Howard Dean 2008

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Here's my bold prediction:

If we are out of Iraq by 2008, Dean will not run, and most Americans will go "Howard who?"

If we are still in Iraq, Dean will not only win the nomination.  He'll win the Presidency.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

oh, and the ease with which he is charicatured rivals even George Bush.  And that ain't easy to do. 

The dems don't need to apologize for being too liberal, and go for a clintonesque centrist like Dean.  Because, unlike Clinton, Dean is not a particularly savvy politician.  They do need to find some message, whether it will be right or left is up to them.  And they certainly shouldn't follow Rove's strategy, as swing voters like myself find it a major put-off.  you'll hear all the talking heads go on and on about how the Dems need to lurch rightward and find a Clinton to be the standard-bearer.  While I'm not saying that won't work, they shouldn't feel the need to sell  out whatever principles they do have just to win.  For example, if you can convince me socialized medicine is a good idea, give it a shot, I'm not saying I'll buy it, but I just might.  Who knows?  What I won't buy into is GOP=lite.  We already have a real GOP.  They have to find some message and stick with it. 

And stay the f**ck away from Howard Dean.  (all the humiliation of GWB, and none of the moral clarity.  All the centrism of Bill Clinton, but none of the savvy.)

The thing you have to understand about the Democrats:

See, the Republicans are now one, big, happy, unified base.  The Democrats are a loose coalition of independent interests.  You have
-The labor Democrats
-The minority-causes Democrats (itself made of disperate sub-groups)
-The poor-advocacy Democrats
-The moralist Democrats (gay rights, hate crime laws, driven by Mainline Protestants)
-The environmentalist Democrats
-The abortion-rights Democrats
-The socialist Democrats

None of these groups is particularly interested in the causes of any of the others (even though there may be considerable crossover membership).  Environmentalists aren't necessarily interested in increasing welfare payments or abortion rights, and gay-rights activists aren't necessarily interested in bringing down Big Business or forcing Wal-Mart to unionize.  But everyone kinda agrees to get along and support one another's causes under the general banner of "liberalism."

So, it's no surprise that the Democrats lack a clear message.  The have a mish-mash of ideas - some of them I find to be great, some of them I find to be abhorrent.  Nothing that is going to energize and captivate millions of Americans.

And therein lies the problem.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Republicans have similar divisions, of course (free market economic conservatives, social Religious Right conservatives, neo-cons, etc.),

Somehow, though, they have managed to tap into something that has united a lot of people.  This whole moral crusade thing.  Tie the moralism of the RR together with the "crusade" mentality of the neo-cons, and small-business, rugged, work-ethic-orientated economic theory.  It's worked even better than the small government thing that brought Reagan so much power in the 80s and the Newt so much power in the 90s.

The more I think about it, however, the more I become convinced that it will soon fly apart.  Ultimate dissolution will come about sooner or later, and that will be the end of the great Republican Moral Crusade.  Government is not interested in morals.  It is interested in power.  And I don't care how many times a day Bush prays, it's just the way of things.

But for now, they've found something to unite lots of people, and not tick off enough people to bring them down.

The Democrats need to do this.  They haven't actually stood for a single, tangible thing since their meltdown in 1968.

but right now they are unified, while the Dems are divided. It always happens right after a Presidential Election, especially one in which an incumbent gets reelected. Clinton unified the Dems in 1996, and the GOP was a big mess of competing interests.

I don't know.  The Contract with America was a fairly well-designed, simple-to-understand, unified message.  And were the Democrats really unified, or were they just kinda trucking along with Clinton because they were a minority in both houses and Clinton was their only key to any kind of control? 

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I may agree with Dean on many issues, but I wouldn't want him as president.

He's not ready for prime time, as his own campaign manager said.

you do realize Paul Tsongas is dead, don't you?

I dreamed I saw Tson-gas last night,
Alive as you and me
Says I "But Paul, you're eight years dead"
"I never died" says he

"Your liver failure killed you Paul,
along with pneumonia as a result of your many cancer treatments"
"Takes more than that to kill a man"
Says Paul "I didn't die"

"Tson-gas ain't dead" he says to me,
"Tson-gas ain't never died
Where moderates are fighting on
Tson-gas is at their side"

Also, his name is an anagram for "Get Nasal Soup."  And "Gaseous Planet."

(no disrespect for the dead intended)

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

OH, oh, Ed Rendell?!  He was a soldier, I think.  And he's sort-of handsome.  And a pretty good budget-balancer.  Any takers?  eh?  rendell, anyone?

Not enough hair.