Posted on 08/02/2003 8:52:47 AM PDT by knighthawk
On the basis of political momentum, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is now the frontrunner for the Democrats' 2004 presidential nomination. And if history is any guide, he's in the process of leading the party to disastrous defeat.
Dean has roared from obscurity by expressing--and fueling--the near-hatred that Democratic activists feel for President Bush and all his works, especially the Iraq war. The danger is that the party will put itself in the same position it occupied in 1972, 1984 and 1988--far to the left of mainstream American opinion--and it will lose the election in a landslide.
Dean doesn't lead the nine-candidate Democratic field in any national polls--yet. But he raised more money than any of his rivals in the last quarter. Polls show that he's competitive in Iowa, tied for the lead in New Hampshire and now the favorite of California Democrats. And you can tell he's the leader because other candidates are following him, especially on his opposition to the Iraq war.
Look at what happened to Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) last week. Formerly backing the war, Gephardt delivered an attack on Bush policy so extreme that it can be explained only as a desperate effort to avoid losing more campaign cash--and Iowa--to Dean.
In a speech in San Francisco, Gephardt accused Bush of ''utter disregard for diplomacy,'' and of ''turning America into a global vigilante.'' He accused Bush of ''chest-beating unilateralism,'' charged that post-war Iraq was ''a looming quagmire'' and said flatly, ''We're losing the peace.''
Gephardt didn't repudiate his October 2002 vote to authorize the war. But he reinterpreted it as an effort to push Bush to ''go to the United Nations and bring the world community on board.'' Instead, he charged, Bush ''effectively shut them out when they felt we hadn't made the case.''
This is similar to the stance being taken by Dean's closest rival for the frontrunner's position, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who is constantly being jabbed by Dean for indulging in ''revisionist history'' about his pro-war vote.
Crowded by Dean in New Hampshire, a must-win for the senator, Kerry is competing by implying that the United States is no safer than it was before Sept. 11, and by charging that ''this president went to war unilaterally and now our soldiers are there nearly alone with a target on their backs.''
Another candidate afflicted by Dean-envy is Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who has every right--on paper--to think he should be where Dean is. Graham, after all, is a senior senator and foreign policy expert, and an opponent of the Iraq war from Day One. Yet Graham is stuck toward the rear of the Democratic pack.
So to attract attention, Graham went so far as to imply that Bush deserves impeachment for allegedly deceiving the country about Iraq's nuclear program. He withdrew the suggestion, but he is still railing at ''the dishonesty of the president.'' Dean hasn't called for Bush's impeachment--just the resignation of any officials who participated in the alleged deception.
Whether or not Dean ends up as the Democratic nominee, the party is following his lead into such extreme opposition to Bush that it may end up as it did in 1972, 1984 and 1988: deemed too weak to stand up to America's adversaries.
In 1972, even though the Vietnam War was unpopular, Sen. George McGovern's (D-S.D.) advocacy of immediate withdrawal resulted in his receiving less than 38 percent of the popular vote.
In 1984, Democratic candidates competed with one another to satisfy the nuclear freeze movement that they would have given the Soviet Union a nuclear advantage in Europe. The party's nominee, Walter Mondale, also advocated tax increases and carried only Minnesota and the District of Columbia.
In 1988, despite the Iran-Contra scandal afflicting the Reagan administration, Democrats were so hostile to Reagan's Central America policy--and seen as so weak on foreign policy as well as crime -- that Michael Dukakis lost 40 states to Bush's father.
So far, only Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) has had the gumption to raise alarms about the danger that Dean represents. Unfortunately, there's a dangerous precedent for Lieberman, too--that of hawk-Democrat Henry ''Scoop'' Jackson, who also ran for the 1972 and 1976 nominations.
Dean/Sharpton '04 bump
"Near" hatred? The author has got to be kidding.
Not a chance. The "middle" likes candidates who are likeable, and who play well with others. Dean is angry, and despises even some in his own party, and it is evident.
No. Dean has no chance at winning the "soccer moms."
Well, for us, yeah, but probably not for the country. Sooner or later these maniacs will get back the Congress and White House. Better that we face a relatively responsible crew seen in earlier Democrat administrations than see one controlled by Sheila Jackson Lee, Hillery, and Dean assume control.
(I say "relatively" to account for the philandering and Communists running amok in Camelot and points prior... but at least I have some confidence that FDR and Kennedy put America first.)
The Dems lack the patience to sit back and work their agenda slowly at this point. After the strides the socialists made during the Clinton regime, they are pushing to get it all in one fell swoop. One of the weaknesses of the instantaneous gratification group running the party of splinter groups and victims..
I think there is a good chance people are beginning to wake up and realize that this crap is not making their world a better place, but the big lie continues.
...as for WMD in Iraq, with the mass graves of executed people, it appears as if Saddam was a WMD, himself. The potential for the presence of other WMDs, (NBC), is enough to overtly topple the regime. I just wish the political powers that be would set a date for transitional government Iraq can live with and get our soldiers out.
Guess who's going to be the Robert Kennedy?
(Not another carpetbagging opportunist from New York state?)
Cheers!
- John
Hillary has to wait until October '04.
She will buy Dr. Dean a ticket on Air Wellstone, and use the Torricelli NJSC ruling to overturn the ballot laws in all the states.
She can't run for 110 days (from the Boston convention to 11/04), much less for 365.
She will get in between 10/2/04 and 10/9/04, run from NBC headquarters, and has a fair chance to win.
Meanwhile, Hillary goes on her non-campaign tour, raising money through book sales, which she does not have to declare as campaign donations.
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.