|
Dean's Success Should Teach Democrats a Lesson
Kerry is right about living in the past
A
BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Hugh Conrad
Gov. Howard Dean has surged into the top tier of Democratic presidential candidates for two reasons: He has passion, and he is willing to duke it out with George W. Bush and the Republican party.
Democrats want that; they are hungry for it, for two reasons: First, the Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Tom Daschle and others, seem to be unbelievably tepid, unwilling to try to take Bush to the mat; and second, they believe that this lack of passion is the one of the primary reasons that Al Gore lost the presidency in the 2000 election.
Dean has been willing to take Bush to the shed, spanking him with a tongue-lashing like no other Democratic candidate has thus far. Karl Rove may believe that Bush will run away with a head-to-head battle with Dean in 2004, but the former New Hampshire's incessant harping on issues like the debacle in Iraq have rankled the White House.
The Democrats can win next year, but they need a candidate who will put on the gloves and land punch after punch on an administration that lies and lies and lies.
In a BuzzFlash Reader Commentary, Monica Friedlander, who is chairperson of the Draft Gore 2004 effort, complains about comments made by Sen. John Kerry to Democrats in Seattle. Kerry told Democrats that they have to "Stop crying in your teacups" about the Gore election debacle in 2000 and look to the future. Kerry is right. The Supreme Court decision that awarded Bush the White House was horrendous, but Democrats must focus on the future. The future means that we have to unite behind a candidate who can defeat Bush in 2004.
While I appreciate Friedlander's animus at Kerry's comments, since they hit a sensitive vein, Democrats must put the past behind us regarding the 2000 debacle. If we try to rerun that election, we will lose to Bush. Believe me, Bush has handed Democrats enough issues to confront him on that we do not have to look back to 2000.
However, Gore's conduct of his 2000 effort should teach Democrats some lessons. First, he demonstrated that he had no passion for the job. The only time he appeared passionate was when he kissed Tipper on stage at the convention, and his approval ratings immediately shot up. After that, he was too passive, too docile.
Second, Gore failed to land knockout punches on Bush because he did not throw them. I never heard about some of Bush's potential Achilles' heel issues until it was too late. I never heard about Harken until last year, Bush's military record never became an issue because Gore did not bring it up, and Bush had a woeful educational record, as did Cheney, who flunked out of Yale. In fact, Bush's alcohol abuse, and the DUI that he hid carefully until a newspaper revealed it late in the campaign, could have reflected negatively upon a candidate who vowed to restore "honor and dignity" to the White House. All of these could have tipped the election without taking into account Florida, but Gore did not throw those proverbial punches.
Gore was guilty of some other faux pas. He put together the worst campaign team -- and ran the worst presidential race -- since Barry Goldwater in 1964. He ran away from the liberal/progressive wing of the party. His selection of conservative Joe Lieberman as his running mate may have been his worst decision. How many votes did Lieberman bring his way? In fact, if you cannot beat Dick Cheney in a debate, which Lieberman did not, then you don't belong on a ticket.
However, the worst decision he made was to run away from Bill Clinton. Let's face it: Without Clinton, Gore would never have been the Democratic candidate in 2000.
Gore's unwillingness to take advantage of the greatest economic boom of the 1990s was incongruous to those of us who wanted to win that election. So Kerry is right about putting the animus of 2000 behind us. Democrats have four or five candidates who can make a run at Bush, but after the primary battles are over next year, the party has to become united.
Recent polls indicate that Bush will have difficulty running against an unnamed Democrat next year.
I have yet to pick a candidate to support, but I know one thing: If Democrats find a candidate who will run a knock-down, dragged-out battle, Bush will become the second one-term member of his family, making the country a better place in which to live.
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
* * *
Hugh Conrad is a liberal Democrat, a free-lance writer, and a college English instructor.
Articles in the BuzzFlash Contributor section are posted as-is. Given the timeliness of some Contributor articles, BuzzFlash cannot verify or guarantee the accuracy of every word. We strive to correct inaccuracies when they are brought to our attention.
