| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Leonard Pulver" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2003 09:23:27 AM |
| Object: |
What's good for the country is bad for the party? |
What's good for the country is bad for the party?
by Roger Simon
The party out of power always faces the same dilemma:
What is good for the country is bad for it and vice
versa.
The Dow breaks 10,000 and a few days later Saddam
Hussein is captured. Good news, right?
Well, yes. Unless you are one of the nine Democrats
running for president and you are trying to explain why
George Bush should be kicked out of office.
It was Abraham Lincoln in the midst of his own
unpopular war in 1864 and facing what he assumed was
almost certain defeat (he was rescued by military
victories) who begged voters to consider that it is
"not best to swap horses in mid-stream."
George Bush couldn't agree more.
But Bush's re-election ¯ this week he said for the
first time that he was running again ¯ is still one
election down the road. Before a Democrat earns the
right to challenge Bush, he or she must win the
Democratic nomination. And among Democrats, the capture
of Saddam Hussein may not be that momentous or
vote-changing an event.
An Annenberg Public Policy Center focus group of
Democrats and independent voters conducted in Toledo,
Ohio, Monday night by pollster Peter Hart showed voters
were not overly enthused about Saddam's capture, nor
did they give Bush any credit for how he has conducted
the occupation of Iraq.
"Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" asked
Jannell Ector, 27, a teacher and independent voter.
"Isn't that why we were thereÉnot just to track down
Saddam Hussein?"
And it was the economy and jobs, not terrorism, that
really concerned these voters. When Peter Hart asked
who believed good times were around the corner, no one
raised his hand.
Which is what Democratic front-runner Howard Dean, the
candidate most closely identified with opposition to
the war and anger toward Bush, is counting on.
Dean takes the position that the real danger to the
United States always has come from Osama bin Laden not
Saddam. Dean supported the war in Afghanistan, but said
the war in Iraq has hurt rather than helped the war on
terrorism.
"We would have been happy if Saddam had been captured
on the first day, but it doesn't change our position
that it was the wrong war at the wrong time," Dean
campaign manager Joe Trippi told me. "The president has
taken the focus off Osama bin Laden and the real
terrorists who attacked this country. We believe that
among other things the war in Iraq is taking our
resources in the wrong direction. Had Dean been
President of United States, we would have kept the
focus on Osama bin Laden and, perhaps, we would have
found him first."
In a speech on Monday, Dean said, "The capture of
Saddam is a good thing, which I hope very much will
help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam
has not made America safer."
Which gave Dean's Democratic opponents a new club with
which to beat him over the head.
In a conference call with reporters following Dean's
speech, U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman said, "Howard Dean said
the capture of Saddam has not made America safer. That
says to me: Howard Dean has climbed into his own spider
hole of denial. I fear the American people will wonder
if they will be safer with him as president if he
cannot understand that the capture of Saddam Hussein
has made America safer."
Then, in words that could have been (and may yet be)
uttered by President Bush, Lieberman said Tuesday:
"Governor Dean has made a series of dubious judgments
and irresponsible statements in this campaign that
together signal he would in fact take us back to the
days when we Democrats were not trusted to defend
America's security."
Said U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt, "Let's be clear:
Howard Dean has been playing politics with foreign
policy for over a year and his repositioning is just
the latest Howard Dean political game. Despite issuing
contradictory statements on Iraq over the last year,
Gov. Dean has used this issue to constantly attack his
Democratic opponents and to seek political advantage."
And U.S. Sen. John Kerry said Dean's statement was
"proof that all the advisers in the world can't give
Howard Dean the military and foreign policy experience,
leadership skills or diplomatic temperament necessary"
to be president.
The Wesley Clark campaign feels the capture of Saddam
gave the former general a big boost. Clark aide Chris
Lehane told me, "It highlights and magnifies the fact
that in the general election the question will not be
whether are better off today than four years ago, but
who will make us more secure four years from today. We
are going to need a candidate with the military
background, the national security experience and
international stature to go toe to toe with George
Bush. Only one person fits that profile: Wes Clark,
four star general, former supreme allied commander,
wounded and decorated Vietnam Vet."
But while Dean's opponents stress electability, Dean
supporters stress inevitability, his inevitability as
the Democratic nominee.
"We have heard all these attacks before," Trippi said.
"People said Dean opposed the war at the wrong time,
that he couldn't be a strong candidate, that he
couldn't raise money. When Bush stood in front of that
banner that said 'Mission Accomplished' people asked us
if our campaign had stalled. But we kept standing our
ground and we will continue to stand our ground."
"Let me be clear," Dean said after Saddam's capture.
"My position on the war has not changed. The
difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show
that the administration launched the war in the wrong
way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning,
insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost."
And Democratic strategist Jenny Backus said, "I think
in the long run the capture of Saddam could be bad for
Bush. Now, he doesn't have any reason to stay in Iraq
unless he finds the weapons of mass destruction. It was
easy to sell a narrative that we were there to find the
bad guys. Well, we found the bad guys, so why are we
still there? To stabilize the Mideast? That is a harder
argument to make."
But Stuart Rothenberg, independent analyst and editor
of the Rothenberg Political Report, said, "Howard Dean
benefits when the war is going badly, there are
casualties, and there is the sense that George Bush
messed up. The worse the war, the better Dean's message
about the war. So any positive news out of Iraq
undercuts and devalues somewhat Dean's message."
This may not matter much to Democrats, however,
Rothenberg added. "I think Democrats are still angry
enough overall at Bush ¯ the war is only part of it ¯
that Dean is not hurt seriously by the capture of
Saddam," he said. "Dean's nomination is almost a sure
thing. I don't see how Dean is stopped. He has put his
foot in his mouth once or twice and he has survived. He
has money, message, enthusiasm and energy. He looks
like the nominee."
© 2002, Creators Syndicate
Posted by permission
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
