Streamlining Government

Confounding President Bush's pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels.

Yes, I've no doubt the Democrats will get rid of the war, but they'll likely also deprivatize the civil service--one of W's great unknown achievements.

Given Dean's recent spaight of gaffes, the Democrats may rue the day they forward-loaded the primary season to the extent that two of their major unions have made their endorsements 51 weeks before the 2004 general election.

Coming out so early means the leaders or AFSCME and SEIU are now locked in and will have to defend every oddball thing Howie says through the primaries and general election, unless they get lucky and a more electable candidate like Gephardt knocks him off (true, they toed the line to whatever whopper the Clinton Administration was peddling for eight years, but this is different -- they're trying to get back into power instead of trying to hold onto it. Defending loopy statments from Dean when they know the public isn't buying their spin and the odds of his election are getting longer and longer is not going to be a fun job for the union bosses).

Gephardt is in no way more electable than Dean.

A lifetime of legislative experience will provide plenty of fodder for Bush, and Gephardt's protectionist policies on trade will alienate more swing voters than they appeal to.

Also, one of Jewish World Review's columnists has an interesting theory about the electibility of Presidential candidates, which holds that one has sixteen years from election to major office, (which Congress absolutely qualifies as), to make it to the White House.
He has a century of election data to back that point up.
(Serving as Vice President doesn't count against the sixteen years).

Electability is a strange creature. Very few would have thought Reagan electable in 1979. Very few would have thought Clinton electable in 1991.

With the 9 echoes today, we have a better idea of their backgrounds and their foibles (because of the increased exposure), but even that is an unknown.

I would venture to say that Republicans have a somewhat better idea of any specific Democrat's electability than the average lefty media beast does, but it is also pretty obvious that the Democrats always underestimate Republican electability (Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2).

Where is Harry Truman's chicken pollster (Les Biffle) when you need him?

Unfortunately, back when the Eastern Establishment was Republican, they thought Dewey was electable. Taft would have whipped Truman good.