Steve,

You are consistently the most interesting blogger around.

I'm dismayed by the tendency of the Democrats to retreat from the issue of national security when Bush is riding high and talk about the economy. Do they think Americans are stupid? Do they think that they won't notice that the Dem field isn't talking about national security? What if the economy recovers (a cyclical recovery with atttendant problems caused by Bush, but a recovery nonetheless)? Where will that leave the Democratic platform?

The time to put forward an alternate platform on national security and the economy is now. Let's get positive and vicious.

And yes, it is good to be George W. Bush right now.

Steve, I'll dissent in only one minor way from your analysis: while I think it would be fruitless for the opposition to keep pointing to every bit of negative news on the ground in Iraq, and I certainly agree the media in the main will be back to trash news (damn that Elizabeth Smart for not hiding out a little longer!), it strikes me possible that a significant level of post-war chaos could make it onto the world media radar screen, and maybe turn what is now an unblemished positive into at least a neutral factor. To put that more tersely: Dems should shut up about it, but events may over time change public perception of the Iraq outcome.

At the same time, I agree with MattS, it's foolish for Dems to avoid national security issues like they have cooties on them. Gary Hart put it perfectly a while back: Dems either cower from such issues, or ignore them. Any president will also be commander in chief, so it's vital to lay out as plausible a vision for that as for health care. Why not expand on the Clinton model -- a bunch of pretty good ideas/philosophies that didn't require periodic blood sacrifice a la the Bush gang? There's much to be said on many issues; many aspects of differentiation from the neo-cons. I think Dems are fools if they avoid them -- it gives the false impression they're in thrall to the "war isn't healthy for children and other living things" crowd.

Which brings me to your big question: who among Dems is best suited to take on this task? The need for foreign policy cred leads me to look at MattS' fave, John Kerry -- and, believe me, I could well live with Kerry as candidate/president. On the other hand...there's something in Howard Dean's defiant pride in being a Democrat -- a modern Democrat -- that I think is essential for the party to have, going into not just this but future elections. Right now, I'm wishing for some sort of mind-meld between the two...and, of course, reserving judgment on my support until the primaries roll around next year.

On the overall point of Bush's status...many at Kos' site are pointing out the obvious: Bush Daddy had ratings 20 points higher and went down disastrously 20 months later. There's certainly no need to fall down prostrate at these current readings (the silly California one especially). Remember, this is a man who was barely cracking 50 a month ago; and he still has an economy many feel is going to get worse, not better. (I'll acknowledge, if full-fledged recovery kicks in, he'll win in '04) I also think the essential political direction of the country described by Judis and Teixeira in Emerging Dem Majority is correct: that if Bush were to win, he would do it by defying tides, rather than being swept along by them (as his father was in '88, and would have been absent recession in '92). This alone should help Dem partisans tune out the "forget it till '08" chorus already springing up in the media. WE've been down that road before, and it's been shown to be full of surprises.

demtom,

I too like Dean's defiance. It's very appealing and perhaps critical because it shows that there is in fact a choice, something other Dem's obscure to their disadvantage.

The Democrats need to learn to say the following:

If it's partisan politics for me to stand up for (choose one or more: woman's right to choose, moderate judiciary, Social Security, Medicare, Veterans' Affairs, funding the schools, etc.), then so be it.

Or something to that effect. We need to start conveying to the American people that bipartisanship can only occur when each party will make concessions to the greater good. The GOP is just checking items off of a huge shopping list compiled by various special interests, led by the very rich, and mobilized by the Christian right. Until the Democrats shift the focus successfully to this problem, there's no hope.

So who can do it the best? So far, the answer seems to be Dean. Or, if he finds ways to convince the public and the Democratic base that he wasn't equivocating about his Iraq vote, Kerry could do very well.

I disagree. 9/11 was his peak and he'll never see that kind of national unity and support again.

The road in Iraq is tricky and could cave in on him at any moment. Bush is not a lucky man, so when it falls apart, the speed and ugliness will be stunning.

The economy is an albatross around his neck. He can't handle it and it isn't getting any better. People will see Iraq and wonder why their kids don't get free healthcare or after school programs.

Bush's zenith has passed long ago. He's getting a bounce, but the slide downward could be very steep and very sharp.

STEVE, I HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT FOR THE SAKE OF ALL US AND OUR FRIENDS & NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR & OVERSEAS...
but, somehow I just don't feel good about any of this...Democratic timidity, Republican ruthlessness and lies, idiot Americans that believe the crap we are being fed, blatant judicial partisanship for wealth and money, elected and bribed congressmen and women, sales to the highest bidder, war without end, terror on our own people by the administration, complicit and tacit approval of abbrogation of international norms, no long term energy policy or environmental acknowledgement of our planetary situation, electronic voting machines owned and manufactured by Republican donors and congressmen,
...I really feel sick at heart and to my stomach...I guess I'm a gut-guy like the pRes...

To expand a little on this idea of defiance:

There are too many Democrats who don't understand that Clinton's eight successful years CHANGED things. When Clinton was running in '92, it was understandable voters were leery of the party -- when last in significant control (under LBJ), they'd led the US into a disastrous war and an inflation-careening economy. Given a second chance by Watergate, they'd provided near-disaster: the humiliating hostage crisis and oil-driven economic chaos. Never mind how much of this was Carter's fault; voters hold the party in power responsible. Your job as ruling party is to have good karma, and the Dems for a generation didn't seem to have it. It took the seemingly endless slowdown of '90-'92 to persuade the voters to try them again.

What happened was, despite initial stumbles -- and an unpleasantness there's no point recounting -- the party SUCCEEDED. Succeeded, in fact, beyond wildest dreams: if you'd told anyone in 1992 the deficit would be eliminated and the country would simultaneously undergo a boom, they'd have pronounced you a pie-in-the-sky-er. Suddenly there was no need to dance around being a Democrat. Voters LIKED what Democrats were giving them.

And Al Gore -- prompted by pollsters, and the press -- decided to run from it. Biggest mistake he made. His choice of Lieberman said "Republicans are right: the peace and prosperity we provided aren't the main issue; it all comes down to what a bad boy Clinton was" (it also, in my opinion, cost the ticket vital votes in OH, WV and TN over anti-Semitism). If Clinton had been the candidate, he'd have rammed that tax cut right down Bush's throat. Gore said, well...I wouldn't give quite such a big one. He ran to succeed Clinton, but he used Dukakis' playbook. Yeah, he really won, but he still has himself to blame for some of the outcome.

Some Democrats, incredibly, have decided this means we're back to '92 -- that now our need to hide party affiliation goes even further. These are the people foisting Lieberman on us (who'd even guess he was a Democrat?). I say they're 100% wrong. What we need is what Howard Dean -- and John Kerry, in his best moments, even John Edwards and Bob Graham at times -- are offering: the notion that the democratic prescription is what's right for this country, that the other direction is leading us to catastrophe, and we're not the least bit shy about saying it.

I take heart that, at this point in 1979, Carter looked vulnerable, but Republicans feared the Goldwater crazies taking over the party. Nominate Baker or Bush, they thought, and we'll win. Whatever you do, don't nominate Reagan; he's the one guy Carter can beat. And polls seemed to bear them out: even up till election day, it was labeled too close to call. Until 6PM ET, when John Chancellor declared Reagan was running away with it. And the direction of American political history was suddenly changed. I very much see the possibility of the same in reverse next year.

Steve G,

Bush is not lucky? Excuse me?

Steve,

You point out a contradiction in the Bush position right now. For the economy not to tank completely, Bush needs to move back from the constant war talk/fear mongering. But, if he does that, he takes his main advantage off of the front burner, and people will focus on everything else (which the majority of Americans don't like). Even if people think he "won" the "war," he would be in very great danger of being Churchilled (new verb).

And polls . . . forget them for 6 months. They mean nothing now.

Yeah MattS, I've got to agree with you on that one...not lucky?
Yale
Harvard
National Guard
Arbusto
Harken
Texas Rangers
Texas Govenor
Selection 2000
911
70% approval ratings from sheep

I'm still sick...and want to add...
Franklin Graham in Iraq

Unlike WJC who could waffle and get away with it and GWB who lies and lies and nobody cares, Gore and a politically motivated position did not mix. Gore’s problem was not that he had trouble speaking the truth but that he had trouble dissembling and lying convincingly when he took a politically calculated position. That most likely indicates that he has a conscience, not something that WJC and GWB are similarly handicapped with. Unfortunately, Gore was not wise enough to recognize his liability nor strong enough to sell his truths. That’s why I like Dean – he can sell his truths.

And to add to John B/MattS, isn't there some sort of Chinese benediction saying roughly "be lucky in your enemies"?

I mean spineless Democrats, the French, OBL and Saddam Hussein are his equivalent of Joe Louis' Bum of the Month Club.

I said somewhere before that I would like to sneak into DC in the middle of the night, kidnap at least half of the Democratic caucus, and replace them with members of Britian's Labor Party. The British are better educated than us, but in the political arena they don't even know how "deference" is spelled, let alone what it means. We need a LOT of that, not just in our presidental candidate.

Oh, I forgot to answer your question. Generally, Dean has been, and continues to be, my choice for the candidate who could fight back the best. He has a mix of positions that make it very hard to pigeonhole him in a convenient box that the Rove machine can target.

But, specifically on security, I think the veteran angle is a little overrated. Sure it gives a ready-made line of counter-attack that Kerry could use. But mostly, when it comes to foreign policy, Americans like people who are bold and decisive. We like our leaders to be strong. I think the actualities of the policy are important, but the one necessary aspect is a commanding, sharp presence. Kerry can do this at times (and I hope he can continue; he is a tough campaigner), at other times, not so good. Graham seems to have it (but I don't know him well). Dean definitely has it (in spades). Edwards doesn't. Gephardt doesn't. Lieberman . . . why even talk about him? He's last in cash on hand, and money was supposed to be his strong suit.

The perfect bumper sticker for 2004. Vote Democrat for Peace and Prosperity!

I think you all have made very valid points however feel that one very SERIOUS area of concern for the democrats is the lack of television media exposure at this time(referring to the usual suspects you named). Not only has the coverage of events leading up to, during and even in this phase of the conflict been dominated by the WH et al,it has been extremely one sided (positive for Bush). Occasionally one may find some other ideas and opposing viewpoints from the likes of C-span and PBS stations. Many major print media are also tending toward a positive tilt toward Bush. It is really only through the internet,blogs like these(thank you), or if you are lucky to have satellite tv, can one find BOTH sides of a story. I tend to doubt if the majority of people (obviously not the ones on this blog) even utilize the internet when they come home from work to find out what is going on in the world.
Some how the opposing viewpoints are being seriously muted in mainstream media and this is the bigger concern for the democrats.
I know many blogs have discussed these issues, but until we are able to mass our forces and get onto these controlling networks day in and day out, it will be difficult for the dems to take back the WH. Does any one have any ideas(realistic) of how to get this exposure? I think that should be the focus for people(myself included)who don't support the current "regime".
I think the message the dems have is not that difficult to come up with, (national security..but not PNAC style, Budget priorities..tax cuts vs. money for just about anything else domestically such as EDUCATION, Medicare, medicaid,prescription drug benefit, homeland security, etc.)
But the overriding issue at this time is not just the message, but how to get it out to the masses.

I'm afraid that Dean doesn't have it. While he's willing to stand up for his principles, I doubt he'd be willing to say untruths, change his mind, or say misleading things to actually accomplish those principles. Before you say 'what wonderful traits or some such phrase', consider that FDR, LBJ, and JFK were some of the meanest, nastiest, and most effective politicians liberals have ever had. We need another JFK, LBJ, or FDR in more ways than one.

That said, the rest of the field just, well, just, I don't know. I like Kerry, but everything's just so unpredictable.

jakevan,

I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees with that statement. Most of us are considering precisely that structural disadvantage in our thinking, while at the same time searching for ways out of that nasty box.

Hmmm..as usual, I agree with most of Steve's comments. As depressed as I am to see Bush apparently getting away with it, and the sheep baahing all the way back to their sit-coms, I just can't believe the triumphalism can hold. A 60% Shia majority that won't go along is a big problam, for one thing. The domestic economy is another. For now, though, it's sickening.

A few comments on Dean - I live in Vermont and have seen him at pretty close hand for a long while now. He's basically a good guy but he simply does not have the dynamism or charisma that is needed right now, and I think this will unfortunately come across as he gets more exposure. He is really a Clinton-style moderate who accomodated himself to the electorate here, and I have no reason to think he won't do so again. It was OK in our already-pretty-liberal state, but I don't know how he'll play on a larger stage. My biggest problem with him is his stance on Israel. He has been wined and dined by the Sharon-ites and nothing I've heard so far leads me to believe he would take the very difficult line that is absolutely needed. I continue to hold that a just solution for the Palestinians is THE key issue. Right now, we couldn't be doing worse: putting in a pro-Zionist governor in Iraq and potentially moving toward "transfer" of the Palestinians to Jordan. What is happening is not at all benign, in my opinion, and bears very close watching - let's see what happens in Jordan over the next few months. Have any of you been following what's being written in Ha'aretz?

I'd like to copy and paste this post from a conservative leaning blogger as part of a comment I made at www.draftgore.com that I think spells out who would be the most credible Democratic candidate:

"Robert Teeter, the great GOP pollster, used to say that presidential politics was all about getting into the raft. Teeter's theory was that in order for a candidate to be president, voters had to perceive that candidate as someone capable of handling the most severe national security crisis. If a candidate couldn't meet that standard, then he or she would never be elected president. Or as Teeter put it, if a candidate wasn't on the raft, the sharks would eat him or her alive.
"Roger Ailes, the former GOP media consultant, had a different test. He used to say that if you woke someone up at 2 a.m. and told them that, say, John Kerry was president, the test of Mr. Kerry's candidacy would be whether the person awakened from slumber went right back to sleep or spent the next three hours experiencing an anxiety attack. The point of both men's maxims was and is straightforward: In presidential politics, experience matters above all else. And this is particularly true when voters believe that the nation's security is at risk....
"The political world, which is so insular that it imagines that presidential campaigns are all about TV and spin, has yet to take note of what the 11th of September meant to the 2004 presidential campaign. First, it means that the War on Terror (Operation Enduring Freedom) will be ongoing. Second, it means that in the great issue triad of American politics (the national security, the economy and the culture), national security will, for the first time since 1988, be a voting concern. Third, it means that whoever is going to be the Democratic presidential nominee will have to meet the Teeter/Ailes test.
"The only one who does now is former Vice President Al Gore. "

If you want to read the whole thing, just go to
http://www.johnellis.blogspot.com/2002_03_10_johnellis_archive.html Now granted, I think he's the same John Ellis who encouraged Fox News (or one of the networks) to call the race for Bush in the early part of Election Night 2000.
But anyway....you can take this for what it's worth. By the way...www.draftgore.com

That would make him also Bush's cousin...so his endorsement isn't one I'd promote a whole lot.

I could drift happily back to sleep with John Kerry as my president...or Bob Graham...and I'm willing to give Howard Dean a spin.

The one who keeps me up nights is the guy who'll be running on the GOP ticket.

Having personally seen the draftgore folks do their thing at the NH Dem convention, I can assure you that they are a few dots short of a domino. The guy gave his speech looking at his shoes the entire time, and the woman had to be nudged offstage by the moderators after a dull but lengthy speech. I really am sorry about it, but...

No. Bush is NOT lucky.

He's failed at everything and had to be saved. Not being punished doesn't mean he's lucky. He's never finished anything without daddy's help.

Now, Clinton, he was lucky. Not Bush.

I think Dean does a great job of expressing himself and selling his ideas. I especially like the way he takes on the Republican scare terms like "quota" and "partial-birth abortion." He very clearly explains what they're up to and re-frames the whole topic. People do not like being lied to.

I haven't seen Howard Dean on the air recently, but the one time I did, I noted that he has to develop an awareness of how easy it is to be bushwacked (no pun intended) by the media. He held his own by adapting quickly to the lines of questioning, but to the politically experienced eye he looked like he weakened himself. His boldness abated a bit, his language became more cautious, his delivery became a bit halting.

At this time, I don't see these shortcomings as fatal to his candidacy. But if he fails to improve, he will be a historical footnote like the man who I once supported (see moniker).

I'd just like to thank Steve and all of you for this superb thread (and Steve for your consistently excellent work). You folks here and at dKos, Left Coaster and a few others make it worth getting up in the morning. I used to read the Times, but now I can count on being enlightened. Thanks again to all of you.

No. Bush is NOT lucky.

He's failed at everything and had to be saved. Not being punished doesn't mean he's lucky. He's never finished anything without daddy's help.

Well, he's clearly lucky in the 'born on third base and thought he hit a triple' sense (thanks for that one, Ann Richards).

How much situational luck (you know, finding a $20 on the bus, creating American empire in the Middle East, and the like) do you really need when your entire life is structured such that you can hardly fail?

Check out what Arianna Huffington has to say about the rightness of the anti-war position.

The California numbers are very misleading. An objective reading of them suggests that, unless Bush's opponent is a disaster and Bush has a "successful" invasion of a foreign country in October 2004, Bush is highly unlikely to win in California. Even in California, Bush has been getting great press and his opponents little, if any, press at all. When the votes are counted in California, I would be surprised if Bush comes within 8 points of the Democratic nominee.

Oh , yeah Bush has luck up the wazoo, and evil brainac Rove to tell him how to make the most of it. And breathtaking incompetence on the part of the Dems. But the economy is his biggest hurdle. And the sticking point there is that he and the Republican party are ideologically constrained from doing anything that might actually help.

From my position as an amateur armchair economist, we are on the knife edge of an economic disaster similar to the great depression.

The unmentioned elephant in the living room is the trade deficit, now over $600billion/year, ~5.5% of GNP and getting bigger all the time. We are in banana republic teritory here. Way bigger than the government deficit that everyone is getting exercised over. If the trade deficit (CAD, in economic parlance) could be cut in half, it would provide 7 million jobs and add 2.3% to GNP, completely wiping the recession away.
In the absecence of fixing the CAD deficit, the dollar is due to fall further(already lost 20% against the euro in the last year), which will result in stagflation here as the cost of imported good rises, and the Fed raises rates to attract more foreigners to buy dollars to finance our debt. And the last thing you want to have to do is raise interest rates while you are in a recession.

So, the only thing that could really save the US economy, to really put people back to work, would be a massive increase in Great Society-type spending, coupled with import duties to be sure that the increased spending power doesn't just build more factories in China (of course, SARS may just do that anyway, another risk to a global economy at a tipping point.....)

Anyway, you can see just how well that would go over with the GOP. Increase gov't spending???!!! Import duties!!!???
The other options they have in their tool box are either worthless (more tax cuts for the rich) or actually harmfull (more "free trade" or shifting social spending to the states, who are broke)

"Well Ollie, this is another fine mess you've gotten us into."

-steve