Dean is Unelectable
While I will of course vote for Dean if he becomes the Democratic nominee, Kevin Drum and I both agree that the quickest way to Democratic defeat would be a Dean candidacy. As far as I'm concerned, Dean would be a fine candidate, and quite possibly - as a domestic centrist - my favorite, if not for his ardent anti-war stance. It's the thousand pound anchor around his neck that is guaranteed to sink him in the general election. You simply have to look around you at the state of mind of the average American today to realize this.
I have to say it: I think Dean is unelectable. Without going into tedious detail, just try to imagine that it's April and the $200 million attack machine has geared up. And think about what the ads are going to look like, especially to moderates who aren't true believers in the Dean phenomenon already. (Go ahead: use your imagination. And try to be brutally realistic.) To me, they look devastating. I know it's not fair, but this election isn't going to have anything to do with fairness.And if you want one single thing to chew on, it's this: national security is going to be the main theme of the election. I don't care if we like it or not, the Republicans are the ones with the money and the bully pulpit and they're going to hammer on it. And while I know that a lot of liberals think that anti-war sentiment is going to wash over the country in a great wave, it's just not realistic to think that's going to happen. Really, it's not.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Dean is Unelectable.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.0xdeadbeef.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2875
Dean's not anti-war. He is anti-Iraq war. You gonna argue that Gulf War II was a good idea? You gonna argue that it was worth thousands of casualties to get Saddam?
American me. Give me a reason to fight and I will fight. Lie to me and send Americans to some hellhole to die in 140 degree heat, to live in tents for 8 months, so that you can privatize socialist industries, fatten your friends billfold and conduct a flat tax experiment, and you have made an enemy.
How's this for a reason to fight. Saddam is gone and Iraqi's are no longer being fed to shredders, tossed off buildings, or having their tounges cut out.
Regardless of our difference of opinion on the war, do you really believe that the general public agrees with Dean's stance on the war? I see no evidence, and plenty to the contrary.
Aheh. They were saying the same stuff about Clinton...BOTH times. Politics as usual.
I'm with Kirby on this. Dean's not anti-war, he's anti-LIES for war.
General public? They're split: Anti-lies people like Dean, Kirby and I, and people who believe in "any means to an end" like you, Instastupid, Andrew SulLIEvan, little green footsoldiers, etc.
Wasn't your boy Clark anti-Iraq-war too? Or isn't he? Ya know, it was hard to tell since he was flip flopping on that issue when he joined the race...At least Dean had a pretty consistent stance all along. ;p
It's called being Pragmatic. Pulling out of Iraq now would be completely insane and just plain dumb. If we leave this place worse off than it was under saddam, we're really going to piss off the whole Middle East.
You can either sit and argue about wether we should have gone to war or not, but that doesn't help the situation now, does it?
How about some *pragmatic* solutions to the current mess rather than a complete pullout and arguing over if we should have gone to war or not?
Personally I'd like to see a partial pullout replaced by a UN or NATO backed force, but there is no way we can completely pull out. I'm still up in the air with regard to us still being in control or handing over the reins to the UN or NATO. I'd prefer NATO if anyone, I'm not sure the UN is really capable of leading a major reconstruction.
not sure Dean is that unelectable given the right circumstances (ie economy still a bit uncertain - Iraq still a mess)- remember its about winning individual states not the overall vote. So Dean completely gives up on the South - lose by 65/35 in each state - who cares).. he concentrates on swing states in rustbelt and pulls it out?? check out http://www.edwardsforprez.com/dailykos.html to play with scenarios for an electoral victory.
"Aheh. They were saying the same stuff about Clinton...BOTH times. Politics as usual."
Clinton didn't run against a war, he ran against the economy.
"Wasn't your boy Clark anti-Iraq-war too? Or isn't he? Ya know, it was hard to tell since he was flip flopping on that issue when he joined the race...At least Dean had a pretty consistent stance all along. ;p"
And this is exactly why Clark is more electable. Politics as usual, like you said. This isn't about reality, this is about what Karl Rove will whip up with his $200+ million budget.
I'd love for Dean to be president. I really would. I agree with just about every single one of his domestic positions which are extremely centrist and state-rights oriented. I don't even neccesarily subscribe to the prevailing theory that he'd be bad at foreign policy - his anti-war stance was a shallow attempt to suck in the anti-war vote, not the result of some deep seated isolationist feelings or conviction. But the fact that he's hung that rope around his neck is something he can't get away from. Karl Rove and friends will tear him apart, indeed, they'll tear anyone apart - . I wish it wasn't so and he'll have my vote if he wins the nomination, but I don't think he stands a chance and could deal a knockout blow to the Democratic parties chances in all subsequent elections during Bush's second term, leading to more local Republican control and gerrymandering.
Oops, left out a piece
"Karl Rove and friends will tear him apart, indeed, they'll tear anyone apart - but Dean is the juiciest target they could ask for, he's salivating at the possibilities."
"not sure Dean is that unelectable given the right circumstances (ie economy still a bit uncertain - Iraq still a mess)"
Those circumstances are going to be required for ANY Democrat to win. It's not about reality, it's about what Karl Rove and his machine can do to the candidate.
Dean's got my vote if he's the nominee, and I'm making my donations to the Democratic Party so whomever wins the nomination will have my money, but I'm going to do whatever I can to give Clark a chance at the nomination, because I think he's a more realistic candidate who COULD carry the South AND take advantage of the above issues just as effectively as Dean. Watch for Kerry's former (as of yesterday) campaign manager, press secretary and deputy finance director to show up in Little Rock. The team is growing.
Dean is *not* a pacifist; he's an intelligent man. It's well known that Dean *supported* the attack on Afghanistan to destroy Al-Qaida. He believed that the Iraq war was a wasteful, expensive distraction from destroying al-Qaida. He was right -- morale in the military is sharply down and we *still* haven't found Osama bin Laden. *Or* finished destroying the Taliban!
We had worldwide support for attacking al-Qaida. We didn't for Iraq. Remember that Iraq had *no link* to al-Qaida (Osama bin Laden considered Hussein a secular heretic). This is even admitted by Bush. Now that the unelectable GWBush has created chaos in Iraq through his incredible incompetence, al-Qaida is beginning to move *into* Iraq. Isn't that lovely?
Dean is electable. The unelectable one is George W. Bush, who was already unelectable in 2000 and has only gotten more unelectable since then.
Also, if national security is going to be the issue?....
Bush underfunded the Coast Guard, first
responders, and Homeland Security. Dean will support all of these properly (check his website).
Bush didn't catch Osama bin Laden or eliminate al-Qaida. His incompetence at diplomacy, public statements about "crusade"s, and incomptent, bullheaded blundering in Iraq have actually radicalized more Middle-Eastern Muslims and *increased* al-Qaida recruitment.
Our military is becoming demoralized by the incompetence of the Iraq occupation.
Meanwhile, North Korea has nukes and Bush is failing to do a damn thing about it.
National security? Bush doesn't know jack about national security.
"National security? Bush doesn't know jack about national security."
No arguing that. Unfortunately, Dean knows less.
Well I think if Herr Rove really wanted to run against Dean, he would leave him alone to win the Dem primary. Instead the Right Wing machine is in low attack mode on Dean, pumping toxic memes into the media about Dean's unelectability.
Perhaps this is just a sign of Rove's utter stupidity in that he's jockeying the primaries to nominate a Dem he thinks has the best shot at beating Bush. I think that's bull. Herr Rove is a highly gifted strategist/thug, and he's spreading lies about Dean for ONE reason: Dean puts the fear of God into Right Wing strategists.
Oh, yeah, I forgot: Dean's fiscal rigor, moderate economic policy, and pro-gun stance is just too damn liberal for mainstream America. Sure. Whatever.
For every analogy of Dean to McGovern, there's an analogy of Dean to RFK. My personal favorite is the comparison of FDR, JFK, and Dean. All of these men are phase transition candidates; they all came to prominence at a time when a new technological medium of communication was gaining dominance. With FDR it was radio, JFK it was TV, and of course with Dean it is the internet. Interestingly, those who heard the JFK-Nixon debates on radio thought the dick won, but those who watched it on TV thought JFK won. Perhaps this phenomenon could explain why the current TV punditocracy doesn't understand Dean.
Time will tell, but I believe we are all poised on the cusp of a great movement in America that history will remember as the defining moment of early 21st century politics.
I'm sure this just a drive by "Deaning" and you probably won't be back to respond, but since you mention his fiscal rigor and moderate economic policy I'll mention his conversion of Vermont into a tax shelter for Enron and friend. Why did Dean help Enron rob America?