July 30, 2004

They Should Have Picked Dean
Posted by Dale Franks

Debra Saunders, after attending the Democratic National Convention, concludes that the Dems picked the wrong nominee.

If the Dems wanted an anti-war candidate, someone who actually says the things that, according to the New York Times, 86% of the convention delegates believe, i.e., that the war in Iraq was prima facie wrong, then they should've picked Howard Dean. What they have done, instead, is pick a man who opposes their most cherished belief. I'm not sure if they can keep up the facade of unity for another three months if it requires them to pretend to go along with a position they hate with a passion.

And I am pretty sure that, even if they can, it's not a very good thing for healthy political life. I doubt we want political parties that hide their true beliefs in order to spring them on the electorate as a surprise after the election, in a political version of some bait-and-switch scheme. The only destination on that road is a deep cynicism about the utility of elections and the democratic process (although, there is also an off-ramp to party self-destruction if the party gets a reputation for deception).

After the 2000 election, there were a lot of Democrats who believed that Al Gore would've run if only he'd moved farther to the left. If John Kerry can't keep ahead of W in the polls, or, at least, neck-and-neck, then I think that this Dem "unity" will dissolve like...like...something that dissolves really quickly in..I don't know...some kind of acid or something.

Sorry, I guess the simile well's run dry.

But my point is that if it begins to look like Kerry can't close the deal, then the Dems will go nuts, and will begin pressing kerry to move farther and farther to the left. If that happens, then, for the Dems, election day will be a fiasco. Because anyone who thinks that Al Gore lost because he didn't move far enough to the left is sadly unacquainted with reality.

Jon, with whom I agree about 95% of the time, thinks that the Democrats are "mobilized". Maybe he's right, but it seems to me that when your nominee is a guy who ostensibly supports the very thing you hate about his opponent, it'sa gonna take one helluva lot of motivation to go to the polls and vote for your nominee. After all, apart from the satisfaction of not being your opponent, what does he offer you that you really want?

Nothing.

Right now, the Democrats are trying to convince themselves that they are eager to vote for a candidate who offers them nothing on the most important issue of the day.

Good luck with that.

TrackBack

Comments

They play this game every cycle--keep the moonbats on board without alienating the center. It always works, too, for two reasons. First, the press doesn't hold them to the issues they raised in the primaries--all the lunacy is swept under the rug with a wink-and-nod, much like their convention.

Also, you have to credit them with beginning the demonization of their opponent more than five years ago and never giving it a rest. That way, even those who are sharp enough to realize their nutball issues aren't going to be heard will hold their noses and vote against Bushitler.

Effective, but how do you look yourself in the mirror?

Posted by: spongeworthy at July 30, 2004 01:36 PM

Hey, spongeworthy, try checking out the dais & itinerary at the RNC in a month, a cavalcade of liberal republicans with the only moonbat to give the acceptance speech on the final night. It's politics, dude; stop acting like it offers a glimpse in one's soul.

And, Dale, what precisely has the current president done with regard to the most important issue of our day. He allowed the attack that finally got the missile-defense fixated to pay attention; he squandered enormous resources in blood, treasure & good-will to invade the middle eastern country with the least connections to those who actually attacked us; and he's paid mere lip service--because the massive debt he's created--to fortifying our ports, nuclear and chemical facilities, and first responders. Hell, the only sure-fire plan to combat terrorism is to jettison the numbnuts we have in charge. I think that's Kerry plan, along with a little common sense.

Posted by: Bloggerhead at July 30, 2004 04:37 PM

(((I think that's Kerry plan, along with a little common sense.)))

You think?

That about sums it up, doesn't it?

Most important issue of the day and, 3 months out, even the choir doesn't have any idea what the music is gonna be.

Posted by: Terry at July 30, 2004 04:52 PM

He allowed the attack that finally got the missile-defense fixated to pay attention;

[rolling eyes] So, Bush knew the attack was coming and allowed it to happen? That's tantamount to charging a sitting US President with treason. You'd better have a lot of facts to back up such an outlandish charge.

Posted by: Steverino at July 30, 2004 07:05 PM

Hey, spongeworthy, try checking out the dais & itinerary at the RNC in a month, a cavalcade of liberal republicans with the only moonbat to give the acceptance speech on the final night. It's politics, dude; stop acting like it offers a glimpse in one's soul.

I think the difference is that the people who will be speaking at the Republican convention will, probably be speaking about things they actually beleive. There is, I think, a slight difference between that, ans what we saw at the Dem Convention where the speakers were apparently specifically enjoined from talking about what they actually believe.

Among the things that Democrats were not allowed to talk about was gay marriage, abortion, unilateral withdrawal from Iraq, or practically any other controversial issue.

Now, if the Republicans issue the same kind of restrictive rules to their speakers, they'll be open to the same criticism. But that's a month from now, and the best we can say until then, is "we'll see".

Posted by: Dale franks at July 31, 2004 04:01 AM