The Worst President of Our Lives
by Gene Lyons
Nothing more unites Democrats heading into a presidential
election than determination to defeat George W. Bush. Almost
regardless of age, most see him as the worst president of their
lives. Retiring South Carolina Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings put
it this way: "I can tell you this categorically, we've got the
weakest president...in the history of my 50 years of public
service. I say weak president in that the poor boy campaigns
all the time and pays no attention to what's going on in the
Congress. Karl Rove tells him to do this or do that or whatever
it is, but he's out campaigning."
Bush's sheer incompetence is impossible to overstate. The bad
news and the lies just keep on coming. Yesterday, we learned
that the U.S. budget deficit will reach a record $480 billion
for this fiscal year. 2001 Nobel Prize-winning economist
George Akerloff told the German magazine Der Spiegel "this is
the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200
years of history." He described Bush's save-the-rich tax cuts
as "is a form of looting" that will bankrupt the treasury.
It was also recently revealed that the White House pressured
the Environmental Protection Agency to suppress findings of
deadly toxins in the atmosphere in lower Manhattan after 9/11
for fear public warnings would damage the economy. Between
dollars and lives, Bush chose the bottom line.
In Iraq, there have now been more American soldiers killed
since Bush's theatrical aircraft carrier landing off San Diego
than before he announced the end of combat. More than two dozen
have died since the president left Washington to spend time
roping and branding golf carts on his Texas ranch earlier this
month.
Oh, and remember that deadly fleet of unmanned airplanes the
Bush administration warned us Saddam Hussein was fixing to
launch at the United States unless we invaded Iraq? Upon
further review, as they say during NFL games, Air Force
intelligence experts have decided they were harmless
reconnaissance drones after all.
Determination aside, however, so far Democrats appear to lack a
candidate who seems a good bet to win. Of the nine men and
women running for the nomination, several--Al Sharpton, Dennis
Kucinich, Carol Mosely-Braun--have no chance whatsoever of
securing the nomination. Despite high name-recognition, Sen.
Joe Lieberman is going nowhere; I've heard passionate Democrats
say they might sit out a Bush-Lieberman contest.
North Carolina Sen. John Edwards once appeared to have the
requisite charisma, but voters seem to think he lacks gravitas,
to use the cliché of the moment. Whatever the reason, he's not
catching on. Rep. ***** Gephardt has run before without getting
anywhere, and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts--another
candidate who appeared to have everything going for him,
including Vietnam heroism--impresses people with his
intelligence, toughness and thoughtfulness, but has difficulty
getting them to relate to him personally. "Cold" and "aloof"
are the words you hear most often. Even if that just means
"tall Yankee," it's a problem.
Which brings us to the short Yankee in the race, Gov. Howard
Dean of Vermont. By all accounts, Dean appears the odds-on
favorite to win the nomination. Dean's brainy, quick-witted,
aggressive, well-organized, a good fund-raiser, has a cadre of
passionate supporters and as impressive a track record as it's
possible to have running a tiny, rural, state like Vermont.
Pundits have been underestimating his insurgent appeal almost
as badly as they've been overestimating Bush's fabulous
popularity. Show me a state Bush lost to Gore in 2000 that he's
a cinch to win in 2004. See what I mean?
The worse things get in Iraq, moreover, the better Dean's
outspoken anti-war views could end up looking. But the problems
with a Dean candidacy begin when you start trying to name
states Gore lost that the Vermonter looks likely to win. OK,
maybe New Hampshire. Even so, many Democrats can't get past the
suspicion that Dean can't compete in the South or the Midwest
farm belt and would end up a virtuous, albeit spirited, loser.
Maybe that's why, as Amy Sullivan points out in the September
Washington Monthly
(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.sullivan.ht
ml) the number of undecided Democratic voters has actually been
rising in recent months, and why, as she argues persuasively,
there's still time for Gen. Wesley Clark to win the nomination.
"Arguably," she writes "Clark matches each of the strengths of
the current crop of contenders, and then raises them one.
His Army background-stretching from Vietnam to
Kosovo-out-oomphs Kerry's military record. His service as
commander of NATO forces compares favorably to Dean's executive
experience as governor of a small New England state. He adds
gravitas to Edwards's aesthetic appeal, charisma to Lieberman's
thoughtfulness, and sincerity to Gephardt's liberal policies."
If Clark runs, he can win. And unlike Bush, if he wins, he can
govern.
http://www.bartcop.com/082803lyons.htm
.
|
