Reading between the lines: “Either let me write the 2004 platform or my boys will disrupt the convention.”

Posted by: Jeff at February 18, 2004 03:23 PM

Oh my! A GeekEruption!

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 18, 2004 03:37 PM

He has the gaul to think the record voter turn out is because of his candidacy. His ego, very much on display in shouting down poor Mr. Unger in Iowa, has once again erupted in a display of utter nonsense.

The record turnout is caused by the irrational hatred [Dim]ocrats feel as a result of having their boy Gore defeted in 2000.

Posted by: Cranial at February 18, 2004 03:42 PM

Given that Gore won the popular vote, had a non-trivial claim to the electoral vote, and Bush’s record vis-a-vishis campaign pledges, I have to take issue with “irrational” hatred. But make no mistake. It is hatred. Some of it may actually be as strong as the anti-Clinton sentiment in 2000. Well, maybe not that strong.

But I agree, we have not heard the last from Dr. Dean. A very astute observation, Jeff. Thanks!

Posted by: Todd at February 18, 2004 04:09 PM

And, Crainial, I have to take issue with your other point. Dean has done much to envigorate the democratic electorate after a dismal showing by the democratic leadership (if you can call it that) at the mid-term elections. Kerry will win the nomination because he became more Dean-like: more animated and forceful.

I listened to a CSPAN radio program this morning on my way to the airport, and there were several callers who were very energized and adamant in their support for Dean. One caller said he didn’t care if Dean quit, he would still write him in come November (now that is irrational). Dean has a lot to bring to the table. If the Democratic leadership is smart (jury is still out), they will court Dean like a Texas debutante.

Posted by: Todd at February 18, 2004 04:25 PM

///Dean has done much to envigorate the democratic electorate after a dismal showing by the democratic leadership (if you can call it that) at the mid-term elections.///

Perhaps, but this demonstrates a problem with this thinking. The dismal showing by the democratic candidates was a failure of democratic leadership, but not in the way that you think, Todd. It was, rather, a rejection of their platform. Time will tell, but there was a fundamental paradigm shift in the last 3 years. The reason for the loss wasn’t that the democratic party message wasn’t getting out, Todd, its that it was.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 18, 2004 05:46 PM

///Dean has a lot to bring to the table. If the Democratic leadership is smart (jury is still out), they will court Dean like a Texas debutante.///

Dean is clearly a very smart fellow, Todd, but I disagree. If the Democratic Party wishes to survive, it needs to stop listening to people like Dean, and more to people like Evan Bayh, Harold Ford Jr., and Joseph Lieberman. These people are more objective, and more able to work with colleagues across the aisle. Despite what you’ve heard, this country has taken a conservative bent in many ways since 9/11. That was the “paradigm shift” I alluded to earlier. The majority of the country is not partisan, and they don’t want to hear crap like Dean accusing Bush, directly or indirectly, of having prior knowledge of 9/11. And they particularly hate hypocrisy, like criticizing Bush’s military policy when he has voted against every major weapons program for the last thirty years. Whether you like it or not, the majority of registered voters don’t hate President Bush. In fact, as Susan Estrich recently wrote, they actually like him and think he’s a good man, even if they disagree with his policies. That’s what you are up against if you expect to win this election. The reason I mentioned the above people is because they actually contribute instead of just criticize. I think Harold Ford Jr is extremely well-versed in public and foreign policy, and while I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, he has a detailed plan of what he thinks needs to be done. Whether or not they agree with it, that’s what the American public wants to hear.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 18, 2004 06:02 PM

///And they particularly hate hypocrisy, like criticizing Bush’s military policy when he has voted against every major weapons program for the last thirty years///

This refers to Kerry. My apologies.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 18, 2004 06:18 PM

Don’t look now, and this is completely off topic, but the CEO of the company Bush supposedly “looked the other way while they stole everyone’s pensions” is about to surrender to the FBI.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 18, 2004 06:28 PM

JM,

I have to disagree with you. I agree that there was a conservative swing after 9-11, but whether there remains a fundamental paradigm shift has yet to be established. I think this election in many ways will be a referendum on that very issue.

But there is a significant population in this country that hate Bush not necissarily for what he is (althought there are those), but what he has done. And not just the wacked-out Hollywood types. Post 9-11 there was increased national unity and substanital sympathies from the rest of the world. The manner and circumstances under which this country went to war reversed those movements. This has undermined the U.S.’s ability to secure cooperation on policies necessary for our economic growth.

But I will agree with you that this is not the majority. But the way to win the presidency is by establishing a base in your own party and reaching out to the middle. And the democrats will need the Dean supporters, lest he go independent and split the vote. Clinton won on a clear and positive message that coopted moderately conservative policies that the middle could sign on to. I agree that if Dems think Kerry is the best they have to offer up, they need to take a hard look at what else they got. Edwards is start. Perhpas your man Ford is another (I am very interested in the plan you describe). I don’t think Lieberman as a president. But should Kerry lose, and the rumors about Hillary in 2008 prove true, that could very well be the death of the democratic party.

Posted by: Todd at February 18, 2004 06:54 PM

From CNN:

The White House backed away Wednesday from its own prediction that the economy will add 2.6 million new jobs before the end of this year, saying the forecast was the work of number-crunchers and that President Bush was not a statistician.

The issue arose at the White House after Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and Commerce Secretary Don Evans declined to endorse the jobs prediction and said it was based on economic assumptions that have an inherent margin of error. They spoke during a tour through Oregon and Washington to promote the president’s economic agenda.

I am not being (entirely) facicious here. It is the economy, stupid. Is anyone willing to grant me that this administration at least needs to get its shit together?

Posted by: Todd at February 18, 2004 07:07 PM

Todd,

Give me numbers.

Where do the employment rate, Dow Jones Average and inflation rate have to be for the economy to be good?

Posted by: jones at February 18, 2004 07:20 PM

I’ve never understood how expoiting existing anger and collecting money over the web attracted so many people who are so very clearly alienated from their country. It’s all very well for Dean to attract supporters because he says he was against the Iraq war, but so what? Why does this guy wear the mantle of “change”? Why are so many folks suckered by the packaging?

Some of Dean’s supporters will see his failure as proof of the evilness of the very country they don’t feel comfortable living in. (Too bad they don’t like Americans.) Dean can make a contribution by exhorting them to grow up, to realize that politics and government is not the priesthood, and to turn out in November and vote.

Most won’t, and will stay home and pout.

The worst thing Dean can do is deliberately stir up televised trouble at the convention over the platform. No one cares what the platform says except anal ideological types.

Posted by: billg at February 18, 2004 08:18 PM

JM,

Do you have a link or name for the CEO arrest?

Posted by: jones at February 18, 2004 08:25 PM

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou030218_mh_skilling.5fbfbde.html

Reports: Skilling indicted, to surrender Thursday

Registration might be required.

The prosecution is moving up the food chain.. GOOD!

Posted by: TexasGal at February 18, 2004 10:49 PM

Jones,

I can’t oblige your numbers request because I disagree with you unstated premise: that you can define good with numbers. Ultimately, it is a relative judgement based on values. Compared to the rest of the world, general speaking the U.S. Economy is good. Althought the trade deficit is devaluing the dollar, and foreing corporations are buying up America again. (Article in today’s WSJ, sorry I don’t have the link, I actually bought the print version.) And perceptions matter when discussing the ecconmy. The system of valuing equities is based, at least in part, upon this principle.

But here is another link to the Skilling story:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/07/national/main591929.shtml

billg,

too much there to deconstruct at this late hour after this long of a day. Suffice it to say is that you are about 95% wrong in your presuppositions.

Posted by: Todd at February 18, 2004 11:46 PM

Todd,

Thanks for the reasoned response. That seems to get rarer and rarer these days on this site. I agree with some of what you say, I’m just not sure Dean’s the fellow to do it. I agree completely that Lieberman is not Oval Office material, but he is able to do is characterize what his plan for America. Ford I’ve seen interviewed three times, all three by accident, two on MsNBC, and once on Fox. All three times he was poised, positive, and was judicious in his criticism of the President. Unity is fine when necessary, as is dissent. Adams and Jefferson got to the point where they wouldn’t even speak to each other. But ultimately there has to be common ground. Some of the outrageously unfair accusations lobbed at Bush in particular is not the way to secure the majority of swing voters.

Something you said, however, interests me. Why do you think Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the death of the Democratic Party. That is not a statement I would expect to hear from someone who votes Democrat. Pardon my own predjudice.

Jones,

Jeffrey Skilling W(easel) in Residence of none other than Enron. Scheduled to surrender to FBI on Thurs. Just happened to leave Enron four months before it went belly up and then had the unmitigated gall to tell Congress that he had no idea what was going on. My wife thinks he’s going to turn states evidence against Ken Lay, although I personally think the CFO gave them enough to sink them both without him turning state. Found it first on Foxnews, then on WSJ online. Probably all over the place by now.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 18, 2004 11:55 PM

Todd, you wrote:

Gore won the popular vote, - true

had a non-trivial claim to the electoral vote, - I’d grant this - I’m persuaded especially by Mickey Kaus’s analysis over at Slate

Bush’s record vis-a-vis his campaign pledges - not sure where you’re going there, but whatever

I have to take issue with “irrational” hatred - and I’d have to take issue with calling it rational. Your argument is with the electoral college system and the SCOTUS, not Bush. Neither Bush nor Gore covered themselves in glory in Florida. (N.B. I voted for Gore).

The fact is there is plenty of irrational hatred of Bush. And it will energize the Republican base more than it will win over centrist independants (in the same way Clinton hatred by the Freeper crowd energized the Democrats).

Not as strong as Clinton hatred you say? I don’t recall Clinton being compared with Hitler. Worst he was accused of was murdering Vince Foster and maybe a dozen or so others and dealing cocaine in Arkansas. Small potatoes. But I digress.

Here’s the deal - you’re right, it’s the economy, stupid. Bashing the Iraq war is not going to get a Democrat elected. And all the successes to date in the terror war (and there have been many) aren’t going to re-elect Bush. I do think the election will turn on the economy (barring unforseen events).

Greenspan recently testified that there were two threats to the economy - the rising deficit and the crisis in trade negotiations. We’ve got one party that has demonstrated they don’t care about deficits (Republican) and another that wants to make the trade crisis worse, not better (Democrat). Great. Personally, I’m more worried about the trade issue.

Three quarters of the Wisconsin primary voters stated they thought free trade meant lost jobs. This is a dangerous sentiment. I’m dissapointed that Edwards is willing to repudiate NAFTA. I‘m sure he can get Kerry to flop over on this issue as well (not a hard thing with Kerry in general). So we have the party which whines about Kyoto and extols obeisanse to the UN ready to blow a hole in the WTO. This is insane and will lose many, many more jobs than it will protect. Not to mention destroying the world economy.

Clinton was successful because he told the Democrats a lot of things they needed to hear. That free trade was essential to economic success. That welfare had to be reformed. He supported NAFTA. He didn’t pander to the class warfare types. He had a clue.

Today’s Democrats have repudiated Clinton and embraced a cliche ridden neo-populism. Power to the people, baby. Riiight.

The centrists in this country are right where Clinton left them. I don’t think the Democrats can stretch that far anymore without breaking.

Posted by: lewy14 at February 19, 2004 04:59 AM

After living through the Clinton administration, and monitoring what is being said about the present president, sorry, but this recent Bush hatred is far more visceral.

Most conservatives disagreed with Clinton’s policies. And even more saw his rather cavalier toward his office as well as his marriage vows did enrage some. But it was a lot more rational then. If he was lying to us about sex, what else was he lying about?

But here is the thing. Clinton did have sex with that woman. Bush did serve his term in the National Guard. I am at a complete loss to describe most of the charges, the whole Bush = Hitler stuff, the tacit support for Saddam, and the whole Bush hatred is a more potent, and in this age, more dangerous situation.

It is as if you cannot even disagree with the left without losing your humanity. Conservatives are not only evil, and bigoted, but stupid. Their way is the ONLY way.

If you see grave societal damage caused by gay marriage, that automatically makes you a homophobe and bigot. If you see Saddam as a threat, not just to the US, but the rest of the world, you are imperialist, war-monger, or some other dismissive term. Your voice, your thoughts, don’t count.

Bush, from everything I have seen, is basically a decent family guy. Yes, he was a bit wild in his younger days, but he seems to have gotten his act together and cleaned up. But he disagrees with much of the left’s agenda, and so is demonized. Not for what he has done, or not done, but simply because he disagrees.

They’ve made a big noise about how there have not been found any WMDs in Iraq. And so call Bush a liar. (Thereby validating the Clinton defense that “everyone lies”) But fail to recognize that a liar would probably have planted WMDs to prevent exactly these kinds of attacks. Finding no WMDs in Iraq does not tell me that Bush is a liar, but just the opposite.

Posted by: Ben at February 19, 2004 05:04 AM

Thank you all for the links.

Posted by: jones at February 19, 2004 06:52 AM

JM,

I, too, appreciate the lively, well reasoned discussion. The ideas expressed here by you and others have given me additional perspective in which to examine my own views. And there is, and will be, a whole lot to discuss. Looking forward to it.

My take on Dean when I first heard him speak on Meet the Press about 18 months ago was similar to the way you describe Ford. He struck me as someone who could provide a clear agenda for the future and present it credibly. Well, that is what campaigns are for, I guess, to put the candidates to the test. My comment about HRC perhaps is a manifestation of my own evolution rather than the future of the democratic party. To the extent this country is ready for a woman president, it is not going to be HRC. She could win the democratic nomination, but not the general election. It would be Dukakis all over again. But I can’t profess to speak for the entire democrat or liberal population. I believe it was Winston Churchill who said something to the effect that if you are 20 and not a liberal you have no heart; if you are 40 and not a conservative, you have no brain. At some point I will have to cross that threshold over which my brain is dragging me, and having to pick between HRC and a republican may be the opportune point for me. The ultimate irony for me is that it may be Mitt Romney, a mormon and a republican, who could be the republican nominee in ‘08. I may spend a while in that voting booth.

Lewy

My point about Bush’s campaign pledges are two fold. During the debates, he said he did not believe troop should be engaged in “nation building” and then asked for $67 billion to rebuild Iraq (with troops and defense contractors). Second, he claimed to be a consensus builder and would work to unite this country. September 11 united this country, and, in my estimation, Bush re-divided it; a particularly egregious violation in the absence of a mandate. Two huge liabilities going into the election. And the “I don’t know” answer he gave to Tim Russert ain’t gonna fly.

But I like your points on trade. But here is another idea. McCauliff’s strategy was to get the democratic nominee determined as soon as possible to minimize infighting within the party that could be used against the ultimate nominee, whoever he was, in the campaign against Bush. The huge risk in this strategy is that the nominee will not be sufficiently battle-tested to go against an army with a $147 million war chest. It appears now that the Dean factor is not going to be nearly as interesting as the Edwards factor in determining the Democratic platform. And one key difference is NAFTA, which should become even more apparent in the next two weeks leading up to Super Tuesday.

Ben & Lewy,

Lets agree to disagree on whose hate runs deeper. I see conservatives go into a full-on tizzy at the mere mention of Clinton’s name, and that is three years after he left office. Limbaugh made a fortune feeding on that hate, and there certainly was a willingness by some to demonize those who would have the gaul to support Clinton. Remember the cry “Where’s the outrage.” To the extent there is any moral high ground on this issue, in my estimation it is actually owned by the democrats, courtesy of the republicans. In ‘00, Republicans put character as the penultimate issue. They should not have built a glass house after throwing rocks.

But I will agree with you that such behavior is wrong and not very productive, regardless of who is doing it. I think there are a good many contributors to this forum that have principled, heart-felt, well reasoned positions, some of which differ from mine. That I can respect. Name calling and ad hominem attacks, I cannot.

Respectfully,
Douglas J. Neidermeyer, Sgt. at Arms.

Posted by: Todd at February 19, 2004 03:37 PM

During the debates, he said he did not believe troop should be engaged in “nation building” and then asked for $67 billion to rebuild Iraq (with troops and defense contractors). Remember where your argument started Todd, that this kind of broken promise was a valid reason to consider Bush hatred rational. Go back and read your post.

If you were a Buchananite isolationist, then maybe I’d grant you that this was a reason to hate Bush. But this is not where the Bush hatred is coming from and you know it. Did you have a problem with Clinton’s nation building?

In general, if a candidate promises one thing, and then that tactic becomes completely non-operational due to circumstances, partisans can attack the candidate either way: either he sticks to his promise and is accused of being an inflexible idiot, or he is accused of breaking his promise. So sorry I don’t consider the Iraq rebuilding to even be a valid criticism, let alone a rational reason to hate GWB.

So far you’ve made no real case that Bush hatred is rational. Would you like to revisit that statement?

But once again the economic issue is the dispositive one. And the fact remains that the bulk of the country does not buy into the Shrumisms that are the staple of the current Democratic rhetoric. NAFTA a key difference? Is there any issue that Kerry hasn’t been on both sides of? The guy is a walking talking wave / particle uncertainty principle. Are you seriously expecting me to believe he’ll take a principled stand now? Are you expecting anyone to believe him if he does? Please.

Posted by: lewy14 at February 19, 2004 05:02 PM

In a word, no, I don’t want to revisit that statement, and I know what I said. I used rational in the sense that people have a reasoned basis for their anger. You may not agree with their reason, but that does not mean they don’t have one. And I have to question your sincerity by stating that pointing out the divide between Bush’s statements and actions on nation building are not a valid criticism.

I can’t agree with you, Lewy. I sense some hatred in your statements about Kerry, and he hasn’t even done anything to you. Yet.

No, I didn’t have a problem with nation building in Kosovo, and I don’t have a problem with it in Iraq. I thought Clinton should have exercised more force in Iraq. We will probably need to go into other areas as well. I agree in the general principle of counteracting the oppresive forces in the world so that democratic processes can grow roots. What I have is a problem with people say it is bad/good when Clinton did it and good/bad when Bush does it. The issue is Bush said he was not going to do it, and having “character”—a leader you can believe in—is more important. He decimated our national unity and unnecessarily undermined our credibility in the world. That, in my estimation, is a principled basis on which to object to Bush as a leader. I agree its open to debate, but it is not irrational.

Posted by: Todd at February 19, 2004 05:42 PM

Hate Kerry? moi? Ridicule, yes, hate, no. He makes me laugh, not seeth. There is a difference.

Your definition of rational is tautological. If someone has a reason, voila, their hatred is rational. I don’t agree with that kind of terminology. There is a well known difference between the semantics of reason and rationalization.

I do have to clarify with respect to criticism of the Iraq funding, that was careless of me as I seemed to imply that there was no possible valid criticism, which is not a reasonable position. My point is that to contrast Bush’s pre-election promise with the post Iraq war spending without taking consideration of the intervening events (9/11, the Iraq war itself, etc) is not a valid criticism. And as far as this being a “reasoned basis” for Bush hatred, sorry but I still find that a pretty risible formulation.

I thought Clinton should have exercised more force in Iraq. Yep. Got that right.

I agree in the general principle of counteracting the oppresive forces in the world so that democratic processes can grow roots. Welcome to the vast neo-con cabal! 8)

What I have is a problem with people say it is bad/good when Clinton did it and good/bad when Bush does it. I have a problem with this too. I especially have a problem when people say they’d support Clinton using force against Iraq but not Bush.

The issue is Bush said he was not going to do it, and having “character”—a leader you can believe in—is more important. He decimated our national unity and unnecessarily undermined our credibility in the world. Nation building decimated our unity? I’m sorry but I think if Bush had stuck to his neo-isolationist rhetoric (which is one of the reasons I voted against him in the first place) he’d be accused of being hopelessly inflexible. (snaps fingers) Things change, Kundun. What you call “a failure in character” I’d call buying a clue, realizing past mistakes and changing course. Character is not identical with inflexibility.

You can argue the divisivness issue but the nation building component is a weak link. “9/11 united the nation and Bush divided it again” - nice rhetorical flourish, probably would get some traction with it, but nation building is not the case which will win you many converts. Just my $0.02.

Posted by: lewy14 at February 19, 2004 09:20 PM