Posted on 08/02/2003 8:59:26 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
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.
Anything is possible. Remember, McGovern had no sucker mom appeal, and neither did Mondale or Dukakis.
Howard Dean may be their imaginary lover-boy.
Who knows?
Ewwwwww....
Well, of course I don't know, since THIS is more my type..
HOWEVER
Sucker moms are said to abhor "angry white males". Howard is angry, he's male, and, even allowing for the Vermont winters, he IS distinctly pale of hue.
So, when do sucker moms NOT abhor "angry white males"?
Yup, that's right-when they are fantasizing about a little pounditation, that's when.
Alan Alda only goes so far...
But these Democrats are just as patriotic as you and me.
I mean kerry is walking the walk for racial intergation, which means sharpton has nothing to complain about.
I think it is our duty to remind kerry of the great heritage his wife brings to the race he is in.
The French looking and self confessed Viet Nam veteran (btw has anybody checked this claim out) needs all the help he can get to lead his party against the interloper dean.
Its funny you should mention soccer moms, that voting bloc is causing a whole host of headache's now for the democratic party, long story short, they are moms, and they want there families safe, and they do not trust democrats on national security, its racheted up as a concern for them.
Dean alienates them, his anti-military stand, and some of his rhetoric is frightening them, they see him, and the left in general, as untrust worthy in keeping there families safe.
The fact that Dean does absolutley nothing to court them, does not even try and campaign to them, is only going to hurt them.
Same democratic consultant now have a new buzz word, that will probably catch on with republicans, in describing a part of the voting bloc "Office dads". Dems stink with that group too. Its a generic term for the guys who are married to the soccer moms, and describes the middle class, the profile is married, with kids, lives in the suburbs, works an office job, uses the computer, mostly white, not very political and names football as his favorite thing on TV to watch.
Dean seems arrogant, explosive, unstable, and without a clue.
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.