Can Democrats Win in 2008?

Prior to a few comments on 2008, a bit on 2006. The more I think about it, the more I think I may be correct in regard to the "Kerry Gaff." It's just possible that Democrats have figured out how to beat the Rove style of Republican politics.

The Rove style is to play to the base. That basic proposition almost mandates "attack politics," since the base is in itself small. So, the positive message, to play to that base, has to be reasonably narrow. To gain the larger support necessary to win, the "attack" is preferred, as long as it can in some way be related to the same narrow message the base is hearing.

Secondly, the Rove Machine depends heavily on enormous sums of data and organization. Essentially representing a "minority position" among the electorate, it is extremely important that all of the Rove allies to be on the "same page at the same time," to counter what they feel is basically a liberal media and maximize the impact of their attacks. This requires good organization and communication among the faithful. Not to mention, lots of money.

It generally works - at least in 2000, 2002 and 2004. I have noticed that virtually the moment one Republican goes onto the attack, all do...with the same message, down to the same phrasing.

But, even prior to the Kerry Gaff, Republicans went into 2006 in a position they most decidedly dislike, the defensive position. With two-thirds of the electorate against "their" war in Iraq, struggling to make a connection between that war and the war on terror and explain an economy that was great for a few, bad for a few, and just mediocre for the rest, the deck was stacked against them from the beginning. The ethics problems didn't help. They could point to Representative Jefferson's "cold cash" in his freezer and a questionable land deal in Nevada on the part of Reid, but these were minuscule compared to Delay, Ney, Foley, Cunningham, Abramoff, earmarks, etc.

Events in Iraq weren't going their way either. No reasonable assessment suggested we were "winning" and the only people coming home were either wounded or in body bags. So, if there was some remote connection between Iraq and the War on Terror, which had been the "sale," then how could we be winning the War on Terror and losing in Iraq?

Thus, their chosen platform, the war on terror and the economy, was weak to begin with.

The trouble they were in was adequately reflected in the polls...maybe not the specialized 80 or so polls Rove was reading, but sufficiently mainstream, relatively unbiased ones, that only the most radical ideologues could deny them. And, they went into the closing two weeks of the election, one would guess praying for a miracle.

And, then, along came John Kerry...hehehe. Kerry's "bad joke," which when taken out of context, appeared to be degradating the educational levels of our troops in Iraq was like "mania from heaven." In the attack mode they favored, against an already vanquished foe, they committed a significant error...they went after Kerry.

No matter that Kerry wasn't running for re-election. No matter that as hard as they tried to tag him as the "titular head of the Democratic Party," most of us look to the last "winner" as in that role (i.e. Bill Clinton). No matter that among Democrats, Kerry was running a distant 5th for the 2008 Presidential candidacy. They just could not resist going after Kerry a second time.

The result was that most conservative media and Republicans went "off message" for from 4-6 critical days in the last two weeks of a campaign in an election forecast as "close" and during the period where most independents were making up their minds. The question in my mind is not whether Kerry's Gaff was for real or faked, but whether or not conservatives were actually duped by Democrats and a supposedly liberal media. In other words, was Rove outfoxed?

Remember, that for a day or two; three at the most, this was a major story in the "liberal media" as well as among Democrats. The general reaction was, "Geez...OK, it was a bad joke told badly, but just apologize and get on with it." Ah...but Kerry himself kept it on the front page, by initially refusing an abject apology (and in hindsight, I think correctly...because it was another "Swift Boat Attack"). Had Democrats and the media themselves failed to make it an issue, would the conservative media have made it such a big deal? Ah...fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Fully five or six days, after the Gaff, I caught a "Hannity and Colmes" Fox Network broadcast. The principal topic was still John Kerry, who had little to do, if anything, with the major election issues. Voters had moved on...Rove had not.

So...I've come to the conclusion that the "Kerry Gaff" was not the sole, but a significant factor in the Democratic victories. Goes to show you, that sometimes, the best offense is not necessarily the best defense. But what do they know about military strategy?

Secondly, I was impressed by the Democrats to simply point to the flaws of the current Administration, as recorded in the daily press, in order to win elections without any unified program of their own. That "plan" was there...Nancy's List of Things To Do in the First 100 Hours, but it appeared relatively late and didn't receive any unified Democratic support among the candidates. Presuming a Rove directed campaign would be based on "attack," Democrats wisely gave them nothing to attack, except for Kerry, who really didn't matter much in the voter's mind anyhow. It was really sort of "What! We don't have a Plan for getting out of Iraq? Well, no one does. Put us into office and we'll figure it out."

A final note on Kerry before moving to 2008. As a Democrat, I was initially a Dean supporter, then an Edwards supporter, and ultimately a reluctant Kerry supporter. I thought he was too cerebral and wealthy East Coast Ivy League to gain sufficient popular support to win. But, I never doubted his patriotism, in my mind the deepest sort of patriotism one can offer one's country. He went to war, risked his life, and returned home with medals and a belief that what we had done as a nation was wrong and that he had a patriotic duty to stop it. I seriously doubt his radical statements regarding the behavior of a minority of our forces in the field were conveyed to condemn the U.S. military, but to further the cause of the anti-war movement. To attack his patriotism is pretty much scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

But, if the Kerry Gaff was unintentional, it sort of confirms why I had some doubts about him in 2004. If it was intentional, it shows a stroke of genius that merits another look see for 2008. Remember that John Kerry is a guy who has "fallen on his own sword" before and survived.

So, the Democrats finally took back Congress and a bare two weeks after the election began squabbling...hehehe. Pelosi strikes me as a very savvy lady, so what was the deal with Murtha?

My explanation is that she showed appropriate deference to a political debt and silenced a potential problem...namely Murtha himself. Although, I believe Murtha deserves credit for being one of the first to point out that the "Emporer has no clothes," he always impressed me as an "old timer back room politician." His appearance on the FBI Abscam tapes only confirmed my suspicions. It was pretty obvious that he was being offered a bribe and although he didn't take it, he failed to be indignant or to as a minimum inform the bribers (FBI agents) of the rules of the game. Well...maybe he did..."I don't trust you, but once I do, maybe then I'll take your money." That coupled with his recent acid comments on "ethics reform" convinced me that here is a guy overreaching on the strength of his anti-war sentiments.

So, Pelosi, who presumably will need those 87 Murtha votes (those who voted for him as Majority Leader) to push through genuine ethics reform may have come up with a wise solution...I'll back him and he'll lose, but then go away and I'll have paid my "loyalty debt."

I like that. If her claims regarding reform are genuine, she put her agenda ahead of personal power. Not being overwhelmed about NOT supporting her Number 2, Steny Hoyer doesn't bother me. For one, it was an "election." And, for another, it is an indication that she intends to run the Democratic House from the Speaker's chair and is confident in her leadership.

But, I'll be watching those first 100 Hours carefully.

Meanwhile, the front runners in the 2008 Presidential race seem to be Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Kerry and an assorted cast of thousands. I would not discount either Dean or Richardson. And Bayh and whatshisname, the Governor of Iowa, although the latter may be throwing his hat in for some leverage in the Iowa caucuses and subsequent Convention.

Hillary has the unfortunate baggage of Bill and liberalism. Bill himself is no more baggage than Bush 41 is to the current Bush...but then, like Bill, Bush 41 wasn't all that bad either. It's just that electing the first woman President is enough of a challenge, without the additional challenge of being part of a "dynasty." We have recently "been there; done that." Three other drawbacks: although she tries hard, she just does not come across as warm and friendly...it may be her intelligence. And, she's feared as a "closet liberal," although she's tried to move away from that. And, thirdly, largely because of that movement, she wound up supporting the resolution that gave Bush the authority to go into Iraq. In two years, if the war is still an issue, it will probably be because things will have gotten worse, not better. Early opposition to it will be a plus.

Barak Obama is the current Democratic heart throb. He's got lots of time and would probably be wise to wait a couple of terms, building a reputation in the Senate. He would also be the first black President. I think the country is ready to elect a black President, such as Powell, but not a black without experience...i.e. as racist as this may sound, a black President who has proven his or her self within a white system. In eight or twelve years it won't be a "white system," plus he'll have the experience. Of course, he might be an excellent VP candidate. But, on the other hand, not with a woman...my oh my, our prejudices certainly make life complicated, don't they?

Dean would be my current favorite but is definitely not an "Democratic establishment candidate." The Clinton's pretty much still run the Party and I have occasionally thought that the Party hierarchy destroyed Dean's chances in 2004 because if he'd won election, Hillary wouldn't have been able to run in 2008 (assuming the Party would renominate the President). Dean has the advantage of still having the "bloggers/Internet crowd" support and did much to insist on a "50 State Democratic Strategy" that produced the 2006 gains...though the Party seems loath to give him any credit (as opposed to Rahm Emmanuel, who is a Party "insider" and has been given most of the credit). Dean has the added advantage of being an early opponent to the war and a fiscal conservative.

Edwards is certainly toiling in the trenches enough to gain some ground. He's also given the "public apology" necessary by saying, "if I knew then, what I know now, I would have never supported the war." That confession, assuming things don't suddenly improve in Iraq, seems to me to be sort of a "litmus test" for any 2008 candidate, Democratic or Republican - and that includes John McCain. Next to being against it from the beginning, genuflection on this point is required.

Evan Bayh is from a famous and respected political family...but may be just too nice a guy. Even if Iraq goes away, the threat of terrorism is likely to continue...so we'll be looking for a true gunslinger, a sort of Paladin (remember Richard Boone), instead of a John Wayne.

Which brings me to my dark horse favorite, New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson. He has a western image, solid international credentials (UN Ambassador), former Congressman, a former Secretary of Energy and speaks Spanish (his mother was Mexican, as were his grandmothers). If there was ever someone "made for the job," considering the times and changing demographics, Richardson seems to be it. Plus, he has a great sense of humor and has shown he can laugh at himself, a trait that will probably become more and more essential as we attempt to solve the impossible.

If one of the front runners (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) gets it, I would think Richardson would be an easy pick for VP, if he wants it. Richardson is well thought of in the Party hierarchy, grew up in Boston, went to Tufts. For more, see his biography on Wikipedia. He's conservative enough to carry part of the West and South, liberal enough to hold the "blue states." And, I assume speaks Spanish well enough to say more than: "Jose, bring me another Jack Daniels and tell me how things are going on the fence for the back forty acres." Finally, he's stayed out of the limelight just enough to give the American electorate the impression that he's a "new face."

Then, there is Kerry and Gore. I voted for both of them...well, maybe I voted for Nader instead of Gore, but he was my second choice. I have no great feelings one way or the other about either, but a vague understanding that their time has come and gone. Honorable, senior statesmen, whose advice would be welcome...but, then they "lost" didn't they?

Soooo....sports fans...if the Party decides Hillary and Barak would be nice but suicidal, my pick is Richardson...this week.