February 05, 2004
Barking up the wrong tree
Howard Dean’s descent did not begin with his semi-tantrum after the Iowa caucus. Personally, I still don’t understand what was so awful about his rant, but that’s off point for now. It was certainly the bottom. But it was not the beginning of his downfall, as it seems the media wants us to believe. Why did the candidate most identified with the fervently anti-war left finish a disappointing third in Iowa? Why is he now essentially dead in the water in race for the presidency?
Again, the common wisdom on this is that the Democrats do not feel Dean is 'electable'. But what does that REALLY mean? For the candidate who forged his identity as the anti-war Democrat, it meant his position on the war was untenable. Perhaps just plain wrong, at least with the majority of Americans. And those who supported him began to realize that.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the most fervent opponent of the Iraq war went into a tailspin soon after the December 16th capture of Saddam Hussein. His statement soon after that America was NOT safer after bringing Saddam into custody certainly did not help. America then realized that with President Dean, Saddam Hussein would still be president of Iraq and America would be under the thumb of the United Nations, placing our national security in the hands of a group of clowns who are more effective at raiding their own cafeteria than they are at getting member nations to comply with post 9/11 security resolutions.
In many ways, it really is a shame. Howard Dean was the first Democrat in, well, ever, that I could have trusted with my second amendment rights. He balanced his budget, and he will be the first to tell us that he's the only candidate to do that. He was actually much more conservative than many a Democrat, and could easily be more 'electable' than 'Lurch' Kerry.
Unfortunately, in his dash to the left, he went too far. His opposition to the Iraq war became a hindrance. His caustic opposition to the policy of preeminent action, while popular with the media and such celebrated foreign policy analysts as Janeane Garafolo and Michael Moore, was not in agreement with the thoughts of the American people. It appears now that it not even in agreement with most in his own party.
Posted by Rob B. at February 5, 2004 09:20 PMThe mood concerning the war is steadily deteriorating, Rob. Recent polls indicate that since the spike of approval in Mid-December (for obvious reasons), more people now disapprove of his handling of it.
The link for that is here: Approval Ratings
No, what I think sinks Dean in voter’s eyes is the sense of whether people outside of his constituency would vote for him. Dean was the first presidential candidate to wake up to the fact that accepting the conservative status quo, and not separating themselves from it, was the surest way to ensure Bush another term.
Once the Democrats realized where their constituency wanted them there, and the candidates started responding to that, the voters started looking for somebody to emerge as national frontrunner. And as of right now, Kerry enjoys a statistically solid lead ahead of Bush in the polls. People were looking for a candidate they could agree on, and one that wasn’t such an easy target for cheap tactics. Kerry can hand Bush his lungs on a plate if he tries to take him on in terms of empathy with the military, and I doubt Kerry will let This Bush roll over him the way the last Bush ran over Dukakis.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2004 11:14 PMI’m saddened by Dean’s decline, however I am glad he was part of the race…he gave heart to the Democrats again, and truly revolutionized the campaign process…
and for he is worth, he has a few really great idea’s too.
it’s great that his legacy will live on through Kerry, who stole most of his campaign ideas and made them his own.
ahhhh politics.
Posted by: rob at February 6, 2004 04:04 AMI agree that capture of Saddam was key to Dean’s downfall.
It is a bit weird and unfair, because he was ahead of the curve on the war. It is not unlike the idea of supporters of the Spanish Communists being criticized as “premature antifascists.” Dean was a premature war critic. Perversely, Kerry is being saved being his own spinelessness.
On the other hand, Dean has some responsibility for his fate. He may have fared better if he hadn’t emphasized his early opposition to the war so much. Even if he was right, it is academic in some sense because President Dean and President Kerry would be stick in the same quagmire.
Posted by: Woody Mena at February 6, 2004 10:08 AMI spent some time on the “Republicans for Dean” site and was interested in parts of his message. The problem with his campaign is not Dean or his record, it is with his supporters. While Dean seems to be quite moderate in a lot of areas, his supporters were made up of very angry progressive/liberals. I think they moved him way too far to the left, and it cost him especially on foreign policy.
His rant on breaking up the media I didn’t like and I would not have voted for him on his foreign policy alone, but he would have made the Presidency interesting (unlike Lurch as you call him).
Having just returned from Europe, I was amazed to find the Dem party in my State requiring “loyalty pledges” to vote in the primary. Luckily for us independents they flipped on that one at the last moment.
I didn’t buy the “unelectable” argument for a long time. Like many of his supporters, I thought that once he fought his way on to the national soap-box, he would be able to shed the “angry anti-war liberal” image, turn on the charm and start to focus on the positive aspects of his campaign, like health care, fiscal responsibility, the environment, etc. But once he got there, he didn’t know what to do. The “deer in headlights” Rolling Stone cover shot convinced me that he could never be president. However, whoever does get the nomination will owe Dean a debt of gratitude.
Posted by: aegris at February 6, 2004 01:03 PMThanks all for the comments! Been home sick today, so I hand’t had a chance to respond till now. I agree with many of your comments, especially where it has to do with Kerry being saved by his own spinelessness and Dean not knowing what do as the primaries approached…
Posted by: Rob B. at February 6, 2004 03:34 PM
Sorry Rob B., but your take on the Dean downfall is off the mark and has the aroma of apologist bias.
I got a seat upfront on the Dean bandwagon nearly 18 months ago. Yes, I opposed the war, but that was not the all encompassing closer for me. It was the straight-talk bluntness of a proven moderate with the persona to energize the base, then the country. I’m unemployed and still donated $100 dollars to his campaign.
The fall of Howard Dean had only two ingredients: Electability and the ‘I Have A Scream’ speech. Period.
If Dean’s remark of a still unsafe America is false, why haven’t attacks and US casualities ebbed, if not ceased, after Saddam’s capture?
Why are international flights being cancelled?
Facts are surfacing that the most accurate of all intel on Iraq came from - The U.N.
With the U.N. aiding in our national security, Hans Blix’s work would have shortly revealed what we know now - Saddam was bluffing and had destroyed his weapons.
And yes, he would be still ruling Iraq, but 435 American lives would’ve been saved and 1,000 wounded, avoided.
Your assumption that America is resigned to have at least toppled Saddam, is premature. After this intelligence mess, the upcoming Congressional report on Intelligence and the 9/11 report, I believe the decision to go to war will be viewed in a different light.
Dean’s decline shows us that the American people are through complaining about the war, and that it is a stale topic.
I don’t see whats wrong with his “rant”. It just shows his colorful character. It might be good for a President to be that exciting, maybe Jesse Ventura will run in 2008…… Anyways, I think that it may be too late for Dean, as so many people have written him off, just because of the way that he is portrayed in the media.
His stance on Iraq is admirable, but there are many more issues at hand. It is imperative for him to get past the last couple weeks, but I don’t think the American public or the media will allow it.
Posted by: Matt Schoeffler at February 9, 2004 11:54 PMThe sad thing about the ultimate end game for Democrats is how wrong they are on the “electability issue. The people who continue to support this President despite all his errors will remain in his camp. Kerry will not win them over. The Democrats who can’t stand Bush will support whoever the Democratic candidate is, they are that desperate. That leaves us with the Independents who decided the last election. The Democrats should be far more concerned with how Independents feel about Dean.
As a Dean supporter, I’ll tell you right now that those who back him for his integrity cannot stomach supporting Kerry. He is in their minds just as much a part of the problem as is Bush. They have spent months railing against politics as usual, for them to now stand by a Senator that for all effective purposes was a Bush ally on the War, on the Patriot Act, and on deficit spending.
forumforamerica has many calls for the creation of an independent party. There are many others who are committed to writing Dean in as a signal to the Democratic Party that they are tired of politics as usual. For many, Kerry’s chance to be Presidential was in the Senate chamber with his votes on the very things that have brought our country to this point. He told us then what kind of President he would be.
It’s too bad Democrats are so short sighted. They think that just because Kerry seems more Presidential to them, that he will also seem so with Independents. I think a Kerry win will bring out Nader, since both candidates will at that point be owned by the people who are contributing $2000 or more to politics, rather than those who are giving $200 or less. The irony is that Dean’s populist and principled movement will have been forsaken by Democrats for a unfounded notion of “electability”.
The Democrats lost the opportunity to reinvent themselves under a candidate with the greater record of accomplishments rather than rhetoric, with a record of standing up to this President rather than one who bowed to him. Democrats instead reduced Presidential politics to a High School popularity/likeability contest instead of raising the national discourse to that of issues, accomplishments, and integrity. Again in November, rather than realize how legitimate independent voter allegations are that the Democratic Party is little different that the Republican Party, Democrats will have trouble understanding why the guy they thought was more “electable” lost to Bush.
Posted by: Darmok at February 11, 2004 04:58 AM
