NYT: Dems make defeated candidates pariahs; GOP gives status, respect

Plea of the Democratic Pariah: Forgive My Defeat
By MARK LEIBOVICH
Published: May 21, 2006
WASHINGTON

....As a general rule, it can be an unpleasant career move for a Democrat to run for president, streak to primary victories, win his party's nomination and, ultimately, fall short. For his troubles, he will automatically be consigned by large sectors of his party to a distinctive Democratic pariah status — his campaign ridiculed, second-guessed and I-told-you-so'd endlessly by insiders and operatives who bemoan how "winnable" his election was and "unlikable" his personality is.

They will reflexively lump the runner-up into the party pantheon of losers and hope he stays away....This contrasts with Republicans, who have admittedly had fewer runners-up in recent decades but who nonetheless accord them a more respectful, eminent status. Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton in 1996, but has retained an elder statesman's role within the party. Barry Goldwater lost 44 states to President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 yet remains a conservative icon. Richard M. Nixon lost narrowly in 1960 and went on to be elected president in 1968....

***

Proponents of a Gore comeback are quick to stake their own claim, oddly enough, to the precedent of Mr. Nixon. They catalog the parallels between the two men's electoral histories. As with Mr. Nixon 40 years earlier, Mr. Gore was a sitting vice president who lost in one of the closest races ever. He left the national stage and made an ill-fated reappearance (Mr. Nixon to lose the California governor's race in 1962, Mr. Gore to endorse Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, which tanked). Mr. Nixon eventually triumphed, eight years after his bitter defeat, at the expense of an incumbent party hampered by an unpopular war...."I've always been puzzled by all the hostility to Gore, especially after he was essentially robbed of the election," said Elaine Kamarck, a longtime aide to Mr. Gore who is now a lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government....But the Democratic Party represents a rare American enterprise in which experience, intense vetting and a proven record of success will, to many minds, disqualify a candidate from trying again.

That could be changing, Mr. Gore's stalwarts insist, or hope....Could it be changing for Mr. Kerry, too?...."The bitterness towards Kerry is much greater from the chattering classes in Washington," said Michael D. McCurry, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry during his 2004 presidential campaign. Mr. McCurry posits the example of his father, a Democratic activist in South Carolina, who still admires Mr. Kerry and resents the ridicule that's been heaped on him by onetime loyalists. Mr. Kerry's current staff is quick to share news of the large turnouts and ebullient receptions the senator is getting as he travels the country, exploring another run in 2008....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/weekinreview/21liebovich.html

...owned, operated, and secretly counted by political rivals. So yeah, this Gore vs. Nixon comparison falls a bit flat. :shrug:

He had very few scruples, fewer with each passing day.

The writer should ask a few voters why this may be true, instead of lumping them all together as "chattering classses." Arrogant, ignorant pig!

They are the MSM and the pols co-opted into the MSM info-tainment talk shows like Hardball and Meet the Press.

You know who they are -- we all do, and we resent their snide, too-clever-by-half, points-scoring manner regarding good men like Howard Dean, Al Gore, and John Kerry.

It's all part of the challenge the Democratic Party faces in trying to win back the White House and the country.

Hekate

Republicans have concentrated on building a political infrastructure. From the conservative churches to the business community to the right wing noise machine, they have set up a system that drives their agenda and at the same time helps to cover up the flaws of their candidates.

Democrats tend to rely on the personality of their candidates to carry the day. Sometimes it works, when you have an exceptional candidate like Bill Clinton who manages to be smart and warm at the same time--of course Clinton was helped a great deal by Ross Perot--but with a lesser politician it does not work. When the personality of you candidate is what you run on--Kerry's war record, Gore's experience, Dukakis's competence--it's easy to just blame the loser.

When Democrats lose the party leaders don't think--wow--maybe there's something wrong with what we're doing--or what we're saying--or even maybe we should do something about those voting machines. They just blame it on the candidate usually using the same language that the GOP used to eviscerate him. Also, sadly, while Democratic campaigns are personality driven, they seem to do everything they can to suppress the candidate's real personality and passion. John Kerry wasn't a good candidate because he was drafted and served with distinction in Vietnam as a young man. He was a good candidate because he was an experienced Senator who had a passion for justice and finding the truth and an ability to work with people who opposed him. Al Gore had vast experience, a deep knowledge of and passion for environmental and technological issues--as well as apparently a pretty good sense of humor--none of which were on display during his campaign.

I like what Howard Dean is doing with the 50 state strategy. I fear though that if Democrats fail to take back at least one house of Congress, Dean will be booted out of office and the 50 state strategy will be consigned to the DNC trashbin along with the old Kerry and Gore posters.

The Republicans have been building up their "infrastructure" for more than 30 years now and have sunk, literally, billions into it.

Very insightful post, bklyn cowgirl.

Too many Democrats treat our party's candidates like teen pop stars. Wildly popular one day, and just so totally uncool the next. And the GOP, methodically building it's church/media/business campaign machine, looks on and giggles.

We have to do better than this.

(generalizing here, of course) is that when we have the White House (as we did with Clinton) we became complacent. Looking at myself, I think I may have fallen into that trap. That will NEVER happen to me again. Because of this complacentcy, we weren't organizing Think Tanks, building a strong party base, etc. So we are playing catch-up with the pugs. But catch-up and surpass, WE WILL!

Interesting comment by Luntz....conservative people are patient...hmmm. I sometimes wonder if the conservatives are more easily manipulated and herded (like sheep). I love to attend pug events and watch how they treat their volunteers, conduct meetings, etc. I like to see how the enemy organizes. I would recommend others try this....go to another county if you are a well-known Dem in your area. I gained insight. They are definitely organized more like the military or corporation....and maybe that's because their followers are very, very willing to be told what to do. It is a well-oiled machine.

I am always amazed when dealing with Dem volunteers...how stubborn they can be....no, maybe stubborn is wrong...independent. Many don't want to take direction as to how to canvass or what to say. While the pugs do and say what they are told.....they believe their leaders are right and will lead them to the winner's circle. Of course this is the experience I have had in my community....could be very different elsewhere.

I'm surrounded by Bushbots where I live and work, and I'm actually a little scared when I see how well oiled their political machine is. You are right. Most everybody in the Bush-neocon camp does what they're told, including whom and what to vote for. Even now, when some independent, old-line conservatives are saying that Bush does not represent the core of their party, the neocon cheerleaders are keeping the believers in line. Aside from the fact that I cannot stand their domestic and foreign policies, I cannot stand their lack of individual thinking and reasoned debate. There's hardly an independent thinker among the rank and file.

What Democrats really need is a leader. Bill Clinton, for all his warts, was just that. He managed to get all of us stubborn (that word works for me!) independent Democratic thinkers focused on some major goals, like winning the White House. But even Clinton wasn't able to turn back the Gingrich "Contract With America" crwed in 1994.

It's ironic that right now, Bush is the best friend the Democrats have. If "the good guys" win the House, and (cross your fingers!) the Senate in November, it will primarily be because of his stupendous incompetence!

thinking, analyzing, and debating is something that is passe and foolish. 'Only those bad intelligent elitists indulge in thinking. We're too cool for that.' Like the bumper sticker: God said it. I believe it. That settles it.

:thumbsup:

and let me see.... kerry won the election in 2004. mark is a hack writer for a yellow rag newspaper

They both were undermined by advisers who misread the public. Gore at least seems to have learned something from the experience and perhaps could do better next time.

primarily their campaigns at fault. I think that more at fault was the lack of infrastructure and well-organized support from the Dem party message machine and liberal media. Oh wait, there isn't a "Dem party message machine." Hmmm.

win '00 and '04? Clinton won 1994 because of Ross Perot, by a small margin, as I remember. Political analysts fall into the trap of retrofitting the 'facts' with the outcome. Although it will be a mystery why Kerry conceded so early, and especially when there were already reports of voting 'irregularities' in Ohio, then incredibly, his campaign hired someone from Bob Taft's office to act as his attorney to look into these irregularities. What happened to the $15 million the Democrats allocated to hire 100's of lawyers to investigate in Ohio, a repeat of '00? At least Gore fought hard, up to the Supreme Court, to overturn the fraudulent outcome in Florida.

I also attended his Campaign Speech in Newark, Ohio in the summer of 2004.

What a difference! During the '04 campaign, I would scream at TV when I heard Kerry speak, "Speak from your damn heart....stop listening to your dumbass advisors."

Yesterday, he spoke from his heart and people were just awed. He was honest, funny, approachable, kind, smart, caring....everything everyone would want in a President. He even admitted to making mistakes.

He was signing autographs when I approached him...I had to thank him for trying to stop the Alito nomination....he told me that he just doesn't get it....all his colleagues say they don't want Alito but they won't stand up for their convictions. Well, I would have just loved to delve into that conversation....but I said instead that he should tell his colleagues that many of us along with Daniel Elsberg (who I heard say this on Democracy, Now) are self-hating Democrats due to their behavior. He got a kick out of that...and laughed.

He headed for Toledo to stump for Strickland.

The comparison you make of the two events is amazing. The commencement speech that was livestreamed also sounded like you describe 2006 Kerry.

It sounds like it was a great time and really enlightening.

The Republican sense of entitlement that keeps your Cheneys, Rumsfelds and Negropontes coming back, moving freely into and out of the private sector because they're in the club, and had Bob Dole all put out about his electoral losses because dammit, it was his turn to be President--that and the usual Republican failing of believing their own press releases. Nixon was hounded from office, Regan should be carved into Mount Rushmore, and even * is at least still likeable.

It's corrupt and delusional, but it works for them. On our side of the aisle, the song tends to be more important than the singer, and individuals are more expendable in the political arena.

The Dems don't make defeated candidates pariahs--the Republicans keep theirs on ghoulish life support, impervious to the needs of a changing world.

They exploit our weaknesses and we don't concentrate on our strengths.

Hate to go with the sports metaphor, but the political arena isn't that far removed from the boxing ring, really.

Just an observation that the Republicans use money to prolong artifically the political lives of worthless "public servants."

I certainly wasn't suggesting that the Dems imitate them (any more than they already do).

And, eventually, the GOPs protectors in the media will no longer be able to shield BushInc when their policies finally catch up to them.

Sometimes, unspinnable events rear their heads - like Schiavo and Katrina.

If Michael Moore or Al Franken had a drug bust like Limbaugh, liberals would be dumping on him as bad as conservatives, not all lining up to defend him like the RW did. Limbaugh betrayed the GOP "war on drugs" & "just say no". It did not matter, he's "one of us". That's all tthey cared about. The conservative GOP is run like a over-financed religion, anything you do is OK as long as you "you're one of us". As long as you don't convert from the creed you won't be stoned.
The democrats are still a traditional political party where there are many expectations of performance. It's not blind loyalty to the grand pooh-bah right or wrong. I wouldn't want that glazed eye faith of conservatives but I really wish we did have more loyalty.

We need real loyalty as opposed to what I've often seen here at DU--cult of personality.

With CoP--any failing and we drop the candidate/politico/pundit like a bowling ball.

to bash Al Gore & Kerry relentlessly 24/7

I agree pretty much with this article. It made me very mad to see how the Democratic leaders turned on John Kerry after he lost. I still like him alot, and wish that the democrats would not be so quick to turn on their own members. It's their right to not like him I suppose, but it still made me mad - and less likely to send in money to the party, for example. In fact I'm not sure I will again - if I contribute I think it'll be to individual candidates not the democratic party because of this. Also if you think of what message it sends to ordinary voters/campaign workers like me, who volunteer their time to help a campaign. First I hear everywhere how wonderful this person is, but then suddenly after the election he's an awful person/candidate - well which is it, were they lying before? It seems that's what people are going to think. Did Kerry make mistakes in his campaign? Sure. But I wish the party would not criticize so vocally so it does appear so much they turn on their own when they lose.

I also still like Al Gore as well.

One thing I think a candidate has, who has run before is name recognition that a new person might not have. They also tend to have been in the news more - and I know I, at least take more notice of what they are doing. And I bet there are some people out there who wish they'd voted for Kerry when they see the mess Bush made of things. They might be thinking to themselves, maybe it is better to have a smart president than one who they just like the personality of.

Meg

He should have made himself a bloody nuisance--then his stolen election would have meant something, and it would have penetrated into the mosquito-brained, terminally distracted public consciousness.

This is politics, not bridge. One must make a nuisance of oneself. Do you think those suffragettes chained themselves to things and went on hunger strikes and endured public abuse because they LIKED it? No, they fought, because there was no other way out.

While the dems could have stormed the counting rooms in Ohio like the repubs did in Florida, it wouldn't have made a difference. Almost 2 years later, and we still can't prove that there was fraud. And the press has been working against us for what, the last 15 or so years. What don't you get? Kerry won, the election was stolen, and we couldn't prove it. End of story. To pitch a hissy fit because you "lost", wouldn't have played well in the already bias press.

And, to add to this, I think Kerry should run again. The press has pulled out all his dirty laundry and he still won. He could run great ads, showing he was right and the repubs were wrong. And, since he's learned a thing or two, he could relax and be himself. He's got name recognition, and he took his "loss" like a man.

Most dems don't realize that our reps are actually doing something, but we don't hear about it. If it doesn't get in the newspaper or on the local channel, did something really happen? Not to most people. Kerry's rallies were huge, but to see it on local TV, it looked like hardly anyone was there, and it was reported as such. And he still won!

I am really tired of people bashing Kerry because he did the only logical and sane thing. I am sure he looked at it a thousand different ways, but it always came up short, and he couldn't prove that a theft took place. Knowing something happened and proving it, are two entirely different things.

zalinda

at least pushed the issue from the background. And maybe John Conyers was made the 'designated nuisance' on this issue.

Kerry said a couple of interesting comments yesterday: 1. If the people want something done (he mentioned the first Earth Day back in the early '70's), they have to make their leaders aware of it. Leaders will eventually have to listen! He said....look what happened. Nixon created the EPA. So I guess we, the people, need to take responsibility and keep moaning the groaning and screaming about Stolen Elections....just like the suffragettes did.

Hey....there's even an article in Newsweek about the topic!

Maybe Luntz has something....maybe Dems are impatient. If we don't succeed in 2 weeks, we cry and go home.....and we definitely look for someone to blame. But maybe this is just our new 'cultural personality' of late that no one wants to assume responsibilty.

Oh...the second thing he said about Stolen Elections....the Dems don't want to write up new legislation about Voting cuz the pugs will fill it with even meaner rules....like what has been done in GA....photo ID + $20. That made some sense to me. Dems are letting the states work on this....so us Dems need to continue screaming at our Sec'y of States and hounding the BoE.

HAVA....as we look back....was crap. It made the situation worse, don't you think?

To be frank....maybe the Dems are lucky....if you think about it...look at the great candidates we have who might run in '08....Kerry, Gore, Clark, Feingold, Edwards.

It is now up to us to spread the word about the stolen election. The candidate can't do it all by himself. There has to be Dems that are willing to back him up.

I respectfully disagree with your post. There is NO fair and balanced media in this country anymore.

Case closed.

Hell no! If they haven't got any facts, they make them up.

All we need is to broadcast our suspicions--a la any GOP crackpot idea. With the sure knowledge that anything we suspect is probably the least crime the GOP has committed.

To Superbowl losers. We think that they sucked. The Bills, The Seahawks, the Vikings, and other teams all have this stigma of sucking because they lost the big game. I think it has more to do with Americans' "we gotta' have it all" attitude. The Presidency has way more on the line than a football game, but Rebublicans act like it's just a game to win even after they won it. To them it's just a game to win. Democrats take the job of President a bit more serious, and when we lose it's a big deal. Plus, Republicans tend to poke fun at the losing Democratic candidate for years to follow, and it sinks into us further expanding our idea of them being a "loser."

Man, I can't wait for footbal season.

Read an analysis on the two Al Gore's...the one who ran in 2000 and the one who recently emerged as a passionate and principled statesman...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

A few decent points were made in this piece of writing, but for the most part, I think it's hogwash. I do not think the majority of Democrats were angry with Gore or just wanted him to go away. The vast majority of us knew he was robbed of his right to be our President, and many of us had hoped he would run again in 2004. It was mostly the political pundits in the media who lambasted Gore's campaign, pointing to anything and everything to find reasons for his defeat. This was only because, in my opinion, none of them had the courage to say out loud what most of us knew, Bush stole the election.

Furthermore, I take great offense to the comparison between Gore and Nixon. Nixon was an unscrupulous man. Gore's beliefs and values are without question, regardless if you agree or disagree with him on certain issues.

Some people thought that he should have fought dirty in the 2000 election, like the republicans did, but that just was not in his character. The only thing I was disappointed in about his actions was that I think he should have fought more for the position that was rightfully his. But then again, I respect that he did what he thought what was best for the country at the time. That tells me that he is a man who, when the chips are down, follows his conscience. His poop has more integrity than Nixon had, and 100 times more than the tyrant running our country today.

I think of Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern on the national level and I've noticed it at the state and local level also. I think it is a weakness of our Party. We throw those overboard that have lost important elections, unless it is against our own Party.

Republicans are more disposed to a corporate or military model in which retired executives or generals are often kept around, brought back as advisers or re-deployed in times of crisis. "Democrats tend to tire faster of people than Republicans do," said Frank Luntz, a Republican communications consultant who has conducted focus groups on presidential candidates of both parties. "A conservative nature is a more patient nature."

Mr. Luntz says the influence of television in modern campaigns only heightens the impatience of Democrats. He suggests that Adlai Stevenson — the last losing Democrat to be renominated, in 1956 — would likely not be afforded a second chance today. "We demand instant gratification now, in our lives and our politics," he said.

This is why conservatives make being conservative sound so good. With this innoculous paragraph, the quoted criticizes the instant gratification culture, but then paints conservatives as being a group that doesn't fall pray to that culture, and hence ascribing the instant gratification culture to non-conservatives - ie. liberals.

We need to use tricks like this to make people want to be part of the "liberal" club.

you mean, like invading a country before the reasons you want to invade it are proven to be true?

story after story in the corporate media set up journalists and readers alike to view Dems as inherently faulty.

You might enjoy FRAMESHOP by Jeffrey Feldman

:hi:

Thanks

Democrats who have lost as being "inept" and "weak".

on their own echo chamber. No one asked me what I thought of Gore in 2000 - after the recount. Of course , i eventually got angry at him for dropping out in 2003. But if anyone remembers the polls they kept taking before Gore dropped - he was in double digits over everyone (Hillary included) in single digits.
As for Kerry - I am angry at him because he also won, but declined to fight (ditto for edwards)

echo chamber.

All you have to do is compare their treatment of Bob Dole vs Dukakis, Gore or Kerry. He lost by far more than Gore or Kerry, possibly as badly as Dukakis.

Almost immediately, he was deemed an elder statesman and was suddenly described as very witty. This in spite of becoming a Viagra spokesman and making a commercial for Pepsi oogling a teen age Britney Spears. Compare this to the treatment Gore got for things like growing a beard and wearing tweed, both ususally quite acceptable things to do. Something is clearly out of whack when this indicates a problem and a man in his 60s or 70s oogling (on tv) a teen doesn't.

Kerry didn't even give them a beard to laugh at- he has acted with dignity and grace since losing - and he is ridiculed just as much.

We didn't. Gore won and we know it. We even know kerry won - at least a few of us since he didn't bother coming out with it (nor his running mate for that matter)

One part of the role of running for office, especially a national run, is to be a standard bearer. Always has been.

While we need to review races, politically, a loss doesn't negate anyone's contributions to the party. Or their future in the party, whether as public spokesperson or candidate.

The MSM ridicules Democrats for becoming pariahs when they lose -- when it is the MSM itself that strongly contributes to both their loss AND their consequent pariah status.

Kerry and Dukakis were weak wishy-washy and substanceless on the trail, and ran compaigns that sucked and allowed themselves to be picked apart. None of the others are pariahs at all, that just doesn't wash. Humphrey and McGovern are revered by most Democrats as is Mondale and Gore is still seen rightly as the real winner of the 2000
The NYT is really stinking up the place with such lame underhandedly-motivated stories, another being the hit piece on Chavez lately.