Dean is probably not the McGovern of Democratic establishment fears

By Suzanne Nossel

NEW YORK – It's an open secret that most establishment Democrats and liberals in the news media are waiting for someone - anyone - to dethrone former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as the party's presidential frontrunner.

Dr. Dean may or may not be the answer to the party's prayers. But well-connected and well-heeled Democrats should take another look at him, at least for long enough to see what his candidacy says about the electorate and the coming election.

Establishment phobia of Dean originates in the post-9/11 Democratic realization that to unseat President Bush, the party must win back public trust on national security issues. Hence the powerful appeal of candidates like Sen. John Kerry and Gen. Wesley Clark, with their military backgrounds and foreign-policy accomplishments. Dean, by contrast, with his staunch opposition to the Iraq war and shaky medical deferment during the Vietnam War, is portrayed as another George McGovern - a darling of the elite left who'll never appeal to all-important middle-of-the-road voters. Further, the insiders worry about Dean's "anger," concerned that what plays well with party diehards turns off ordinary voters.

But this view misreads both Dean and the electorate. It is precisely because of Dean's combative temperament that, despite opposing the war, he isn't seen as soft on Saddam Hussein, or on much of anything. Democrats are right that the 2001 attacks put a premium on leaders who will stand up to threats. But, rightly or wrongly, policy prescriptions and past military service may ultimately matter less to voters than intangible perceptions of who seems tough.

Thus, to some national-security-minded voters, Dean's opposition to the war and his fiery persona are potential negatives that cancel each other out and only enhance his appeal. With his steadfast antiwar stance, Dean comes across as more stalwart than candidates who once supported the war but have since qualified their positions.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1203/p11s01-coop.html?entryBottomStory

Bush is Nixon and Iraq is Vietnam. Maybe this time we'll get it right.

If Dean wins the nomination we're doomed! I hope I'm totally wrong but I have my reasons to believe he is not going to do much better than McGovern.

Dean's lack of experience on national defense is a factor. Dean says he'll get military advisors to help him make those decisions once he wins the nomination. We'll see if that is good enough with voters.

Dean wants to repeal 100% of the Bush tax cuts and that's one tough thing to sell to swing voters who look at this in a vary vague "He is going to raise my taxes and I can't afford it" way.

Dean thinks the Bush foreign policy is making Americans less secure, but he won't say how he will protect Americans by combating terrorism abroad and securing the homeland.

Dean wants to send more troops in to Iraq and Afghanistan while being arrogant about a great time he had skiing in Aspen rather than serving in Vietnam.

:toast: to the demobrat

Let's shoot for something a little more definitive?

No George McGovern
Robert Kagan
November 17, 2003
http://newamericancentury.org/defense-20031117.htm

Dean has been portrayed, especially by Republicans, as the new George McGovern. But judging by Dean's public statements at least, there is a big difference between the nature of his antiwar critique and the anti-Vietnam critique offered by McGovern and his followers three decades ago.
----------
In this respect, at least, Howard Dean is no George McGovern. He opposed the Iraq war, he says, because it was "the wrong war at the wrong time," not because it was emblematic of a fundamentally misguided American foreign policy. Dean has not, in fact, challenged the reigning foreign policy paradigms of the post-9/11 era: the war on terrorism and the nexus between terrorism and rogue states with weapons of mass destruction. "I support the president's war on terrorism," he told Tim Russert this summer. He supported the war in Afghanistan. He even supported Israel's strike against a terrorist camp in Syria because Israel, like the United States, has the "right" to defend itself. (European Deanophiles take note.) Dean does not call for a reduction in American military power but talks about using the "iron fist" of our "superb military." He talks tough about North Korea and at times appears to be criticizing the Bush administration for not addressing that "imminent" threat more seriously. And he especially enjoys lacerating Bush for not taking the fight more effectively to al Qaeda, a bit like John F. Kennedy criticizing Eisenhower in 1960 for not being tough enough on communism.

Of course, all this tough talk could be hot air. Maybe Dean is doing a great job controlling and hiding his inner peacenik. If so, that in itself tells you something about the current state of the foreign policy debate. Even Mr. Speak-My-Mind thinks he has to talk tough. George McGovern didn't.

read the whole article......

Like Dean was in the Newsweek poll against Bush a few weeks ago. Another poll had him 5 points behind. McGovern NEVER got anywhere near that close in any poll.

And when people realize Bush will have to start the DRAFT in 2005 to maintain Iraq troop levels, a lot of those young Republicans now for Bush are going to become Deaniacs themselves.

Bush is reducing DRAFT activation time from 8 months to 75 days by March 31, 2005 (spending EXTRA $28 million in 2004 to do this). Check out http://www.sss.gov and click on 2004 Performance Plan for details and also look at the DRAFT BOARD NOTICE THEY JUST PUT BACK UP--ON THE HOME PAGE THIS TIME!!