Might Dean's loss to Kerry foreshadow Kerry's loss to Bush?

[BurtWorm]

Dean, pundits said last winter, was the guy Democrats wanted to have a fling with, but Kerry was the guy they knew they should marry. The thought occurred to me, while I was watching C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning featuring Zelikow (ED of the 9/11 Comm.), that one by-product of the spreading of the blame might very well be a backlash in the public at large against the idea that Bush and the Republicans are *more responsible* than Democrats (and others). It occurred to me, that, although here in this echo chamber we may be convinced there's a movement toward freedom from Bushism, out there, in greater America, there may be a backlash against the idea that *Bush is the enemy.* If this is true, then might it not happen that the public at large will move away from Kerry as representative of the party of irresponsible, passionate *Bush is the enemy* toward steady, reliable, familiar old Bushism?

Let me give some (admittedly weak) anecdotal evidence of this nightmarish possibility:

Reading comments on a centrist blog I don't usually read (Buzzmachine.com) in the last couple of days, I've noticed a preponderance of posters who say they are still smarting over 9/11, who are clearly still afraid of terror, and whose fears have only been reinforced by the news surrounding the Commission Report. The blogger at Buzzmachine, Jeff Jarvis, is someone who was in Lower Manhattan on 9/11, and whose experience turned him, he says, from a liberal pacificist into a liberal hawk. He's bought the whole store of beliefs about clash of civilizations, us against them, "we are the target," and all that load of crap. And while he rants and raves and froths a bit, he does it in a commanding, well-written blogger's voice that has acculmulated an apparently diverse audience of admirers. One of Jarvis's themes has been his struggle over the election. He says he's never voted for a Republican, but 9/11 has shaken his faith in the Party. He's furious with Michael Moore. And so, apparently, are many of his admirers, judging from the comments.

(Full disclosure: I was a Dean guy who remained a Dean guy beyond the bitter end, so watching my fellow Democrats give up passion for "reliability" was baffling and disappointing to me. But I am planning to vote for Kerry, and my feelings for him as a candidate have moved from brackish to tepid and will probably be lukewarm by convention's end. I do fundamentally believe Bush is the enemy of American democracy and that he must go.)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I don' t think so really...

You're assuming the jump from Dean to Kerry would be the same as the jump from Kerry to Bush. That couldn't possibly be further from the truth.

[BurtWorm]

4. Are you sure you're not wishfully thinking here?

Sincerely just asking.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Not even close

Sincerely, Kerry and Dean aren't very far away from each other on the issues, they only truly differ on tone. Kerry and Bush are diametrically opposed on nearly every issue. It's not even debatable, unless you're living in Ralph Nader's parallel universe.

[Bill McBlueState]

19. agreed

I think Kerry's task is to convince people of the truth behind your statement that "Kerry and Bush are diametrically opposed on nearly every issue."

If he can successfully highlight those differences rather than running from them, he'll do a lot to increase voter turnout, which is how this election will be won. The meme that the candidates are basically the same keeps a lot of the youth vote home.

[JohnKleeb]

22. tone makes all the difference to people

Its why its surprising to many that Kennedy and Kerry have nearly simliar records.

[BurtWorm]

29. You seem to be missing the point I was trying to make.

Kerry's MO has been to present himself as steady, reliable, even a little boring--not an earthshaker, just a competent, unshakable guy. That was, allegedly, how he beat Dean, who was, allegedly, viewed as a passionate, "angry," "unsteady" guy. I think there may be something to the alleged phenomenon among Democrats that they decided, almost en masse, to get behind Kerry because of his presentation of himself. They decided not to go with radical change, I think, but with "familiar." I don't know why, assuming you could agglomerate people's feelings and read meaning into the general tone, they decided to go that way, whether it was because they themselves wanted familiar or they thought non-Democrats were more likely to want it. But my question now is, are Americans as a whole going to be persuaded, in the post-9/11 world, to abandon the only "president" they've known in the post-9/11 world? Do they need familiar, as the Democrats may have in the primaries? Will Republicans be able to convince them they need familiar? Or can Kerry convince them that it's really Bush who is UNfamiliar?

[freetobegay]

13. Talk about wishfully Thinking. n/t

[JI7]

2. Kerry knows many people don't hate Bush

and that to win he will need the votes of people who don't hate bush, and probably even like bush.

[tom_paine]

3. "I do fundamentally believe Bush is the enemy of American democracy and

that he must go."

I agree. So does most of the rest of the human species.

[BurtWorm]

5. But do the rest of Americans?

Do at least 50% of the voters?

[wtmusic]

6. Kerry is more experienced in Washington politics than Dean

and whereas Dean sought to exploit that as a weakness it came back and bit him in the ass.

Don't get me wrong--I still believe Dean would be the best president of all the (former) potential candidates. The sad truth is that his public image wasn't up to snuff for the vast majority of people who refused to take the time to find out more.

The fear factor has always been a concern--nothing new there. Kerry is skillfully dealing with this by choosing Edwards and his distinguished background will serve him well.

How can someone's faith in the Democratic party be shaken after 9/11? Don't get that one. If so, there is little hope for those people...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. I fully agree

The only difference between Kerry and Dean was tone. People understood Kerry's tone was more amenable to getting independents than Dean's fire and brimstone.

And anyone who believes 9/11 hurt the Democratic party is probably beyond repair.

[MercutioATC]

31. Well, not the ONLY difference.

Actually, I think they were pretty far apart on a lot of the issues.

[BurtWorm]

32. "How can someone's faith in the Democratic party be shaken after 9/11?"

I don't get that either, wt. Or better said, I don't get how one could have one's faith shaken in the Dems and NOT have it shaken in the Bushists. :wtf:

[KurtNYC]

7. The scream attack the media did to Dean may be

the foreshadow of a similar attack on Kerry. It was scarey to see how they spun that clip and how relentlessly they ran it. Kerry should prepare for and expect the same.

The more people see the media as being a GOP tool, the more innoculated Kerry will be against such attacks.

Dean was the man who would have beaten Bush by the widest margin. He would have raised the issues that bother all Americans the most.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. But Kerry has given Bush no such ammo.

Kerry is seen as responsible, mature, and ready to be President.
And this blogger guy Jeff Jarvis is an idiot if he can't see Kerry is a "liberal hawk".
and Burtworm, your "disclosure" betrays your feelings here.

[BurtWorm]

16. My disclosure betrays my feelings?

What would those be? :eyes:

[Larkspur]

17. Bush has plenty of ammo to use on Kerry

Kerry has 19 years in the senate and all those votes, right or wrong, will be twisted to suit Bush.

Also Kerry is boring to listen too.

Was at a town meeting last night with 1 Repub, 2 Independents, and another Democrat with me. The Independents don't like Kerry or Bush, and one of the Independents is going to do a write-in vote (don't know who). The Repub, who is from West Virginia orginally, loves Bush, and my fellow Democrat and I are lukewarm at best on Kerry. I live in CT, a state that Kerry should win overwhelmingly and my town leans Democratic so these people's views were interesting, since they are active in the community.

And another curious note, the Independent sitting next to me (not the one doing the write-in vote), after hearing I supported Dean, said that Dean got screwed by the Media over the Scream speech. She liked Dean. The Repub-loving-Bush guy hated Dean.

[KurtNYC]

23. Nothing for a valid attack true but

Dean's scream was him feeding back to the crowd. They cut the crowd part and Dean just looks like a wild man.

The GOP is working overtime to get these kinds of things for Kerry. Three come to mind: "I actually voted for the $87 bil before I voted against it" 2) "these are the most crooked, you know lying..." and 3) bumping the secret service on ski slope and allegedly swearing. Also they have tried to smear Kerry with their attacks on Whoopi Goldberg and Sandy Berger.

None of those things is a big deal but they tried hard to get him with those and they will continue (with ever more desparation).

[stanwyck]

9. Did you also hear the life-long Republican

and former Republican committee woman from a family of stalwart Republicans who said she will vote for Kerry? No doubt there are plenty of "liberal" hawks...though their resolve may be faltering as continuing evidence that the Bush administration mismanaged the terrorist intelligence erodes our march to war. But there are also mindful conservatives who do not appreciate Bush's leadership, either in foreign affairs or in fiscal policy.
As for your "furious with Michael Moore"...don't you believe there are at least as many people who admire Moore for going where no one else dared to go as there are "liberal" people who are furious?
Not sure your math is sound.

[BurtWorm]

18. I'm not sure my math is sound, either, which is why I raise the question.

I'm really interested in a reasonable discussion here. I'm anxious about the mood "out there." I'm wondering if others here are.

[Bucky]

27. I'm a liberal with a few hawky moments

I wish we'd gotten a real declaration of war on September 12th 2001. I wish we'd gone in bigger in Afghanistan. I wish we'd kept a full force in Afghanistan to finish the job right 2½ years ago. I would support going after any nest of terrorists anywhere in the world. My problem with Bush is that he hasn't done the job he was hired to do. That, and he's divided the country, encouraged his followers to turn on their fellow citizens for questioning their government, and let his cronies rob the federal treasury.

Oh, and he's an evil bastard.

[stanwyck]

30. we don't have the troops for what you're

suggesting...the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and going after terrorists "anywhere" in the world. That means South America, Africa, Indonesia, Korea, and the Middle East. For starters. We're over-extended now. Or are you advocating the return of the draft?

[splat]

11. it's a shtick

Jeff Jarvis calls himself a liberal because he likes Howard Stern, but he's a big media guy (check his bio) who's on a lot of panels and does some TV. He's very right wing these days.

He's not representative of a larger movement, just of a career path that works for him.

[BurtWorm]

20. I'd never heard of him until a couple of days ago.

But I saw his bio, and I had the sense of him as a classic kind of New York newspaper guy, a Newfield or a Breslin (closer to Newfield). Maybe it was naive of me to take him at his word that he was a liberal "pacificist?"

[splat]

24. no porkpie hat

Nah, he's a TV critic, Entertainment Weekly schmoozer with stars. Very manic, at least on TV.

[BurtWorm]

28. I've never seen him.

I know he was supposed to be on Aaron Brown last night, so I buy that he's a schmoozer. It bugged me to think that Aaron Brown would have on someone like Jarvis, who clearly has a bug up his ass over 9/11, as somehow representative of how "we as a nation" have changed since then. This is what has me somewhat worried that the media could turn. They could very well keep blowing up the Sandy Berger non-scandal to feed into the idea that Democrats can't be trusted with national security. We'll see.

[BeFree]

14. Sounds to me like...

This Jarvis fellow needs to get out more. Invite him over to DU so we can educate him.

However, if he lasts longer than 100 posts, I would be surprised.

[sandnsea]

15. Gee, that was just a saying

It kind of came off of Clinton's "fall in love" comment.

But as to your Bush comments, I think that is what part of us Kerry people were saying last year. There are too many people out there that don't hate Bush. They either can't bring themselves to believe a POTUS would intentionally lie about matters as important as war or it's emotionally reassuring to them to have a President who's going to "git the bad guys". And if they have to choose between squishiness on terrorism and Bush, alot of them will choose Bush. They'll tell themselves Bush is winning on terrorism because we haven't been attacked and that's better than being soft (like them libruls) and giving terrorists the green light again. They think it's a good idea that America be the dominant power and have no problem with using military power to ensure American economic power, in their heart of hearts. Kerry absolutely has to be tough on terrorism and military matters, he can't win unless he is. But in his most recent statement, he included reference to that "clash of cultures" thing and countries who are laundering money to terrorists and poverty in Arab countries. That means Saudi Arabia and he's said it before. So it would be helpful if Democrats could try to understand there is more to Kerry than just military talk, but he does have to talk about a militarily strong America for those people that you are talking about.

In fact, that's part of the problem Dean had. He had painted himself so far left that any time he tried to move center, he risked upsetting his loyal supporters. He was too far left for the Democratic activist core and that's something for the left to really think about. Because Dean wasn't all that left anyway. This country is not made up of socialists.

[Larkspur]

21. Horse-hooey!!!

...part of the problem Dean had. He had painted himself so far left that any time he tried to move center, he risked upsetting his loyal supporters. He was too far left for the Democratic activist core and that's something for the left to really think about.

Dean's supporters, including the Kucinich types (I'm a moderate who leans left), never saw Dean as drifting too far to the left. We knew he was a fiscal conservative and a social progressive. It was the Media and the Dem Establishment that painted Dean as the next McGovern, yet it was Gen. Clark who got McGovern's endorsement, not Dean.

[Norquist Nemesis]

25. The biggest problem Kerry faces with moderates

at least IMO, is an attitude of knowing what to expect from Bush but uncertainty about Kerry. Even with "knowing" what to expect means extreme to us, they justify it with a 'he's a good man'. Not a good President, but a good man--as if to excuse any shortcomings because he's a man. Then it boils down to estimating their taxes and calculating that it will "cost" them more if Kerry becomes President. Again, this is just my opinion of what I've gleaned from the moderates in this area that I've spoken with.

What's amazing though, is some of the diehard Republicans have told me that Bush is scary and has to go. They are more than willing to put aside the tax burden issues close to their heart in order to get this country back on track.

[stanwyck]

26. You nailed it

better the devil you know (literally) for these folks. Plus Bush has definitely sold himself as a "good man". He isn't. But the Bushies have successfully sold the folksy, straight talkin' image in order to mask his inadequacies. He's not well-read or knowledgable. But he talks simply and repeats himself effectively. Just don't throw him a question or issue which he hasn't yet memorized the answer to from someone else's brain. The Bushies will keep hammering how Dubya is a good, Christian who is tough on terrorism and who won't raise taxes. That's it. They've got nothing else. Kerry will be the scary unknown who wants your money and who won't protect us.
That's the fight we're in.

[kaitykaity]

33. Kerry has been smart and stayed studiously

above the partisan, nasty fray, so I don't think
this is a likely possibility.

Kerry is presenting a clear, positive alternative to
the warmonger. I think people are going to jump at
it.