There's a Democratic Party base that absolutely hates George W. Bush. You know the type; they rant slogans like "selected not elected", "Bush lied, people died", "Bush=Hitler", "SUVs kill kittens", "Sic Semper Tobaccus", "Free Castro!", "We're here; We're obnoxious smelly unemployable anti-self-defense anarcho-socialist weasels; Get used to it!" They want nothing more than to see Bush defeated.
This is a large part of the crowd that loves Howard Dean, and has now made him the face of the Democrat election season. Why Howard Dean? Because Dean, more than any other Democratic candidate (though Kusinich is a close second) has presented himself as the Anti-Bush.
Although many of his positions on several "litmus test" issues for Democrats -- such as gun rights and the death penalty -- are moderate to conservative, he was the first to flat out oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He would bring the troops home, essentially gut the funding for the war on terrorism, and spend the money on a federally administered national health-care system.
But here's a curious problem that the Democrats face: Being so anti-Bush that they want him defeated at all costs in '04, they naturally gravitate toward the Anti-Bush: Dean. But, being such an Anti-Bush, Dean has little chance of defeating the President, whose job approval rating is in the 50-60% range.
The war on terrorism, the Afghanistan mission the Iraq war are all popular and well-regarded accomplishments. Unless the situation in Iraq turns significantly worse, that isn't likely to change.
The Democrats issue is -- and could still be in a year's time -- the economy and the deficit. The only Democrat running who seems to have, in any way, positioned himself to win next November is Joe Leiberman. But the Anti-Bush, Dean, has called Leiberman "Bush Lite", and claims that being Bush Lite will not defeat Bush. Presumably, being anti-Bush will.
Seems to me the Democratic Party base that votes in the primaries have to make a choice between their core motivations: a) to be so anti-Bush that they nominate Howard Dean, and b) to defeat Bush, at all cost, in 2004. Can they do both?
Posted by Tuning Spork at August 5, 2003 06:24 PMThe answer, of course, is no. As an ex-Democrat, I can see the buffalo herd stampeding toward a cliff I know to be less than a mile away. The allure of being anti-Bush is evident, since it takes less skill, talent, and effort than building a coalition and offering alternatives to Republican rule. So unless there is a catastrophic event that turns millions of voters against the current administration, I expect a Bush landslide next year.:)
Posted by: Bloodthirsty Warmonger at August 5, 2003 11:01 PMAgreed, B.W.
And, is it just me, or does Howard Dean remind anyone else of an older, healthier Lee Harvey Oswald?
Recently I read an article on the Human Events Web site, referring to the Democratic presidential candidates as the "9 Ringwraiths." ROTFLMAO!:)
Posted by: Bloodthirsty Warmonger at August 8, 2003 12:57 AMI stand corrected. MonkeyPants on Emperor Misha's site brought up the excellent point that the Democratic presidential candidates should not be dignified with the term "Ringwraiths" because they aren't exactly inspiring fear in the hearts of our enemies.
Posted by: Bloodthirsty Warmonger at August 12, 2003 02:38 AM