August 2, 2004
LET HOWARD BE HOWARD
Campaign Dogged by Terror Fight (Adam Nagourney and David M. Halbfinger, NY Times, 8/2/04)
News of the terror threat on Sunday also stirred renewed suggestions from some Democrats that the White House was manipulating terror alerts for Mr. Bush's political gain. They said the alert had been issued just as Mr. Kerry emerged from a convention that was described by Republicans and Democrats as a success.Howard Dean was my candidate for the Democratic nomination. His positions are the positions of the majority of the party -- what they would like to say if they could. All they can do now is grit their teeth and smile while John Kerry edges ever closer to George Bush and repeat, over and over again, "he's electable.""I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism," Howard Dean, a former rival of Mr. Kerry for the Democratic nomination, told Wolf Blitzer on CNN on Sunday.
"His whole campaign is based on the notion that 'I can keep you safe, therefore at times of difficulty for America stick with me,' and then out comes Tom Ridge," Mr. Dean, the former Vermont governor, added, referring to the homeland security secretary. "It's just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much of this is politics, and I suspect there's some of both in it."
This concern with electability didn't end with the selection of John Kerry. Kerry brought Edwards onto the ticket because a strong majority of Democrats wanted Edwards. They wanted him because they thought that his looks, his story and his roots in the South made the ticket more attractive. As a result, a pacifist party is trying to woo a militarist country with two candidates stuck right in the middle: the use of military force is good, so long as it's perfect.
One problem with the ticket, though, is that Edwards is not willing to do what Vice Presidential candidates must do. He will not be the attack dog. Luckily, the Democrats have an attack dog to hand: Howard Dean, who threatens to become the white left's Al Sharpton. Dean is so devalued at this point that he had no future national elective political career to protect; to the extent he has a constituency, they feed off crazy conspiracies; and, from him, crazy is not news. The Democrats have thus out-sourced the attack to Dean, which is not a bad move. Dean is deniable, no better is expected of him and paranoia plays to his base.
(By the way, look at the Times's headline. Poor John Kerry, dogged by the most important issue of our times. Isn't this just Dean's point, dressed up in the passive voice?)
Posted by David Cohen at August 2, 2004 9:26 AMThe NY Times writes that both Dems and the GOP describe the Dem convention as a "success"...
But no superlatives, just "success", i.e., an acceptable minimum.
Which is exactly what happened, labor issues didn't dog the convention, no terror attack, no police bustin' heads, no speaker singled out as being extremely polarized ...
However, "success" doesn't cut it.
The champ is never dethroned by an opponent who's merely as good as the champ, the challenger needs to be superior.
Howard Dean speaks for at least 50% of Democrats regardless of the primary results. People who wish to be governed by the booby hatch wing (which is approaching majority status) of the modern Democratic Party are beginning to seriously annoy me, not that anyone should care. If these are the folks who wish to tax my income and regulate my business for their own purposes their time as a viable American party should be coming to a close. The coercive power of the state was not meant to be left in such hands. The contest between the two parties no longer has the characteristic of a good natured "horse race" but rather a serious battle for the soul of America. Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill and Hillary, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, et al should be a warning regarding the nature of the modern party as one of the crazy, corrupt and incompetent.
Posted by: Tom C, Stamford,Ct. at August 2, 2004 10:51 AMTom: One of my hopes for a Dean nomination was that the resulting blow-up would have caused the party to come to the center-left. Kerry will lose, but the rejection of the Democrats won't be devastating and the party will be able to blame the messenger rather than the message.
I would, though, except Bill from your list. He is, and is likely to remain, the best president of my lifetime for whom I didn't vote.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 2, 2004 11:06 AMDavid-
The list could be 10 times as long. I hope your kidding about BC. The longer term ramifications of his administration may be profound. The level of corruption and self-dealing was unique and more appropriate in a traveling flim-flam man. I fear that we may be feeling the effects of the institutional damage for years to come.
Posted by: Tom C, Stamford,Ct. at August 2, 2004 11:48 AMDavid - You either have a short memory or you are very very young. Nixon beats Clinton on solid accomplishment, and have you ever heard of Ronald Reagan? I don't expect you remember Ike, but I do, and there is no comparison. The White House should always be occupied by an adult, yet Clinton fails even this minimal test.
Posted by: Michael Gersh at August 2, 2004 1:06 PMMichael: The parameters are: (1) The best president (2) of my lifetime (3) for whom I did not vote. The contestants are: JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Clinton. Clinton signed welfare reform and helped the Republicans take the House. Nixon put wage and price controls in place and, through his paranoia and amorality, betrayed the country and made it possible for Jimmy Carter to become president.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 2, 2004 2:36 PMEven extended to candidates, that Clinton is the best of a group consisting of him, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, Nixon and LBJ is hardly a compliment. It's like saying "the best Mariner's relief pitcher", or "best dressed motorcycle gang" or "prettiest neighborhood in Butte, Montana."
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 2, 2004 2:44 PMRaoul: Killing me.
The Republicans regard the DNC as a sucess for entirely opposite reasons than the Dems. Ya think?
Kerry has already made it clear that he does not have the time to spend in intelligence briefings. So how would he know a serious threat from an Rove special ops, assuming it actually existed?
Oh right, they have drunk from the chalice. Bush is the terrorist.
Posted by: john at August 2, 2004 8:59 PMThe Republicans regard the DNC as a sucess for entirely opposite reasons than the Dems. Ya think?
Kerry has already made it clear that he does not have the time to spend in intelligence briefings. So how would he know a serious threat from an Rove special ops, assuming it actually existed?
Oh right, they have drunk from the chalice. Bush is the terrorist.
Posted by: john at August 2, 2004 9:00 PM