Dean’s debacle on Meet the Press
The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz said today that Howard Dean’s hour-long appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday “is turning into one of the year’s most talked-about interviews.”
I think that’s true, but it’s not good news for the good doctor. The program was a disaster for Dean.
Some of you have probably noticed my tendency to be tough on Dean since starting the blog in February. This is true. However, the Meet the Press interview was an objective debacle, whether one is a Dean fan or not.
Don’t take my word for it. ABC News’ The Note had a detailed review of Dean’s MTP appearance and tossed around phrases like “failed miserably” and “decidedly not ready for primetime.”
“To say Tim Russert was significantly more prepared for the interview than Howard Dean would be to insult Tim,” The Note said.
The New York Times had a mini-review of the interview and concluded, “Dr. Dean, a Democrat who prides himself on his straightforwardness, equivocated on several issues.”
The Associated Press said Dean “seemed unsteady on some issues and prickly when second-guessed.”
The New Republic said Dean “barely survived” the interview and concluded “he’ll have to do much better than that if he wants to win his party’s nomination.”
Why, exactly, was the interview such a disaster? Dean was clearly unprepared and it showed. Worse, his comments and mannerisms were the opposite of how he is generally. Dean prides himself on being a “straight talker,” but on Meet the Press he was evasive. Dean goes out of his way to be smart and informed, but on the show he was confused and unsure about the details. Dean exudes confidence (sometimes to the point of arrogance), but on Sunday he seemed nervous and defensive.
* Prescription drug benefit — Dean equivocated on the prescription drug bill working its way through the Senate, concluding the issue “is a tough one” and refusing to take a side. He said the GOP plan “won’t work” and is “an election-year sop,” but he also said he’d consider supporting the bill. Huh?
* Balanced Budget Amendment — Dean has been an unambiguous supporter of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Sunday, when asked about his position, Dean said, “I go back and forth on that.” He acknowledged that it’s “not very good public policy,” but that he is “very tempted” to support one. His explanation was nonsensical.
* Social Security — Russert noted that Social Security outlays will soon exceed receipts. Dean said Social Security “is actually in fine shape until, I don’t know, 2040 or something like that.” When Russert explained how wrong that was, Dean said, “Well, it’s in fine shape — it’s actuarially fine until 2025 or ’23 and then the trust fund doesn’t run out…” He sounded like he had no idea what he was talking about.
* Gay rights — One of Dean’s standard issues, right? Not on Sunday. Russert noted that Canada has paved the way to gay marriage and asked whether Canadian marriages should be recognized in the U.S. “Well, that’s a very difficult issue,” Dean said. Yes, but straight talking candidates aren’t supposed to have trouble taking stands of “difficult” issues.
* Death penalty — We already know Dean has flip-flopped on this issue, but he didn’t make it any better with Russert. Dean said the judicial system “allow[s] people to get out of jail when they’re supposed to be in there for life and then those people go and repeat their crimes, oftentimes sex offenders.” This, of course, makes little sense on a question about the death penalty since sex offenders don’t face execution. As for locking up murderers without possibility of parole, Dean expressed concern that some criminals can get out on “technicalities,” but he never explained what that meant.
* Apologies to Democratic rivals — Russert noted media reports noting that Dean has had to apologize to John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, and Bob Graham for unfair attacks. Dean insisted that he’s only offered one apology — to Edwards. Check out this exchange:
Russert: Well, you apologized to Bob Graham.
Dean: No, I didn’t.
Russert: You called the AP and recanted the statement.
Dean: I called the AP and said, “I’m sorry I said that.”
Russert: Well, that’s an apology.
Dean: No, it’s not.
Russert: “I’m sorry I said it” is not an apology?
Dean: I didn’t actually say I’m sorry. I said, “I shouldn’t have said it because it’s not my business to handicap the races.”
The interview never got any better, but hearing Dean debate the meaning of the word “apology” was clearly the low point.
The question then becomes what the consequences of this debacle will be. Die-hard Dean supporters are accusing Russert of being too mean. Dean’s detractors will use the interview to reinforce their suspicions. Karl Rove will use the interview info for devastating commercials in the event Dean gets the Democratic nomination.
For the media, however, Dean’s Meet the Press disaster could be an important turning point. Dean has been a media darling for months. If reporters perceive the MTP interview as the “beginning of the end,” Dean’s media image could shift in a hurry from quixotic presidential idealist to stumbling amateur who can’t take the heat of a presidential campaign.
The same thing happened to Edwards in May 2002 following a terrible Meet the Press interview. Suddenly, the rising star of Democratic politics was, in the eyes of the national media, faltering.
Edwards had almost two years to recover from a terrible performance. Dean has six months.