Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Dean dilemma (NOVAK)
TownHall ^ | 12/22/2004 | Robert Novak

Posted on 12/22/2003 3:05:20 AM PST by NYS_Eric

The Dean dilemma
Robert Novak (archive)

December 22, 2003 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Send

WASHINGTON -- Before a single vote has been cast anywhere, thoughtful Democrats across the country are reaching a melancholy conclusion. Howard Dean is close to clinching the nomination. The question is not merely whether he can be stopped but also whether he should be stopped.

This poses a dilemma that was discussed during a small, private dinner party last week attended by people actively engaged in politics for much of the last half-century. They viewed Dean's increasingly probable nomination with loathing and fear that it benefits George W. Bush. But to try and stop him now, they agreed, may open a bloody split in the Democratic Party not seen since the great divide of 1972.

This situation is made possible by Democratic reforms following the tumult of 1968. In 1972, at least, the party establishment fought to the bitter end attempting to block the nomination of George McGovern, because his loss of 49 states was widely anticipated. The final touch to the reforms has been added in this cycle by Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe, whose front-loading of primaries was designed to pick an early nominee.

The Dean dilemma was spelled out to me by a sage Democratic practitioner whose views I have sought since 1968. He has felt for months that the former Vermont governor faces horrendous defeat against President Bush. Last week, this party loyalist told me he felt Dean will be nominated unless an act of intervention stops him. He added that he is sure Dean can be stopped but at the cost of unacceptable carnage. Implicitly and reluctantly, therefore, he is swallowing Dean.

The hope inside the Democratic establishment has been that once Dean perceived himself on the road to the nomination, he would pivot sharply toward the center. He may be unable to perform or even attempt this maneuver. He is no ideologue, but he has not outgrown being the smart-aleck kid from Park Avenue with a hard edge. The Democratic savants I have contacted can only shake their heads over his stubborn insistence that Saddam Hussein's capture has not made the country safer.

This discomfort was behind the Democratic group that last week put on television a tough ad depicting Dean as unable to cope with terror or "compete with George Bush on foreign policy." Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi immediately sent out an open letter to the party's other presidential candidates assailing this relatively restrained TV spot as "the kind of fear-mongering attack we've come to expect from Republicans." The ad was pulled off the air, suggesting limits to how far Democrats will go in confronting Dean. If nominated, he can expect much worse from the Republicans.

Most Americans and, indeed, most Democrats are hardly aware of Howard Dean's existence. The national polls that have propelled him well ahead of any other candidate still give him support from only one of four Democrats (slipping slightly after Hussein's capture). He runs far behind Bush in any one-on-one poll. However, the McAuliffe-shortened primary campaign is all in Dean's favor.

If Dean is the clear winner in Iowa and New Hampshire, he would seem assured of the nomination. Even if he is upset in Iowa by Rep. Richard Gephardt, it is hard to imagine Gephardt with enough money in the bank to battle Dean down the long primary election trail. Sen. John Kerry is seen as the only Democrat with the potential wherewithal to contest the money-heavy Dean, but Kerry's performance has been one of the year's great political disappointments.

As the economic outlook brightens, Democrats depend on the situation in Iraq to defeat Bush. That only deepens the party's dilemma. Surveys taken after Saddam Hussein's capture for the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll show just 37 percent of Democrats think Iraq was worth going to war. But among all other voters, such support reached 70 percent (amounting to 61 percent nationally if Democrats are included).

Joe Trippi last week said the anti-Dean ad on foreign policy "panders to the worst in voters." Actually, the Democrats and Dean are out of step on the issue they think will move the nation. That makes it even more difficult to stop Howard Dean.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; 2004elections; dean; howarddean; novak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last
To: Grut
LOL
If memory serves, the ENTIRE matter, and the use of the word "treason" did not originate at FR,
but in the DNC and those who followed Wilson in his Plame game.
21 posted on 12/22/2003 4:48:15 AM PST by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PGalt
The American Soldier is the Person of the Year (2003) for fighting foreign enemies. The American Voter is the Person of the Year (2004) for fighting domestic enemies.

Well said. I hope your prediction comes true.
Amen.



22 posted on 12/22/2003 4:59:22 AM PST by Mother Mary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
Novak published her name and her occupation. This triggered a required report from the CIA to the DOJ since she works for the undercover section of the CIA. It is illegal for a federal employee to disclose the name and occupation of people who work for this branch of the CIA. It is not illegal for reporters to publish it.

The interesting thing is that she still works there (at least as of October). She is still covered by this law even though she was outed. That alone tells you the nature of her job. Analyst.
23 posted on 12/22/2003 5:07:39 AM PST by tbeatty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYS_Eric
Hillary is out of the question at this point. The only person I see that would sit well with the Deaniacs, might be Gore. If Hillary is forced down the throats of the Deaniacs, 1/3 of the Delegates will walk out of the convention. Not likely, but the Gore endorsement of Dean might have been an establishment play to set up Gore as their candidate who might be able to gain the support of the Deaniacs. I think Gore-Dean is the only plausable alternative to a Dean-led ticket.

Note: Clark is not out of the picture yet.

24 posted on 12/22/2003 5:09:02 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Sure, sure.

She is so in fear of being "outed" by Novak and having her identity known to the public, just sat down for a photo shoot for the cover of Vanity Fair Magazine.

She and her husband are political operatives whose main objective is to advance their candidate, John Kerry, and discredit George Bush.

Even her husband admitted that when he endorsed Kerry and admitted he had been an 'advior' to John Kerry's campaign since before this whole 'controversy' erupted.
25 posted on 12/22/2003 5:17:11 AM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Note: Clark is not out of the picture yet.

*whisper* Clark's dad was Jewish...pass it on *whisper*

26 posted on 12/22/2003 5:18:28 AM PST by smith288 ("We're going to have the happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap danced with Danny F'n Kay")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
Does anyone else besides Dio think Novak has committed treason?

Not anyone who has actually read and understood the Constitution. Or maybe Dio knows of two witnesses to Novak ADHERING to the enemy.

27 posted on 12/22/2003 5:19:18 AM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYS_Eric
This situation is made possible by Democratic reforms following the tumult of 1968. In 1972, at least, the party establishment fought to the bitter end attempting to block the nomination of George McGovern, because his loss of 49 states was widely anticipated. The final touch to the reforms has been added in this cycle by Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe, whose front-loading of primaries was designed to pick an early nominee.

This paragraph is probably the most significant in the entire article. Dean has said he would replace McAuliffe if nominated and if Dean is nominated the less liberal Democrats may be out for McAuliffe's scalp. Thus, the Clintons could be the biggest losers because it will dawn on liberals and others that the Clintons destroyed all Democrats for their own self interest.

28 posted on 12/22/2003 5:21:36 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Dean will be the Dukakis of 2004. Gore's endorsement was shrewd. He realizes that Dean will be the immediate power broker but will ultimately lose the election. Gore will get to choose party powerfuls like DNC chairmen when Dean get's the nomination. It's a way for Gore to move out from the shadow.

The Dems have a dilemma. It's not the presidency, though. They run the real risk of disenfranchising their voters and having them stay home on election day. It's the house and senate losses that will be the biggest story if Dean wins. If Bush continues to do well with the economy and the war on terror, there will be many Dems who will just stay home rather than vote for Dean. This is what I think Dems are really afraid of.
29 posted on 12/22/2003 5:24:39 AM PST by tbeatty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: monocle
Thus, the Clintons could be the biggest losers because it will dawn on liberals and others that the Clintons destroyed all Democrats for their own self interest.

Bah! I dont take Democrats to have the smarts to put 1 and 2 together...Hillary is their savior they think... McAuliffe will be sacrificed and Clintbilly will "rescue" it from the far left (remember, democrats think Clintbilly was moderate)

30 posted on 12/22/2003 5:25:02 AM PST by smith288 ("We're going to have the happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap danced with Danny F'n Kay")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NYS_Eric
Even if he is upset in Iowa by Rep. Richard Gephardt, it is hard to imagine Gephardt with enough money in the bank to battle Dean down the long primary election trail.

Good news.

Sen. John Kerry is seen as the only Democrat with the potential wherewithal to contest the money-heavy Dean, but Kerry's performance has been one of the year's great political disappointments.

More good news.

As the economic outlook brightens, Democrats depend on the situation in Iraq to defeat Bush. That only deepens the party's dilemma.

Still more good news, especially with Khadaffy's WMD capitulation becoming seen as a result of GWB's tough terrorist policy. We must pray for continued progress in Iraq toward victory and peace.

Joe Trippi last week said the anti-Dean ad on foreign policy "panders to the worst in voters." Actually, the Democrats and Dean are out of step on the issue they think will move the nation. That makes it even more difficult to stop Howard Dean.

With Soros willing to spend a half-billion dollars to defeat GWB, my greatest hope is that Dean will win the nomination. Then, even with Soros' money, a Dean victory is unlikely.

31 posted on 12/22/2003 5:29:56 AM PST by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RLK
Yep! Hillary to the rescue! ick!
32 posted on 12/22/2003 5:31:54 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYS_Eric
but Kerry's performance has been one of the year's great political disappointments.

Ha, ha.< /nelson>
33 posted on 12/22/2003 5:34:55 AM PST by G L Tirebiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monocle; All
All of these posts raise such EXCELLENT points! It's good to know that freepers are on the job analyzing not only the story, but all of the background and repercussions.

PS. Anybody else think the term "Democratic savants" is an oxymoron?
34 posted on 12/22/2003 5:35:39 AM PST by alwaysconservative (The only bad thing about liberal emperors wearing no clothes is their personal hygiene is so bad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Novak has betrayed the USA when he OUTED a CIA operative for his mistress(master) at the DNC.

Everybody knew who she was; it had been common knowledge for months.

Besides, why did the press wait six months after Novak's revelation to make big deal of it? Nobody said a word when he first made the "revelation".

35 posted on 12/22/2003 5:35:51 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYS_Eric
He added that he is sure Dean can be stopped but at the cost of unacceptable carnage. Implicitly and reluctantly, therefore, he is swallowing Dean.

Methinks this is BS. If the DemonRats thought for a moment they had a viable candidate for Nov. 2004, they'd do whatever was necessary to get him nominated and win back the WH.

36 posted on 12/22/2003 5:37:34 AM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
Does anyone else besides Dio think Novak has committed treason?

No. It's silly to even assert "treason" over a showboater who outted herself in a magazine last month.

37 posted on 12/22/2003 5:39:26 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: monocle; Always Right
The party reformed much after the 1972 disaster, in large part to prevent a takeover of the convention by left-wing operatives. The 1972 convention was steered to McGovern by the radical monority, so protocols were changed to try to prevent that in the future.

Clinton-picked McAwful will be booted by Dean (who, I think, hates the Clintons). The Clintons, according to Rush Limbaugh, have aready planned for their loss of control of the party by arranging the diversion of funds to PACs they control, away from Dem part coffers. They can direct a campaign that will result in Dean's defeat, arranging for a Hil campaign in 2008. She cannot campaign against an incumbent Dem president in 2008 and cannot wait until 2012.

Gore wants to run too, of course, so he endorses Dean in a bid to oust the Clintons. He can emerge as the only viable candidate in 2004, or he can hibernate until 2008 and compete with Hil in 2008. In either case, he bumps the Clintons into lesser power status in the Dem party, boosting his own chances now and in 2008.

38 posted on 12/22/2003 5:42:16 AM PST by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
I think Gore-Dean is the only plausable alternative to a Dean-led ticket.

It's a fascinating possibility. Even though Gore's Dean endorsement speeches had him shouting "Quagmire!", Gore the chameleon can leave that position behind. It would work. W would still win, but it wouldn't be a shellacking. But, unfortunately for the Democratic Party, Dean is unwilling to do it.

39 posted on 12/22/2003 5:43:03 AM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
But, unfortunately for the Democratic Party, Dean is unwilling to do it.

Let us be thankful for Park Avenue brat egos.

40 posted on 12/22/2003 5:45:19 AM PST by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson