Democrats, Republicans both agree that

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/947647.asp

 

Expect quite a bit of puff since Mr. Alter has shown himself to be a lefty on a number of occasions, but it's a pretty big piece on the front page of the magazine this week, so it's probably worth discussion:

 

The Left’s Mr. Right?

IN YOUR FACE: His willingness to go after Bush on Iraq thrilled long-suffering liberals. And his unexpected success at fund-raising gave him crucial momentum. But is Howard Dean the Democrats’ path back to power—or a recipe for another 49-state defeat?

 

By Jonathan Alter

 

Consider two voters motivated to contribute to Howard Dean’s presidential campaign: one is a supporter; the other is a ... “supporter.”

 

KEVIN O’CONNOR, A 53-year-old investment banker, went to Denver’s first gathering of Dean supporters in early February at a small downtown coffee shop, drawn by a posting on Meetup.com. Eight people showed. Now the group has to keep changing the venue to fit the 100-plus people who turn out every month, one of more than 600 Dean “Meetups” across the country. So far, O’Connor has contributed $500 to the campaign and plans to give more. “Washington Democrats have a failed strategy on dealing with President Bush,” he says. “Howard Dean is going to draw the line.”

 

Then there’s Tom Bevan, a 38-year-old former advertising executive from the Chicago area with a conservative bent. He wrote a $25 check to Dean last week after seeing him surge. “The further left he goes and the Democrats go, the better for my man Bush,” Bevan says. “Some of the more centrist candidates would present more of a challenge to a Republican.”

 

‘DEANYBOPPERS’ ON THE MARCH

 

It’s hard to know how much company Bevan has, but the operational head of his party, a Mr. Karl Rove of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, agrees. At a Fourth of July parade in Washington, D.C., Rove saw a dozen “Deanyboppers” marching in their DEAN FOR AMERICA T shirts. “Heh, heh, heh. Yeah, that’s the one we want,” Rove said, according to a curbside bystander quoted in The Washington Post. “Come on, everybody! Go, Howard Dean!”

 

He’s going. The diminutive family doctor from Vermont with the brusque political bedside manner is the hottest thing in the Democratic Party. Dean is now in statistical dead heats for first place among likely caucus attendees in Iowa (with Rep. Dick Gephardt) and primary voters in New Hampshire (with Sen. John Kerry), and has a decent shot of picking up some of the John McCain-style independents he covets. He is revolutionizing political fund-raising with his clever cyberstumping, and the proceeds are going to build a sturdy grassroots organization that should help sustain him when the hype subsides.

 

Take last week’s stunt. After hearing that Vice President Dick Cheney was traveling to Columbia, S.C., at the end of July to raise $300,000 for the Bush-Cheney campaign at a $2,000-a-plate fund-raising luncheon, the Dean campaign posted a digital picture on its Web site of the candidate eating a $3-a-plate turkey sandwich while sitting at a computer. The appeal to stand up to wealthy interests raised more than $500,000 in three days, beating the Bush-Cheney juggernaut (for one weekend at least) and bringing Dean’s Internet booty to more than $5 million, by far the most ever raised by a politician online, though he’s amassed less than a third of Bush’s war chest so far.

 

A BREAKTHROUGH FOR DEMOCRATS

It’s a new kind of political movement. While Dean’s last financial report shows him trailing both Kerry and John Edwards in overall cash, the Deanites say they now have 230,000 “registered activists online,” with more than half having made at least a small contribution (whatever the motivation). In another twist, more than 30,000 of the activists wrote handwritten notes—some for the first time in years—to 60,000 undecided voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. After years when the so-called party of the people trailed Republicans badly in the number of small donors, all this is a breakthrough for Democrats, whatever Dean’s fate.

 

“If you’d asked me six months ago would I be in the position I am today, I would have said, ‘Don’t be ridiculous’,” Dean told NEWSWEEK last week. “We’ve caught fire and, frankly, not with anything we’ve done that’s so brilliant. I wish we were so smart to have figured out the Internet thing, but the fact is, the Internet community found us.”

 

Enter the skeptics, center stage. Dean is another Bill Bradley in 2000, Paul Tsongas in 1992 or John Anderson in 1980, they say, an NPR flavor of the month with appeal mostly to educated secular sophisticates who simply aren’t numerous enough to win the White House, whatever the ratings of “The West Wing” (whose actors almost all support him). He’s a classic “Doonesbury” candidate, the critique goes, which is fitting, perhaps, considering that the strip’s creator, Garry Trudeau, was a close childhood friend of Dean’s when they were in day camp together more than 40 years ago. The greatest fear among certain Democrats is that if Dean does win the nomination, his liberal supporters will put their Birkenstocks on the gas pedal and drive the party right over the cliff, a la George McGovern in 1972.

 

HEARTS VS. HEADS

The dilemma for Democrats tempted by Dean is whether to go with their hearts or their heads. Their hearts soar at Dean’s bare-knuckle attacks on Bush and patented Rx on social issues. Their heads tell them that the only times Democrats have won in four decades was when they nominated moderate Southerners—Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton—with a natural connection to black and working-class Democrats and independents. Under this analysis, liberals—especially if they didn’t serve in Vietnam—are in danger of being depicted as “soft on terrorism” post-September 11, just as an earlier generation was derided as “soft on communism” during the cold war.

 

“A Dean nomination could again [mean] Democrats lose 49 out of 50 states,” says Clinton’s pollster, Mark Penn, who is working for Sen. Joe Lieberman’s campaign. (The 2000 vice presidential candidate is currently leading in national surveys, based mostly on name recognition.) “Dean’s antiwar image will linger and will be used against him,” predicts Jim Jordan, Kerry’s campaign manager. “This ‘security mom’ thing is real. Women are even more hawk-ish than men. Until you can convince the voters that you, too, can keep the country safe, you don’t get heard on the other stuff.” Can Dean beat Bush? “Absolutely impossible,” says Jordan.

 

That’s a bit premature and categorical for an election that is 15 months away. In fact, it’s still too early for even the savviest political operatives to plausibly war-game the results of the Democratic caucuses and primaries, which don’t begin for more than five months, an eternity in politics. Any of the six major candidates—Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards and Sen. Bob Graham—still has some chance to win.

 

INTO THE RECYCLING BIN?

Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Biden and retired Gen. Wesley Clark—urged on by still-uncommitted fellow Arkansan and Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton—are now thought to be leaning toward late-entry candidacies. (Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun and the Rev. Al Sharpton will introduce differing perspectives to the campaign but aren’t plausible nominees.) With all Democrats operating in Clinton’s large shadow, the trail is not well marked yet. The harmful gaffes, memorable one-liners and policy pirouettes of a presidential contest—any of which can be more important than money—remain well down the road. One arrogant remark by Dean in a debate could send all his hard work into the recycling bin.

 

Despite a strong sense among most Democrats that Bush has changed the country radically for the worse, it’s not even clear yet how valuable the Democratic nomination will turn out to be. The president is starting to sag in the polls, with questions about his credibility, broken promises and fiscal management finally sticking. But if the economy rebounds and produces new jobs and family-income growth (the key indicators to watch politically), he’ll be hard for anyone to beat. And even in a so-so economy, he’s still seen by most voters as a likable wartime leader.

 

The old Will Rogers line—”I’m a member of no organized political party; I’m a Democrat”—seems especially apt this year. The party is not so much divided ideologically as it is confused tactically. The old labels are increasingly useless. Dean, for instance, is hardly an old-fashioned big- spending liberal. As governor from 1991 to 2002, he repeatedly balanced the budget, though Vermont is the only state that doesn’t require him to do so by law; the NRA gives him high ratings. Graham of Florida, usually thought of as a moderate, is a relentless critic of the Iraq war.

 

INTRAPARTY STRUGGLES

Most of the intraparty domestic-policy disputes are at the margins, though that will hardly make them any less fierce. The growing clash between those who favor full repeal of the Bush tax cuts (Dean and Gephardt) versus the others who favor partial repeal is a tactical—not ideological—struggle over whether the full repealers can later be stigmatized by Bush for raising taxes on the middle class. (All the Democrats want to use Bush’s tax cuts for health care, a popular trade-off in the polls.) Like the squabbling over the war, the tax debate is at bottom about how best to play defense and inoculate themselves against the $200 million Bush media barrage, plus the talk-radio/cable-TV “elephant echo chamber” that is sure to amplify the GOP message.

 

The Democrats’ biggest problem is that they, too, often look weak, especially when they fail to confront the party’s own single-issue activists. “The interest groups don’t really like to win,” says James Carville, who helped his old client Clinton stand up to the special pleaders in 1992. “They just want a big ass-kissing festival.” Carville says the Democrats lag behind the competition in this area: “The Republicans don’t make Bush go to the NRA convention and hold an assault weapon up over his head for the crowd.” Carville suggests that instead of Dean’s going before abortion-rights activists and pledging his support for late-term abortion (which could prove harmful in a general election) or Lieberman’s apologizing to the NAACP for not attending its convention, some candidate should advocate civil unions before the Baptist convention or oppose the war at the American Legion. That would show strength, he says.

 

Dean’s answer to that challenge is to play hard-charging offense—even when it proves offensive to other Democrats. He first broke through at the winter party meeting by grabbing the late liberal Sen. Paul Wellstone’s line that he is from “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” This tapped in perfectly to the anger many Democrats felt toward the Washington party establishment for going soft on Bush.

 

And he’s in sync with the underlying dynamics of his party’s nominating system. Orderly Republicans have for half a century nominated through primogeniture—the candidate whose “turn” it is gets the nod. Rebellious Democrats usually nominate through insurgency—outsiders who storm the barricades. One danger for Dean—and his people know it—is that he may have peaked too soon, leaving room for another entrant to ride a popular wave.

 

TWO OF A KIND?

By background, Dean, a WASP native of Park Avenue, now 54 years old, is no more a man of the people than Bush. Both went to prep school and Yale in the 1960s (Bush was three years ahead), both figured out how to avoid serving in Vietnam, both gave up drinking after party-hearty years (Dean much earlier) and both tried business first, with Dean deciding after a brief stint on Wall Street that he didn’t much like his father’s occupation and wanted to go to medical school instead. He and his wife, Dr. Judith Steinberg, settled into a family practice in Vermont. The death of a politically active brother, Charlie, which may have happened at the hands of Laotian communist guerrillas, hit him hard, he told NEWSWEEK’s Howard Fineman, and he was in therapy for a time.

 

In 1978, Dean got involved in politics when he championed the establishment of a bicycle path around Lake Champlain, then stuffed envelopes in Jimmy Carter’s 1980 re-election campaign, preferring him to the more liberal Ted Kennedy. After a stint in the part-time Vermont state legislature, he became the part-time lieutenant governor. While examining a patient one day in 1991, Dean learned that Gov. Richard Snelling had died of a heart attack. As he jokes to campaign audiences, he finished the exam because the patient had waited so long for an appointment, then he became governor.

 

During more than a decade running the tiny (population: 600,000), 97 percent white state, Dean focused on fiscal responsibility, child care and health-care reform. He lowered the state’s hefty income tax, improved its flagging bond rating with professional fiscal management and established a rainy-day fund that has proved useful recently as the state weathers the economic downturn better than others. On social issues, he resisted most liberal blandishments. But he did establish a child-abuse prevention program that helped cut abuse cases by 30 percent; he signed a bill that shifted money from wealthy school districts to poorer ones (ticking off novelist John Irving and others, who moved to wealthier communities in search of better schools), and, over time, he expanded health-care coverage to include all children and most adults.

 

A FIRE-BREATHING CENTRIST?

Early on, Dean was forced to apologize for saying that if welfare recipients “had any self-esteem, they’d be working,” and generally developed a reputation as a centrist. Vermonters say they barely recognize the fire-breathing neopopulist now exhorting liberal audiences to “Take your country back!” But the pugnaciousness is familiar enough. Last year he strutted like a little Napoleon onto the floor of the usually genteel Vermont State Senate, stuck his finger menacingly into the face of 76-year-old Sen. Bill Doyle, then shouted: “You’re willfully obstructing this session!”

 

Dean almost lost his 2000 re-election campaign over the backlash against the first-in-the-nation legalization of “civil unions,” which gives gay partners hospital visitation and inheritance rights. After a Vermont Supreme Court decision, the legislature sent him a bill, which Dean says he signed without a public ceremony in order to quell divisiveness. Some Vermont gay activists claimed he signed it “in the closet”; he insists he helped push the bill through.

 

Dean makes a point that civil unions are “not marriage” and that the whole issue is none of the federal government’s business. But he concedes the issue will hurt him in the South, where polls show him trailing the president by larger margins than other Democrats. Merle Black, a political-science professor at Atlanta’s Emory University, says Southerners would have “no use for him at all” and predicts that many Democratic officeholders in the region would fail to campaign with him. But Black thinks the problem is more stylistic than related to his position on particular issues: “He’s a New Yorker. He’s very aggressive. For voters who are not ideological, they look at candidates and see if they think he’s a nice guy. I don’t think Dean is that nice guy.”

 

It’s exactly this tough demeanor that Dean’s team thinks will help prevent him from being turned into a weenie by Republicans, as Michael Dukakis was in 1988. “He’s not going to take it,” says Joe Trippi, the campaign manager and master architect. “He’s going to be up in Bush’s face.” The problem, of course, is that Bush can stick to the high road and let his minions go negative, as he did in 2000. And over time, Dean’s pugnacity might not wear well with voters, who usually favor buoyant, warm personalities.

 

His immediate rival among the Democrats, Kerry from neighboring Massachusetts, is a decorated Vietnam veteran with his own reputation for toughness. It’s unclear whether Kerry, in the crunch, will exploit the fact that in the early 1970s Dean got a medical deferment from the draft for a bad back not long before he spent the winter skiing the bumps in Aspen. Campaign chief Jordan says Kerry won’t raise the matter himself but he doesn’t forswear accentuating the contrast at some point. The six primary debates this year could prove critical. Kerry is a more experienced debater than Dean, as are Gephardt and the avuncular Lieberman. Edwards’s Clintonian message could resonate, and his trial-lawyer capacity to frame issues in everyday ways might rival Dean’s reputation for speaking English instead of Washingtonese.

 

But while Edwards was hurt by a weak performance in “the Russert primary” (NBC’s “Meet the Press”), Dean’s testy and unpresidential appearance on the show on June 22 (he likened one question about force structure in the U.S. military to “asking me who the ambassador to Rwanda is”) didn’t hurt him at all. In fact, his fund-raising surged that Sunday, testament, perhaps, to a feeling among some liberals that the media are now on “the other side.” In truth, Dean is no favorite of working reporters, who tend to like their candidates funny and solicitous. So do voters.

 

Dean knows he needs to be less angry and more uplifting to go the distance. “A campaign of hope beats a campaign of fear every time,” he says. And by stressing his support for more troops in Afghanistan, he seems determined to show that he knows pacifism is a big loser. “It’s not if you’re against the war that matters,” notes Carville, differing with the Democratic Leadership Council crowd. “It’s how and why you’re against the war.” His advice to Democrats wary of Dean is to “give him a chance.” If he moves to the center nimbly enough to win the nomination, he will be, almost by definition, a good enough politician to be competitive with Bush in Nov-ember. As for winning the presidency without the South, Trippi likes to point out that with the Gore states plus New Hampshire, the Democrat wins in November.

 

In 1932, President Herbert Hoover’s first choice for the other party’s nomination was a crippled liberal governor named Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1980, much of President Jimmy Carter’s team thought that a too-conservative former governor named Ronald Reagan would be the easiest to beat. Karl Rove and the graybeards of the Democratic Party might turn out to be right that Bush would eat Howard Dean’s lunch in 2004. But Dean has already proved that he can go a long way on just a turkey sandwich.

 

I suspect he will take Lieberman in the polls and get narrowly slighted at the Primaries by Jimmy Dean, who will then go all the way and win the White House because what red-blooded American CAN'T unite around something like Jimmy Dean?

[Guest Vyce]

I'm still not buying the centrist label.

 

The fact alone that Tyler is supporting him tells me all I need to know about Howard Dean.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Because you know my stance on all the issues.

 

Try reading the guy's platform and lay off of the ignorant Bush love.

[Guest JMA]

I have read Howard Dean's platform. And I have to say... I like what I see. He's a pretty liberal guy, which is something I like. He'll get my vote IF he makes it past the primaries.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Because you know my stance on all the issues.

 

Try reading the guy's platform and lay off of the ignorant Bush love.

Maybe Dean should make his platform known to me if he wants my vote.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

He does, you just don't care to listen to any of his speeches.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

The fact alone that Tyler is supporting him tells me all I need to know about Howard Dean.

Except that Tyler doesn't agree with everything on Dean's agenda. I called him on it once and he gave me this big "yeah yeah, so I don't agree with 100% of his platform, lay off" kind of response. =b

[Guest Cerebus]

Anyone see the potential for Dean to become Dukakized come next September?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Anyone see the potential for Dean to become Dukakized come next September?

No. Dukakis was spineless and a far-left liberal. Dean has balls and he's a centrist. Once his record comes to bear, the people will realize just how legitimate a candidate he is.

[Guest Cerebus]

We'll see...I'm still not convinced (despite you blazing his name on your sig) that he could really appeal to the mainstream any more than Bush could.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I encourage you to watch a speech or two of his... then tell me he can't connect to mainstream people.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

An Alter article about Howie -- I'm shocked that it's complimentary...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Anyone see the potential for Dean to become Dukakized come next September?

No. Dukakis was spineless and a far-left liberal. Dean has balls and he's a centrist. Once his record comes to bear, the people will realize just how legitimate a candidate he is.

His record as governor, you mean? I don't think that's going to become relevant, at least not in a positive way. In the primaries, and in the election (if he makes it that far), the centrepieces of debate will be his absolute opposition to war in Iraq and his determination to repeal every last cent of the President's tax cut. Given that we're likely to have captured or killed Saddam Hussein by then, and given that the economy will only continue to recover from the recent marginal recession, his timing couldn't be worse. His stance on homosexual marriage will alienate portions of the middle, and his (incoherent) state's rights stance on gun control will alienate portions of his base. Even if his present momentum carries him through the primaries (which is still a long shot; I'd give better than 5 to 1 odds against) the man is fundamentally unelectable.

 

Note that I'm not arguing for or against him (except when he says that he wants to subvert the Constitution by making state laws trump federal laws) right now. This post is an objective analysis of his chances as of 08/05/03.

Edited August 5, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

In the primaries, and in the election (if he makes it that far), the centrepieces of debate will be his absolute opposition to war in Iraq and his determination to repeal every last cent of the President's tax cut.

 

I think you're overrepresenting the man's words, here. This is equivilant to my saying that Bush absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will never go to war with North Korea because he said he supports diplomacy there, once.

 

No, Dean has said MANY times -- including last night, on Larry King Live -- that he did not support the reasons for war, and he thinks the Presidents justiification was bogus.

 

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D-CT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: A candidate who was opposed to the war against Saddam, who has called for the repeal of all of the Bush tax cuts, which would result in an increase in taxes on the middle class, I believe will not offer the kind of leadership America needs to meet the challenges that we face today. And as I said in my prepared remarks, I believe that that kind of candidate could lead the Democratic Party into the political wilderness for a long time to come. Could be really a ticket to no where.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

KING: Your reaction?

 

DEAN: Well, obviously I don't agree.

 

I think the four candidates from Washington that voted for the war, Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards and Representative Gephardt basically gave the president carte blanche in October to launch a preemptive strike and the evidence wasn't there.

 

Let's look at what the president said. He told us that he was buying -- that Iraq was buying uranium from Africa. That wasn't true. He told us -- or the vice president that Iraq was on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. That wasn't true. The president told us there was a clear link between al Qaeda and Iraq. That wasn't true. The secretary of defense told us he knew exactly where the weapons were, right around Tikrit and Baghdad. That wasn't true. So if I could figure that with my foreign policy team as a governor from Vermont, my question is why should we be led by people who couldn't figure that out and who voted to give the president unilateral authority to attack Iraq?

 

KING: Are you hurt, though, that a fellow Democrat taking you on like that?

 

DEAN: Listen, if that's the worst I get in this campaign, I'll be in good shape.

 

Look, these guys have worked hard. They want to be president. Any one of them would be better than the president they have now. But what our party really has to have is some backbone. We are not going to beat George Bush by voting for things like No Child Left Behind, which is a huge middle class tax increase, property tax increase. We're not going to beat him by doing as Senator Lieberman and others did, voting for some of the president's tax cuts because those tax cuts have really harmed our economy and taken jobs away from Americans; and we're not going to beat the president without casting a critical eye on the statements that he made leading up to the Iraq war, when so many of them have now turned out not to be so.

 

KING: You're not unhappy that Saddam Hussein is not in power though, are you?

 

DEAN: No, I think it's great that Saddam Hussein is not in power, but I would have approached it in a very different way. And I think the jury is still out in terms of how much danger to the United States this poses.

 

Now that we're there, we can't get out. We cannot afford to lose the peace. That's not an option. Now that we're there, we have to find a way to make sure that a chaotic situation doesn't develop or, worse, a fundamentalist regime with Iranian influence doesn't develop. And the first thing we really ought to be doing is bringing NATO and the United Nations in so we can send some of our reserves home.

 

By no means is this an radical, or even irrational, point of view. It won't be as much of an issue as you're making it out to be.

 

On the tax cuts, the rhetoric has stated that he wants to repeal most of them, yes. However, this shouldn't discourage the middle class; after all, it barely affected them anyway. In exchange, he's going to sow the seeds of affordable health care for everyone, while not falling into the single-payer method trap. (for more on Dean's health care plan, see this link)

 

I think Health Care will be a HUGE issue once the debates with Bush begin. President Bush's health care plans, if you can call Medicare "prescription drug benefits" a health care plan, have been lax and this should play as a major issue in the election.

 

Given that we're likely to have captured or killed Saddam Hussein by then,

 

Perhaps, but who's to say that will stop our casualties in Iraq?

 

and given that the economy will only continue to recover from the recent marginal recession

 

The job market is still as stagnant as it ever was. President Bush is still well on pace to being the first president since Hoover to have negative job growth during his presidency; you don't think this will be a MAJOR fucking issue by the time the general election rolls around?

 

His stance on homosexual marriage will alienate the middle

 

You should probably do more research on his position before you declare a truism like that. Again, from Larry King last night:

 

KING: Let's talk about other issues. The president said he wants to codify a law that secures the fact that there will be no gay marriage. Vermont has what, gay union?

 

DEAN: We have civil unions, which gives equal rights -- doesn't give marriage, but it gives equal rights in terms of insurance, employment rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, to every single Vermonter, no matter who they are.

 

You know, interestingly enough, Dick Cheney took a position in 2000 in the debates that is not very different than mine. He said, this is not a federal issue. I really am inclined to leave this matter to the states, and I think we ought to let states figure out how to give equal rights to everybody in the way that they do it. So I think this is kind of a political issue at the federal level, but the power to decide these things really belongs to the state level.

 

KING: All right. On your own state level, if it were a referendum, would you vote for gay marriage?

 

DEAN: If what were -- we don't have a referendum in my state, and we have civil unions, and we deliberate chose civil unions, because we didn't think marriage was necessary in order to give equal rights to all people.

 

Marriage is a religious institution, the way I see it. And we're not in the business of telling churches who they can and cannot marry. But in terms of civil rights and equal rights under the law for all Americans, that is the state's business, and that's why we started civil unions.

 

KING: So you would be opposed to a gay marriage?

 

DEAN: If other states want to do it, that's their business. We didn't choose to do that in our state.

 

KING: And you personally would oppose it?

 

DEAN: I don't know, I never thought about that very much, because we didn't do it in our state for that reason. The body politic agreed in our state that it wasn't the thing to do, so we didn't do it.

 

I'll tell you what I will do, though. If Massachusetts decides that they're going to do gay marriage, I believe there is a federal involvement, and the federal involvement is not to recognize marriage or civil unions but it is to recognize equal rights under the law. So that if a couple enters into a domestic partnership, or a gay marriage in Canada, or a civil union in Vermont, I think those couples are entitled to federal benefits.

 

This is neither radical nor irrational, and I certainly don't think centrists will turn away from a state's rights position on homosexual marriage.

 

and his (incoherent) state's rights stance on gun control will alienate his base.

 

Doubtful. He's stated that he supports vigorously enforcing the current federal gun laws, but he opposes any further federal regulation of gun rights. He then says that any additional regulation of gun laws should be left up to the states. This makes perfect sense, even if you won't admit it; NYC obviously needs stricter gun laws than, say, Vermont.

 

Even if his present momentum carries him through the primaries (which is still a long shot; I'd give better than 5 to 1 odds against)

 

I suppose we simply differ on that point, then.

 

the man is fundamentally unelectable.

 

No more so than Ronald Reagan.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You're arguing over parsed and nuanced (not to mention selective) evidence rather than an assessment of political vulnerability. I'm not willing to enter that debate at this moment, so you can leave your rhetoric and your injunctions to "do more research" behind. They will be ignored.

 

Of course the capture or killing of Saddam Hussein will not stop occasional gurreilla strikes. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that merely finding him, dead or alive, will make the war a greater success, and it will also cause it to be seen as a greater success. Given the timeline, this will serve to hinder Dean's criticisms of the war, whatever their validity.

 

Dean's comments on gay rights amount to an endorsement of gay marriage, no matter how carefully he chooses his words. Giving gays equal benefits under federal law is something that most Americans are not prepared to do.

 

Health care reform is a political minefield. Merely glancing in its direction crippled Clinton's presidency for months. If Howard Dean tries to enter it he will be destroyed, and no one in the RNC will have to lift a finger to do it. As for the job market, it's an artificial crisis. The economy is in good shape and the unemployment figures are very low. Again, the total wealth of the median is increasing; all figures currently available indicate that the recovery will continue and pick up pace for the foreseeable future, and attacking an incumbent on the economy under those circumstances is a recipe for failure. Again, I'm not defending the President, and I'm not attacking Dean. It doesn't matter what the state of the economy is now. All that matters is that it will be seen to be improving, and improving substantially, when it becomes a campaign issue. And if Dean chooses to make it a centrepiece of his strategy he will fail.

 

Parenthetically, concerning North Korea, the President has clearly stated that "All options are on the table," including the use of military force. Thus your hypothetical statement that "Bush absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will never go to war with North Korea because he said he supports diplomacy there, once" would simply be a lie.

 

You're trying to defend Howard Dean. That's understandable; you're committed to him personally. But I'm not attacking him and I'm not calling his positions irrational or unjustified. I'm pointing out that, whatever my personal opinions of them, his positions are politically untenable. This is the same advice I would give him if I were on his campaign team. He is making amateur mistakes and they will cost him.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Of course the capture or killing of Saddam Hussein will not stop occasional gurreilla strikes. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that merely finding him, dead or alive, will make the war a greater success, and it will also cause it to be seen as a greater success. Given the timeline, this will serve to hinder Dean's criticisms of the war, whatever their validity.

 

I agree that it will be less of a "failure" (for lack of a better term, I'm talking about perception) if we catch/kill Saddam. However, I still believe the public is very wary about getting ourselves into a long-term situation in Iraq. I don't think it will be as huge of a "failure" to be against this war as is being estimated right now.

 

Dean's comments on gay rights amount to an endorsement of gay marriage, no matter how carefully he chooses his words. Giving gays equal benefits under federal law is something that most Americans are not prepared to do.

 

Personally (and, I of course admit that I'm not a representative sample of Americans or anything), I do believe that unions and "marriage" are totally different things. One is a religious institution that should not be legislated upon, and the other involves equal protection under the law. You may be right that people are not ready for that, but then again, it's not necessarily Howard's central plank. He supports it, but he's not running on the legalization of gay marriages (or even civil unions).

 

It won't hurt him in the primaries, because almost none of the demcrats have enough spine to bring the issue up. I'm interested to see how it will play in a debate, though; I can't necessarily say as a truism that Bush will be able to defend not giving gay people civil rights, and this may temper the blow to Dean's campaign.

 

Health care reform is a political minefield. Merely glancing in its direction crippled Clinton's presidency for months.

 

I think Clinton's plan was, perhaps, ahead of its time and not organized remotely well enough to be passed. He went after the single-payer plan, correct? If so, I think that's a totally different subject. Howard is suggesting an increase in Medicare to cover people up to 200% (I believe) of the poverty line, and then offering incentives and tax breaks to corporations to cover their employees. This is, likely, more acceptable than a single payer plan.

 

As far as how it will play with the public, I'm not necessarily sure. It's risky, but then again, it could hit huge and carry him to the presidency if he plays his cards right. I don't think any of us can make that qualification, though, because the mainstream media and, generally, people in tune with the political spectrum have proven to be so utterly incorrect in the past ten years that no one can assert anything without question.

 

As for the job market, it's an artificial crisis. The economy is in good shape and the unemployment figures are very low.

 

Judging by how difficult it is for people I know (even myself, before my current job) to get jobs, I don't believe it's artificial at all. For as "low" as the figures are, they're still the highest figures in a very long time, and they don't even account those who have stopped looking for jobs. The economy is mixed, as viewed most clearly by the Dow Jones; some days, there is positive news... some days, there isn't. It doesn't seem to be getting any worse (though, the job market could be construed that way with the July unemployment report), but it's not necessarily getting any better. The GDP went up because of the tax cuts, but I'd venture to say that the middle class didn't gain a whole lot of GDP. It was probably a gain in the higher incomes that sparked the increase, but then again, that's just speculation.

 

Parenthetically, concerning North Korea, the President has clearly stated that "All options are on the table," including the use of military force. Thus your hypothetical statement that "Bush absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will never go to war with North Korea because he said he supports diplomacy there, once" would simply be a lie.

 

Oh, I know. It was simply a hyperbole to demonstrate that one comment can be taken a long ways. Dean isn't as dovish as the media plays him to be, certainly. His positions on some other countries are as hard-line as Bush, and painting him as a dove because he opposed the particular war in Iraq isn't necessarily true.

 

You're trying to defend Howard Dean. That's understandable; you're committed to him personally. But I'm not attacking him and I'm not calling his positions irrational or unjustified. I'm pointing out that, whatever my personal opinions of them, his positions are politically untenable. This is the same advice I would give him if I were on his campaign team. He is making amateur mistakes and they will cost him.

 

I do apologize for not continuing the debate well in my last post. I've simply been defending him so much on other boards that it truly irks me to see people misrepresent his views; it wasn't really a dig at you, it was more just a knee-jerk reaction.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

By the way, here's a very good article on how the DLC and Joe Lieberman's quest to bring the party even closer to the right is a disaster... and some surprising quotes that further support the Reagan comparison than the McGovern comparison.

 

http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mht...l?bid=1&pid=871

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Anyone see the potential for Dean to become Dukakized come next September?

No. Dukakis was spineless and a far-left liberal. Dean has balls and he's a centrist. Once his record comes to bear, the people will realize just how legitimate a candidate he is.

He's a McGovern for this generation.

 

Smell the slaughter.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The parallels are far closer to Reagan, not McGovern.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Of course the capture or killing of Saddam Hussein will not stop occasional gurreilla strikes. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that merely finding him, dead or alive, will make the war a greater success, and it will also cause it to be seen as a greater success. Given the timeline, this will serve to hinder Dean's criticisms of the war, whatever their validity.

 

I agree that it will be less of a "failure" (for lack of a better term, I'm talking about perception) if we catch/kill Saddam. However, I still believe the public is very wary about getting ourselves into a long-term situation in Iraq. I don't think it will be as huge of a "failure" to be against this war as is being estimated right now.

 

Dean's comments on gay rights amount to an endorsement of gay marriage, no matter how carefully he chooses his words. Giving gays equal benefits under federal law is something that most Americans are not prepared to do.

 

Personally (and, I of course admit that I'm not a representative sample of Americans or anything), I do believe that unions and "marriage" are totally different things. One is a religious institution that should not be legislated upon, and the other involves equal protection under the law. You may be right that people are not ready for that, but then again, it's not necessarily Howard's central plank. He supports it, but he's not running on the legalization of gay marriages (or even civil unions).

 

It won't hurt him in the primaries, because almost none of the demcrats have enough spine to bring the issue up. I'm interested to see how it will play in a debate, though; I can't necessarily say as a truism that Bush will be able to defend not giving gay people civil rights, and this may temper the blow to Dean's campaign.

 

Health care reform is a political minefield. Merely glancing in its direction crippled Clinton's presidency for months.

 

I think Clinton's plan was, perhaps, ahead of its time and not organized remotely well enough to be passed. He went after the single-payer plan, correct? If so, I think that's a totally different subject. Howard is suggesting an increase in Medicare to cover people up to 200% (I believe) of the poverty line, and then offering incentives and tax breaks to corporations to cover their employees. This is, likely, more acceptable than a single payer plan.

 

As far as how it will play with the public, I'm not necessarily sure. It's risky, but then again, it could hit huge and carry him to the presidency if he plays his cards right. I don't think any of us can make that qualification, though, because the mainstream media and, generally, people in tune with the political spectrum have proven to be so utterly incorrect in the past ten years that no one can assert anything without question.

 

As for the job market, it's an artificial crisis. The economy is in good shape and the unemployment figures are very low.

 

Judging by how difficult it is for people I know (even myself, before my current job) to get jobs, I don't believe it's artificial at all. For as "low" as the figures are, they're still the highest figures in a very long time, and they don't even account those who have stopped looking for jobs. The economy is mixed, as viewed most clearly by the Dow Jones; some days, there is positive news... some days, there isn't. It doesn't seem to be getting any worse (though, the job market could be construed that way with the July unemployment report), but it's not necessarily getting any better. The GDP went up because of the tax cuts, but I'd venture to say that the middle class didn't gain a whole lot of GDP. It was probably a gain in the higher incomes that sparked the increase, but then again, that's just speculation.

 

Parenthetically, concerning North Korea, the President has clearly stated that "All options are on the table," including the use of military force. Thus your hypothetical statement that "Bush absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will never go to war with North Korea because he said he supports diplomacy there, once" would simply be a lie.

 

Oh, I know. It was simply a hyperbole to demonstrate that one comment can be taken a long ways. Dean isn't as dovish as the media plays him to be, certainly. His positions on some other countries are as hard-line as Bush, and painting him as a dove because he opposed the particular war in Iraq isn't necessarily true.

 

You're trying to defend Howard Dean. That's understandable; you're committed to him personally. But I'm not attacking him and I'm not calling his positions irrational or unjustified. I'm pointing out that, whatever my personal opinions of them, his positions are politically untenable. This is the same advice I would give him if I were on his campaign team. He is making amateur mistakes and they will cost him.

 

I do apologize for not continuing the debate well in my last post. I've simply been defending him so much on other boards that it truly irks me to see people misrepresent his views; it wasn't really a dig at you, it was more just a knee-jerk reaction.

Ah, point-by-point time again. I have actually grown to miss this.

 

1) The public is fully aware that a long-term situation is GOING to occur in Iraq and Bush made it QUITE clear very early on.

 

2) To the average American, there is NO difference between "civil union" and "gay marriage" (and the press won't help THAT change, either). It may not be Dean's "central plank" (does he even HAVE a "central plank") --- but what catches the people's attention the most is not always expected. And don't hold out the hope that the other Dems won't SLAUGHTER him over these things.

 

3) Clinton's plan was an idea whose time should NEVER come and Dean's idea will be an economic boondoggle that will make Medicaid and Medicare look cheap and well-managed by comparison. I can't say for certain that the populace will hate his plan --- but it's a rather safe assumption.

 

4) The Dow Jones --- as has been stated by people FAR more educated on economics than I --- is amongst the WORST indicators of economic health. It is impacted by idiotic trivialities and has had precious little actual linkage to the economy as a whole. Unemployment is STILL low and the recession, officially, ended back in November or so.

 

And, again, ANY tax cut will benefit the "rich" (a nebulous term, to say the least) as they actually PAY the MOST taxes by a healthy margin.

 

5) On what issues is as hard-line as Bush?

 

Dean is a left-wing guy. Sorry, but he is. And left-wing candidates CANNOT win elections. They never have and they never will.

 

And Bush has such an epic advantage monetarily --- and Clinton's playbook of simply running ads promoting himself while the opposition tears each other up in the primaries --- that a loss is unlikely.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

The parallels are far closer to Reagan, not McGovern.

Not really. Reagan NEARLY won the GOP nomination in '76 against Pres. Ford --- so he was clearly legitimate nationally BEFORE 1980 (even if the press ignored it).

 

Dean is more similar to Steve Forbes in '96. Gets hot early, looks like a favorite, and will then likely fall to the wayside.

-=Mike

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Tonight on C-SPAN at 2000 hours EDT:

 

Democratic Presidential Debate

The AFL-CIO will host an event attended by all the Democratic candidates: Howard Dean, John Edwards, Bob Graham, Richard Gephardt, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Joseph Lieberman, Carol Moseley-Braun and Al Sharpton.

 

Be sure to watch it. I'm expecting some very entertaining fireworks.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

And don't hold out the hope that the other Dems won't SLAUGHTER him over these things.

 

All of the significant candidates support civil unions to some extent. I don't consider Lieberman a significant candidate.

 

5) On what issues is as hard-line as Bush?

 

Iran and North Korea.

 

Dean is a left-wing guy. Sorry, but he is. And left-wing candidates CANNOT win elections. They never have and they never will.

 

I can't help but disagree. There are quite a few examples of Dean's classic centrism (i.e. state's rights and fiscal responsibility, to name two), and just because he supports affordable healthcare doesn't mean he's a far-left liberal. He's following the Reagan plan of speaking to the activists in the primaries, and then running on his record in the general. I am confident it will work.

 

4) The Dow Jones --- as has been stated by people FAR more educated on economics than I --- is amongst the WORST indicators of economic health. It is impacted by idiotic trivialities and has had precious little actual linkage to the economy as a whole. Unemployment is STILL low and the recession, officially, ended back in November or so.

 

I had points about the job market in my previous post, so I won't go over that. However, the job market situation is, in effect, a bigger concern to most people than the median GDP. Playing that down would be a considerable mistake for Bush, and considering the fact that he has a terrible job record, I find it hard to believe that he isn't at least marginally vulnerable in 2004.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The parallels are far closer to Reagan, not McGovern.

Not really. Reagan NEARLY won the GOP nomination in '76 against Pres. Ford --- so he was clearly legitimate nationally BEFORE 1980 (even if the press ignored it).

 

Dean is more similar to Steve Forbes in '96. Gets hot early, looks like a favorite, and will then likely fall to the wayside.

-=Mike

Forbes never had the grassroots support of Dean, though. I'll borrow someone else's explaination of the Reagan-Dean similarities, since I need to get back to work sometime

 

I'd argue that forcefulness for Dean works in the same way that softness worked for Reagan: in each case it ran counter to the party's image problem (Dems "too soft", conservatives "too mean").

 

I think the 1980/2004 analogy goes even further. In each case, one party's long-standing coalition had collapsed 12 years earlier, abetted by a third party candidate (Wallace/Perot). The winner of that election had scored easy re-election, but a scandal in the second term led to a very thin (or non-existent)-margined victory for the out party -- which, in each case, had run a relatively little-known governor whose pitch was that he wasn't so far to the wing as most of his party. Each of those winners was artificially boosted by a foreign policy mishap (the hostage crisis and 9/11), but also suffered from a troubled economy (though Carter's was more inflation-based). And (if Dean is the nominee) each will face opposition from a guy derided in pundit circles as too far to his wing -- but one who seems to win enthusiastic support from voters that confound conventional wisdom.

 

This is in addition to the scary close quotes brought up in the Nation article.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Tonight on C-SPAN at 2000 hours EDT:

 

Democratic Presidential Debate

The AFL-CIO will host an event attended by all the Democratic candidates: Howard Dean, John Edwards, Bob Graham, Richard Gephardt, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Joseph Lieberman, Carol Moseley-Braun and Al Sharpton.

 

Be sure to watch it. I'm expecting some very entertaining fireworks.

If last night's Larry King was any indicator about Dean's behavior towards other candidates, expect him to be much more mellow than you'd expect.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

And don't hold out the hope that the other Dems won't SLAUGHTER him over these things.

 

All of the significant candidates support civil unions to some extent. I don't consider Lieberman a significant candidate.

 

5) On what issues is as hard-line as Bush?

 

Iran and North Korea.

 

Dean is a left-wing guy. Sorry, but he is. And left-wing candidates CANNOT win elections. They never have and they never will.

 

I can't help but disagree. There are quite a few examples of Dean's classic centrism (i.e. state's rights and fiscal responsibility, to name two), and just because he supports affordable healthcare doesn't mean he's a far-left liberal. He's following the Reagan plan of speaking to the activists in the primaries, and then running on his record in the general. I am confident it will work.

 

4) The Dow Jones --- as has been stated by people FAR more educated on economics than I --- is amongst the WORST indicators of economic health. It is impacted by idiotic trivialities and has had precious little actual linkage to the economy as a whole. Unemployment is STILL low and the recession, officially, ended back in November or so.

 

I had points about the job market in my previous post, so I won't go over that. However, the job market situation is, in effect, a bigger concern to most people than the median GDP. Playing that down would be a considerable mistake for Bush, and considering the fact that he has a terrible job record, I find it hard to believe that he isn't at least marginally vulnerable in 2004.

1) When a candidate gets desperate, he will get hammered. And he will be hammered on other issues. Don't think Sharpton won't annihilate him at some point on this issue. He has the problem of A LOT of absolute joke candidates in the field who will do anything for attention.

 

2) North Korea has nukes and an insane leader. Might not be a bad idea to be diplomatic. As for Iran, if Bush sent troops there, he'd be ripped to shreds for doing so. Bush is dealing with a lot of issues presently.

 

3) Reagan had the benefit of running against a man who is, easily, amongst the 5 worst Presidents in US history and who had the raw charisma of linoleum. You can't afford to play to the activists in the primaries and THEN go mainstream afterwards as you will get destroyed for being "inconsistent"

 

4) I found my job rather easily and we're hiring left and right still. The economy is in recovery and, unlike with Bush Sr., the press won't be able to gloss over that fact.

 

Is Bush marginally vulnerable in 2004? Yup.

 

But only against a credible and competent opponent and I don't see any in the Dem field.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

1) When a candidate gets desperate, he will get hammered. And he will be hammered on other issues. Don't think Sharpton won't annihilate him at some point on this issue. He has the problem of A LOT of absolute joke candidates in the field who will do anything for attention.

 

Fortunately for Dean, all of the candidates (sans Lieberman) support civil unions to some extent.

 

2) North Korea has nukes and an insane leader. Might not be a bad idea to be diplomatic. As for Iran, if Bush sent troops there, he'd be ripped to shreds for doing so. Bush is dealing with a lot of issues presently.

 

I was referring to Dean, and both of them share a relatively hard line stance on both of those countries.

 

3) Reagan had the benefit of running against a man who is, easily, amongst the 5 worst Presidents in US history and who had the raw charisma of linoleum. You can't afford to play to the activists in the primaries and THEN go mainstream afterwards as you will get destroyed for being "inconsistent"

 

Not necessarily. Rhetoric is far different from what is actual fact; Bush did it in 2000, Reagan did it in 1980, and Clinton did it in 1992. It's simply how this election game goes; you have to energize the activists in the primaries, and relate to the mainstream voters in the general election. It's not inconsistent, it's surprisingly normal.

 

4) I found my job rather easily and we're hiring left and right still. The economy is in recovery and, unlike with Bush Sr., the press won't be able to gloss over that fact.

 

That's not the case in many other areas.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

2) North Korea has nukes and an insane leader. Might not be a bad idea to be diplomatic.

 

Lord, how did I miss this gem?

 

Hey, uh, Mike... wasn't this the argument for INVADING Iraq?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

2) North Korea has nukes and an insane leader. Might not be a bad idea to be diplomatic.

 

Lord, how did I miss this gem?

 

Hey, uh, Mike... wasn't this the argument for INVADING Iraq?

No, the argument for Iraq was that Saddam was trying to GET nukes.

 

He did not have them YET. N. Korea HAS them.

 

When somebody HAS them, it becomes a more problematic situation.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Fair enough, but he HAD WMDs, didn't he?