I was tricked into reading William Safire's
column this morning by the link, which reads, "Dean and the Democrats." While admitting that he is routing for a Dean candidacy (on the grounds that he is "this generation's McGovern"), he talks about how both "wings" of the party are scrambling to prevent this.
But most of the column is dedicated to the argument that we're in a clear economic growth period, which will undercut the efforts of these two wings. Safire believes that since both of these wings supported the war, they must oppose Bush on the economy, which (now that it seems to be turning around) will end up sinking them.
The thing I loved about this (beyond the fact that Safire really seems to believe the economy is turning around, all the evidence to the contrary), is the way he talks about Bush's ability to effect real change. He says:
But both Democratic power centers are surely considering the other possibility: that Bush is lucky. What if the war on terror begins to succeed by next summer, casualties decline, Saddam is found or Osama is killed? In that case, Bush would campaign on both growing prosperity and impending victory.
I'm sorry. This guy's supposed to be on Bush's side. And he seems to think that the only way Bush will accomplish his objectives in the international arena is if he's lucky. The only way he can succeed with the war on terrorism is if he gets lucky. The only way casualties will decline is if he gets lucky. The only way he will find Sadaam or Osama is if he gets lucky.
I suspect he's just admitting what we've all been suspecting--that Bush has no clear plan. But admitting it on the OpEd page of the Times?
