:: wikimiki.org ::

Jerome Armstrong

Jerome Armstrong

Jerome Armstrong, political consultant and journalist who writes for the left-wing blog MyDD.

Dean campaign consultancy and controversy

From 2001 through 2002, Jerome’s popular weblog, MyDD, served as the original nexus for the decentralized netroots effort of Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. When Daily Kos criticized Armstrong Williams for accepting money to promote George W. Bush's education agenda (including the No Child Left Behind Act), The Wall Street Journal reported on the payment to Moulitsas as well as a similar payment to Jerome Armstrong. [http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB110566243803425942,00.html?mod=todays%5Ffree%5Ffeature]. The Journal cited Zephyr Teachout, Director of Internet Organizing for Dean's campaign, who posted on the subject in her blog. [http://zonkette.blogspot.com/2005/01/financially-interested-blogging.html] Teachout said, :On Dean’s campaign, we paid Markos and Jerome Armstrong as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds, and they had several other clients. :While they ended up also providing useful advice, the initial reason for our outreach was explicitly to buy their airtime. To be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment -- but it was very clearly, internally, our goal. The Journal reporters have been criticized for equating the two events (Moulitsas and Armstrong were not journalists) and for "burying" deep in the article the information that Moulitsas had promptly — and prominently — disclosed the payment, and that Armstrong had stopped blogging entirely while working for Dean. [http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/001242.asp] In addition, Joe Trippi and other prominent former Dean campaign officials have disputed Zephyr Teachout's statements. [http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001176.html]

Mark Warner consultancy

According to the Washington Post, "one of the Democratic Party's most experienced Internet specialists formally signed on" with Mark Warner's Forward Together PAC. Jerome Armstrong, who "served as a key member of Howard Dean's Internet team in 2004, will be Warner's Internet Director." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082901175_pf.html]

Varia

- In January of 2003 Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zúniga formed the political partnership Armstrong Zuniga until it was was formally dissolved in December 2004.
- According to his blog [http://jerome-armstrong.mydd.com/], Armstrong also provides assistance for Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown and his website, [http://www.growohio.org GrowOhio.org].
- He is currently working on a book with Markos Moulitsas Zúniga tentatively titled Crashing the Gate: Grassroots, Netroots, and the Rise of People Powered Politics due out in March 2006.

External links

- [http://www.MyDD.com MyDD]

Left wing

:Left wing is also a term used in several sports; see winger (sport). In politics, left-wing, the political left or simply The Left are terms that refer to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of socialism or social democracy/Social liberalism. In addition it is considered the opposite of right-wing politics. Communism, as well as the Marxist philosophy that many base it on, and most currents of traditional anarchism are often considered to be radical forms of left-wing politics. Many left-wingers, however, reject any association with communism or anarchism. The term comes originally from the legislative seating arrangement during the French Revolution, when republicans who opposed the Ancien Régime were commonly referred to as leftists because they sat on the left side of successive legislative assemblies. As this original reference became obsolete, the meaning of the term has changed as appropriate to the spectrum of ideas and stances being compared, and the point of view of the speaker. In recent times, the term almost always includes some forms of socialism, social democracy, or, in the sense in which the term is understood in the United States, liberalism. The left is often seen to include secularism, especially in the United States, India, the Middle East, and in many Catholic countries, although religion and left-wing politics have at times been allied historically, such as in the U.S. civil rights movement, or in the cases of liberation theology and Christian socialism. Peter Singer (Princeton University, Professor of Philosophy) defines "the left" as being those who place minimizing suffering above other moral imperatives, such as tradition or rights. This definition handles the formation of leftist politics and modern bioethics issues well, but is intentionally over simplified and favorable, and does not handle some historical issues, like state communism correctly. See political spectrum and left-right politics for further discussion of this kind of classification.

History of the term

:See the Left-Right politics article for more detailed discussion of the history and development of the term Although it may seem ironic in terms of present-day usage, those originally on 'The Left' during the French Revolution were the largely bourgeois supporters of laissez-faire capitalism and free markets. As the electorate expanded beyond property-holders, these relatively wealthy elites found themselves clearly victorious over the old aristocracy and the remnants of feudalism, but newly opposed by the growing and increasingly organized and politicized workers and wage-earners. The "left" of 1789 would, in some ways be part of the present-day "right", liberal with regard to the rights of property and intellect, but not embracing notions of distributive justice, rights for organized labour, etc. In some countries, such as the Netherlands, the left had for a long time the meaning of the non-religious side of politics. This gradually changed into the more general European meaning of the word. The European left has traditionally shown a smooth continuum between non-communist and communist parties (including such hybrids as eurocommunism), which have sometimes allied with more moderate leftists to present a united front. In the United States, however, no avowedly socialist or communist party ever became a major player in national politics, although the Social Democratic Party of Eugene V. Debs and its successor Socialist Party of America (in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century) and the Communist Party of the United States of America (in the 1930s) made some inroads. While many American "liberals" might be "social democrats" in European terms, very few of them openly embrace the term "left"; in the United States, the term is mainly embraced by New Left activists, certain portions of the labor movement, and people who see their intellectual or political heritage as descending from 19th-century socialist movements. The New Left refers to radical left-wing movements from the 1960s onwards who claimed to be breaking with some institutions and traditions of the left. Where earlier left-wing movements were generally rooted in labour activism, the New Left generally adopted a broader definition of political activism, commonly called social activism. The New Left has had varying degrees of unity since its rise in the 1960s, losing some of its initial radicalism and mainly existing as loose coalitions of numerous distinct movements, including (but not limited to) feminists, greens, some labour unions, some atheists, some gay rights activists, and some minority ethnic and racially oriented civil rights groups. Many Greens deny that green politics is "on the left"; nonetheless, their economic policies can generally be considered left-wing, and when they have formed political coalitions (most notably in Germany, but also in local governments elsewhere), it has almost always been with groups that would generally be classified as being on the left.

Left-wing issues

The left has historically opposed the preservation of wealth and power, especially in an institutionalized form, in the hands of those who have traditionally had them. Outside the United States, which lacked an historical ruling class or nobility, this often included at the most basic level demands for democratisation of the political system and land reform in agricultural areas. With the spread of the industrial revolution, left-wing politics became concerned with the conditions and rights of large numbers of workers in factories and of lower classes in general. Partial or full socialism, the welfare state, or trade unionism have been specific ways in which some leftists have tried to advance the interests of the poor. In modern times the left also criticized what it perceives as the exploitative nature of globalization through the rise of sweatshops and the race to the bottom, and has sought to promote fair trade. As civil and human rights gained more attention during the 20th century, the left allied itself with advocates of racial and gender equality, and cultural tolerance. It has also opposed to some forms of aggressive nationalism, such as imperialism and offensive war, which has been seen as a vehicle to advance the interests of capitalism. Although specific means of achieving these ends are not agreed upon by different left-wing groups, almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary to advance the interests of the poor and middle class. Advocacy of government or social intervention in the market puts those on the left at odds with advocates of the free market as well as corporations (who oppose democratic control of the markets but not necessarily all control) if they see their interests threatened. Many on the Left describe themselves as "progressive", a term that arose from their self-identification as the side of social progress. Left-wing positions on social issues, such as opposition to social hierarchy and authority over moral behaviour, strict adherence to tradition, and monoculturalism, may make them allies with advocates of right wing advocates of "individual freedom", though their solutions are very different. The above strands of left wing thought come in many forms, and individuals who support some of the objectives of one of the above stands will not necessarily support all of the others. At the level of practical political policy, there are endless variations in the means that left wing thinkers advocate to achieve their basic aims, and they sometimes argue with each other as much as with the right.

Communism and left-wing politics

Despite the important differences from other left-wing ideologies, communism is almost universally considered to be a part of "the left." This is somewhat parallel to the customary inclusion of fascism (and, in particular, that of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) in "the right." Nonetheless, communism differs significantly from other politics that are usually classified as left wing, and most left-wingers (even many far left groups) reject any association with it on the grounds that communism is too totalitarian to be politically humane or egalitarian. The argument that communism should be viewed independently of the conventional left-right spectrum has perhaps been made most eloquently by Karl Popper, through his development of the concept of totalitarianism. There are, however, many communists (most notably Trotskyists and council communists) who regard the totalitarianism of the former Soviet Union to be the result of Stalinism and its betrayals of genuine communist ideology. Likewise, most right-wingers (even many nationalists) reject any association with Nazism and fascism as well. Some say that leftist welfare state reforms in many non-communist countries, such as the establishment of social security and recognition of labour unions helped to stave off communism by alleviating the excesses of capitalism, hence protecting and preserving social support for capitalism.

The Soviet Union

In the days of the Soviet Union, left-wing movements worldwide had different relationships with Moscow-line communist parties, ranging from enthusiastic support to outright opposition. Lincoln Steffens, in 1919, said of having visited the Soviet Union, "I have seen the future and it works", while others, increasingly numerous over the years, loathed the perceived crimes of those regimes and denounced them at every turn. Throughout the history of the Soviet Union, the large social-democratic parties of Western Europe were largely opposed to what they saw as its totalitarianism. A large majority of members of the British Labour Party, the West German SPD, and the French Socialists were never supportive of the Soviet regime, and nor were their respective leaderships. The American Democratic party took a strong anti-Soviet stand, especially at the height of the Cold War. One example of an internal dispute within communism is that most Trotskyists adhere to some variant of Leon Trotsky's view of the post-Lenin Soviet Union as a "degenerated workers' state" and denounce Stalin as a traitor, some even claiming that the Soviet Union was actually a kind of 'monopoly capitalist' state. Others, such as the American activist Hal Draper, argued that the USSR was neither capitalist nor socialist but Bureaucratic collectivist. Large segments of the left never took inspiration from the Soviet model and actually rejoiced to see the USSR's system collapse—as Michael Albert of Z Magazine put it, "one down, one to go" (referring to Stalinism and capitalism).

China

China has undergone a transition from a "Communist" state to in many ways a right-wing authoritarian regime in recent decades. Chinese neo-left-wing politics, embracing postmodernism and Chinese nationalism, and opposed both to democracy and to what they see as a return of China to the capitalist world, arose as a political idea during the mid-1990s.Neo-left-wing politics is seen as being more appealing to students in mainland China today than liberalism, as problems faced in mainland China during its modernisation such as inequality and the widening gap between the rich and the poor are becoming more serious.

The Left and postmodernism

As Barbara Epstein notes, "Many people, inside and outside the world of postmodernism (and for that matter inside and outside the left), have come to equate postmodernism with the left" . While some postmodernists, such as Francis Fukuyama, are widely identified with the right, most postmodernists would describe themselves as on the left. Postmodernism is far from being widely accepted within left-wing political movements; it has been most widely accepted amongst left-wing academics. Left-wing Postmodernism claims to reject attempts at universal explanatory theories such as Marxism, deriding them as grand narratives. It tends to embrace culture and ideology as the battle grounds for change rejecting traditional ways of organising such as political parties and trade unions, instead it focuses on critiquing or deconstructing existing society.

Critiques from within the left

Left-wing critics of postmodernism generally see it as a reaction of the failure of socialist movements of the 1960s (both in Europe and Latin America and the USA) and the disillusionment with the old Communist Parties. They claim that disconnected from any mass movements, and pessimistic about the possibility for any mass activism these academics justified their retreat into cultural studies courses by inflating the importance of culture through denying the existence of an independent reality.

The Sokal Affair

Probably the most famous critique of postmodernism from within the left came in the form of a 1996 prank by physicist and self-described leftist Alan Sokal. Concerned about what he saw as the increasing prevalence on the Left of "a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking… that denies the existence of objective realities, or…downplays their practical relevance…" , Sokal composed a nonsensical article entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", in which a mix of mis-stated and mis-used terms from physics, postmodernism, literary analysis, and political theory are used to claim that physical reality, and especially gravitation, do not objectively exist, but are psychologically and politically contructed. The journal Social Text published the paper in its Spring/Summer 1996 issue, whereupon Sokal publically revealed his hoax. While some saw Sokal as attacking leftism in general, he was very clear that this was intended as a critique from within:

Politically, I'm angered because most (though not all) of this silliness is emanating from the self-proclaimed Left. We're witnessing here a profound historical volte-face. For most of the past two centuries, the Left has been identified with science and against obscurantism… epistemic relativism betrays this worthy heritage and undermines the already fragile prospects for progressive social critique. Theorizing about “the social construction of reality” won't help us find an effective treatment for AIDS or devise strategies for preventing global warming. Nor can we combat false ideas in history, sociology, economics and politics if we reject the notions of truth and falsity.… The results of my little experiment demonstrate, at the very least, that some fashionable sectors of the American academic Left have been getting intellectually lazy.

Critiques from the right

Right-wing critics have generally seen acceptance of post-modernism as an indication of the poorly thought-out, fashionable nature of the academic left. Some right-wing critics mirror the idea that left-wing postmodernism is a product of the 'failure' of Marxism to bring liberation. For example Gary Jason claims that "The failure of socialism, both empirically and theoretically, ... brought about a crisis of faith among socialists, and postmodernism is their response."

The Left and Darwinism

The left's relationship with Darwinism has historically been congenial on the scientific front, with the exception of Stalin's support of Trofim Lysenko's Lamarckian views. It has been hostile on the philosophical front because the left was resisting various non-scientific right-wing political theories using evolutionary language, such as Social Darwinism. Today, evolutionary biology is increasingly seen either as supporting left-wing views directly, especially concerning sexual liberalism, homosexuality, and animal rights, or else as providing a much-needed corrective to Marxism. In particular, a number of scientifically literate leftists, such as Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer, view the iterated prisoner's dilemma as a key in understanding exploitation of the masses by the powerful.

The Left and war

Historically, various groups on the Left have been either enthusiastic supporters or high-profile opponents of various wars. While anti-war movements have never been exclusively left-wing, they have generally been led, inspired, organised by those on the left. While some on the left are inspired by pacifism, most left-wing opposition to war arises from anti-imperialism which leads them to reject specific wars because they see them as being in capitalist interests rather then being morally against all violence. Left-wing opposition to war is also often characterised by the internationalist belief that the world's workers share common interests with one another, rather than with the powers governing their respective countries.

First and Second World Wars

Until the First World War, there was broad agreement among those on the left on opposition to imperialist wars. Few left-wingers supported their nation in conflicts such as the Boer War. The First World War triggered fierce debate among socialist groups as to the right response to take. The Second world war was generally seen as an anti-fascist war and thus supported however some groups saw it as in the interests of capitalism and thus opposed it. These debates about positions on war co-incided with debates about wider political strategy, crudely the debate between revolutionary socialism and social democracy. Part of the driving force of the Russian Revolution was revolt by soldiers against the First World War, epitomised in the slogan taken up by the Bolsheviks "bread, land, and peace".

Spanish Civil War

The Spanish Civil War was seen by many on the left as an important fight between facism and democracy. In response to the outbreak of war, many people joined the International Brigades or other left-wing militias organized by trade unions or political parties. Others campaigned for the democratic countries to impose arms embargoes and to work through the League of Nations to stop the war.

Vietnam and the Post-September 11 anti-war movements

The next large anti-war movement that involved the western left was the Vietnam War, it triggered much opposition beyond the ranks of the left and is generally thought of as part of a growing counter-culture movement that took up many different left-wing issues. The American-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which came in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks led to new anti-war movements forming. Though various social democratic political parties (such as Tony Blair's Labour Party) supported and sent their countries' troops to participate in these wars, seeing them as appropriate responses to the terrorist threat, much of the organised left, particularly the socialist left, opposed these wars. This opposition was generally based to a large extent on their perception of the wars as imperialist, commonly claiming that oil and control of the Middle East were their goals rather than liberation. Some criticism has been levelled at various left-wing groups for forming anti-war coalitions with organisations that are presented as being conservative or fundamentalist Islamists. The general response has been to claim that such characterisations of all Muslim groups as extremists are racist, and that broad united fronts are positive. There has also been some controversy over the Left's use of the Palestine issue in an anti-war context. The anti-war movement was generally seen as re-invigorating left-wing movements, though there was a large current on the French Left (especially within ATTAC) that saw them as detracting from the economic issues of the anti-globalisation movement. In the U.S. much of the left-wing radicalisation was channelled into Anybody but Bush campaigns, which effectively meant supported the pro-war centrist Democratic Party. In the U.K, anti-war feeling lead to a drop in support for the pro-war Labour Party and gains for the Liberal Democrats. Some of the left-wing groups that had been involved in the anti-war movement sought to harness the increase in popular radicalism through the setting up of a new political party called Respect.

The Left and Anti-Globalisation

The anti-globalisation movement, also known as the Global Justice Movement or alter-globalization movement, is a collection of social movements which are prominent in protests against global trade agreements and the negative consequences they perceive them to have for the poor, for the environment and for peace. It is generally characterised as left-wing, though some activists within it reject association with the traditional left. Certainly it is concerned with what are generally thought of as left-wing issues. From the right, the anti-globalisation movement is often caricatured as an attempt by far-left groups to repackage themselves and it might also be regarded as existing within a broader set of anti-capitalist movements and philosophies.

Political parties on the Left

Depending on the political viewpoint of the categoriser, different groups might be categorized as on the left. One might generally characterize parties as on the political left in their respective countries, though even then they might have relatively little in common with other left-wing groups beyond their opposition to the right. However even this can cause issues. For example, the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of centrists affiliated with the Democratic Party in which former President Bill Clinton was active, is generally considered to be the right wing of the U.S. Democratic Party. Outside of the U.S., the Democratic Party is considered by many to be right-of-centre.

Notes

#[http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/albertold13.htm Revolutions In The East], Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, Z magazine, Date=? #[http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue22/epstei22.htm Postmodernism and the Left], Barbara Epstein, New Politics, vol. 6, no. 2 (new series), whole no. 22, Winter 1997 #[http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue22/epstei22.htm Postmodernism and the Left], Barbara Epstein, New Politics, vol. 6, no. 2 (new series), whole no. 22, Winter 1997 #[http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=59issue=105 Postmodernism, commodity fetishism and hegemony], Néstor Kohan, International Socialism, Issue 105, #[http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html Chomsky on Postmodernism], Noam Chomsky, Z-Magazine's Left On-Line Bulletin Board #[http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies], Alan Sokal #[http://www.physics.nyu.edu/~as2/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity], Alan Sokal, first published in; Social Text, issule 46/47, 1996 #[http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies], Alan Sokal #[http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_06/jason-pomo.html Socialism's Last Bastion], Gary Jason, Liberty

MyDD

MyDD is a popular political blog specializing in American politics. All the authors of the blog support the U.S. Democratic Party.

External links

- [http://www.mydd.com MyDD]
- [http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/11/2/135756/299 Exit poll posting] Category:Liberal weblogs

Howard Dean

Howard Brush Dean III, M.D. (born November 17, 1948) is a prominent American Democratic politician, currently serving as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He was governor of Vermont from 1991 to 2003. Dean rose to national fame as an insurgent candidate — and for several months, the front-runner — for the 2004 Democratic Party presidential nomination. Dean, generally regarded as a pragmatic centrist during his time as governor, surprised some during his campaign by appealing to the Leftist base of the Democratic party. Dean denounced the policies of President Bush (especially the 2003 invasion of Iraq) along with Democrats who he feels failed to oppose the Bush administration. This message, together with the campaign's innovative use of the Internet, helped to build a strongly supportive grassroots constituency (sometimes known as "Deaniacs", "Dean Democrats", or "Deanocrats"), much of which remained intensely loyal to him even after his candidacy collapsed. Dean has said he will not run for President in 2008 since his position as DNC Chairman runs until 2009. However, some say he may be planning for another attempt at the presidency in 2012 or 2016.

Personal background

2008.]] Dean was born in New York City, New York to Andrée Belden Maitland, an art appraiser, and Howard Brush Dean, Jr. (deceased), a former corporate executive. As a child of a wealthy and prominent New York family, he spent much of his time growing up in The Hamptons. Upon graduating from St. George's School, an exclusive prep school outside Newport, Rhode Island, Dean enrolled at Yale University, where he was apparently known as something of a party animal and was not particularly political, though some have taken note of his request, as a freshman, to room with an African-American. There he was admitted to the Zeta Psi fraternity, and graduated in 1971. Though now eligible to be conscripted into the military, he received a draft deferment for an unfused vertebra. He spent the next year, according to Time (Aug. 11, 2003), "skiing and bumming around. ... He hit the slopes, tried pot, washed dishes, poured concrete and drank impressive amounts of beer." He returned home and briefly tried a career as a stock broker before deciding on a career in medicine, which first required to complete pre-med classes, which he did at Columbia University. In 1974, his younger brother Charlie, who had been traveling through Southeast Asia at the time, was captured and killed by Laotian guerillas, a tragedy widely reported to have an enormous influence in Dean's life; he wore his brother's belt every day of his presidential campaign. Dean received his medical degree from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1978 and began a medical residency at the University of Vermont. In 1981, he married fellow doctor Judith Steinberg, whom he met in medical school, and together they began a family medical practice in Burlington, Vermont (where she continued to use her maiden name to avoid confusion with her husband). Dean has kept an unusually strict separation between his political career and his personal life. His wife, who has continued practicing medicine, mostly stayed out of the limelight during his presidential campaign, giving few interviews and not traveling with her husband on the campaign trail until the final days in Iowa and New Hampshire. She maintained that if her husband were elected president, she would continue practicing medicine and forgo many of the traditional activities of the First Lady. She had shunned the limelight of the campaign until Dean's later much-publicized "scream" gaffe. Dean brought her out for a lengthy sit-down network interview, where she dismissed the "scream" as just silly, and seemed refreshingly natural and charming. But the damage had been done. Though he was raised an Episcopalian, Dean joined the United Church of Christ in 1982 after a dispute with the local Episcopal diocese over a bike trail (see below). By his own account, he does not attend church "very often"; at one point, when asked to name his favorite book in the New Testament, he offered the Old Testament Book of Job, then corrected himself an hour later. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52646-2004Jan3¬Found=true] Dean has stated he is more "spriritual" than religious. His wife has raised their two children, Anne and Paul, in her Jewish faith. A personal finance statement filed for his presidential campaign put the couple's net worth between $2.2 and $5 million dollars.

Vermont political career

In 1980, Dean spearheaded a (successful) grassroots campaign to stop a condominium development on Lake Champlain, instead favoring the construction of a bicycle trail. The effort succeeded, and helped launch his political career. That same year, he was also a volunteer for Jimmy Carter's re-election campaign. In 1982, he was elected to the Vermont House of Representatives, where he remained until being elected lieutenant governor in 1986. Both were part-time positions which enabled him to continue practicing medicine. On August 14, 1991, Dean was examining a patient when he received word that then-Governor Richard A. Snelling had died of a heart attack while cleaning his swimming pool. Dean assumed the office, which he called the "greatest job in Vermont." He was subsequently elected to five two-year terms in his own right, making him the longest-serving governor in Vermont's history. From 1994 to 1995, Dean was the chairman of the National Governors Association. Dean was faced with an economic recession and a $60 million dollar budget deficit. He bucked many in his own party to immediately push for a balanced budget (Vermont is the only state whose constitution does not require one), an act which marked the beginning of a record of fiscal restraint; during his tenure as governor, the state paid off much of its debt, balanced its budget eleven times, raised its bond rating, and lowered income taxes twice. Dean also focused on health care issues, most notably through the "Dr. Dynasaur" program, which ensures near-universal health coverage for children and pregnant women in the state; the uninsured rate in Vermont dropped from 12.7% to 9.6% under his watch. Child abuse and teen pregnancy rates were cut roughly in half. By far the most controversial decision of his career, and the first to draw serious national attention, came in 2000, when the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the state's marriage laws unconstitutionally excluded same-sex couples and ordered that the state legislature either to allow gays and lesbians to marry or create a parallel status. Facing calls to amend the state constitution to prohibit either option, Dean chose to support the latter one, and signed the nation's first civil unions legislation into law, spurring a short-lived "Take Back Vermont" movement which helped Republicans gain control of the State House. Dean would receive some flak during his 2004 presidential campaign for another decision related to the civil unions. Shortly before leaving office, he had some of his Vermont papers sealed for at least the next decade, a timeframe far longer than most outgoing governors use. He claimed he was protecting the privacy of many gay supporters who sent him personal letters about the issue. On the campaign trail, he demanded Vice President Dick Cheney release his energy committee papers. Many people, including Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman accused Dean of hypocrisy. As governor, Dean was endorsed by the National Rifle Association several times, furthering his moderate image. Elections as Governor of Vermont Source: Vermont Secretary of State

2004 presidential candidacy

Dean began his bid for President as a "long shot" candidate. ABC News ranked him eight out of 12 in a list of potential presidential contenders in May of 2002. That summer, his campaign was featured as the cover article in The New Republic and in the following months he became a media darling. His campaign slowly gained steam, and by autumn of 2003, Dean had become the apparent frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, performing strongly in most polls and outpacing his rivals in fundraising. This latter feat was attributed mainly to his innovative embrace of the Internet for campaigning, and the majority of his donations came from individual Dean supporters, who came to be known as Deanites, or, more commonly, Deaniacs. During his presidential campaign, conservative critics labeled Dean's political views as those of an extreme liberal; however, in progressive Vermont, Dean, long known as a staunch advocate of fiscal restraint, was regarded as a moderate. Many left-wing critics who supported fellow Democrat Dennis Kucinich or independent Ralph Nader charged that, at heart, Dean was a "Rockefeller Republican" - socially liberal, while fiscally conservative.

Message and themes

Dean began his campaign by emphasizing health care and fiscal responsibility, and championing grassroots fundraising as a way to fight special interests. However, his opposition to the U.S. plan to invade Iraq (and his forceful criticism of Democrats in Congress who voted to authorize the use of force) quickly eclipsed other issues, resonating with disillusioned Democrats and using momentum from the burgeoning anti-war movement to build an impressive online campaign. Dean's early slogan of representing "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" reflected the feeling among frustrated voters that Democrats hadn't done enough to question the policies of the Republicans. The phrase was first used by the late Senator Paul Wellstone.

Use of the Internet

Paul Wellstone Dean's presidential campaign was remarkable at the time for its extensive use of the Internet to reach out to its supporters. The candidate's staff, and occasionally even the candidate, frequently "blogged" while on the campaign trail and even sought advice on important campaign-related decisions -- in at least two instances even making decisions through online polls of supporters. By soliciting contributions online, the campaign shattered previous fundraising records for the Democratic presidential primary. Dean has been credited with being the first national candidate to play to the strengths of the Internet, in particular by engaging the American public directly in the political process. His Internet success is often attributed to campaign manager Joe Trippi.

Fundraising

Joe Trippi In the "invisible primary" of raising campaign dollars, Howard Dean led the Democratic pack in the early stages of the 2004 campaign. Among the candidates, he ranked first in total raised ($25.4 million as of September 30, 2003) and first in cash-on-hand ($12.4 million). However, even this performance paled to next to that of George W. Bush, who by that date had raised $84.6 million for the Republican primary campaign, in which he had no real challenger. Prior to the 2004 primary season, the Democratic record for most money raised in one quarter by a primary candidate was held by Bill Clinton in 1995, raising $10.3 million during a campaign in which he had no primary opponent. In the third quarter of 2003, the Dean campaign raised $14.8 million, shattering Clinton's record. All told, Dean's campaign raised around 50 million dollars. While presidential campaigns have traditionally obtained finance by tapping wealthy, established political donors, Dean's funds came largely in small donations over the Internet; the average overall donation size was just under $80. This method of fundraising offered several important advantages over traditional fundraising, in addition to the inherent media interest in what was then a novelty. First, raising money on the internet was relatively inexpensive, compared to conventional methods such as events, telemarketing, and direct mail campaigns. Secondly, as donors on average contributed far less than the legal limit ($2,000 per individual), the campaign could continue to resolicit them throughout the election season. Dean's webmaster, Nicco Mele, came up with the idea of the popular fundraising "bat", an image of a cartoon baseball player and bat which appeared on the site every time the campaign launched a fundraising challenge. The bat encouraged Web site visitors to contribute money immediately through their credit cards. This would lead to the bat filling up like a thermometer with the red color indicating the total funds. The site often took suggestions from the netroots on their blog. One of these suggestions led to one of the campaigns biggest accomplishments - an image of Dean eating a turkey sandwich encouraged supporters to donate $250,000 in three days to match a big-donor dinner by Vice President Dick Cheney. The online contributions from that day matched what Cheney made from his fundraiser.[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/2003.html] In November 2003, after a much-publicized online vote among his followers, Dean became the first Democrat to forgo federal matching funds (and the spending limits that go with them) since the system was established in 1974. (John Kerry later followed his lead.) In addition to state-by-state spending limits for the primaries, the system limits a candidate to spending only $44.6 million until the Democratic National Convention in July, which sum would almost certainly run out soon after the early primary season. (George W. Bush declined federal matching funds in 2000 and did so again for the 2004 campaign.) In a sign that the Dean campaign was starting to think beyond the primaries, they began in late 2003 to speak of a "$100 revolution" in which 2 million Americans would give $100 in order to compete with Bush.

Endorsements

Though Dean lagged in early endorsements, he acquired many critical ones as his campaign snowballed. By the time of the Iowa caucuses, he led among commitments from superdelegates — elected officials and party officers entitled to convention votes by virtue of their positions. On November 12, 2003, he received the endorsements of the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, two politically powerful (and often rivalrous) labor unions. Dean received the endorsement of former Vice President and presidential candidate Al Gore, on December 9, 2003. In the following weeks Dean was endorsed by former U.S. senators Bill Bradley and Carol Moseley Braun, unsuccessful Democratic presidential candidates from the 2000 and 2004 primaries, respectively. Other high-profile endorsers included former Governor Bruce Babbitt, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., former Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., Senator Tom Harkin, Baltimore Mayor Martin J. O'Malley, Congressman John Conyers, Governor Jim McGreevey, former Governor Toney Anaya, former Senator Fred R. Harris, Congressman Major Owens, former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, former Governor Ann Richards, Senator Jim Jeffords, and Senator Patrick Leahy [http://www.politics1.com/dean.htm]. Several celebrities also endorsed him, including Martin Sheen, Rob Reiner, Susan Sarandon, Paul Newman, Robin Williams, and Al Franken [http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/diaryofapoliticaltourist/trail/howard_dean.html]. Many pundits would blame such endorsements for the campaign's eventual collapse. Dean was running as an outsider, and accepting the support of such establishment figures was seen by some as hypocritical.

Iowa results and the campaign's collapse

On January 19, 2004, Dean's campaign suffered a blow when a last-minute surge by rivals John Kerry and John Edwards led to an embarrassing third-place defeat for Dean in the 2004 Iowa Democratic caucuses, representing the first votes cast in primary season. Dean had been a strong contender for weeks in advance in that state, battling with Richard A. "Dick" Gephardt for first place in the polls. To the surprise of the Dean and Gephardt campaigns, Dean finished third in Iowa behind Kerry and John Edwards, with Gephardt finished fourth. Since Dean had spent months leading Iowa tracking polls, his third-place finish was widely considered a sign that the campaign was losing momentum. Most analysts blamed intense negative campaigning between Dean and Gephardt as the reason for their losses. Many Dean supporters questioned whether allegedly unfair media coverage played a role in the result. The Atlantic Monthly's Joshua Green reported that in early January, the Wesley Clark campaign had leaked information to the press showing Dean to be "unelectable." Though every campaign, including Dean's, sends negative information to the press about rival candidates, Green claims the media turned against both Clark and Dean. Other insiders attribute the loss to a staff and supporters inexperienced with the caucus process. Dean attended a post-caucus rally for his volunteers in Iowa to deliver his concession speech, aimed at cheering up those in attendance. Forced to shout over the cheers of his enthusiastic audience, Dean didn't realize the crowd noise was being filtered out by his unidirectional microphone, leaving only his full-throated exhortations audible to the television viewers. To those at home, it sounded as if he was raising his voice out of sheer emotion. Recordings from within the crowd made it clear that Dean was shouting in order to be heard over the cheers of the crowd. Regardless, many in the television audience criticized the speech as loud, peculiar, and unpresidential. [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001840708_deantv21.html] In particular, this quote from the speech was aired repeatedly in the days following the caucus:

"Not only are we going to New Hampshire, Tom Harkin, we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York...And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeeeaah!!!"

This final "yeeeaaaahhh" has become known in American political folklore as either "the Dean Scream" or the "I Have a Scream" speech (satirical of I Have a Dream). Dean conceded that the speech did not project the best image, jokingly referring to it as a "crazy, red-faced rant" on The Late Show with David Letterman. In an interview later that week with Diane Sawyer, he said he was "a little sheepish, ... but I'm not apologetic". [http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Primetime/US/howard_judy_dean_transcript_040122-1.html] Sawyer and many others in the national broadcast news media later expressed some regret about overplaying the story [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/26/politics/main596021.shtml]. In fact, CNN issued an public apology and admitted in a statement that they indeed may have 'overplayed' the incident. The incessant replaying of the "Dean Scream" by the press became a debate on the topic of whether Dean was the victim of media bias. Such reports certainly fit with reports of "unelectability", as shown by Green's Atlantic Monthly piece. The scream scene was shown an estimated 633 times by cable and broadcast news networks in just four days following the incident, a number that does not include talk shows and local news broadcasts. [http://www.loyolaphoenix.com/news/2004/02/11/Discourse/The-Scream.That.Left.Us.Blind-603629.shtml] However, those who were in the actual audience that day insist that they were not aware of the infamous scream until they returned to their hotel rooms and saw it on TV. There were many thousands of people in the room that day, all screaming for all they were worth, making it hard to hear Dean, even with a microphone - this is very different from the media image of Dean screaming to an empty room. Regardless, however, of whether or not Dean's Iowa speech was unfairly covered, the tone itself of Dean's speech turned out to be a major political mistake. Despite the intense media coverage of the entire primary season, many voters initially tuned into the campaign upon seeing the Iowa results. Other candidates, knowing their post-caucus speeches would be their introduction to many Americans, made variations of their stump speeches. Dean seemingly forgot that the in-person audience in Iowa was a tiny minority of those who would see his speech, and by tailoring his speech to the wrong group, he set himself up for trouble. On January 27 Dean again suffered a defeat, finishing second to Kerry in the New Hampshire primary. As late as one week before the first votes were cast in Iowa's caucuses, Dean had enjoyed a 30% lead in New Hampshire opinion polls; accordingly, this loss represented another major setback to his campaign. Iowa and New Hampshire were only the first in a string of embarrassing losses for the Dean campaign, culminating in a disappointing third place showing in the Wisconsin primary on February 17, 2004. The next day, Dean announced that his candidacy had "come to an end," though he continued to urge people to vote for him, so that Dean delegates would be selected for the convention and could influence the party platform. He later won the Vermont primaries on Super Tuesday, March 2, 2004. This latter victory, a surprise even to Dean himself, was due in part to the lack of a serious anti-Kerry candidate in Vermont (John Edwards had declined to put his name on the state's ballot, expecting Dean to win in a landslide), and in part to a [http://www.truthandhope.org/truthandhope_mid_NTSC.mov television ad] produced, funded, and aired in Vermont by grassroots Dean supporters.

Impact

While his presidential bid ultimately ended in failure, his supporters felt it was not a lost cause, serving to frame the White House race by tapping in to voters' concerns about the war in Iraq, in the process energizing Democrats and sharpening criticism of incumbent George W. Bush. At present, many political pundits affirm that Dean's contribution was "cathartic" for the party. Dean's lone Pennsylvania delegate, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said Dean's decision, ultimately emulated by Kerry, to forgo primary federal matching funds and exceed the matching fund spending limits "marked the day the Democratic Party became a serious contender for national power in 2004."

Campaign timeline

The detailed and informative timeline of Dean's campaign has been moved to the U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2004 page to shorten this page. See also U.S. presidential election, 2004 timeline

Post-campaign & Democracy for America

Following Dean's withdrawal after the Wisconsin primary, he pledged to support the eventual Democratic nominee. Though many supporters encouraged him to support the only remaining "non-establishment candidate," John Edwards, he remained neutral until John Kerry became the presumptive nominee. Dean endorsed Kerry on March 25, 2004 in a speech at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. On March 18, 2004, Dean founded the group Democracy for America. This group was created to house the large, Internet-based organization Dean created for his presidential campaign. Its goal is to help like-minded candidates get elected to local, state and federal offices. It has endorsed several sets of twelve candidates known as the Dean Dozen. Dean turned over control of the organization to his brother, Jim Dean, when he became Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Dean strongly urged his supporters to support Kerry as opposed to Ralph Nader, arguing that a vote for Nader would only help to re-elect Bush. Dean argued that Nader would be more effective if he lobbied on election law reform issues and during his campaign Dean supported several election law reform issues such as campaign finance reform, and Instant Runoff Voting.

Successful campaign for DNC Chair

Dean was elected Chairman of the Democratic National Committee on February 12, 2005, after all his opponents dropped out of the race when it became apparent Dean had the votes to become Chair. Those opponents included former Congressman Martin Frost, former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, former Congressman and 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer, and strategists Donnie Fowler, David Leland, and Simon Rosenberg. Other prominent Democrats considered running but ultimately declined.

50-state strategy

After Dean became Chairman of the DNC, he pledged to bring reform to the Party. Rather than focusing just on 'swing states,' Dean proposed what has come to be known as the 50-State Strategy. The goal, the DNC says, is for the Democratic Party to be committed to winning elections at every level in every region of the country, with Democrats organized in every single voting precinct in the country. State party chairs have lauded Dean with praise for raising money directly for the individual state parties. Dean’s strategy uses a post-Watergate model taken from the Republicans of the mid-seventies. Working at the local, state and national level, the GOP built the party from the ground up. Dean's plan is to seed the local level with young and committed candidates, building them into state candidates in future races. Dean has travelled extensively through out the country with the plan, including places like Utah, Mississippi and Texas, states in which Republicans have dominated the political landscape. Further changes have been made in attempting to make the stated platform of the Democratic party more coherent and compact. Overhauling the website, the official platform of the 2004 campaign, which was largely criticized as avoiding key issues and being the product of party insiders, was replaced with a simplified, though comprehensive categorizing of positions on a wide range of issues. Dean’s plan marks a long-term shift, instead of the old Presidential poltics Democrats played in the past.

Fund-raising

Through grassroots fundraising Howard Dean has been able to raise millions more than the previous DNC Chairman at the same point after the 2000 election. Dean has raised the most money by any DNC Chairman in a similar post election period. This was especially apparent when the Federal Election Commission reported that the DNC had raised roughly $86.3 million dollars in the first six months of 2005, an increase of over 50% on the amount raised during the same period of 2003. In comparison, the RNC fundraising activities represented a gain of only 2%. Additional attempts to capitalize on this trend was the introduction of "Democracy bonds", a program under which small donors would give a set amount each and every month. Although it only reached over 20,000 by August 2005, far from the stated goal of 1 million by 2008, it has, nonetheless, contributed considerably to the funding of the DNC.

Comments as DNC chair

Dean has had a pattern of making statements about members of the Republican Party. Dean charged that some in the Republican Party did not understand the lives of hard-working Americans because they "never made an honest living in their lives." [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-02-dean-republicans_x.htm] In a San Francisco speech, the chairman characterized Republicans as "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party." [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/07/MNdean07.TMP] Referring to differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, he said, "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good." [http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/feb/26/dean_roars_into/] He called for House majority leader Tom DeLay to serve a "jail sentence" for corruption, when DeLay had not been convicted of any crimes [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7925421/] (though DeLay was indeed subsequently indicted and arrested on charges of criminal conspiracy and money laundering.) He referred to Republican leaders as "the ayatollahs of the right wing." [http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/051023dean.shtml] On an appearance on Meet the Press, Dean refused to respond to an accusation that racist attacks were made by a third party, Thomas V. Miller Jr. against Maryland Lt. Gov Michael Steele, and accused John M. Kane, the chairman of the Maryland Republican Party, of calling Dean an anti-Semite (Kane has denied the charge). [http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051114-015140-6451r.htm] Many Democrats, and other senators have stood by Dean, including Democratic leader Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy. Many accused the media of bias during his Presidential run, and some did once again during his tenure as DNC Chair. Defenders of Dean claim the media said little when Republican chairman Ed Gillespie during the 2004 campaign made charges that John Kerry and the Democrats were being "mouthpieces for terrorists". [http://releases.usnewswire.com/printing.asp?id=27586] But Dean is not immune from criticism in his party. On December 5, 2005 Dean said in an interview on WOAI radio in San Antonio that America essentially cannot win the Iraq War and called for the immediate withdrawal of 80,000 National Guard troops as well as all other US forces by the end of 2007, "The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong."[http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/dean.iraq.1935/index.html]. These comments caused some Democrats, especially those in Republican-leaning areas, to dissent from the chairman's opinion. Democratic representative Jim Marshall of Georgia said, "Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: both are uninformed and unhelpful." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601707.html] Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said December 7 on Fox News Live that "I'm not speaking for Howard Dean, and Howard Dean is not speaking for me."

External links

Official

- [http://www.deanforamerica.com/ Archived campaign website]
- [http://www.democracyforamerica.com/ Democracy for America]
- [http://blog.deanforamerica.com/ Blog for America]
- [http://dfa.meetup.com/ DFA Meetups]
- [http://www.caglecartoons.com/archiveColumnist.asp?columnistID= Weekly syndicated column]
- [http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic National Committee]

Other

- [http://www.democracyforamerica.com/features/2004/12/08/governor_deans_gwu_speech_transcript.php Speech December 2004 Speech At GWU On The Democratic Party]
- [http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Howard_Dean.php Campaign Contributions Made by Howard Dean]
- [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2004/01/21/MNG4F4E5N51.DTL&o=0 Dean's Iowa Caucus Rally]
- [http://www.e-democracy.org/us/2004/president/dean.html E-Democracy's Top 50 Howard Dean Links]
- [http://www.civicactions.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Dean_Campaign_Organization Dean Campaign Organization Wiki]
- [http://www.wargs.com/political/dean.html Dean's genealogy] - includes King James IV of Scotland
- [http://www.virtualcities.com/ons/vt/gov/vtgov70.htm Howard Dean's Vermont Country Baked Ham Recipe]

Notes

¹ A copy of the speech, in addition to an audio file available for Windows Media Player, is available [http://www.vpr.net/vt_news/dean_announce.shtml here]. Dean, Howard Dean, Howard Dean, Howard Dean, Howard Dean, Howard Dean, Howard Dean, Howard Dean, Howard Dean, Howard Dean, Howard Dean, Howard Dean, Howard Dean, Howard ja:ハワード・ディーン

Armstrong Williams

Armstrong Williams (born February 5, 1959) is an African American political commentator. Williams, a conservative newspaper columnist, hosts a nationally syndicated television program called The Right Side as well as a daily radio program. He launched his own company, The Right Side Production, in 2003. It produces and syndicates his television program to outlets including Sky Angel Satellite Network, The Liberty Channel and other cable outlets. His company produces his radio program with Langer Broadcast Radio Network. [http://www.armstrongwilliams.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=222E918ABFB4452382402A26BE52F4D2&type=gen&mod=Core%20Pages&gid=266132E415E441219AE8F08302AD806C] According to Williams's website, his newspaper column was syndicated by Tribune Media Services to "a wide array of African-American and mainstream newspapers". However in January 2005 his contract was terminated over his paid but undisclosed advocacy for promoting Bush Administration education policy. In his book Blinded by the Right former conservative journalist David Brock claims Williams may be a homosexual based on an incident between the two at Williams' apartment. Williams was also sued by a male associate for sexual harassment, but this was settled out of court.

Selling the Bush Administration's "No Child Left Behind" policy

In January 2005, USA Today reported that documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that Williams had been paid $240,000 to promote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act ("NCLB") of the Bush administration. According to USA Today, Williams was hired to "to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same." [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm] As part of the agreement, Williams was required "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004." [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA] The contract with Williams was part of a $1 million contract between the U.S. Department of Education and the public relations company, Ketchum. Melanie Sloan from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington told USA Today that the contract may be illegal "because Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government. "And it's propaganda," she said. Representative George Miller, a member of the House Education Committee, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal." [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA] After the USA Today revelations, Tribune Media Services terminated its syndication agreement with Williams. In a statement to Editor and Publisher, but not available on its website, TMS stated: "[A]ccepting compensation in any form from an entity that serves as a subject of his weekly newspaper columns creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Under these circumstances, readers may well ask themselves if the views expressed in his columns are his own, or whether they have been purchased by a third party." [http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000749251] Williams told Associated Press "even though I'm not a journalist — I'm a commentator — I feel I should be held to the media ethics standard. My judgment was not the best. I wouldn't do it again, and I learned from it." [http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2982711] Rather than criticize the arrangement, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said it was a matter for the Education Department. According to Associated Press the Education Department said the deal was a "permissible use of taxpayer funds under legal government contracting procedures." [http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2982711] Ketchum did not respond to requests for a comment from PR Week, the Washington Post, the New York Times or O'Dwyer's PR Daily regarding Williams's role as a paid commentator. [http://www.prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=231851&site=3&setcookie=1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56330-2005Jan7.html] [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/business/media/12adco.html?oref=login] [http://www.odwyerspr.com/members/0112edel_kotch.htm] As the controversy raged on, Scott McClellan remained non-committal on whether White House staff knew of the deal with Williams. "I'm not sure that senior staff was consulted before this decision was made. I haven't heard anything to that effect," he said. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050110-8.html#4] Three days after the story broke McClellan claimed he was unaware of the details of the contract and that specific questions should be directed to the Education Department. As to whether Williams should have disclosed the details of the contract in his columns and on-air appearances, McClellan would only concede that "those are all legitimate questions." Asked whether he would investigate whether other journalists were on the payroll of the administration, McClellan was elusive. "I'm not aware of any others that are under contract other than the one that's been reported on in the media," he said. Following the revelations of the Williams contract with Ketchum, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington announced that it had filed Freedom of Information requests with 22 agencies requesting copies of all contracts with public relation firms. [http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41504] The USA Today revelations caused controversy within the PR industry too. The day the story broke, the CEO of Edelman Public Relations, Richard Edelman, posted a note on his personal blog criticizing Ketchum's deal with Williams. "This kind of pay for play public relations takes us back in time to the days of the press agent who would drop off the new record album and $10 to the deejay. It makes our industry's efforts to 'clean up' behavior in newly created PR markets such as China and Russia look decidedly ridiculous," he wrote. [http://www.edelman.com/speak_up/blog/] "I know Ray Kotcher and Dave Drobis of Ketchum. I am sure that they would never tolerate this kind of contractual arrangement. I am also confident that they will take steps to assure that it never happens again," he wrote. While Edelman was confident Ketchum's management would take a stand against the practice, O'Dwyers PR Daily noted that "Kotcher has not returned this website's phone and e-mail requests for comment." [http://www.odwyerspr.com/members/0112edel_kotch.htm] "Some things are black and white. We need to set a very high standard of disclosure for our business, with total transparency on funding sources and mission. We should also eschew any practice that calls into question the integrity of the information being disseminated. Let's try to turn this negative for our industry into a positive, by making a long term commitment to the best ethical behavior," Edelman wrote. While the White House equivocated, the Public Relations Society of America issued a statement saying "the relationship should have been disclosed up front, no question." [http://www.prsa.org/_News/leaders/disclosure0111.asp] On January 26 2005 a similar arrangement surfaced between Maggie Gallagher and the Department of Health and Human Services involving her paid support of the Bush administration's "healthy marriage" initiative, which she did not disclose. On January 28 2005 it was revealed that Michael McManus, a syndicated columnist who writes Ethics & Religion, was paid up to $10,000 to support the administration's marriage initiative to divert funds from welfare to marital counselling, which he did not disclose. [http://199.249.170.220/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000779345] On September 30, 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report concluding that the payments to Armstrong were illegal because the government's role in the public relations effort was not disclosed. [http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/gao.propaganda.ap/]

Other business interests

Williams is also the CEO of the Graham Williams Group (GWG), which is described in his biographical note as an "international public relations firm with clients in entertainment, politics, business and charitable organizations". According to a biographical note some clients of GWG include "Century 21, Computerland executive Terry Giles and poet laureate Maya Angelou." [http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/byline.jsp?custid=67&bylineid=116] Williams is listed with the Premiere Speakers Bureau as available for key note presentations on "Business, Evangelism & Outreach, Patriotic" for $10,000 per presentation. [http://faith.premierespeakers.com/909/index.cfm]

Books by Williams

- Armstrong Williams, [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684824663/102-6615316-5330563 Letters to a young victim: Hope and Healing in America's Inner Cities], Scribner Paper Fiction, October 1996. ISBN 0-684824663
- Armstrong Williams, [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0029353653/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/104-8714810-7332725 Beyond Blame: How We Can Succeed by Breaking the Dependency Barrier], Free Press, May 1995. ISBN 0-029353653

External links

- [http://www.armstrongwilliams.com Williams's website]
- "[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BIOS/cbawilliams.htm Armstrong Williams]", Townhall.com, accessed January 2005.
- "[http://www.hwwilson.com/currentbio/cover_bios/cover_bio_5_04.htm Armstrong Williams]", Current Biography, May 2004.
- "[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/armstrongwilliams/archive.shtml Armstrong Williams:Archive]", Townhall.com, accessed January 2005.
- Tribune Media Services, "[http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/byline.jsp?custid=67&bylineid=116 Armstrong Williams]", accessed January 2005.
- "[http://www.poynter.org/forum/?id=32365 Statement by Tribune Media Services]", Poynter Online - Forums, January 7, 2005.
- Premiere Speakers Bureau, "[http://faith.premierespeakers.com/909/index.cfm Armstrong Williams: One of the most recognized conservative voices in America]", accessed January 2005.
- Greg Toppo, "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law]", USA Today, January 7, 2005. (Also archived on [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0107-01.htm Common Dreams] website).
- People for the American Way, "[http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17644 Neas on Armstrong Willams "Payola" Contract: Unethical, Scandalous Waste of Taxpayer Dollars]", Media Release, January 7, 2005.
- Dave Astor, "[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000749251 Armstrong Williams Column Axed by TMS]", Editor & Publisher, January 7, 2005.
- Dave Astor, "[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000748602 Another Problem for Commentator Who Took Bush Money?]", Editor & Publisher, January 7, 2005.
- Media Matters for America, "[http://mediamatters.org/items/200501070012 Armstrong Williams promoted Bush policies in writing, too]", January 7, 2005.
- "[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/7/94726.shtml Media Targets Armstrong Williams]", NewsMax.com, January 7, 2005.
- Erica Iacono, "[http://www.prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=231851&site=3&setcookie=1 Ketchum embroiled in White House propaganda flap again]", PR Week, January 7, 2005. (Sub req'd).
- Richard Edelman, "[http://www.edelman.com/speak_up/blog/ Pay to Play PR is Not On]", Rich Edelman, January 7, 2005.
- Ben Feller, "[http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2982711 Agency paid commentator to push Bush education plan:] Officials defend it, but Armstrong Williams now calls criticism of the deal 'legitimate'", Houston Chronicle, January 8, 2005. (This is an Associated Press story).
- Howard Kurtz, "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56330-2005Jan7.html Administration Paid Commentator: Education Dept. Used Williams to Promote 'No Child' Law]", Washington Post, January 8, 2005.
- "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57881-2005Jan7.html Administration Agitprop]", Editorial, Washington Post, January 8, 2005.
- Armstrong Williams, "[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Armstrongwilliams/aw20050110.shtml My apology], Townhall.com, January 10, 2005.
- Dave Astor, "[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000749944 Several Papers Nix Self-Syndicated Armstrong Williams Column]", Editor & Publisher, January 10, 2005.
- David Corn, "[http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=2114 Armstrong Williams: I Am Not Alone]", The Nation, January 10, 2005.
- Media Matters of America, "[http://mediamatters.org/items/200501110001 Armstrong Williams's conflicting statements on disclosure]", January 10, 2005.
- Andrew Wallenstein, "[http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=televisionNews&storyID=7289256 Sinclair Investigates Commentator Williams]", Reuters, January 11, 2005.
- "[http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=2789759 White House says Armstrong Williams case was isolated incident]", WTVM9, January 11, 2005.
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, "[http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41504 CREW Files 22 FOIAs Today to Uncover Government Agency Dealings with PR Firms; Armstrong Williams DOE Contract May be Tip of the Iceberg]", Media Release, January 11, 2005.
- Laurie Spivak, "[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20946/ The Conservative Marketing Machine]", Alternet, January 11, 2005.
- Public Relations Society of America, "[http://www.prsa.org/_News/leaders/disclosure0111.asp Statement on Disclosure of Financial Interests]", Media release, January 11, 2005. ("PRSA strongly objects to any paid endorsement that is not fully disclosed as such and is presented as objective news coverage,"PRSA President and CEO Judith T. Phair stated.)
- "[http://www.odwyerspr.com/members/0112edel_kotch.htm Richard Edelamn blasts Ketchum for "Pay for Play" deal]", O'Dwyer's PR Daily, January 12, 2005.
- Stuart Elliot, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/business/media/12adco.html?oref=login A Paid Endorsement Ignites a Debate in the Public Relations Industry]", New York Times, January 12, 2005.
- [http://www.FireArmstrongWilliams.com FireArmstrongWilliams.com] (a site campaigning against Williams).
- Bob Burton, "[http://www.prwatch.org/node/3185 The Other Armstrong Williams Scandal]" (Armstrong allowing his radio program to be used by a tobacco industry funded group as a platform to attack FDA moves aimed at preventing youth from smoking).

No Child Left Behind Act

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (PL 107-110) is the reauthorization of a number of federal programs that strive to improve the performance of America's primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. Additionally, it promotes an increased focus on reading and re-authorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The effectiveness and desirability of the Act's measures continue to be a matter of vigorous debate. On May 3, 2005, Utah governor Jon Huntsman signed a measure into state law that allows that state's districts to ignore provisions of the law which conflict with that state's program, making it the first state to pass such a law. The Department of Education has threatened to withhold federal education funding as a result.

Background

The act is the result of U.S. President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind proposals Bush campaigned on during the 2000 presidential campaign. Several of the proposals were based on the reform strategies instituted by President Bush during his tenure as governor of Texas. The act began as House Resolution 1 in March 2001 during the 107th Congress. The 670 page act was eventually passed by the House of Representatives on December 13, 2001 by a vote of 381-41. It passed in the Senate by a vote of 87-10 on December 18, 2001. It was signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2002 at Hamilton High School in Hamilton, Ohio. On hand for the signing ceremony were Democratic Rep. George Miller of California, Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Secretary of Education Rod Paige, Republican Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, and Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. Teachers' unions such as the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers have opposed NCLB reforms almost from inception, and have utilized their money and vast manpower in efforts to both weaken the law's provisions and to turn around public perception of the law and its necessity. The unions question NCLB's effectiveness as presently written and funded, and point to a number of difficulties school districts face in implementing its provisions. Supporters of NCLB's reforms on the other hand note that union opposition may actually have more to do with the fact that key provisions of the law will have the effect of reducing union income as unionized school districts with failing schools are forced to reconstitute and teachers are in some cases no longer forced into union contracts. In inner city school districts where public schools consistently under-perform, this union resistance to reform has often pitted the teachers' unions against parents adament in their desire to improve the quality of local public school education. In 2004, the U.S. Department of Education entered into a contract with Ketchum Inc. to promote the law. A $240,000 subcontract was provided to the Graham Williams Group which included political commentator Armstrong Williams promoting the act via his television show and additionally television and radio advertisements. [http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/01/01132005.html] USA Today reported that his contract included the stipulation that he "regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts." Rep. Miller, a member of the House Education Committee, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal". Armstrong said that he "wanted to do it because it's something I believe in", but later said "my judgment was not the best. I wouldn't do it again, and I learned from it." [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/usatoday/20050107/ts_usatoday/whitehousepaidcommentatortopromotelaw] [http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/bush.journalist.ap/] The same public relations firm that arranged Williams' contract also produced a video promoting the No Child Left Behind Act designed to come across as a news story. The advertisements were pulled after a similar ad for the new Medicare law was challenged by the GAO for being 'covert propaganda' which is against federal law. The firm also provided the Department of Education with monthly rankings of reporters based on how they cover the law.[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=155163]

Major Provisions

Adequate Yearly Progress

The law requires states to create an accountability system of assessments, graduation rates, and other indicators. Schools have to make adequate yearly progress (AYP), as determined by the state, by raising the achievement levels of subgroups of students such as African Americans, Latinos, low-income students, and special education students to a state-determined level of proficiency. All students must be proficient by the 2013-2014 school year. An escalating set of assistance is provided to students who are in schools that repeatedly do not improve. Schools receiving Title I funds that do not meet AYP requirements for two consecutive years will be identified "in need of improvement" and required to offer parents the option of sending their children to another public school within the district. Upon being identified as "in need of improvement" the school is also required to develop or revise an existing school improvement plan which must be approved by the district. If the school does not meet targets the next year, supplemental educational services such as tutoring and after school programs must also be offered in addition to the option to transfer. If the school continues in "in need of improvement" status the following year it will be required to take corrective action such as removing relevant staff, implementing new curriculum, decreasing management authority, appointing outside experts to advise the school, extending the length of the school day or year or restructuring the school's internal organization. Only schools receiving Title I funds are subject to these sanctions. [http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2002/pdf/02-30294.pdf 34 CFR Part 200 Title I Final Regulations]

Teacher Quality

The No Child Left Behind act requires that by the end of the 2005-2006 school year all teachers will be "highly qualified" as defined in the law. A highly qualified teacher is one who has fulfilled the state's certification and licensure requirements. New teachers must meet the following requirements:
- Possess at least a bachelor's degree
- At the elementary level they must pass a state test demonstrating their subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading/language arts, writing, mathematics and other areas of basic elementary school curriculum.
- At the middle and high school levels they must pass a state test in each academic subject area they teach, plus have either an undergraduate major, a graduate degree, coursework equivalent to an undergraduate major or an advanced certification or credentialing. Teachers not new to the profession must hold a bachelor's degree and must pass a state test demonstrating the subject knowledge and teaching skills. These requirements have caused some controversy and difficulty in implementation especially for special education teachers and teachers in small rural schools where they are often called upon to teach multiple grades and subjects. For further information see the [http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/guidance.doc Teacher Quality Guidance] from the U.S. Department of Education.

Student Testing

The progress of all students will be measured annually in reading/language arts and math in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school. By the end of the 2007-2008 school year, testing will also be conducted in science once during grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12.

Parent Involvement

In order to better inform parents, states are required to issue detailed report cards on the status of schools and districts. Under the law, parents must also be informed when their child is being taught by a teacher who does not meet "highly qualified" status. Schools are also required to include and involve parents in the school improvement planning process.

Scientifically Based Research

The phrase [http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg107.html "scientifically based research"] is found 111 times in the text of the No Child Left Behind Act. Schools are required to use "scientifically based research" strategies in the classroom and for professional development of staff.

Public School Choice

Schools identified as needing improvement are required to provide students with the opportunity to take advantage of public school choice no later than the beginning of the school year following their identification for school improvement. NCLB authorized – and Congress has subsequently appropriated – a substantial increase in funding for Title I aid, in part to provide funding for school districts to implement the law’s parental choice requirements. -- From NCLB FAQs in External Links.

Arguments for

- Introduces an element of accountability into public school education and the expenditure of public monies for education.
- Requires schools and districts to focus their attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children, such as low-income students, students with disabilities, and minorities. Many previous state-created systems of accountability only measured average school performance, allowing schools to be highly rated even if they had large achievement gaps between affluent and disadvantaged students.
- Supports early literacy through the Early Reading First initiative.
- Increases the quality of education. Schools are required to improve their performance under NCLB by implementing "scientifically based research" practices in the classroom, parent involvement programs, and professional development activities.
- Measures student performance: a student's progress in reading and math must be measured annually in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school via standardized tests.
- Provides information for parents by requiring states and school districts to give parents detailed report cards on schools and districts explaining the school's AYP performance. Schools must also inform parents when their child is being taught by a teacher or para-professional who does not meet "highly qualified" requirements.
- Gives options to students enrolled in schools failing to meet AYP. If a school fails to meet AYP targets two or more years running, the school must offer eligible children the chance to transfer to higher-performing local schools, receive free tutoring, or attend after-school programs.
- Increases flexibility to state and local agencies in the use of federal education money.
- Provides more resources to schools. Federal funding for education has increased 59.8% from 2000 to 2003.
- Addresses widespread perceptions that public education results fall short of expectations.

Arguments against

- Supports early learning, an approach criticized in "Better Late Than Early", by Raymond Moore, et al.
- Requires public secondary schools to provide military recruiters the same access to facilities as a school provides to higher education institution recruiters. Schools are also required to provide contact information for every student to the military if requested but students or parents can opt out of having their information shared. [http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg112.html#sec9528]
- Organizations such as ACORN have criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to fully fund the act. While promoted by President Bush and applauded by both parties, neither the Senate nor the White House has requested funding up to the authorized levels for several programs such as Title I. Republicans in Congress have viewed these authorized levels as spending caps, not spending promises and have pointed out that President Clinton never requested the full amount of funding authorized under the previous ESEA law. [http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/issues/108th/education/nclb/factsheet032504.htm]
- Indicators of school performance are not accurate or viable.
- Because schools, districts, and states are punished if they fail to make adequate progress according to the goals they themselves establish, the incentives are to set expectations lower rather than higher [http://www.susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=3389]and to increase segregation by class and race and push low-performing students out of school altogether [http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/vol79/no3/NYU303.pdf]. The schools, districts, and states are also potentially set to game the system by manipulating which students are included or excluded from test-taking (to enhance apparent school performance) and by creative reclassification of drop-outs (to reduce unfavorable statistics) [http://www.factcheck.org/article181.html].
- States and school districts should be granted greater freedom to target assistance to schools with the most extensive academic difficulties.
- After-school programs are neglected.
- NCLB is designed to set the stage for the eventual privatization of the U.S. public school system: reports about struggling schools sour public opinion and may cause more and more voters to question the viability of public education.
- NCLB violates conservative principles by federalizing education and setting a precedent for further erosion of state and local control. Some conservatives believe that the federal government has no constitutional authority in education.
- NCLB is a covert flushing mechanism developed by Rod Paige to eliminate the Department of Education by requiring unreachable high standards to fail a disproportionate amount of schools and reduce the amount of federal funding handed out so that eventually the individual states would pay entirely for their school system and defederalize all education.
- Students with learning disabilities do not receive extra help when taking the standardized tests, and can jeopardize the assigned rating the entire school is given.
- Students who are learning English as a second language are expected to take the standardized tests and show proficiency equal to their English-speaking peers, when it is proven that English-Language-Learners take between 5 and 10 years to "catch up" to grade-level proficiency.
- Focus on improving the average student's education may ignore individual differences between students, and potentially harm both special and gifted education programs.
- NCLB focuses on basic educational classes and removes funding from music programs, art programs, etc. This results in schools being forced to remove elective and after school programs.
- NCLB places a focus on the standardized testing mandatory for each student, therefore forcing the educators to focus on points covered in testing rather than what they think is important for children to learn. Standardized tests can be irrelevant to students' developmental learning.
- "NCLB will cost school districts $1.491 billion annually representing an 11 percent increase over current total operating budgets. It was further determined that 97 percent of the costs associated with NCLB are unfunded with additional federal funding covering only $44 million of the nearly $1.5 billion in costs." [http://www.ohea.org/researchReports/schoolFinance.aspx]
- While addressing the issue of "achievement gaps" (such as that between affluent and disadvantaged students) NCLB fails to address how possible

Jerome Armstrong

Dean campaign consultancy and controversy

Mark Warner consultancy

Varia

External links

Left wing

History of the term

Left-wing issues

Communism and left-wing politics

The Soviet Union

China

The Left and postmodernism

Critiques from within the left

The Sokal Affair

Critiques from the right

The Left and Darwinism

The Left and war

First and Second World Wars

Spanish Civil War

Vietnam and the Post-September 11 anti-war movements

The Left and Anti-Globalisation

Political parties on the Left

Notes

See also

Left-wing Ideologies

Left-wing issues

Organizations

Related political topics

External links

MyDD

See also

External links

Howard Dean

Personal background

Vermont political career

2004 presidential candidacy

Message and themes

Use of the Internet

Fundraising

Endorsements

Iowa results and the campaign's collapse

Impact

Campaign timeline

Post-campaign & Democracy for America

Successful campaign for DNC Chair

50-state strategy

Fund-raising

Comments as DNC chair

Further reading

External links

Official

Other

Notes

Armstrong Williams

Selling the Bush Administration's "No Child Left Behind" policy

Other business interests

See also

Books by Williams

External links

No Child Left Behind Act

Background

Major Provisions

Adequate Yearly Progress

Teacher Quality

Student Testing

Parent Involvement

Scientifically Based Research

Public School Choice

Arguments for

Arguments against