Posted on 12/23/2003 7:41:49 PM PST by Pokey78
WASHINGTON
I am beginning to worry that Howard Dean may not get the Democratic nomination. Follow the convoluted reasoning:
There are now three de facto political parties in the U.S. In order of present strength, these are:
(1) The Republican Party, in control of all three branches of government and most of the statehouses, fat and sassy because the economy is rising and the war is being won.
(2) The Dean-Internet Party, its Bush-despising base so energized as to be frenetic, its leader happy to be the apostle of anger, its bandwidth bandwagon gaining momentum with each pulse of its cursing cursor.
(3) The Old Democratic Party, its base off base, its leadership fractured, its third-way ideology — vainly espoused by the Clintonian Democratic Leadership Council — a lost cause without a rebel voice.
Can it be that the opposition to the reigning Republicans is deeply cleft in twain, as mouth-fillingly described above? What evidence is there that the present noisy jousting is not just the usual primary-season scuffling?
Consider the "you're a liar" clash between the Old Democrat poll front-runner, Wesley Clark, and the emerging Dean party's hero.
Clark claims that Dean offered him the vice presidential nomination: "It was dangled out there . . . offered as much as it could have been." Dean denies it flatly: "I did not and have not offered anyone the vice presidency." Clark, egged on by his Clinton handlers, imputes a dishonorable motive to Dean: "Why is he squirming? Because maybe he's done the same for a lot of other people."
One of these men is not telling the truth. Most voters would say that one of these boldfaced names is a baldfaced liar, though charitable souls would call it a misunderstanding. ("I can't make a `formal' offer at this stage, Wes, but if I could, wouldja?") Despite Dean's "dangle," Clark cast his lot with the Old Dems.
Following this week's he-said-he-said, the unforgiving Dean slammed Clark's Clintonites and their ideological home, the Democratic Leadership Council. Updating his early declaration, Dean called for unity by deriding the D.L.C. as "sort of the Republican part of the Democratic Party — the Republican wing of the Democratic Party."
Stung, the D.L.C., now headed by Senator Evan Bayh and the Bill Clinton guru Al From, complained online about Dean's "insulting charge of crypto-Republicanism" and disapproved of "the brain-dead tactic" and "incoherent rage" of his followers.
This gets down to the Rockefeller-Goldwater level of eye-gouging that is not forgotten at the national convention. What if Dean, as the pollwagon now suggests, trounces the Clinton Establishment — Clark, Lieberman, Kerry, even Edwards and Sharpton — in the primaries? Will they loyally kiss the ring of the winner?
Of course they will. They'll rally round to hold the Democratic Party together even as it is taken over by the Dean-Internet set. They'll pay lip service and lose respectably, eyeing a comeback and takeover in '08.
But what if Dean loses momentum in Iowa, does "less than expected" in New Hampshire, gets clobbered in Carolina or blows his cool at media tormentors once too often? What if the Old Democrat center, revivified as a stop-Dean movement and helped by the pendulum press, actually stops Dean? Could happen. Then what?
He is not the sort who gives up easily. Nor is he likely to ask Clark or whomever in a smoke-free room for the No. 2 slot. Dean has grass-roots troops, a unique fund-raising organization, the name recognition and the fire-in-the-belly, messianic urge to go all the way on his own ticket.
Politronic chatter picked up by pundits monitoring lefty blogsites and al-Gora intercepts flashes the warning: If stopped, Dean may well bolt.
That split of opposition would be a bonanza for Bush. In a two-man race, the odds are that he would beat Dean comfortably, but in a three-party race, Bush would surely waltz in with the greatest of ease.
Here's my problem: Such a lopsided, hubris-inducing result would be bad for Bush, bad for the G.O.P., bad for the country. Landslides lead to tyrannous majorities and big trouble.
Which is why I worry about Dean not getting the Democratic nomination.
Hmmm, I think I could live with it.
That didn't happen with Reagan. -Tom
Nah, the Republicans are not cohesive enough. And I am not opposed to a tyrannous majority when it comes to judicial nominees and social security reform.
Safire is breaking wind on this one. He needs to retire.
The trick is to keep all the candidates deadlocked, so that no one has a clear majority. Let the front-runners snipe at one another -- let's make it really dirty. Let the bad blood show, to convince anyone that whoever might win the nomination won't be able to count on the support of the loser.
What will the Dems do then, the victor can't even win the majority of his own party, let alone the general election!
To save the party and even have a chance in '04, we must bring in a new candidate, one who already has name recognition and the network to run nationally. One who consistently outpolls the other candidates without even being on the ballot. Now where can they find such a Democrat, who isn't already running for POTUS?
Of course Safire would be delighted at the suicidal implosion of the Democrat Party. There cannot be too many Republicans elected to the House and Senate, since at present too many of them are squishy. If the squishes cannot be defeated, they can be made irrelevant in assembling majorities. For some reason, the name Arlen Spector comes to mind. LOL.
Congressman Billybob
Click here to stick a thumb in the eye of CFR, "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob."
And yet, why does the idea of a Hillary! candidacy persist when she continues to deny, and the deadline is (supposedly) passed?
I don't say she will accept, but I do say she is still keeping her options open. This way she won't be accused of wanting it all along (thereby admitting she lied when she said she'd complete her term. Why, she didn't run, she was drafted! For the good of the party, and the Country!
She may look at the polls, decide she can't win in '04, and decline the nomination. Or she may run. But she hasn't decided yet.
For the first time, I think Hillary Rodham Clinton will run in 2004.
I only care about getting a landslide if it means lots of coattails.
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.