The newest supporter of former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont is super-lobbyist Ron Book, who is a host for a Dean presidential campaign fund-raiser later this month. Wait a minute! Isn't this the same Book who raises money for President Bush and his baby brother, Jeb? "This is money for the Democratic primary," Book quickly points out. In other words, Dean now is running only against Democrats, so any money Book raises will not hurt Bush.It looks like Dean is already getting ready for a segue from a primary season "angry internet-driven outsider" to a general election season "well-connected centrist." And that at least some of those connecteds are taking him seriously.
Things like this are among the reasons I reject the claim that Dean will be a 2004 George McGovern, sweeping the primaries only to go down in flames in November, wiped out in a landslide. (Some others, making the same predictions of a fall doom, prefer to link it to Barry Goldwater, whose 1964 electoral disaster nonetheless marked the rise of the right wing within the GOP.) In fact, there are several differences:
- Undoubtedly, the reactionaries will try to paint Dean as a "far out liberal," just as they did McGovern. But McGovern - bless his honorable soul - is a liberal. Dean isn't. The label just won't stick as easily.
- Based on evidence to date, Dean is simply a much better campaigner than McGovern was. Dean's speeches arouse passion. McGovern's tended to arouse - well, not ennui, but more of a frustrated feeling of "c'mon, George, crank it up!" Dean also seems better at recovering from flubs than McGovern was.
- Speaking of which, consider how much McGovern was hurt by the Thomas Eagleton fiasco. (For those who don't recall, Eagleton was McGovern's first running mate. After the convention, it was revealed he had been hospitalized for depression and had received electroshock therapy. The Repugnants started mouthing off about how the Dems wanted some nutcase "a heartbeat away from the presidency." McGovern first insisted he was "one thousand percent" behind Eagleton but then dumped him. The affair made McGovern look like a poor decision-maker, vacillating, and self-serving all at the same time.) That's not to say that a similar disaster can't happen to Dean (or anyone else) but that unless it does the comparison to 1972 is seriously flawed.
- The 1972 primary campaign, especially toward the end, was bruising. McGovern had floated an idea for fighting poverty and replacing welfare, an idea that became known as the "McGoverngrant." Some $1000 would be provided to every individual as taxable income. The idea was that poorer families would be able to keep all of the money but as your income rose more and more of it would wind up being taxed back to the government until at a certain level all of it would be. The problem was, McGovern couldn't put a figure on the net cost and he was hammered unmercifully for that, particularly by Hubert Humphrey, who put the cost at over $200 billion (obtained by multiplying the population of the US by 1000 and ignoring both that it would replace other costs and that most of it would come back to the government in taxes). The bitterness such a primary campaign engendered left McGovern the standard-bearer of a weakened and divided party. Now, again, something similar could still happen to Dean. But it hasn't, so 1972 comparisons are as yet at best premature. And frankly, I think this is exactly the kind of scenario Al Gore hopes to (and may) head off with his early endorsement.
- And then, of course, there's the matter of Watergate. Most everyone agrees now that the "dirty tricks" campaign that turned into the Watergate blowout was originally designed to push McGovern forward because the Republican hierarchy had decided he was the most vulnerable candidate. Now, I don't think Dean is the candidate the GOP fears most. I think that's Wesley Clark, an assertion I base on the stream of embarrassing stories and vicious innuendoes that began circulating about him as soon as it became obvious he was seriously considering running, convincing me that there was an attempt being made to scuttle his candidacy before it even began. But, in addition to the fact that, paranoid notions aside, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of a Watergate-type effort on Dean's behalf, I don't think anyone can say he is a clearly weaker candidate vis-a-vis Bush than any of the others. (Differences in the polls are generally well within the margin of error.) That is, it can't be said that his nomination would mean putting your weakest contender in the ring with the reigning champ.
None of this, of course, means Dean would win in 2004 if he becomes the nominee (which I think he will). It does mean that even if past is indeed prologue, it still ain't epilogue.
Updated December 11 for clarity and to add the link to a Humphrey bio.
Another update: You want another reason? I'll give you one. In 2000, George Bush was not even competetive in 11 states and the District of Columbia, losing each by a minimum of 10%. There's really no reason to expect him to do any better in 2004 in those areas, which will have a total of 158 electoral votes in 2004.
Also, Taegan Goddard's Political Wire has more on this whole business.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment