December 29, 2003
HAD ENOUGH?:
A Democrat breaks with tradition: Bush's strong leadership on terror war trumps my other objections. (P. Amy MacKinnon, 12/30/03, CS Monitor)
When I was growing up, the family dinner was a tradition. Above the clatter of plates, my parents discussed the world around us from their perspectives at either end of the great oak table. Together, we'd review the news of the day put into context by the events of yesterday, and always we'd think about tomorrow. Politics was a main course, and being a working-class family from Massachusetts, we were fed a healthy serving of Democratic Party principles.I carried those beliefs along with me when I worked for Democrats in both the US House of Representatives and the Massachusetts state legislature. More important, I've always carried them with me into the voting booth.
But I expect to break with that tradition. Come November, I'll be casting my vote for George Bush.
When Mr. Bush first ran for president in 2000, I found both his politics and his campaign methods anathema to the American concept of justice. I was with the many who questioned whether his intellect, interest, and experience were commensurate with the demands of being the leader of the free world. I didn't approve of his so-called middle-class tax cuts, nor his incorporating nuclear power into his energy plan, nor his judgment in appointing an attorney general inclined to sheathe immodest works of art.
But then Sept. 11 happened. Our nation needed the strength of a leader, and I wondered where we'd find one.
It wasn't until the president stood with firefighters and rescue workers at ground zero that I began to wonder if perhaps I'd misjudged him. Previously wooden while delivering prepared speeches, the man who shouted into the bullhorn from where the World Trade Center had stood demanded to be heard. And I listened - the whole world listened.
I began to hope that our country finally had a leader who'd have the moral fortitude to say to our enemies around the world: Enough. [...]
So in November, I'll break with tradition and vote for a Republican. I'll place my trust, fears, and future in the hands of a man who has shown the world what it means to lead a nation. It's a tradition of leadership that began with Washington and Lincoln, continued with FDR, and has been resurrected by Bush.
Meanwhile, the Democrats appear poised to place their future in the hands of a man who can't even bring himself to blame Osama bin Laden for 9-11. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 29, 2003 8:03 PM
A bit sappy...but, Brava for her. It's about time.
Posted by: at December 29, 2003 9:44 PMOn a related note, I'm starting to think that I'm misjudging Howard Dean. He can't be as incompetent as he is acting. As I've noted elsewhere, the Democrats are already setting up their explanation that next year's debacle isn't the fault of their beliefs but of Dr. Dean's miserable performance. Oddly enough, Republicans have to be careful not to fall into a similar trap. If Dr. Dean is acting like an imbecile, then we have to at least consider the possibility that he is doing so in response to something systemic within the Democratic Party.
Posted by: David Cohen at December 29, 2003 11:27 PMDavid: So he's playacting a thoughtless dork? I can't be reading you right.
Posted by: Chris at December 30, 2003 8:43 AMDavid: Having read your post above, I retract the prior comment.
Posted by: Chris at December 30, 2003 11:42 AMThanks for the comment, which sparked the post. I still haven't quite said what I mean, though.
Posted by: David Cohen at December 30, 2003 3:27 PMI kind of see what you mean, I think.
Dean is acting the chameleon in a way forced on him by the system; or, since I believe he actually has free will, as I think you do, the better explanation is that he wants to be President; wants to do so as a Democrat; and is playing quite well by the ground rules laid out for him. The current system, between the CFR rules and the way it's jury-rigged, means that the Democrat who can tap into the angriest (i.e., most likely to vote) partisans fastest, and secure their devout belief most strongly, has the best chance of getting enough primary electors/delegates together to win the nomination outright, or at least have enough delegates behind him to launch all-out war at the convention and have the best chance of coming out on top.
When Dean says crazy-Left things, he's grabbing part of his audience hard (and keeping Kucinich to 3%). When he says Left-but-not-totally-looney-left things, he's getting at his natural base. When he says center-left things, he's getting waverers in-party on board. He's neither stupid nor insane; he's just very good at the game as the rules are defined. The nature of the Donkey party now rewards that.
I think Dean means to swing centerward, even if fruitlessly, once he has the primary guys on board. And that's the trick, to his mind: Get them, from all corners, now; when he has to start campaigning for a wider audience, he can do so with a wink and a nod.
More, I think he's counting on this to work because so many of Nader's "protest voters" were dismayed that they were the difference between Gore and Bush last time around; there's no way, to his mind, that they jump off his ship if he lurches centerward. He might be right, too. I think part of Dionne's analysis is right: The Donkey base is waiting to be mobilized, and is ready to gel at any second. Dean's hoping to be the candidate around which they coalesce, knowing that if they divide too badly, they're in for Four More Years.
Close?
Posted by: Chris at December 30, 2003 4:49 PMI wish I'd said that.
The question is whether the Democratic Party has set up a system in which winning its nomination is disqualifying for being elected and, if so, can this election be a realigning election or can it only be an outlier?
Posted by: David Cohen at December 30, 2003 6:17 PMDavid:
It depends on how hungry the rank-and-file Dems get for victory. Once the must-have/be/do list shrinks, it's possible for mainstream candidates to get the nomination.
However, judging from the California GOP organization, one can spend many, many years in the wilderness before getting that hungry.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at December 30, 2003 11:40 PMDavid: While the effect might be as you postulate, I think that's more a result of the nature of current Dem primary voters than any systemic effect per se. That's not to say that the system is without an effect; just that I think it's an effect of secondary importance.
Posted by: Chris at December 31, 2003 8:45 AM