Posted on 06/10/2004 8:27:21 PM PDT by Jean S
Joan Blades was only saying what the crowd was thinking.
At the big conference put on by the left-wing group Campaign for America’s Future last week, Blades, co-founder of MoveOn.org, was taking part in a panel discussion on the upcoming presidential election.
She told the audience that her talk had been titled “We Can Win” but that she had begun to think “that’s a little behind the time.”
“At a conference in March here in D.C.,” Blades continued, “one of the attendees asked me, ‘Why aren’t we talking about a landslide in November?’”
“And I decided, OK, well, maybe I should say it out loud. ... And now, finally, everybody’s saying, yeah, we’re going to win by a landslide.
“I’m voting for a landslide.”
Lines like that got a lot of applause at the conference, which was called “Take Back America.”
And Blades wasn’t the only one uttering the L-word.
“This year, we need to mobilize for a landslide,” said Roger Hickey, who is co-chairman of Campaign for America’s Future.
“Landslide votes are so important,” said Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP.
“If we actually appeal to people’s hopes, we could get [Bush] back to Crawford, not in a squeaker but a landslide,” said anti-Bush gadfly Arianna Huffington.
Not everyone was buying it, at least publicly.
Robert Borosage, the Campaign’s other co-founder, looked uncomfortable when asked about all the big-win talk and said no, he does not really anticipate a landslide.
But the sense of excitement was everywhere at the three-day conference. It was clear that the activists of the left believe they have the Bush administration on the run.
The funny thing was, for all the excitement about the victory they anticipate, the activists couldn’t muster very much excitement for the candidate who is supposed to make it happen.
At a forum on the Iraq war, for example, there was downright unhappiness with the positions of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).
The overwhelmingly antiwar participants particularly didn’t like his plan to strengthen the U.S. presence in Iraq.
“I hope he gets over this notion of sending more troops,” said peace activist David Cortright. “I think that is a disaster. We need to abandon any notion of sending any more troops.”
In fact, one of the few good things said about Kerry came from former CIA official Melvin Goodman — and he was talking about the John Kerry of 1971, not today.
Back then, Goodman said, Kerry realized the real issues at stake when he opposed the war in Vietnam.
“Kerry’s got to go back to his speeches, the thoughts he had as a young man,” Goodman said.
“He’s gotten far too conservative, far too conventional.”
Elsewhere, throughout the conference, left-wing activists expressed their regrets that Kerry is not more “progressive.”
It all stood in vivid contrast to the wildly enthusiastic reception the crowd gave to their true love, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.
Dean showed up at the conference to accept its “Tom Paine Common Sense Award.”
When he was introduced, the delegates reacted much as they did years ago at Bruce Springsteen concerts.
People screamed. They stood up on their chairs. There was huge applause. It was sheer worship.
Dean gave them the old-time anti-Bush red meat, and then manfully tried to convince them that Kerry is the best man to be the Democratic candidate.
“I understand there are some policy differences between some of you and Senator Kerry,” Dean said. But, he asked, whom would you rather have in charge of the American military? The environment? Who is going to do the most for working people?
“I’m going to do everything I can to get John Kerry elected president of the United States,” Dean said.
As Dean spoke, with every face shining on him, Kerry himself could have walked into the room without attracting much notice.
Dean’s former campaign manager Joe Trippi was there. He denied that the tumultuous applause for Dean was a poor reflection on Kerry.
“No, they’re just different folks,” Trippi said of the two candidates.
And Trippi, a political professional, could muster the kind of realistic acceptance of Kerry’s candidacy that some in the crowd appeared to resist.
“Kerry won,” Trippi said. “He’s the nominee.”
And that’s about all you could say about it.
By the end of the three-day conference, the people in the crowd told themselves that they must work hard for Kerry, even though they don’t really like him all that much.
For an outsider, at least, it was hard to reconcile their lack of ardor for Kerry with their apparently unshakeable belief that he will win in a landslide.
Maybe it will happen. Certainly the polls say George W. Bush is in trouble.
But when the people who should be most committed to a candidacy have so many doubts about their man, you have to wonder.
York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail: byork@thehill.com
Well, thinking about it - in every election since 1980 (excluding 96) the Dems were wrong.
1980 - Reagan was a buffoon and a extremist who the public would never vote for
1984 - same
1988 - People are tired of republicans
1992 - After being drummed three times in a row they believed Bush 41 to be unbeatable
2000 - Bush 43 is a buffoon and an extremist and no one will vote for him
So let's hope the keep prediciting a Kerry win! :)
It will be a landslide, all right, like 1984.
That isn't as possible as it was pre-2000. The FEC, DOJ and the Republicans are all aware and and will stop it. I have lost count of the local and state Dem vote fraud that has been uncovered and prosecuted in the past 3 years. I know poll watching is part of the Bush campaign GOTV.
There is no possibility of a landslide. These people see skewed national polls and forget the Electoral College. Popular vote? I doubt it. Our Dem clients tell us they *hate* Kerry. They are pondering whether to vote or not, write in someone or vote Nader if he gets on the state ballot.
I think it is called believing your own PR. "Let's have a landslide" "Landslides are good"
Yeah, that's the ticket. Landslide.
Giggle
CA, NY, MA, VT, RI, CT, IL, and MD are virtually guaranteed to go Dem.
TX, OK, CO, UT, NE, SD, ND, SC, AL, MS and KS are virtually guaranteed to go Republican.
There are a bunch more states that are practically pre-ordained as well. They lean heavily one way or the other.
Barring a major gaffe, a stupid Veep selection, or incredibly bad performance in the debate, this one is going to be a close race.
What makes this all so goofy is the fact that they aren't in the mood for a landslide based on their love of Kerry, but on their hatred for Bush. You never win when the basis of your campaign is "anyone but the incumbent."
The economy is good, the Iraq war is calming down, and Kerry is still Kerry. Yeah it could well be a landslide, but not the one the Dems want.
I've already seen several variations of "Kerry's so conservative" stuff -- expect more. Kerry's not conservative, not even close. But it might fool a few fence sitters. And that's what they're going for -- tell some lies, get some votes. Typical. Typical liberal tactics..
#1 Just put Kerry on camera and the gaffe will come. He's quite reliable. This is why they've been keeping him out of the spotlight as long as his numbers stay decent. Every time he has made a major speech, his numbers have dropped 6-8%.
#2 The Democrat party proved itself constitutionally incapable of producing a plausible Presidential candidate; what leads one to believe that the VP selection will be any better? Faith in John Kerry's judgement?
#3 See #1. Bush is under fire day in and day out by people who will say exactly what Kerry will say. Kerry, on the other hand, lives in a world where your average journalist is kissing his rear for the simple fact that he's a Democrat. Thus, Bush will be ready for anything that can come at him, but Kerry is far more likely to get blindsided in a way that shows clearly the characteristics he wishes most to hide.
I simply don't believe Kerry can survive politically, even if Hitlery doesn't smell blood and kill him off, or Toricelli him. I said a long time ago that this would be another Reagan-Mondale, and until the election returns come in I am sticking to it.
Though he's got troubles, I see the major issues and events have been magnificently scripted to all fall Bush's way from here to November: Iraq turnover, Gas prices, employment numbers, the general recovery, etc. Never have I seen the raw power of the office of President manipulated so well. It just speaks to the organization and execution of the entire Bush team.
To talk victory for Bush is a foregone conclusion, in my mind, the Clinton's, and the power-players of both parties. What major state that Bush took in 2000 will he lose? Only Ohio would be fatal. And it's not going to happen. Bush will more likely pick up PA, WI, NM, maybe MI and OR. Kerry may take back NH and WV, but those two add to less than what reapportionment gives Bush after the 2000 census.
Landslide is a word that WE can whisper, with increasing confidence and hope as the next few months unfold. Kerry is a terrible campaigner. Dean would have been a more dangerous unknown--but neither Kerry, Dean, or Hillary! will beat Bush this year.
All it would take is for a few preachers to go to prison and voter fraud would stop.
Also part of the problem is interference by state Secretaries of State who are supposed to oversee elections.
Had the same thought over the winter after they axed Dean. That was actually their one chance, and the Clintons knew it. And that's why Dean is relegated to milkman status for Kerry at these silly Marxist conflabs. I do like the idea of these McGovernik's crying in their milk in November...
"#3 See #1. Bush is under fire day in and day out by people who will say exactly what Kerry will say. Kerry, on the other hand, lives in a world where your average journalist is kissing his rear for the simple fact that he's a Democrat. Thus, Bush will be ready for anything that can come at him, but Kerry is far more likely to get blindsided in a way that shows clearly the characteristics he wishes most to hide. "
Great point. Here's the parallel example: Rush vs. Franken. Franken thought all he had to do was show up with his brilliant mind, but Rush has been taking red heat for years. Kerry could very well pull a Franken off the high dive.
There's a senator in congress now, I can't remember his name. He prosecuted a case against some "african american civil rights leaders" when they systematically engaged in voter fraud.
His career in law was over, his judgeship hopes were denied, he wound up in Politics. I remember a line from Senator Leahy joking that if he had known now that (it might be pryor) would be a senator, he wouldn't have held it against him for prosecuting the voter fraud case back in the 80's and would have let him on the bench.
Syndicated columnist, professor at a Peace Institute (at Notre Dame IIRC), probably on the dais. No need to point any of that out. Wouldn't make good copy.
I'd begin to believe them if Nikita Dean had been their candidate. Pity the poor Democrats.
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.