Shifting Gears
It appears some of my liberal friends have become disenchanted with Dean. He’s like the losing race horse: Good out the gate but can’t make the long haul.
I wonder if we’ll see a mass exodus of Dean supporters switching to Clark? How do I feel about Clark? Well, being the single issue voter I am, he doesn’t pass the test at all.
It is probably a good idea for Democrats to switch to Clark. Why, you ask. I’ll tell you. Clark has a shot at beating Bush in the general election. Dean cannot. Of course, I doubt Clark can beat Dean in the primaries.
Note to Democrats: Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Maybe next time.
December 30th, 2003 at 10:37 am
SKB saying that he likes Clark better hardly qualifies as “disenchantment with Dean.” In fact, he goes out of his way to say that he still likes Dean a lot, and will support him 100% if he wins the nomination. To me, your summary looks like a gross mischaracterization of what Bubba is saying.
Further, I take some issue at the idea that we are all somehow “enchanted” with Dean, rather than actually having legitimate, rational reasons for supporting him.
December 30th, 2003 at 10:48 am
So, you take issue with one word instead of the point?
December 30th, 2003 at 11:17 am
Actually, I take issue with the point as well. I don’t think you’ll see a mass exodus away from Dean unless he performs less well than expected in the first few primaries.
I’m also not yet convinced that Dean can’t beat Bush, or that Clark can. Dean has the nasty streak that’s necessary to go up against Rove’s underhanded campaign tactics. I’m not sure Clark, being a political neophyte, does.
Bush is weak on the economy (deficit, for example), weak on civil liberties, weak on education (no white child left behind), weak on the environment (important to a LOT of voters), weak on health care (costs have gone up by half during his administration), weak on white-collar crime (Enron, WorldCom), and frankly, weak on national security.
Bush’s stance on affirmative action could cost him the hispanic vote that helped him win Florida. Properly phrased, the health care debate could win the soccer-mom vote for the Democrats. Those two constituencies would be more than enough to affect the outcome in 2004.
Steer the debate toward any of those points and away from “I got Saddam,” and Bush is definitely beatable. Remember, in 2000, he was in a statistical tie with Al Gore, who has all the personality of a paper plate. He’s not the Godlike über-candidate that a lot of conservatives paint him to be. He can be defeated by the right candidate, and I still think Dean might be that guy.
In fact, if I didn’t think Dean could beat Bush, I wouldn’t support Dean, no matter how much I might agree with him on the issues. Supporting an unelectable candidate would violate my “Anyone But Bush” doctrine.
Ed note: We don’t play google games here, comment adjusted to remove link.
December 30th, 2003 at 11:32 am
Bush’s stance on those issues would detract a few of his voters (votes he’s already not got anyway). The problem, imo, is not with Bush. It is with Dean. He’s too far left for the moderate swing voters. Of course he could (and i suspect will) change his tune if he wins the primary to appear more moderate.
Of course, it’s all speculation.
December 30th, 2003 at 11:38 am
See, then you have a dramatically different take on Dean than I do. Part of what makes him attractive is that he’s not as liberal as his supporters, something I’ve already covered here.
December 30th, 2003 at 11:38 am
And yeah, the “unelectable” thing was cheap, but I couldn’t resist. 🙂
December 31st, 2003 at 10:22 am
Dean isn’t that liberal?
Let’s see, he wants to make union membership mandatory, raise taxes on everybody, develop a socialized medical plan and force everyone into it, legalize gay marriage, dramatically expand the welfare state, and pretty much take America to where the Soviet Union was 2 decades ago.
On which issues is he centrist?
Reading the article tgirsch linked, it seems that rather than being a centrist, Dean is running the typical dem scheme, run left in the primary, then run to the center for the general election.
Another way of putting it is “lying your ass off to get elected.”
As the author says, “The Left loves Dean because he stands up to Bush and does not seem like a fast-footed career politician. If in actuality he is a fast-footed career politician, as the record suggests—well, so much the better.”
I love it when dems admit they have to deceive the voters to get elected.
The only problem is that his ‘center’ is still too far to the left for most Americans.
December 31st, 2003 at 1:10 pm
rich:
As you’ll recall, “lying your ass off to get elected” is hardly a Democrat-only tactic. Bush 43 ran as a moderate. Ha! He also ran on a no-nation-building platform. Oops!
On which issues is he centrist?
Women’s rights, gun control, immigration, the budget, and taxation (yes, taxation), to name a few. Let me turn it around: on which issues is Bush centrist, or even moderate?
As for the other stuff, let’s take it one thing at a time, shall we?
Let’s see, he wants to make union membership mandatory
I challenge you to prove that assertion. I don’t see anything in Dean’s labor policy statement that says any such thing. He only says that he wants to strengthen the right of people to unionize. In no way does that make unions “mandatory.”
…raise taxes on everybody…
Actually, what he wants to do is undo the fiscally irresponsible Bush Tax Cuts. Yes, this will in effect “raise taxes on everybody,” right back to the level they were at in 2001. Frankly, it’s the fiscally responsible thing to do.
You might recall that once upon a time, way back in 1997, the GOP proposed a “Balanced Budget Amendment,” one that would require Congress to provide funding for all spending initiatives. So much for that. The GOP wants to have its cake and eat it, too, by increasing spending (passed a record $2.1 trillion budget) while cutting taxes by several hundred billion. The result? A $1 trillion budget deficit in just two years.
…develop a socialized medical plan…
As health costs continue to skyrocket (over 49% increase in costs from 2000 to 2002), something we were told the “free market” would prevent, I think you’ll find public support for this becoming more mainstream. Some 44 million Americans are without health care, and that number grows every year. You can’t tell me they are all too lazy or too stupid to carry it. It’s hard to afford health care when your $20/hour full-time manufacturing job has been replaced with a $7/hour part-time retail job.
…legalize gay marriage…
According to the most recent poll I can find, roughly 40% of Americans support the idea, so while it may not be “centrist” per se, it’s hardly what I’d call a “fringe issue.” Apart from which, since when is it the government’s place to decide who you can and can’t marry?
dramatically expand the welfare state
You say “welfare state,” I say “social safety net.” Here’s an experiment for you: visit a few countries that don’t have a social safety net. Mexico or anywhere in Latin America will do; or if you think that’s an unfair comparison, try eastern Europe. If you can tell me with a straight face that you’d rather live there than here, we’ll talk.
and pretty much take America to where the Soviet Union was 2 decades ago.
Still afraid of the Commies, eh? That’s so 1980’s. Are you wearing the black flight pants, or the red ones? 🙂 But more to the point, Communism is state ownership of the means of economic production. I challenge you to show me that in Dean’s position. If you can’t, I will be forced to conclude that you either don’t know what you are talking about, or that you are deliberately equating things you do not like with a completely different thing that no one likes in order to smear the things you don’t like. You know, lying.