From "
Battlegrounds & Ballot Boxes"
Matthew Langer lays out an
emotional and reasoned argument against Dean and how the left can eat itself a live in the next election. Especially because of capture of Saddam Hussein. He argues:
But for the President it is a windfall. American's are a people addicted to imagery, and the footage of Hussein's medical examination is the kind of imagery that candidates dream of having in their portfolios - it ranks right up there with the President and the megaphone at Ground Zero. Bush invested everything he had in this war - having much to gain or everything to lose - and it just paid a major dividend, because regardless of how the average American feels about the war it is safe to assume that most of them regard Hussein as a tyrannical icon who has troubled the region for decades, one who has haunted us in the past, and one of whom we have finally disposed. And average American voters will remember this when it comes time to choose between a strong incumbent and an insurgent Vermonter.
I may be one of the activists he refers to, and on many days, including the days he spent supporting Gary hart he was one too. However, this goes back to the question of whether or not Dean can win. But I think that this game was going to be played anyhow. It was game that Bush tried to nail Clinton with in 1992. Americans are addicted to imagery as Matthew says and villains
as I pointed out earlier, but there are two major hurdles to this argument: History and Time.
History does not speak well for this early victory for George W. Bush, it is easy for many of us to forget that Communism fell during Bush Sr.'s administration and we won a successful war. Bush could take credit with Regan for defeating communism. This was huge. He tried to milk it for all it was worth, but the economy came back to bite him. Many would point to signs of recovery, but this is not true in the
places where Bush needs to win. Just as important, Bush has not handled much of this very well and the ongoing feud with the CIA could even taint this victory (CIA was vital to Saddam's capture).
The most important reason Matthew's prediction may not come true is time. It is 11 months until Election Day and a lot will happen in those ten months. In the last 11 months we went to war and captured their leader. In the ten months before that we had just invaded Afghanistan. The months before that ... Sept. 11th happened.
I don't think the question can be "Does this imagery/message kill the Dems" I think the question needs to be for all Democrats "What message/message are we going to use against Bush?"
If anyone though Dean would use his war positions the war in the general election, I think they are sorely mistaken. Clinton was much more liberal in the primaries than in the general and Dean, Clark, et al will dot he same. The key to this election is whether or not we find that imagery while not losing the excitement and energy that the party base has now. It is difficult balancing act, but it always is when trying to un-seat the President.
I think the key to this election is not the war or the economy, I think the key to this election is the Bush Administration's attitude, the right wing, and more. The attacks Bush is getting for spending from his libertarian wing will hurt him. The continued mess in Iraq will also hurt him. We can look at the capture of Saddam as an opportunity - now they have to get Iraq in order they have no other victory to strive for.
Overall there is much more debating to be had and many more big events to take place. We have to pick the best candidate and campaign, and right now and Dean is it. Nobody is not an option.