Who needs Nader....

...when we've had an essentially Naderite message delivered from supposedly Democratic podiums for over a year.

Yep, you guessed it. I'm off on another Dr. Dean rant.

One of my strongest points of contention with Dean was always his scattergun approach which condemned Democrats at large, and Congressional Democrats in particular. As a former Governor who had compromised and worked both sides fo the aisle to pursue his legislative agenda, he must have known better. He could never, though, seem to grasp the responsibility he held as an aspirant to the position of Party standard bearer, a large part of which should have included bringing his adherents, especially the politically inexperienced, into the Democratic Party as well as into the Dean campaign cult.

What's set me off this time? Well, I think Dean bears a great deal of personal responsibility for the kind of thinking that lies behind this post by Josh Hammond at Best of the Blogs.

"What better way to start remaking the Democratic Party," writes Hammond, "than for Dr. Dean to lead a charge now for a Tom Daschle sacking, cutting the leash of this pathetic lap dog who is so tethered to the Iraq policies, practices and posturing of this war-mongering administration."

OK. That's fine, I suppose, as far as it goes, rhetorical flourishes about 'pathetic lap dogs' aside. I can think of several good reasons that the Democratic Caucus could make a better choice than Tom Daschle for their Leader, even without his hawkishness on Iraq. But Hammond takes it further, to a point which is really the natural conclusion, I think, of Dean's Naderite rhetoric of the past year.

"Fighting this fight is more important than keeping faint hope alive that the Democrats can take the Senate back. While such a move would hurt Daschle’s re-election chances, this concern is secondary to reforming-and disciplining the Democrats. Screw the traitor." (my emphasis)

Get that? A Democratic Senate majority is a secondary concern to punishing Tom Daschle, even at the expense of Daschle's own seat. Because Tom Daschle is a "traitor."

But to who, I wonder? Not, apparently, to the pro-choice voters, who, despite his avowed Roman Catholicism, Daschle has been loyal enough to to gain a 100% rating from NARAL. Not, one assumes, to African-American voters, who, although they hardly represent a formidible voting block in South Dakota, find Daschle on their side often enough to compile a 100% voting record with the NAACP. He must have betrayed the gay and lesbian consituency in the Party, then, right? Well, that would be hard to square with his 100% voting record with the Human Rights Campaign.

Oh, I get it. It's his betrayal of working Americans. After all, his AFL-CIO record is only 92%.

'Traitor.'

Right.

If Dr. Dean needs a constructive activity for his summer vacation, may I suggest that he spend it helping to insure the re-election of people like Senator Daschle, who, whatever his flaws, has served the overwhelming majority of Democratic constituencies faithfully for nearly two decades in the Senate. When he's done that, he can get busy in places like Alaska and Oklahoma where we have a real chance to pick up seats that could move the Democratic Party toward a Senate majority.

First, elect Democratic Senators. Then, let the Democratic Senators choose their leadership. It's the, you know, democratic way.

And those who want to condemn every Democrat who doesn't meet some Naderite standard of purity as a Party 'traitor' would do well to get smart and check the actual record at someplace like Project Vote Smart first.