Skip to comments.
Politics in a Nation of Hawks
TCS ^
| Published 12/16/2003
| By James Pinkerton
Posted on 12/16/2003 11:41:16 AM PST by .cnI redruM
The Conventional Wisdom in Washington is that the capture of Saddam Hussein means that Howard Dean's presidential goose is cooked. And while it's always fun to go against the C.W., it's not always wise.
To be sure, Saddam's nabbing might not have changed the military situation in Iraq, but it's apparent that politics has changed here at home. The pundits are near-unanimous: Howard, you have a problem. The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt declared, "The capture of Saddam Hussein is a shot in the arm politically for President Bush and poses a dicey dilemma" for the Democrats, particularly the ex-Vermont governor. CNN's Jeff Greenfield observed, "The first fallout . . . fell on Howard Dean's campaign. He was bounced from the cover of Newsweek magazine. His campaign manager, Joe Trippi, was bounced from ABC's 'This Week.'" And in first-in-the-nation Iowa, The Des Moines Register's David Yepsen opined, "Saddam Hussein's arrest hurts Howard Dean because it undermines the very premise of his candidacy, namely that the war in Iraq wasn't worthwhile."
The Hotline, the invaluable daily news summary, offered its own terse C.W. sum-up: "Last week, Dean was already the Dem nominee with an entire political press corps coming up with scenarios of how he beats Bush. Today, Dean's a sure-general election loser and might be vulnerable to losing the Dem nod."
But if Dean's in trouble, he's not acting as if he knows it. Given the news from Iraq, his "major" foreign policy speech, scheduled for Monday, was "major" only in the minds of himself and his supporters; he would have been well-advised to push his address back a few days, to let the Saddam news blow over a bit. But instead, defiant as always, he charged ahead: "The capture of Saddam has not made America safer . . . Let me be clear: My position on the war has not changed."
And he has the party faithful on his side. Indeed, a survey of Democratic "superdelegates" by The Los Angeles Times found that by a huge and increasing margin, these professional Dems support a candidate with a rejectionist approach to the Bush Doctrine. Such activists, all members of the Democratic National Committee, were asked which they preferred as their party's nominee next year, an anti-war Democrat or a pro-war Democrat. In November, the doves outnumbered the hawks, 56 percent to 29 percent. But this month, the doves were royally crushing the hawks, 58 percent to 13 percent. Can you spell "McGovernization"?
So the familiar equation -- Howard Dean in '04 = George McGovern in '72 -- deserves its place in the C.W.
In 1968, Republican Richard Nixon won the White House in a three-way race with just 43.4 percent of the vote, edging out Democrat Hubert Humphrey by half-a-million votes from the more than 73 million cast. The Vietnam War was raging back then, of course, and the Democrats told themselves that if Humphrey had been just a little more dovish, he would have won. And although Nixon wound down the Vietnam War that he inherited, he didn't wind it down fast enough to suit Democratic activists. The activists' choice in 1972 was the dovish McGovern, who blew past more hawkish Democratic rivals to win the nomination. The McGovernites, as they were called, were absolutely convinced of the rightness of their cause, and somehow that perception of morality became an anticipation of victory. But of course, McGovern was clobbered in November. Among the reasons: Nixon had managed to "Vietnamize" the war, so that by Election Day, the peacenik-y McGovern was mostly punching air; there weren't many troops to bring home, and there wasn't much American fighting to want to stop.
Today, Dean confronts a similar situation. Hardcore Democrats all think that George W. Bush either stole the White House or had it handed to him by a corruptly partisan Supreme Court. So going into '04, it helps to be angry, a la Dean. Moreover, it's a given, to such partisan minds, that Iraq is another Vietnam, and that pro-war Democrats are little better than Nixon-lovers -- oops, make that Bush-lovers. No wonder Dean is picking up endorsements from Democrats whose roots reach back to the McGovern campaign. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, for example, was part of McGovern's "alternative" Illinois delegation to the '72 Democratic convention in Miami Beach that pushed aside the establishment delegation led by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley. McGovern lost Illinois in the general election, of course, but at least now the neo-McGovernite Dean enjoys Jackson's strong support.
And Dean has other assets, too. The headline in Sunday's New York Times reads, "Dean Formulates a Nuanced Approach to Foreign Policy"; one can't buy advertising like that. In the article, readers are assured that that the Vermonter "shows a fluency in discussing the world that is certainly beyond where Mr. Bush was four years ago." Even under the new McCain-Feingold law, such contributions don't have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission.
Yet while Dean has his strengths for the nomination, he is losing ground in the general election match-ups. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken before the Saddam capture showed Dean trailing Bush by 12 percentage points, 39-51. But a second poll taken on Sunday, after the news broke, showed Dean losing by 21 points, 31-52.
And 'twas ever thus. This is a mostly hawkish country. Dovish candidates of both major parties -- George McClellan in 1864, William Jennings Bryan in 1900, Wendell Willkie in 1940, McGovern in '72 -- have all gone down to severe defeat. It's fair to say that in wartime American history, no anti-war candidate has ever won.
One potential Democratic candidate seems to understand this martial reality; she has handled herself brilliantly during the last year. The junior senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton, voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002. Ever since, she has kept up her support, even as she has chided Bush, from time to time, for failing to round up more international support. In other words, she's hedging and fudging, having it both ways, as all crafty politicians do.
But on Monday, in the midst of the we-got-Saddam euphoria, she knew that this was no time to appear to be anything but gracious. In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, she declared herself to be "thrilled" at Saddam's apprehension, adding, "We owe a debt of gratitude to the troops, to the president." Those aren't the words of someone who plans to run for president in '04.
But they are the words of an '08-er, a candidate who wants to make sure that past dovishness can't be used against her. And of course, for the gentlelady from New York to run in 2008, the Democrats have to lose in 2004. Which doesn't seem like much of a concern to her.
TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: 2004; antiwar; dean; election2004; electionpresident; hawks; howarddean; jamespinkerton
Hillary puts the shiv in Dean's side.
To: .cnI redruM
In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, she declared herself to be "thrilled" at Saddam's apprehension, adding, "We owe a debt of gratitude to the troops, to the president." Those aren't the words of someone who plans to run for president in '04. She had some kind words for the USSR, as well.
2
posted on
12/16/2003 11:42:35 AM PST
by
Huck
To: .cnI redruM
Dean looks like the sacrificial lamb now, but there's still eleven months to go, and the Dems are preparing to shove all their chips behind the chances for catastrophe between now and then. I think they're wrong, but their strategy is obvious.
3
posted on
12/16/2003 11:47:09 AM PST
by
Argus
((Ninety-nine and forty-four one-hundredths percent Pure Reactionary))
To: .cnI redruM
A basically good article, but I take issue with Wendell Willkie's inclusion as a "dove." In 1939-1940, Willkie was one of the very few Republicans arguing for US intervention in the then-"war in Europe", as opposed to the isolationists Dewey, Taft, and Vandenberg. After Hitler's armies invaded Denmark, Norway, and France just before the GOP convention, people became more convinced that US involvement was warranted.
4
posted on
12/16/2003 11:54:59 AM PST
by
TheBigB
(Just because you talk slower...doesn't mean your thoughts are any deeper...)
To: Huck
Yeah, they were nice to the ladies in Afghanistan. That aspect of her performance earns a Red Star of Ignorance with an Oak Leaf Cluster.
5
posted on
12/16/2003 12:04:16 PM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(Perhaps I shouldn't use the words overblown and Clinton in the same sentence.)
To: .cnI redruM
To be sure, Saddam's nabbing might not have changed the military situation in Iraq, but it's apparent that politics has changed here at home. Well, isn't that the whole point of this global soap opera?
6
posted on
12/16/2003 12:11:27 PM PST
by
eskimo
To: Huck
She's just trying to undo the damage she did herself when she ruined Thanksgiving for a lot of troops by telling them Americans hate what they're doing and they're all going to die over there.
7
posted on
12/16/2003 12:29:54 PM PST
by
cake_crumb
(UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
To: .cnI redruM
One minor point: I wouldn't exactly call McClellan a dovish candidate. He was an extremely vain man, who would have wanted the glory that came with finally beating the Confederates, but the reason he lost was because of his perceived subordination to the Peace Democrats like Vallandingham.
To: Democratshavenobrains
You are correct that George Brinton McClellan was vainglorious, but after his disaster in the Peninsula Campaign, and being sacked after Antietam, he could not bear the thought of someone beating Bobby Lee. If HE couldn't beat Bobby Lee, no one could. Better a dishonorable peace than someone else doing what he couldn't. The man was a gifted organizer and trainer -- he would have made an excellent chief of staff for Grant or Sherman as Commander of the Army of the Potomac had he not been so vain. Shows you what happens when one's self-esteem exceeds one's ability.
9
posted on
12/16/2003 1:18:54 PM PST
by
CatoRenasci
(Ceterum Censeo [Gallia][Germania][Arabia] Esse Delendam --- Select One or More as needed)
To: .cnI redruM
"But they are the words of an '08-er, a candidate who wants to make sure that past dovishness can't be used against her. And of course, for the gentlelady from New York to run in 2008..."
I've said this before. It's worth repeating. I am beginning to conclude that all of this speculation about "Hillary in '08" is utter nonsense, and whistling past the graveyard. How on earth do these pundits expect this skanky broad, with all of her President Caligula baggage, to be competitive after five more successful years of President Bush, who is shaping up to be the greatest president this country has had since Teddy Roosevelt a hundred years ago.
As much as the Dems may wish otherwise, it ain't gonna happen. Let Hillary run. She won't do any better in a general election than Dean is doing right now. Bet on it!
The Democrats have made themselves the modern equivalent of the Whigs. There won't be enough of them in five years to put up a candidate for dog catcher.
To: vanmorrison
I sometimes think that's correct. The Dems have so much lineage that they will stay around on name recognition for a decade or two. Congressman Ike Skelton is a prime example. Pro-Life, Pro-Tax Cut, Pro-Defense. Solid Democrat for life. It's just how things were done for a long time.
11
posted on
12/16/2003 1:40:41 PM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(Perhaps I shouldn't use the words overblown and Clinton in the same sentence.)
To: .cnI redruM
Dean will make McGovern look like William the Conqueror.
12
posted on
12/16/2003 1:49:13 PM PST
by
Kozak
(Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
To: .cnI redruM
George McClellan in 1864
THAT's who Ashley Wilkes Clark reminds me of... good old George McClellen. The erstwhile commander of the Army of the Potomac who's indecisiveness lost numerous battles, almost got Washington burned, and led to the ascendency of General Ulysses S. Grant. Good article. The thing that gets me though, is that these people talk about a swing in numbers of 5-10 points in Bush's approval ratings like it really matters in terms of whether he gets re-elected. He's going to put a boot in their @$$ no matter who they run against him.
13
posted on
12/16/2003 1:59:23 PM PST
by
johnb838
(CHRISTMAS! Jesus is the Reason for the Season. Say it Loud, I'm Christian and Proud!!!)
To: johnb838
Yeah, my earlier fears that we would coronate Barracks Emporer Wastely Clark were not well founded. He's an idiot and has ridden fecklessly into a heap of dung.
14
posted on
12/16/2003 2:01:43 PM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(Perhaps I shouldn't use the words overblown and Clinton in the same sentence.)
To: Kozak
That nasty William the Conqueror. A total unilateralist.
15
posted on
12/16/2003 2:02:29 PM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(Perhaps I shouldn't use the words overblown and Clinton in the same sentence.)
To: vanmorrison
Actually, I think a President Hillary is not at all unlikely. Here's why:
Let's assume, for arguements sake, that all of the following is true in Jan. 2008:
1. Iraq is pacified.
2. Bin-Laden is captured or killed.
3. The war on Islamic fundamentalism continues, US troops are engaged in: Iran/Syria/Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/Yemen/Sudan/Somalia (choose any or all).
4. There have been additional terror attacks in the continental US, therefore the war against fundamentalist Islam is no longer controversal, but an accepted part of US foreign policy. (All Democrats of course lie when they say this but say it they will.)
5. Bush of course cannot run again. The republicans are split between Jeb Bush and Condoleeza Rice/Colin Powell. Dick Cheney is too old, as is Donald Rumsfield.
6. Having been a minority party for so long, the Democrats are utterly desperate. They will do or say anything, follow and obey anyone, anyone at all, who promises to restore them to power.
Now:
7. Hillery by now has a reputation as an experienced senior senator. She knows what to promise to buy votes from the AARP, the congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses, labor unions, federal workers, etc. Basically, she promises to buy votes with tax dollars - often a winning strategy.
8. Bill's crimes have been long forgotten. He is simply known as the senators husband. (Bill will do anything Hill says to get back into power too, of course).
9. Hillery unites the democrats and promises to stay tough on terrorism.
Then:
10. The divided Republican ticket is defeated at the polls.
11. Presto. President Hillery Rodham takes over.
16
posted on
12/16/2003 9:49:19 PM PST
by
DarthMaulrulesok
("I bid you stand, Men of the West" - Lord of the Rings, Return of the King.)
To: DarthMaulrulesok
Actually, your kind of wild-eyed speculation is exactly the kind of pundit-driven nonsense I was referring to. After your first three reasonable assumptions, the rest of your assumptions and scenario degenerates into poppycock.
I assume that there will probably be about 35-40% of the people of this country that will continue to support the Democrat party because of their vested interest in doing so; government employees, union members, the radical chic, etc. But the rest of the people are aligning with the Republicans in every major area. I expect this trend to continue.
I also believe, after all we have seen in our recent lifetimes, that putting Hillary ANYWHERE NEAR the candidacy would energize the opposition to her, and the Democrat's, LIKE NEVER BEFORE. The extreme left-wing of this country may cream their jeans at the thought of her running, but I would bet a week's pay that should such a thing happen, it would truly be the death knell of the Democrat party.
To: vanmorrison
Well, thanks for the feedback.
I think we can both agree Hillary can count on at least, as you say, support from 35-40% of the population. Let's call them her core group. These are people who have a vested interest in the status quo as represented by the Democrats. They vote their pocketbook by voting for Hillary, agreed?
Now: Assuming Bush wins in 2004, what will the situation be in 2008? As I posted, I think the war on terrorism will of course continue. Since redistricting does not occur until the census of 2010, the next few congressional elections (and the presidential election of 2004) will reflect the current safe districts resulting in 90-95% re-election of Senators and Representatives who decide to run. I postulate based on this that the Republican control of congress will continue at least till 2010 and that by 2008 the Democrats will be throughly sick of it. How is this unreasonable?
Hillary by 2008 will be known mostly as the Senator from New York as far as the general public knows. Either way, she will be a top contender AS FAR AS THE DEMOCRATS ARE CONCERNED. As for her chances in a general election, she has the above-mentioned automatic support. In addition, she can most likely rally the Democratic party to her and lock up the nomination early (no 9 dwarfs by then - who among the Democrats would oppose her?). She will have ample funds to campaign with and can appeal to a lot of interest groups. I am simply assuming Hillary can generate at least as many votes as Al Gore and a little more. If only a few more states had gone Gore's way he would be in the White House right now.
I would be saddened, but not surprised, to see a President Hillary Rodham in January 2009.
18
posted on
12/17/2003 11:34:10 PM PST
by
DarthMaulrulesok
("I bid you stand, Men of the West" - Lord of the Rings, Return of the King.)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson