . ) Surely he's not become that craven. And I don't see how this spin even works for him. The latest debate seems to be whether this result puts CA back in play in the presidential election or it's just all about Gray Davis. You would think Dean would be all over the latter explanation.
Totally out of it? Lost in extreme denial?
I'm thoroughly perplexed.
Now don't get me wrong--I don't think this is ever going to become a big issue (who really cares?) but what the hell was he thinking? Or what does he know that I don't?
Update:
OK, I've been thinking about Dean's CA-recall statement more (and reading the so-so piece just posted in the NYT, which discusses it ), and I guess I see his logic.
He's saying it's dissatisfaction everywhere, and others could face the same thing. That I'll buy. But the fact is that this election wasn't everywhere, it was in one state, and it sure as hell was about Gray Davis. If others elsewhere are also pissed at their leaders, fine, but that doesn't make this situation not about Davis.
And I think to start out his statement by saying so absolutely at odds with reality . . . dumb, dumb move.