Thursday, January 22, 2004
The goal of the Democratic Party has to be to field a candidate that can do two very important things. Two things which are virtually opposite each other on the political scale. First, they have to mobilize the hard core members of their party during the primary. Then, after the primary, they have to appeal to the nation at large, convincing as many undecided and primarily centrist voters as possible that their candidate is the best choice.
The problem they face is that, at this time, these two goals are about as far apart as they have ever been. Only the party faithful participate, in any numbers, in the primary process and the Democratic faithful are pretty far left. Take a look at how the candidates are polling.
The Massachusetts senator [Kerry] leads Dean 31 percent to 21 percent, with a slipping Wesley K. Clark at 16 percent after skipping the Iowa caucuses.
Sen. John Edwards is in fourth place with 11 percent, followed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman with 4 percent. Rev. Al Sharpton and Rep. Dennis Kucinich continue to barely register.
The most conservative of the five who are realistically (I know I'm stretching the definition of the word realistic) left in the race is Joseph Lieberman and he can hardly even see the middle of the road from where he is. Despite this he is too far right to appeal to the Dem base (thus he's tracking at 4% which is, realistically, not very realistic).
Kerry and Edwards are hard left, class warrior types (which is a little strange, since they are both very wealthy) and have lots of appeal with the Dem base. Dean is so weird and flip-floppy it's hard to see where he is really coming from (though weirdness, in and of itself, seems to have some sort of appeal for the Dem base).
So here's my point. The sudden slide in Dean's numbers is being attributed largely to Democrats seeing the need for an electable candidate. And yet the candidates who are most likely to appeal to the highly necessary undecided voters are so far down their list that my favorite of this pack (not because of his politics but rather his personal integrity), Dick Gephardt, is dropping out altogether and Joe Lieberman is at 4%. Democrats are in the process of picking from Kerry, Edwards and Dean all of whom are spouting the old, old, old Liberal doggerel (without much conviction, I might add) and have very little chance of appealing to the large, undecided middle. Which, after the State of the Union speech, is where George Bush is squarely targeted.
Dick Morris, in a New York Post op-ed peice agrees.
Can Bush beat Kerry? Not as easily as he could defeat Dean, but he likely can. Kerry is ultimately a reincarnation of Mike Dukakis as the candidate from the People's Republic of Massachusetts. His liberalism places him beyond the pale of most American voters.
Though Morris is usually a very perceptive political analist he rates John Edwards as a moderate. Take a look at Edwards positions in my post from yesterday and see if you agree.
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Dean probably won't use it; it's always difficult to believe in advice your opponents give you. They don't necessarily have your best interest at heart. In that spirit, I hope he does use it. My vote goes for the most beatable Democrat I can find (see my previous post). Dean's my man.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Not much new here. Just the same old Liberal line. According to his website:
George W Bush has chosen tax cuts for the wealthy and special favors for the special interests over our economic future.And:
John Kerry believes that we need to invest in our schools instead of giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. He has the courage to fight for our children's future every day. When it comes to education, George W. Bush has been the photo-op President. He stands next to children and teachers for a picture, but he doesn't stand with them when it comes to improving our public schools.And:
George Bush has chosen to lavish tax cuts upon the wealthiest among us while working Americans struggle to afford health care for their families.And:
The Bush Administration has provided too little support, too little leadership, and too little vision for the common defense of our homeland. John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security.And:
On one side is President Bush who has taken America off onto the road of unilateralism. On the other side are those in the Democratic Party who threaten to take us on a trail of confusion and retreat.And:
Kerry believes that we don't need a President who will walk away from the world or a President who will walk alone. He believes that we need a President who will lead the nations of the world into a new era of security, freedom, and peace.
We'll never have to send our sons and daughters to war for Mideast oil.
His pitch seems to be, primarily class warfare. According to his website:
As president, John Edwards will not forget that we have two Americas: one for the powerful insiders and the privileged few, and another everybody else.And:
3 million more Americans are living in poverty since President Bush took office, including 1.2 million children. Instead of offering help to these Americans, President Bush has cut taxes for the rich and provided big giveaways to his friends in corporate America.
Look at this amazing quote while realizing that it is completely true and at the same time the truth is the opposite of what he means:
"Today under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one. One America does the work, while another America reaps the reward. One America pays the taxes, while another America gets the tax breaks.
I'm so bored by this same old drivel! Don't they have any new ideas. How can it be that this stuff passes for a platform? Does this stuff really "play to the base"? Who can this "base" be? Who is really naive enough to buy this snake oil?
How is it possible that there are people who don't know that 50% of Americans pay 96.03% of taxes? How is it possible that there are people who don't know that the recession, which we are so enthusiastically coming out of, began during the Clinton administration and has been effectively ended by George Bush's tax policies? How is it possible that they think we acted unilaterally in Iraq?
How is it possible?
There is no Liberal Bias in the Media
Bush Lied About Weapons of Mass Destruction
The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Poorer
The DFL is the Party of Civil Rights, Minorities and the Poor
The DFL is the Party of the Environment
You Can't Balance the Budget Without Raising Taxes
Light at End of Tunnel
2004 State Budget Deficits
We're Exporting All of Our Jobs to Other Countries
Our Economy is in the Tank
Monday, January 19, 2004
Dean seems to me to be the most beatable of the top four in the Democratic field, with Clark a close second. Even Lieberman, who does not make the top four, seems a more likely candidate than Dean.
A few weeks ago (heck, a few hours ago) Dean was considered a shoe-in for the nomination. This would seem to be a great thing for Conservatives. An obvious loon with a tendency to 'misstate the truth' and who has numbers twenty to thirty points below Bush's to boot. What could be better? Yet we couldn't keep our mouths shut. We gloated, we crowed, we explained in great detail just how beatable Dean was.
What did we get for our trouble? Dean dropping fast into a four way tie with Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards. Why couldn't we keep our mouths shut just a little? Let Dean slide more slowly. Slowly enough to Let Dean become the nominee.
Let's hope that, if Dean does become the nominee, we haven't used up all of our ammo and that he hasn't already been forgiven for his almost unbelievably volatile and truth-challenged early campaign. You know how Liberals love to forgive their own (though they do seem to have trouble with others).