Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
![]() |
September 29, 2003Why I Still Support DeanBy Andrew DobbsLike Byron, I really truly dislike George Bush. I think that he has been an awful president and I think that these 4 years have been terribly destructive to our country. I also believe that another term would harm America irreparably and be devastating to the Democratic Party. I also believe that we must be practical and look at who will best unseat this president and enliven our party for the sake of taking back the Congress in 2004. There are 7 candidates that have some reasonable shot at winning the nomination and they'd all be better than Bush by a longshot. But one has the best shot of winning and only one can create a movement to dramatically change our country for the better in the process. That man is Howard Dean. Let's be realistic here. No matter what Bush's poll numbers are like right now, he is incredibly strong going into 2004. Reagan and Clinton both had much lower poll numbers at this point in their terms. Clinton was written off as a one term president through most of his term until the very end when the economy turned up and the GOP nominated a weak and uninspiring candidate. Right now the GOP is at its strongest and the Democratic Party at its weakest since the McKinley era and Bush will have more money than any candidate in history, by a long shot. If employment takes a big jump (he almost certainly won't erase all the job losses, but a few quarters of stunning growth in the GDP and job market will make that point moot) and Iraq and Afghanistan are going swimingly by the time November 2, 2004 rolls around, no Democrat can beat him probably. If, on the other hand, we continue on our current course (as I suspect we will) a candidate that can run the right kind of campaign with the right kind of message can have a real shot against him. That kind of campaign will not be a Carter/Mondale/Dukakis/Clinton/Gore, traditional, top down, ad heavy, style over substance type of campaign- Bush plays that game much better. He has all the advantages in that kind of battle- he has 100% name ID, the world's biggest bully pulpit, more money than God and a unified, incredibly well-organized party behind him. Thats why we must be guerilla warriors- striking the mighty where they are weak and feeding off of and fanning popular discontent. We must develop a sort of political Judo- using our opponent's strength against him. Howard Dean is the man for the job. Dean has nearly 450,000 online supporters- nearly half a million people have read what he has to say, gone to his website and filled out a form saying that they want to be connected with his cause. That is more than the number of voters in the New Hampshire primaries and Iowa caucuses combined. Of that 450,000 nearly 120,000 are actively involved in the Meet Up process- meaning that more people say that they are going to go to an organized meeting of Dean volunteers every month than there are participants in the Iowa caucuses. If only a third show up that is still 40,000 active, organized, committed supporters nationwide a year before the elction. This is at a time when 2/3 of all Democrats can't even name one candidate and he already has nearly 500 times as many active supporters as the margin in Florida in 2000. Finally, Dean has raised $12.6 million this quarter from 150,000 donors. Dean has convinced 150,000 people to put their hard earned money towards getting him elected president. That is unprecedented in modern history and is the kind of fundraising operation that is going to beat Bush's pioneers and rangers and his $200 million. Where Bush is mass produced, Dean is grass roots, where Bush is top heavy Dean is populist, where Bush is funded and fueled by powerful interests Dean is supported by average Americans willing to work, organize, donate and support him through thick and thin. That is a powerful advantage over Bush that not another Democrat has anything resembling. Additionally, Dean has the Judo needed to knock Bush out. Bush has a slick, carefully orchestrated image- Dean is real, unprocessed. Bush has sound-bite policy proposals, Dean has meat and potatoes, something substantive to say. Bush smirks while 3 million people lose their jobs and 6000 families are devasted by having a family member killed or injured in Iraq and Dean is mad as hell. Bush is conservative where he shouldn't be- on issues of fairness and equality- Dean is liberal on those issues. Bush is a bleeding heart where he ought not be- on fiscal issues- Dean has balanced more government budgets than anyone else in this race. Bush is viewed as a slightly dumb cowboy, Dean is a doctor- an expert who knows how to fix things most Americans don't. Dean can take Bush on where he is weak and take advantage of him like no other candidate can. Finally, Dean will win the Democratic nomination. Really, there are only four candidates with any chance at the nomination- Dean, Kerry, Gephardt and Clark. The three irrelevants are, well, irrelevant; Graham can't raise money and his numbers are dismal, his organization next to non-existant; Edwards is mired in obscurity in the polls and his campaign seems to be populated by people intent on losing and Lieberman brags about getting booed at all the forums- he is a step to the right of the party. Dean will take out Kerry in New Hampshire unless something important happens soon for John and Gephardt is increasingly weak in Iowa. If he loses there, he is done. Other than that, his trendlines are down nationally and Clark and Dean's are up. I believe that the race boils down to Clark v. Dean and Dean has more money, better organization and taps into the visceral anger of rank and file Dems right now. Clark can gain ground before the nomination is locked up but I doubt that he can surpass Dean. Clark is the only other candidate with a shot as far as I'm concerned and I think his vacillation hurts him badly. Dean is what Democrats want- an electable, angry, exciting liberal with a great organization and a commitment to what he says. Dean wins the nomination unless Clark gets some solid ideas and some fire in his belly, Kerry does something new in New Hampshire or Gephardt has a radical change in fortunes. I see Dean winning this race and choosing a moderate southerner with foreign policy credentials, i.e. Wesley Clark, as his running mate. His organization, message, image and the intensity of his supporters leads him to victory. No one else can do it. Paul Wellstone wrote a book called The Conscience of a Liberal shortly before he passed away in which he described the future of America as he saw it. It was an America where the government becomes a force for change, fairness, prosperity and hope for our people. It was an America where people with the intensity, intelligence, compassion and passion of Paul Wellstone were in charge. He talks about how this country will not be created by sound-bite politicians with $2,000 a plate dinners and wishy-washy positions on everything, but by a mass movement of grassroot progressive activism. Howard Dean adopted his signature tagline "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" from Sen. Wellstone and it seems he's adopted his vision and organization from the late professor as well. I believe in that kind of America and no other person running now, or ever in the last 35 years has fought for that like Howard Dean has. The less we worry about electability and the more we worry about who has the best plan for making America the country we all know deep down inside that it can be the clearer it becomes- Howard Dean is the man for America. Posted by Andrew Dobbs at September 29, 2003 02:18 AM | TrackBackComments
I aggree with you 100% There are people who are jumping on the bus who have never been invovled or ever motivated to do any political work, as I noticed here in El Paso and as well in Iowa (talked and listened to a few over the weekend). If the excitment keeps going, this could turn into something we havn't seen in a long while. We the Dean supporters need to make sure we dont lose the fire by spreading his message or getting new people at meetups All we need now is for him to smile better :O) Posted by: Mike at September 30, 2003 12:05 AMThank you for pointing out the economic reality, Andrew. I am working hard on a model to predict the next election which leans heavily on econometrics. Right now the Conference Board and the CBO both project real GDP growth in the next year to be about 4 percent, which would be much better than his father's figures in 1992. My guess is that real disposable income will also jump about 4 percent (although that has a lot to do with tax cuts and little to do with growth). Although the Conference Board pegs unemployment at 5.9 percent by late next summer (when people really make up their minds). My gut is it will be a hair worse, probably at about 6.1 percent. In either case, the weakness is jobs, jobs, jobs. Unemployment aside, though, these numbers are fairly respectable and will be hard to spin as an outright disaster. Which leaves the three biggest issues next year to be the deficit (still ballooning), health care, and the war in Iraq. I generally tend to think Dean is one of the more credible messengers on all of those issues. Posted by: Jim D at September 30, 2003 11:01 AMdream on ... Bush will be re-elected easily next year, the GOP will gain at least 3 seats in the Senate and at least 5 seats in the House. Posted by: mdn at October 1, 2003 08:49 AMA bit of constructive criticism here ... granted we're riding different horses in this race, but there seems to be an overabundance of cliches in this post, not to mention more than a few overreaching comments: Where to begin? Whenever I read someone pimping Dean with sentences like "The less we worry about electability," the more I realize what the true endgame is. Similarly, the "Dean isn't really a liberal" schtick doesn't fly when the people who make that argument are, in fact, diehard liberals (not to mention the two emails I get last weekend from Rob Reiner & Martin Sheen of all people!). Credibility has a way of flying out the window quickly when this tactic is adopted and hardly qualifies as playing politica "judo." It's deceptive trade practice. I'll be all ears for the first person who can explain to me that American voters will overlook civil unions as a big deal to them or that Dean's NRA-friendly past will compensate for this somehow. That Dean has "the best plan" is likewise not spelled out here. Its stated as fact for us to leave or take. This is, in essence, a trip back to 1992. Recall that Tom Harkins spoke much like Howard Dean. His was very much a red meat offering and the policy parallels between the two are no doubt very even. The question in 1992, as it is today ... is do you want to win, or do you just want to land punches while going down. In 1992, there was no way a protectionist Senator was going to win despite how populist he was able to sound. Now we're at 2003 and Dean makes much the same sales pitch, complete with protectionism. Dean's foreign policy has centered mostly on doing the opposite of whatever it is that Bush will do. It won't take $200 million to keep Howard Dean out of 1600 Penn. All it will take is a small running of Dean's on-air quote that he "supposed" it was a bad thing that Hussein was gone played against an Iraqi exile narrating the terrors that existed in Iraq for its citizens. That quote is his ride in the tank. "Civil Unions" is his Dukakis Death Penalty stance. The 2002 elections showed two things: what the lack of a coherent and meaningful foreign policy will do to a party when foreign policy is the biggest issue of the day, and that the GOP can play the GOTV game better than the Democratic Party. The Dean campaign does nothing to address either of these. The Nancy Reagan approach to foreign policy of "just say no" will be a hard sell to voters who realize that there are perils abroad that must be confronted. There is a very real dissatisfaction with the Bush approach thus far, but voters won't simply turn elsewhere ... the two approaches will be weighed against one another. Howard Dean's first question in the foreign policy debate with Bush will be why he supports giving greater control of foreign policy to the French and Germans ... to date, he's had a difficult time stating a policy that says little more than just that. Likewise, relying on the volunteers that have thus far been reported at the Meetups will be one more step towards folly. Tell me how Howard Dean will play in the swing precincts of Harris County, if not in the GOP-rich suburbs. That is where the party is being shut out right now and the margin is being lost. Getting our base out is nice ... but if that's all there is, then brace yourself for a 65-35 showing on Election Night. The parallels to reading this remind me of hearing the Bush administration describe what a cakewalk Iraq was going to be. So I would ask if you're not committing the same sin here and challenge you to make a more detailed case for why Dean's plan is better, more fiscally sound, more reasonable and/or has the ability to connect with voters that care about the issue described. Posted by Greg Wythe at September 30, 2003 12:26 PM Posted by: Greg Wythe at October 1, 2003 06:29 PMPost a comment
|
|