09/04/2002 Archived Entry: "The Republican Cultural Wars are Turning Inward-- Speed It Up With Dean"
I made a post on this topic awhile back: "Bush vs Dean: deficit spending vs gay marriage-- who's the liberal?" I argued:
It seems that the "Dean is a Liberal" is based upon his not vetoing the CU law (I'm not even sure if he could legally veto it). He is socially liberal. But hey, we had this social values war in 97-98, and if I remember correctly, it's not exactly a winning issue for the Republicans. Dean is Libertarian on abortion and gay rights issues... The cultural wars are nearly behind us, and if the GOP tried to re-ignite them, I think they would wind up burning themselves. Remember 1992, 1998 at the Ballot box? If Dean was also anti-gun, I would agree the assessment that Dean is vulnerable to the 'liberal card,' as that would be enough to cast the pale, but he's not.... All Dean would have to do is quote Cheney, and how are the Republicans going to answer that? His are some of the most pro-gay statements ever spoken in the GOP.
In a previous post, Mr. Moderate mentioned 4 areas in which the Republicans have been making gains-- this being the most pro-gay Republican administration ever was one of them. I agree, and as I made mention of in the post linked above, I think Cheney is partly responsible for the shift in national opinion on gay marriages. Which brings us to California and Simon:
In today's news, Simon was booted Tuesday from a planned fund-raiser with Dick Cheney's gay daughter after he repudiated his statements to a gay Republican group and reneged on his promise to declare a Gay Pride Day. The Republican Unity Coalition, a gay-straight Republican group that formed during President Bush's candidacy, said the GOP gubernatorial nominee would not be welcome at its fund-raiser Thursday in Los Angeles...
The point was made in the comment referred to above, that the best way for the Democrats to turn back the fledging support of gays for Bush is to nominate Dean. That's probably true, for a couple of reasons.
The first, obviously, is that Dean supports the state's right to have CU's. But it's not that great of a percentage number we are speaking of in terms of Republican support by GLBT's. Bush got a little over a million GLBT voters to support him-- but weigh that against the 18M votes received from conservative religious persons. We are probably talking about a 2-3% shift of voters from Bush to Dean is all.
The second reason is where the wedge will actually come in play. Rove will want to try and exploit the cultural issue to wedge the Democrats, thinking that the gains would far outweigh their losses-- it's about re-gaining the Reagan Democrats. I don't think they can pull it off. Particularly with Cheney on the ticket in 2004, and the Republican Unity Coalition playing an inside role in the campaign, it would prove to cause more internal dissonance than anything else-- Rovians will meet resistance (weight-wise, not numbers) from within the GOP. It's not an issue that they can exploit without internal dissent.
That's all beside the point that Dean is not making the national case for the matter, and that public opinion, especially the younger voters, is turning against the zealot cultural-space invaders on this issue. With nominating Dean though, the wedge will come in play; either with the Republicans playing another round of cultural warfare, resulting in the alienation of voters between 18-35 and strong support of the Democrat from the GLBT community; or, if the Republicans default on the issue by trying not to make any waves, it will result in the social conservatives going bonkers, forcing Rove/Bush to swing right, resulting in rank dissonance-- look at how this played out with Simon for an example.
The so-called "Reagan Democrats" are not going to see Dean politicizing the issue --anymore than Clinton or Gore did as a candidate-- which is the only way that this cultural wedge issue would work to the Republicans advantage. Compared to the economic factors, CU's are a non-issue for Independent voters, and won't matter much to their actual vote. Pocket-book matters trump them.
Bush and the budget busters have our economy locked into a zero-sum game. Simply because the conservatives don't have the guts to run for office on the social cuts they want to make, they will bankrupt the system, forcing them to occur.
After being a Governor who has balanced VT's budget for 5 terms at the same time he cut middle-class taxes, Dean is the only Democrat who can force Bush to the mat on his budget-busting tax-cuts. Dean would be able and turn the liberal card strongly against the big-government, cut-tax & deficit-spend Bush.
Replies: 18 comments
AHHHH! Dean is the Pete Dupont of 2004 an obscure New England Governor that nobody cares about. I am a proud gay Democrat and my vote will be going to Al Gore or John Kerry in the primaries. Who needs or wants a tax cutting "fiscal conservative" as the Dem nominee? the nominee will be Gore, Kerry, or Edwards
Posted by GaDem @ 09/04/2002 02:34 PM PST
O brother. (looking at GaDem)
John Kerry said in the debate with Weld in 1996 that his most proud vote EVER was his voting for a targeted Capitol Gains tax cut.
So much for using Deans tax cuts against him.
The 1998 budget had $135 billion in tax cuts that Gores mentor Bill Clinton signed.
And in case you totally missed the point(a safe conclusuion actually),the fiscal credientials of Dean will be VERY important when Bush tries to paint him as a budget busting "liberal" when Dean proposes that every American should have the human right to health care.
Thanks for proving what a weak case there actually is to deny Dean the nomination.And for the record,its really a sad day when a "proud" gay starts piling up on Dean.He isnt a flamming fool on the issue,but people will try to paint his resonable approach as moronic.Sorry,but Dean is articulate,resonable,and I urge the right of center Democrats like yourself to just try to portray Dean as a buffone(sic,Im a bad speller),and then Ill enjoy seeing you fail.
Posted by MLM @ 09/04/2002 03:42 PM PST
I sure wouldn't mind a real "fiscal conservative" in view of the budget mess our recent borrow-and-spend GOP presidents have left us. Balance the budget first, then we can argue if any surplus should go to cutting taxes or spending.
Posted by RParker @ 09/04/2002 03:44 PM PST
I believe I was the one who listed the four groups that the GOP should gain in popularity with in the next few decades as to counter Dem gains in Hispanics.
For reference: http://www.mydd.com/archives/00000294.htm
The uptick in union and Jewish support should be visible in 2002, the uptick in gay and black vote will be incredibly slow, but I believe, steady over the next few decades. (As RParker said, it's hard to imagine the GOP *losing* ground with an ethnic group they split about 9 to 1 in national races.)
A Dean v. Bush (or, for that matter, Dean v. anyone) would likely result in a complete and total Republican meltdown, not because of the strength of Dean as a candidate, but because of the issue Dean injects into the race.
The Republicans will never be able to find a compromise on the issue. They'll be completely divided by the Cheney-Racicot / Buchannan-Bauer fault line, and wind up alienating either the crucial swing voters or the uber-conservative base. (Unless, of course, you believe they learned their lessons from 1998.)
Posted by Mr. Moderate @ 09/04/2002 06:01 PM PST
Oh, and by the way, I think it goes without saying, but Simon is an idiot.
He stumbled face first into a great opportunity to make him seem less conservative (I mean, come on, who's the hardcore right going to vote for... Gray Davis?). And he decided to spit opportunity in the face and made things even WORSE for his campaign by going back on what he said to make him seem not only intolerant, but also seem like he has no clue what the hell his campaign is doing.
Way to go, jackass.
Posted by Mr. Moderate @ 09/04/2002 06:19 PM PST
I disagree with the acessment of Dean as this cycle's DuPont. Months ago on PW mydd and I had a discussion comparing Dean to Babbitt but I think that too is off-base. I think Dean may be 2004's Morris Udall. Principled, moderate but able to hold the left, intelligent, witty, and well-liked by the media.
If you remember your history, Udall ran a strong second to Carter in 1976. Maybe Dean can run just a little better campaign. I'm not ready to write him off, not by a long shot.
Posted by MississippiDem @ 09/04/2002 06:51 PM PST
Mississippi Dem
I too consider Dean to be difficult to pin down ideologicaly.
The important thing to remember is this..........Dean is liberal on issues that are major winners(like healthcare) and moderate on issues the public will want him to be moderate on(like guns).
Healthcare is the sleeper crown jewel the left has(boy is that needed by EVERYBODY,especially the 50 million uninsured)and someone with Deans fiscal managment accomplishments can only point toward the dream canidate,and o yes he is a doctor too!
Ill never forget Jill Dockings pathetic cry babying in 1996 after Sam Brownback clobbered her,screaming about the "radical right".Before she would adress Democratic audiences and say "I have to tell you something ...Im not a liberal Democrat".
This DLC crap of extreme divisive stands on social issues and "moderation" on economic issues,meaning they give corperations goodies like the GOP does(some "moderation")is the biggest political looser I have ever seen.
Dean take the moderate stands where he should and fights hard for progressive stands on issues important to working people.I saw him in New Hampshire anwsering a Pro Life Democrats question about tolerting her and he made it clear he respects different views, mentioning how he was campaigning for a Pro Life Dem running in Iowa the day before.Jill Docking on the other hand tried to drive a wedge so deep on abortion in the 1996 Senate race 24/7 but in the debate Sam Brownback just wipped her butt simply saying "I support the states right to choose",in the debate Docking could say nothing,she was just plain beat.
Howard Dean can be elected in a general easily over any DLCer.
Posted by MLM @ 09/04/2002 07:13 PM PST
Thanks, Mr. Moderate, I thought it was you, but couldn't find the post-- so now I've linked it.
I too can see the case for Dean falling just short, ala Udall, and more recently, two of Trippi's other candidates, Hart and Brown. I hope Trippi is ready to move it up a notch with Dean.
I've heard Dean speak about HealthCare in 2005 as if he's already got it all planned out. No doubt, Bush is going to play a "me-too" role, but a Dem congress will show that for what it's worth-- nothing but a Bush veto.
Posted by MyDD @ 09/04/2002 08:15 PM PST
Thinking more on the GOP/gay issue, if the national GOP softens on this issue, I can see a realignment take place like this:
Greens take the economic/environmental left.
Dems/GOP fight for the socially liberal/economically conservative center. (Libertarianism light?)
A fourth party rises for the Social conservatives (Constitution?).
Posted by RParker @ 09/04/2002 09:47 PM PST
mydd
Actually, I think its very possible that Dean just may be a Mo Udall with luck. I don't think he'll run a close second, I think he just could pull it off. He has something that you rarely see in contemporary politics-individuality.
MLM
One thing that impressed me was his handling of the gun control issue. It should be a states rights issue (to an extent) and Dean expressed it better than any Democrat I've seen since Clinton.
Posted by MississippiDem @ 09/04/2002 11:36 PM PST
Argue issues all you want, it takes money to get the message out and with the primaries so front loaded this time the contest will be over very quickly. Dean has neither the personal fortune or the vast network of connections to raise the $20 mil necessary to compete very long. Like it or not it still takes truckloads of money to play this poker game and Dean won't be around much after the first couple of hands.
Posted by NebraskaDem @ 09/05/2002 06:42 AM PST
Something to remember about Mo Udall is, he was running as a basic liberal at precisely the time the nation was swinging dramatically away from such a position. Things are very different right now -- all the issue movement in the last decade or so has been in the progressive direction. I have no doubt the perpetually clueless press will dismiss Dean as off the charts liberal, but the voting public will shock them. Think back to 1980. Most in the press thought the GOP was shooting itself in the foot by nominating Reagan; Carter was seen as vulnerable, but Reaagan was the least likely to beat him. We all know how that turned out. The same thing could happen in reverse.
I agree with the notion the DLC is pushing in the wrong directions -- thinking the liberal wing is to be crushed, not combined with. They think Clinton's success would have occurred just as easily with, say, Sam Nunn as president. I think that's ludicrous. Clinton had the gift for making all but the furthest left liberals thinking he was on their side. HE made the DLC, not the other way around.
I wonder how many of the people who are dismissing Dean have seen him speak. I'm telling you, he's the best this side of Clinton at communicating complicated ideas and making them sound perfectly reasonable. That counts for alot. I can see him getting wildly unexpected levels of support in the primaries.
Posted by demtom @ 09/05/2002 07:50 AM PST
"Dean has neither the personal fortune or the vast network of connections to raise the $20 mil necessary to compete very long."
He does have the connections, many of them. He's the longest serving Governor, and headed up both the NGA and the DGA at times, iirc, and knows folks throughout the states. If Dean arises in the polls, and all of these Gov's and former Gov's go to bat for him, he's formidable-- it's his ace in the hole.
Posted by MyDD @ 09/05/2002 11:58 AM PST
I like your unflagging loyalty :) however it still remains that it takes boatloads of money to get a message out before you rise in the polls unless you have a high profile position which equals great unfettered access to national writers and networks. Gov. of Vermont isn't exactly a high profile position causing national news reporters to come running to Montpelier for your views on the EU. Maple syrup, maybe. Let's face it, Calvin Coolidge was the last Vermont Governor to make the bigtime and that was by accident.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, just pointing out that few people can raise enough of a profile to warrant collecting $20 million in a very short time frame. I would prefer a much longer process so as to give more people a chance to be heard instead of this front loading of the primaries which will almost immediately cut the pack down to Gore, Kerry (my choice), maybe Gephardt and another straggler and shortly after that the struggle will be over. It gives no time for your scenario for Dean to rise in the polls and THEN start collecting $20 mil in the small sums it must be federally collected. Seems to me a very weak position to be in with no room for the slightest error.
Posted by NebraskaDem @ 09/05/2002 05:11 PM PST
Actually, Coolidge moved to Massachusetts in 1905. He was Governor of the Bay State, NOT Vermont. And Chester Arthur, also Vermont-born, moved to New York. So did Levi Morton, who was from Vermont too. So Vermont isn't exactly a good place to come from.
Posted by Mr. Liberal @ 09/05/2002 07:08 PM PST
Mr Liberal, my bad. You're right, he was born in Vt, sworn in office by his father in Vt. but was Gov of MA. I wrote that after coming home to find a broken water pipe and 2 inches of water throughout my house. Guess what I've been doing for the last 5 hours.... if you have your own shop vac you're welcome to join me.
But my point still stands, being Gov of Vt and balancing its budget is not a magnet for news hounds to ask worldly questions. I don't know about Vt but many -if not most- states have in their constitution a mandated balanced budget. We have that in Nebraska. Like to chat some more but my shop vac calls...
Posted by NebraskaDem @ 09/05/2002 09:43 PM PST
I doubt the governors of Massachusetts, Arkansas, or Texas ever get hard hitting questions on the EU and other issues, but that didn't stop Dukakis, Clinton, and Bush Jr. from winning the nominations.
Governors, more often or not, win their party's nomination. Now, ex-governors...that's a different story. Right Lamar?
Posted by Mr. Moderate @ 09/06/2002 11:51 AM PST
you know, i wonder if all these "democratic" naysayers are really wolves in sheep's clothing.
if the dems wanna win, we need a viable solid candidate with good ideas that can be sold to the public. dean seems to be that man at the moment, and if things keep rolling like they are now, i will bet money that his "lack" of connections is not going to matter.
so to the democrats who are hesitant about dean, let me remind you of the following: candidate clinton didn't have the resources back in 92. he basically came out of nowhere and won. i firmly believe that if we dems support a good candidate, he can win. the candidate must be free of the clinton baggage (which takes out gore), and mustn't be vulnerable like daschle or kerry (too much baggage there as well). someone like dean can take bush and he GOP to task on the issues that are important to many americans. dean can win, but he has got to have our support in order to do it. so instead of dismissing him, why not get on board?
Posted by anna @ 09/08/2002 01:24 PM PST
