A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
April 06, 2005DNC DeanFor some reason, I've found Dean's recent career as compelling as watching a train wreck. When Dean was running in 2003 and 2004, I formed the opinion that at the start, he was a smart guy, good and experienced leader, and a centrist. But as the election went along, I came increasingly to believe that he was increasingly addicted to demagoguery. The evidence for that was that he had little message discipline - talking to one group, his message - including announced policies - was different from what he said to other groups, or to interviewers, or compared with the well-within-Centerfield place he started as governor. The upside of Dean as DNC chair is that he is very smart. Unlike McCauliffe, he seems to understand at least some of Karl Rove's ways. Not long ago, I saw Matthew Dowd, Bush pollster, on an interview show here done by Texas Monthly. The host, Evan Smith, asked him about the purpose of the Swiftvets , because he had just done a feature in Texas Monthly (subscription needed), presuming that the reason was just to have opposition lies out to battle what what Kerry was saying about Vietnam. Dowd said the reason was more subtle - the Swiftvets were there as a decoy to keep Kerry focused three decades ago in Vietnam instead of his vision for the future. It worked. I grew up being annoyed at constant comparisons of everything with Vietnam, and Kerry's focus on Vietnam alienated me and other post-boomers, as Rove and Dowd hoped. The significance of that is that a little while later, when McAuliffe was on his way out, he talked about the Swiftvets on an NPR interview ( this one, maybe?). He shared Smith's belief that they were just there to spread rival noise. Well, it's the job of a DNC chairman to be as clever as the other guy and see what's happening. And this is one time he didn't. In fact, I think he poorly understood Rove's actions in general. I noted in my Rove posts that I didn't think McAuliffe understood Rove's strategy for getting moderates - encouraging Democrats to look publicly extreme or stupid - , and in fact played into it by emphasizing anti-Bushism over positive Democratic values. (The costs of this are horrible; how many Democrats today are secretly hoping Democracy fails abroad?) Dean is a different story. It's my opinion that he understands Rove's strategy, as a DNC chair should, but may not be able to execute on getting moderates back, due to that addiction to demagoguery. On the other hand, he does seem to be going with a forward plan that works with his weaknesses. On the gripping hand, the expansion plans seem to exclude centrists. The evidence I have that he at least partially sees Rove's strategy and why centrists have been voting GOP is simple, and limited. You should take this with a halide crystal or two. It's this: Dean has been avoiding putting extreme statements before the media. It started with his first speech, of which only a 'respectable' version can be found online; nonetheless, it was widely reported that he tagged on the exclamation, "I hate Republicans!" which is rather at odds with the spirit of the online version. Beyond that, Dean has continued to keep a low media profile, except for rallies in Red States, which aren't interesting enough to get national coverage (hat tip):
My theory is that he's doing this because he knows that extreme things he says to the national press would get wide coverage and scare off centrists just like Rove wants. He might just think that the local press is less likely to be hostile to him, which is probably also true, but wasn't a factor in the first speech. Not only do I think he's keeping Rove in mind, but I also think he's come up with a thoughful forward strategy that works well with his strengths and weaknesses. He's off on a tour of the Red States to attract people there. Apparently, at a rally in Tennessee, he said:
Very true, and very clever. It's wise for him to come out and pursue Democrats in red states. And it works with his demagogic style because he knows he'll have an easier time going after Red State leftists than centrists. Which is what he seems to be doing with his red meat (blue meat?) speeches. Nonetheless, it still looks to me like he still has has his demagogic addiction. Why else the "I hate Republicans," and red meat he's been throwing local crowds? Well, that has consequences. It means that, in a real way, he's using the crowd. Not only is that wrong in and of itself, but I theorized that in the last campaign, guilt was causing Dean to change stances; it's crystal clear that, for whatever reason, Dean completely lost message discipline in 2004. Right now, I think Dean is basically doing a good job, albeit with a nasty demagogic twinge. Unfortunately, past performance suggests that we should watch him for signs of losing message discipline and/or losing track of his anti-Rove strategies. The Profesora points out, correctly, that the datapoints available since Dean started running the DNC are still limited, so as I said above, you should be a little skeptical. Posted by Jon Kay at April 6, 2005 02:32 AMComments
My feeling is that while many people were skeptical of the Swiftvets claims, and most people (including the President) agreed that Kerry served honorably, it did 2 things 1. Highlighted Kerry's opposition to the war when he came home, which was pretty radical. Kerry never provided a narrative to explain how he shifted from being an anti-war radical to supporting the Iraq War. 2. Highlighted that a lot of people who knew Kerry don't like him all that much. Bush clearly has a lot of skeletons in his closet, but he seems popular enough among his old buddies that they keep the skeletons buried. Posted by: rickheller at April 6, 2005 11:48 AMI tracked down the Dowd interview segment you referred to, and I think you're significantly mischaracterizing it. Evans didn't ask Dowd about the "purpose" of the SBVT, but about their effect. Dowd said nothing about the "reason" of the SBVT, he talked about their effect on the campaign, about how the Kerry campaign screwed up by pushing a Vietnam focus in the first place, and how the SBVT locked in that focus at the cost of any positive message. Your phrasing implies that Dowd spoke of the SBVT as a "set piece" orchestrated by Rove and the Bush campaign. And Dowd didn't say that, or anything close. He simply spoke of how it played to the electorate. Whether the SBVT actually were a Rovian machination is another subject, and the partisans and historians will no doubt argue it for years--but I've seen no evidence that O'Neill and crew were instigated by the Bushies. Funded by some of them later on, of course, but they appear to have started independently, not gaining major funding from the Bush camp until they were actually both visible and useful. I blogged about this at the time of the DNC convention, about Kerry and the Vietnam message, and why it was an utterly stupid ploy. I even called it his "jumping the shark" moment. Kerryites and lefties were quite vehement in telling me I was so very wrong, calling me a tool of the GOP, even asking me if Rove was paying me in cash. Apparently I was dead on target in saying that it was a major campaign bunder, during a time of war with a large and visble fraction of the Dem left apparently rooting for failure, to project the campaign theme "Vote John Kerry for another Vietnam!" That the whole mess played nicely into the Bush campaign is indisputable, but I do grow weary of the "Evil Genius Rove" meme being used to explain every stupid blunder made by Democrats. Or the "stupid red-stater" meme. Et freakin' cetera. Sooner or later the Dems are going to have to look in the mirror and admit that the loss was their own damn fault, and not everybody else's. Until they deal with that, they're going to keep losing. Posted by: Tully at April 6, 2005 01:19 PMThe problem with Kerry and the Swift Boat Vets is that Kerry’s January 30, 2005 appearance reinforced their claims on at least two issues: whether he had released all of his military records and his infamous Cambodia excursion. If he had released all of them why didn’t he sign the Form 180? Why was he delivering guns to people who were shooting at him? Military Records CAMBODIA “I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians…” I'm not even going there, ROA. Not relevant to my point anyway. My point being that I haven't seen any good evidence of the SBVT being some long-planned grand Rovian strategy. Rove may be smart but he's not God, and Kerry eagerly fell full-length on that smelly pasture patty without any opposition assistance. But the Dems still cannot accept responsibility for their own 2004 blunders. It's gotta be someone else's fault. So Rove has to be the campaign op from Krypton, endowed with superhuman powers and prescience, just as Bush must be the Evil Chimpy McSmirk, and red-staters must all be knuckle-draggin' morons. I pointed out Kerry's shark-jumping moment when it happened. Rove didn't do it. Kerry did it to himself. Posted by: Tully at April 6, 2005 02:57 PMTully, That's fair, but I think it points out what a sensitive issue it was and how diplomatically challenged Kerry was not to recognize it before he declared his candidacy. Posted by: ROA at April 6, 2005 03:06 PMI totally agree with Tully. Kerry spent so damn much time reminding us that he had been in Viet Nam that he neglected to talk about what he would do as president. (I'm exaggerating obviously.) If Kerry had simply made the point that, "I've been in combat, I know what war is, etc.), that would have been fine. But he seemed to make it the centerpiece of his campaign. And it reinforces my feeling that liberals do not understand the American public. Their attitude seemed to be, "well, you dumb yokels need some red meat patriotism, here it is, ok, vote for our guy." They missed the point that you still have to have a message. The assumption that all you need to reach this electorate is to throw out some sound bites showing that Kerry was "patriotic" (and, I mean the scare quotes because a lot of the liberals consider it an ironic term)and that would be enough. As Tully points out (and as Marc Cooper points out in an article in the most recent Atlantic), liberals refuse to accept that people actually voted for Bush for particular reasons, not out of some Pavlovian response to homilies. If Kerry hadn't made such a big deal out of his Viet Nam service, the Swiftvets would have had little impact--after all, whatever you want to say about Kerry's service, he was in combat (and Bush wasn't) and deserves some credit for that. I suspect if Kerry had low-keyed his service, the Swiftvets would have backfired. But by equating his service with his qualifications to be president, he opened the door to stuff like this. In my opinion, much of the Swiftvet stuff was crap, but the point is, as Dowd pointed out, divert Kerry from why people should vote for him for president. Posted by: MWS at April 6, 2005 03:20 PMAll of which is a good bit afield from the question of Dean. I believe what he's been doing is carefully shoring up the bitterly disheartened ground troops in the red states. And I think that's a very sound strategy. Next round is NOT a presidential year. Those base voters and (most especially) those volunteers are going to be crucial in 2006. From the trenches, a campaign is a war, and a bitter loss is the End. But in RealPolitik it's just one battle in a struggle that goes ever on. And you can't afford to let all your troops leave after one battle if you hope to keep fighting. Posted by: Tully at April 6, 2005 04:03 PMIn the long run, I think Dean is going to have to forge some accomodation between the true believer liberals and the more pragmatic moderates. Right now, my impression is that the true believers are out for blood and think that the way to win is to outnasty the Republicans (see, eg. Air America). If that ends up being the strategy, I think we will see a Republican landslide in 2006 and 2008. Posted by: MWS at April 6, 2005 04:37 PMI agree with you, Tully. Right now he's rallying the troops, cause he needs them and they're demoralized. But I'm interested in watching the long term game plan. I would expect he'll also try to pick up people from the middle, too- but he's rallying the troops first. Absolutely. Dean is no dummy--he knows he has to make inroads in the middle to gain any traction and reverse the trend. I'm interested in how that's going to play next year in the Congressional races. Blood sacrifices for the base will play OK in the blue states, but won't play at all in the red unless the GOP wildly oversteps. And we know they're very capable of it! The more arrogant and activist the far right factions get, the more vulnerable the GOP will be to "reasonable" moderate Dems in 2006. So the question is, will Dean manage to bring the party image back towards the center, or wait and hope that the GOP plays too far right? Or a bit of both? Posted by: Tully at April 6, 2005 06:17 PMully: you're right that the evidence doesn't directly state that Rove had this in mind when he funded them. But it sure reminds me of what Rove did to anger McCain, and Bush' repeated visits to Tennessee, which I thought unnerved Gore. It looks to me like Rove has a pattern of always looking for a weakness to exploit in every candidate that Bush faces, and taking action appropriately. And I'm not saying that we lost because of Debil Rove. I'm implying that we lost in 2000 and 2004 because we chose people who choose mediocre advisors. There's no shortage of Democrats as smart as Rove. Note that I said I thought Dean understands him. Anyway, I sure hope he manages to bring in the center! If he does, some things will likely change in 2006.... Oh, and I think Lt. Bush had as many skeletons as Lt. Kerry; IMHO he only came out better because he only marginally engaged the Vietnam issue in public, while Vietnam was the whole base of Kerry's campaign.
Jon - Bush might have had as many skeletons as Kerry, but Mary Mapes spent five years looking and couldn't find them so she made them up. Posted by: ROA at April 7, 2005 10:14 AMWhy I wasn't going there--anyone wanting to re-fight the election (as compared to analyzing it)is wasting their time beating a dead dog with a limp stick. Pointless. Posted by: Tully at April 7, 2005 10:54 AMAS A VIETNAM VET (MARINES 3/9) AN AN EX MASS. RESIDENT (CAMBRIDGE), KERRY AND JANE FONDA ARE IDENTICAL. NEITHER HAS TAKEN THE STEPS TO APOLOGISE TO US FOR WHAT THEY DID AND THE MORALE THEY DESTROYED. KNOWING THAT THE FAR LEFT ARE THE HIPPIES THAT GREETED ME COMING HOME, I CAN ONLY SAY THAT THE DEMS DON'T "HAVE" A MESSAGE. IT'S JUST SAY "NO" AND THEY DON'T OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE JUST OPPOSITION. Posted by: NORM at April 7, 2005 02:27 PMFrankly, I sure as hell *hope* to see some "outnastying" from the Democrats between now and 2008. Several months ago, American Prospect magazine had a contest challenging liberals to distill their views into 30 words or less - and it was a great exercise for me. I distilled mine down to "personal liberty, economic opportunity, social responsibility, environmental sustainability and peace on earth." My message and vision are true, and I will fiercely defend them with as much "nastiness" as I deem each situation requires. The unholy alliance of conservative plutocrats and theocrats is *destroying* our republic - WHERE, I ask, is the f***ing outrage??? ++++ Right now, my impression is that the true believers are out for blood and think that the way to win is to outnasty the Republicans (see, eg. Air America). If that ends up being the strategy, I think we will see a Republican landslide in 2006 and 2008. +++ Posted by: StreamingSouthernLiberal at April 29, 2005 10:43 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
