Posted on 06/02/2002 8:43:43 AM PDT by Elkiejg
There's No Shortage of Democrats Wanting to Run in '04; But Will a Popular President Have Them for Supper?
There are two advantages of living on the peninsula south of San Francisco - well, three or four, if you count the Mediterranean climate and proximity to Pacific Bell Park.
If you live here, you're smack in the middle of the Information Highway. And, of late, you've had an up-close view of a few of the Democrats who intend to challenge President Bush in 2004.
In recent days, as May turned to June, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle visited San Jose to talk health care, before heading up to San Francisco to raise money. At the same time, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman was in the East Bay, calling for a news means to extend high-speed, broadband Internet access, before bopping over to Palo Alto for a meet-and-greet with deep-pocketed tech leaders who support said idea - and, theoretically, might also support Lieberman '04.
And that's just the stuff making the papers. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has methodically worked the back roads and semi-circular driveways of the Peninsula's gated estates, looking for a little name identification and - let's assume - a lot of support when his campaign begins in earnest. Any Democrat who magically appears anytime soon at Stanford University, the San Jose Chamber of Commerce or the Silicon Valley Churchill Club - and it doesn't matter what the topic is; it could be Joe Biden on hair plugs or Al Gore on beard-grooming - is guilty of the same presidential hubris.
Of course, California can't claim sole ownership of White House aspirants. Here are a few more wannabes in the news:
According to his state's Rutland Herald, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean soon will file papers with the Federal Election Commission, establishing a "Dean for America" committee that's a precursor to an actual candidacy. Before you laugh, back in 1991 there was another small-state governor whom no one took seriously.
Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey has a new memoir out that changes his recollection of a raid back in his Vietnam days. Kerrey now writes that he knew women and children had gathered in a village before his Navy squad began shooting - a different account from the story Kerrey gave reporters last year. Is he clearing his conscience, or clearing his way toward to a run?
House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt is showing up on C-SPAN on weekends - in New Hampshire and other locales - looking for all purposes like a candidate. Plus, Gephardt has hired former McCain strategist John Weaver. The thought of Gephardt tooling around the Granite State in a campaign bus brings new definition to the phrase "hell on wheels."
So there you have it: a lot of jockeying for position among the Democrats - for a race that might be over before it even begins in earnest.
According to the latest Harris Poll, President Bush's approval rating weighs in at a lofty 74%. That's kryptonite for any Democrat who would be his or her party's Superman/Superwoman in 2004. As the Los Angeles Times Ron Brownstein has written: "Every incumbent president with approval ratings even approaching his 70%-plus has won a second term without breaking a sweat. You can look it up."
Granted, plenty can and will change between now and late-2003/early 2004 - possibly more terrorism at home and hostilities overseas, plus a fluctuating economy. But at the moment, the Democrats seem to be hell-bent on making Bush's bid for a second term a fait accompli.
Here's how they've done it:
First, they decided to attack the President on the issue of terrorism, refraining the question "what did the President know and when did he know it?" All that accomplished was cementing national security as Americans' lead concern (30%, according to the same Harris Poll, compared to 17% for the economy). So much for the Democrats making the safety net - Social Security and Medicaid - the defining themes on voters' minds.
Second, the Democrats reverted to the same mistakes they made two decades ago: they made their attacks personal, against a Republican President whom the American people find to be quite personable.
Just as Democrats tried and failed to portray the ebullient Ronald Reagan as a callous man indifferent to plight of the poor and the needy, so too have they belly-flopped in suggesting that George W. Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. That's the kind of charge that has a better check of sticking with a political animal, like a Nixon or Clinton - not someone like Bush, who's never been accused of possessing a Machiavellian personality. Besides, it's a 180-degree turn in logic - from suggesting, for two years, that Bush is a know-nothing to all of a sudden jumping on him as the man who knew too much and did too little.
Something else is occurring - while the Democrat search for issues that will resonate, Bush is slowly lining himself up for a comfortable re-elect. It's like watching Tiger Woods approach the 72nd green with a two-stroke lead.
It should concern Democrats that the son has no intention of repeating the father's mistake - he won't alienate the conservative base. There are blips that displease the GOP right - the farm bill being a good example - but Bush hasn't caved on his core conservative issues: taxes, guns, judicial picks column. At the moment, Bush's popularity among conservatives hovers around 90% - it's hard to see the emergence of an effective demagogue like Pat Buchanan and a repeat of the same "pitchfork rebellion" that tormented his father in the 1992 New Hampshire primary.
The Democrats' second concern: Bush is taking a page from the Clinton playbook and defusing issues before that backfire on him. Witness his willingness to sign off on a federal plan to spend $235 million to buy mineral rights near the Everglades and parts of the Florida coast, thus preventing oil and gas drilling. It gives him and brother Jeb (who's up for reelection this fall) cover with environmentalists in that state.
The funny thing is: the Democrats with the most to fear from Bush aren't the ones who aim to unseat it; it's those Democrats down the ticket. Consider what could happen in California. In the Golden State, the most recent Field Poll has Bush leading Gore, 48% to 41% - that's nearly a 20-point reversal from November 2000, when Bush lost the state by 12%. According to Field, Bush leads comfortably among men; he also led among women, albeit it a statistical dead heat: 49% to 48%. To give you an idea of how far Bush has come: two years ago, he lost the California women's vote, 58% to 37%.
Obviously, this is a nightmare scenario for Gore. If he can't win California, you can count on both hands the number of states Gore would carry against Bush. Call it rebuilding the Dukakis coalition from 1988, when the former Massachusetts governor won only 10 states (including West Virginia, which Bush won in 2000) en route to a 426-112 shellacking in the Electoral College.
Nor is it big grins for California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who's expected to seek a third term in 2004.
Boxer's never been a popular incumbent, and she probably owes her Senate existence to the fact that the elder Bush didn't bother to compete in California in 1992 - well, that and the good fortune of weak opponents both times she's run. But let's suppose the younger Bush remains popular - recreating a male gender that hasn't existed in California elections and shoring up the Republican vote among women. Then, clearly, the very liberal and more-so brash Boxer is in trouble. Twice she's benefited from Democratic landslides at the top of the ticket (Clinton in '92 and Gray Davis in the '98 governor's race). In 2004, the rocks might come tumbling down on her.
The same holds true for two other Democratic senators up for reelection in 2004: Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Washington's Patty Murray. The stronger Bush's prospects, the weaker are theirs in their home states. And if those three ladies lose, that means probable control of the U.S. Senate by the Republicans for a second Bush term.
All of which might explain why, even though some Democrats are in a hurry to challenge Bush, it's Republicans who want to hurry up the next presidential election.
Write to Bill at whalen@rightturns.com
Bill Whalen’s unique perspective on politics and public policy is derived from nearly two decades of experience as a journalist, government insider and media pundit. Today Bill is a Research Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, where he studies and writes on current events and political trends. Bill writes frequently for the leading California news publications including The Los Angeles Times, The San Jose Mercury-News, The San Francisco Chronicle and The San Diego Union-Tribune. His by-line appears in the online version of The National Review (www.nationalreview.com). He can also be seen and heard on Bay Area radio and television as a political commentator.
Despite what this guy says for 2004, if the communists control the Senate during the budget process in 2003, they could force a government shut down and try to prove that the Republicans can't rule effectively. These are shifty, self-enriching, vote buying, devious bas**ards. This is typical of Willie's diversion of bombing the drug factory in Sudan to keep your eyes off the fact that he is destroying evidence in some criminal activity. Don't look at 2004, that's not important at the moment. Focus on the Congressional elections in November. Reclaim the Senate, stolen by a traitor and currently in the hands of America-hating socialists.
You are absolutely correct!! My fear is that supporters of Bush - Democrat, Republican or Independent - will stay home in 2002 thinking this election is not important. Additionally, we all KNOW the RATS will go all out to rig elections. If we thought their actions in the 2000 election were outrageous - we haven't seen anything yet. I would be willing to bet that they are upgrading their handbook on how to steal an election as we speak.
Other than bullying, begging, etc. etc. people to vote this Fall and serving as a poll watcher - what else can we do to ensure a GOP win for the House & Senate? Any ideas out there?
Just as Democrats tried and failed to portray the ebullient Ronald Reagan as a callous man indifferent to plight of the poor and the needy, so too have they belly-flopped in suggesting that George W. Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. That's the kind of charge that has a better check of sticking with a political animal, like a Nixon or Clinton - not someone like Bush, who's never been accused of possessing a Machiavellian personality. Besides, it's a 180-degree turn in logic - from suggesting, for two years, that Bush is a know-nothing to all of a sudden jumping on him as the man who knew too much and did too little.
LOL..... Things may well change by the fall of 04 and there is plenty of time for it to do so, but the democrats are facing a different animal as long as the Terrorism focus is at the top of the agenda.
If Bush's poll numbers seriously fall for some reason, all bets are off.
The RATS fail to see that since 9/11, we are tired of finger pointing, the blame game, the stupid tactics they used before as a means of "scaring" the people. We have more important things on our minds, like TERRORISM. And our President is leading us, reminding us and helping us to remember that we SHALL not let them win.
This is wherein the problem lies for the RATS. They pretend to be "all American patriots", but when push comes to shove, they are just the same old vindictive RATS they have always been. Some things never change.
I intend to change as much as I possible can in November. Unfortunately, neither one of my RAT senators are up for re-election.
Nothing changes if nothing changes.
If Dubya is over 53 or 54 at primary time for 2004 election it will be sacreficial lamb time. Only those who will be too old for 2008 or are doing it for the personal publicity will run. Gore will win the nomination easily.
But even if Bush has a lower approval rating than Nixon on the day he left office, look for Gore to get the nomination. Gore has spent his fathers and his lifetimes earning support from the unions. They can win enough state primaries for Gore to give him a contested nomination victory at the convention. The rest of the candidates will divide the anti Gore support so many ways that Gore will be able to get more than 50 percent of the delegates by the 2nd ballot at the convention.
But it is very unlikely that they will be able to bring Bush's polll numbers down.
If the Republicans win big this fall, look for the Democrats to start demanding new leadership and new tactics to go after Bush. Daschles hopes could be Daschled by the day after election. Democrats will remember what they did when Ike had the office. Attack Ike's VP, go after the house and the senate and conceede teh presidency in 2004. That got the Democrats the presidency and congress 1960. That is a better result than the strategys the democrats have used against Dubya so far.
If Gore wants it in 2004. Gore will get it no matter what. I think he wants it.
Bill Clinton changed the rules on how the center sees a President. The loss of the center voters by Democrats was created by Clinton's Victory over morals and Gores defeat over personality. They had the center convinced that Republicans were really dumb failures. That perception is a huge loss. They have nothing to tar the Repubicans with. God knows they have tried. It will take them years to undo that damage. Dubya has caused the center to lose its fear of the right. It was about all the Demorats had going for them. The Democats don't have a clue abuot how to paint pubbies as evil and they sure can't paint themselves as good.
Lincoln has positioned herself as a moderate, too, but she will be facing her first senate re-election bid-- making it the best time for the GOP to strike against her. If I had to guess, I'd say that a convincing re-election bid by Huckabee probably means that Lincoln will have her work cut out for her-- especially since Huckabee is popular now in the midst of slow economic times and the economy is likely to improve nationally over the next two years-- and governors are always more popular when they have the full tax coffers from sales and income taxes when more people are employed and consuming goods and services.
My guess for 2004 is for possible pick-ups in the following senate races:
I agree that this is the general thinking of mid-term elections.
But... I think that 9/11 changed the way we see politics, to some degree.
The GOP will do well, as the American public has long-known that thiey can be trusted more in the area of personal safety and security.
The Mediscare issue doesn't carry the same weight any more.
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.