Worst Dean since Dean Wormer
I never thought I’d see somebody as disastrous for the Democratic Party as Terry McAuliffe, but how great is Howard Dean? The guy’s been head of the DNC for less than a month and he’s already supplied us with a lifetime of gaffes. Barely moments after Patrick Hynes’s knockdown “Misunderestimate Dean?” was published in American Spectator, Mickey Kaus finds this gem from Howard: “This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good.”
Please don’t stop there, Howard. You’re the smug, self-satisfied, screaming face of the Democratic Party now.
Extra: Jeff Jarvis tries to bring sanity to the Left Wing. His advice is not heeded.
1 comment:
Yeah, because vituperative belligerence paid off so poorly for the Republicans in 1993-94, right? And "getting along as best we can, agreeing to disagree" has brought such major dividends to the Democrats in the last 2 to 3 cycles.
Bush won by an historically slight margin last time, with his wartime standing and financial advantage, against a bum candidate nobody liked. Presidential nominee Howard Dean would have been a lot more likely to narrow that gap or better, as opposed to provoking some kind of GOP blowout (unless you know of some untapped supply of 10,000,000 Bush voters who didn't turn out last November, but would have rushed to stop the "Deaniacs'). Even a grinning cipher like Edwards could have outperformed Rondo Hatton, reporting for duty.
So you think Mr. Status Quo (McAuliffe) was a loser, and now you think that Mr. Snarky Sound Byte will be a loser, too. Quelle surprise, to quote France's troop. Who would your most-feared choice for the party job be, then? Who's out there who would restore the Dems to glory? Zell Miller's very available.
The Democrats' big national problem is that they haven't gotten 50.1% of the votes for any candidate since the Voting Rights Act was passed and they lost the South. That's not likely to change, but there's no reason they can't rile up the base like the GOP did in the 1980s and 90s, make Congress more of a dogfight, and continue to pick off weak targets like Bush Sr. and Gerald Ford when they get the opportunity. Dean's much-vaunted "grass roots" effort-- the only reason he had a national campaign at all despite party friction-- would seem to be a good starting blueprint.
The "Karl Rove is salivating to get a crack at Howard Dean" stories of a year ago were obvious B.S. then, but the Dems fell for them. (The fact that they gibed perfectly with certain bigwigs holding onto their institutional power-- cough, Hillary in '08, cough-- didn't hurt a bit, either.)
Now the Dems have pulled a switch in tactics, at least from the rhetorical side. And I'd be interested to hear someone explain how the attempt's certain to make the numbers worse for them.
Post a Comment