Launch the Dean Counterattack The Bushies must squelch this left-wing uprising. By Larry Kudlow A shocking Zogby poll this week had Vermont Gov. Howard Dean at a giant 21 point lead over former New Hampshire frontrunner Sen. John Kerry. That's more than two-to-one with a 38 percent to 17 percent margin. Dean is the clear frontrunner and may well lead the Democrats next year. So, this is a wake-up call for the Bushies. It's time for all the president's men to aggressively defend Bush's policies and attack Dean's extreme left-liberal positions. So far, Dean has been relying on a relatively narrow base of voter support — largely Bush-hating, anti-war liberals who make up about half of the Democratic party and a third of the electorate. But Dean is well-funded and he has quickly become the darling of the liberal media. Following his successful rally in New York's Bryant Park this week, the New York Times saw fit to run a huge frontpage story with a color picture of the candidate. Meanwhile, a story on Bush's excellent speech at the VFW convention — where he emphasized a stay-the-course commitment in Iraq — was placed below the Dean story with a much smaller headline. In the long Times piece on Dean you had to go 23 paragraphs deep to find a statement on the candidate's basic policy positions: universal health insurance, opposition to the Iraq war, balanced budgets, tax-cut repeal, affirmative action, and gay rights. This is not a winning combination, as numerous moderate Democrats point out. Still, if Dean's the one, administration spokespeople should start underscoring the extremism that defines his campaign. For example, Dean's universal health-care insurance is Hillarycare. It's the same government-paid health insurance that's been a disaster in Western Europe and Canada. And it's the same socialist proposal that was defeated handily in a Democratic Congress ten years ago. True patient power requires health-insurance choice and market competition along with tax reform. It will be incumbent on the administration to state this clearly. That means coming out in favor of the House bill on Medicare and prescription drugs and strongly opposing the all-government-all-the-time Ted Kennedy version in the Senate. Linking Dean to Sen. Kennedy makes sense — not only on health care but also on taxes and the war. The Vermont liberal is very much in Kennedy's far-out orbit. On the economy, a strong recovery is building momentum. But the president's economic advisors are not aggressive enough in touting the rebound. Gross domestic product grew a surprising 3.1 percent in the second quarter, with hefty consumer and business spending increases. Many economists now expect 4 to 5 percent economic growth between now and next year's election. Yet Bush advisors seem reluctant to tout the obvious turnaround in both the economy and the rip-roaring stock market. Because of their reticence, media headlines continue to sow economic doubt. Newspapers, meanwhile, exclaim that new budget-deficit estimates are another chink in the Bush re-election armor. The headline "Leap in Deficits Instead of Fall Is Seen for U.S." was on the very same Times front page that featured Dean's giant color photo. But the new Congressional Budget Office estimates show a huge drop in projected deficits beginning in 2005 and extending for the next eight years. By 2010 the deficit is projected to be less than 2 percent of GDP. By 2013 the CBO estimates a $211 billion surplus. At roughly 4 percent of GDP currently, the U.S. budget gap is only slightly larger that the fiscal red ink posted by France and Germany. Of course, they didn’t fight a war. Importantly, the CBO underscores the point that slumping economic growth is the largest source of the problem, and recovering growth is the largest source of the solution. The Bush strategy of across-the-board tax cuts — which are responsible for only one-fifth of the temporary deficit bulge — were the correct economic-growth solution for fiscal imbalance and the recession cycle. Yet if Dean's high-tax policies were actually put in place they would wreck the recovery and doom the stock market rise. His liberal domestic-policy proposals would also have grave consequences, inflating the size of government to Ted Kennedyesque proportions. As for foreign policy, Dean would destroy American credibility for at least the next fifty years, giving global terrorists a green light to threaten our safety and security. Culturally Dean would destroy the traditional American family and the social values that keep our society intact. Howard Dean's left-wing uprising should be squelched before it gains any currency in the public mind. Standing above the fray is no way to do it. Neither are caustic put downs. The Bushies must dig in now. They've got to pull out some serious policy analysis and some long knives — before this Dean thing gets out of hand.
No. Let Kerry et al do it. With a little luck, the Democrats will fracture their own support base on their very own.
Before calling Dean's policies "extreme left-liberal," look at them yourself. He's extremely centrist on all but a handful of issues. Most of the conservatives calling him a liberal haven't even looked at his policies; they're just aping what they heard from other conservatives who are aping what they heard from other conservatives who assumed he was liberal because his name isn't George W. Bush. I think the rumor of Paul McCartney's death was started the same way. This country would be so much better off if we thought for ourselves, instead of regurgitating what people in the media told us.
That is certainly a possibility. But while it's early, it's also late. Other Democrats know they need to be wary of attacking Dean. Standard political maneuvers don't work with his supporters, who are largely new to the scene. Criticism of his Meet the Press appearance only invigorated his base and strengthened his support. Same with the stuff from Lieberman and the DLC. And whoever gets the nomination not only wants, but needs the Dean voters. But there's a new angle too, as Dean cozies up to the DNC in anticipation of the general election. Check Washington Whispers for a story on how Dean's already raising money for the party. It makes sense for him to do this as the frontrunner, as the money will be spent on the nominee, but it's done some good in healing the rift between his campaign and the party bosses. And he is the only candidate doing this. Party officials are starting to say nice things about him off the record, too. They appreciate the effort. They will be less likely to support a coordinated attack and the DLC will too. They're looking for stuff to like in Dean and finding plenty. Any attacks from the rest of the field will not enjoy enthusiastic support from the powers that be. This has changed over the last two weeks and it is a big, big deal. The NH poll coupled with Dean's fundraising this quarter has changed everything. And, while the first votes are months away, Kerry and the rest may have been a little too cautious and waited a little too long. I don't like Dean's positions on everything, but I do like him. He was my favorite candidate going back to his first (unofficial) announcement, and I've enjoyed his success thus far. But the smartness of his campaign has just blown my mind. The internet stuff's been incredibly impressive, sure, but that's not all. Beating the other candidates to running ads in primary states, and now running ads in various other states, getting the jump on his opponents, and, most impressive, having taken a number of public and private attacks from the DNC and DLC, extending a hand in anticipation of a general election... We have not seen an insurgent campaign do any of this before in our modern politics, certainly not with success. McCain was close, but Dean's taken it to a whole other level. He's two steps ahead of his closest opponent and, while I still think Clark could change everything, right now the nomination's his. Plus, I think (and now I'm starting to read it in other places) that Dean and Clark want to run together. If Clark does get in, it may just be to boost his standing as a potential VP. If so, he won't be banging on Dean too hard. The trick there is whether or not he can run against Dean with an eye towards running with him, and I think that's what he's weighing in deciding whether or not to run. The primary season hasn't even begun in earnest, virtually no one's paying attention yet, and it's already the most exciting in a long, long time.
Good parallels here as The Beatles fed that rumor like mad and Dean doesn't mind at all being called a liberal this early on. It helps him cement the base and he knows it's a bogus tag, easily discarded when the time is right. If that's the strategy (for Kerry or Lieberman or Bush), well, it ain't gonna work.
Geez, I'm not sure what neo-con rag this was lifted from (there's no link), but think about how scary this is: Attack the candidate before the public makes their own decision on his ideas. That's true democracy.
Here's that Washington Whispers thing, by the way. Juicy stuff. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/whisphome.htm Dean moves to end the Democratic family feud Howard Dean, long on the Democratic establishment's you-know-what list for dumping on party boss Terry McAuliffe, has made nice. Insiders tell Whispers that Dean, the front-runner in opinion polls and fundraising, has become the first--and only--of the nine presidential candidates to help McAuliffe raise cash for the Democratic National Committee Presidential Trust. "For all those who think Dean and Terry don't get along," says a party insider, "here's the proof that the feud is over." Another official 'fessed that Dean's plea to big donors was "shocking," but added: "We love this guy now." In one letter shown to Whispers, Dean asks a donor to pony up the maximum $25,000 for the fund. Of course, party officials say the effort isn't totally magnanimous; it suggests that the candidate thinks he has the nomination sewn up. The trust is the kitty that goes to the eventual party nominee to fight President Bush. "He's already looking to the general election," says an official who also noted that the self-declared liberal has started to tout himself as a moderate.
First, I think they'd be wise to get someone out there criticizing him. Bush can't do it. Incumbents don't do that stuff for good reason. But they ought to get someone out there. The Democrats are learning their lesson about 'mis-underestimating' him. Wouldn't be a bad idea for the GOP to take a lesson from that.
John Kerry really lit into Dean this morning on Meet the Press. It was brutal. He accused Dean, if elected, of having to do "on-the-job-training" on the issue of national security -- widely known to be one of the top issues of the campaign. It's absolutely true. Dean has zero experience or credibility on the national security issue. Zero. He also said that Dean's plan to dramatically increase the tax burden on Americans would cripple the economic progress that we have seen recently. Dean's ideas are extreme, there is no question about that. His extremist positions have really ignited the liberal wing of the Democrats to join in the Bush-hating. Giving this one-trick pony the primary would be pure suicide by the Democrats.
Thanks for the update, Jorge. I hadn't seen that. When was the last time we had a president who had to do on the job training with regard to national security and foreign affairs, by the way? I can't quite remember, but I think whoever it was deflected those criticisms by choosing an experienced running mate. I figure Clark'd do the trick as well as whoever that guy was.
First, Green Vegan76: I like that "extreme centrist" position -- that would make me an "extreme moderate." Batman Jones: Dean is yet to face the Hillary factor. She cannot face having him beat Bush because she would not be able to run until 2012, when she is beginning to get a little long in the tooth and people have had 12 years to see her for what she is. I believe she will urinate in his soup before it is all done. However, all these guys are warriors, i.e. competitive as all get out. They will gut Dean if they can to make sure they earn the right to mate with the American public. Granted, all the 2004 losers will pull in their horns and start mending fences for a run in 2008 or 2012 or the VP slot in 2004. Bush needs to show some results in Iraq and water the newly flowering economy. He also needs to thumb his nose at the French and Germans (because they don't vote and the American public loves it -- didn't say it was right but I am saying it's true). Oh, I sent you a note.
thumbs: Got it and sent you one back. I don't doubt Dean's opponents will go after him. I only meant to point out how it would be difficult (and potentially dangerous) for them to do so. I disagree on Hillary. She's a smart politician. She may be hoping for the eventual nominee to lose, but she sure as hell won't show it in public. She'll be out there campaigning whenever she's asked and I expect she'll give a b****in speech at the convention in support of the nominee.
Didn't mean it for a pun, thumbs, but you can have it like that, with compliments. I'd encourage you guys to enjoy the next year as much as you can, wherever you can find it (and if I can help, I'm happy to do it). After that, it's our turn.
Sometimes I just can't help myself. The coming political scene will be fun. I look forward to the pontification of both sides.
Again, how is he extreme? That he thinks taxes need to be increased before Bush's tax cut-driven deficit cripples the country? That's extreme? But I absolutely agree with you that "on-the-job training" can be terrible for a country. Look at Bush. He had no homeland security experience, and he ignored every warning sign leading up to the worst (and preventable) terrorist attack in U.S. history. If Dean's smart, he'll enlist Clark as his running mate.
Good point. Dean is a moderate on almost everything. Contrast that to Bush, who is widely considered to be the most extreme, radical neo-conservative (as opposed to 'conservative' - BIG difference) U.S. President in history. Why does Dean have to defend his select-few liberal ideas, while Bush gets a free ride on his appallingly divisive neo-conservative policies? Or, put more simply, why do Republicans get to be conservative, but Democrats can't be liberal?
