Print | 
SendPosted on 12/22/2003 3:05:20 AM PST by NYS_Eric
The Dean dilemma
Robert Novak (archive)
December 22, 2003 | Print | 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.
Note: Clark is not out of the picture yet.
*whisper* Clark's dad was Jewish...pass it on *whisper*
Not anyone who has actually read and understood the Constitution. Or maybe Dio knows of two witnesses to Novak ADHERING to the enemy.
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.
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)
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.
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".
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.
No. It's silly to even assert "treason" over a showboater who outted herself in a magazine last month.
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.
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.
Let us be thankful for Park Avenue brat egos.
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.