Some input on Dean’s participation/responsibility for Civil Unions: Telcontar and Saxman emphasize what they perceive to be his reluctance to do anything meaningful, and are calling him oportunistic in that respect.
In the state of VT, however, even though he did sign the bill “behind closed doors,” it was most certainly in the public eye. The Civil Union issue in many ways tore this state apart, and by even suggesting that the supreme court had done the right thing, Dean engendered the wrath of a huge portion of the population.
IMO, Dean’s support of Civil Unions as opposed to something more radical (not to discount the significance of Civil Unions) was just about as much as he could do without jeopardizing the whole deal, and without forcing democrats throughout the state to support something much more dangerous to their careers.
As it was, many many legislators lost their seats at the next elections.
Dean did the best he could under the circumstances, and if you think that because he signed the bill behind closed doors that he was out of the public eye or dodging responsibility, you don’t have a firm grasp of the situation.
First, someone in the Pit calls elucidator right-wing. Now somebody in GD says he predicted Bush would find WMD programs in Iraq. Something tells me the old geezer is losing his touch.
I don’t recall saying he had no chance to win the nomination, though I wouldn’t be totally surprised if I had said it. What I clearly and distinctly remember saying is that Dean had no chance of winning the general election. I have since revised my opinion on that matter, in part because Iraq is an even bigger mess that I thought it would be and in part because Dean is a far better campaigner than I though he would be. But I’m still only upgading his general election chances from non-existent to pretty slim.
I’ll make another upward adjustment for him if he makes it through the primaries without having to answer the gay marriage question sixteen times a day, and if he continues to run as a pragmatic centrist instead of Nader-lite.
My exact statement on Dean was that he “is interesting, but anyone who thinks he’s electable needs to put down the crack pipe.” Of course, I also said that “the reason Dean is unelectable is that he is way, way to the left of the American mainstream. That stuff may sell to Naderites, but it won’t fly very far in the primaries and not at all in the general. . . . I assure you, Dean would lose the election by 20 points if he runs on a platform of gay marriages, partial birth abortions, and socialized medicine.”
Thank goodness he’s turning out to be much more of a centrist than anyone would have thought a few months ago, despite the unabashed enthusiasm for him on the left wing of the party. I’m happy to say that I was wrong in my assessment of him back then, though I still think he’s toast when Rove turns this into a referendum on gay marriage.
I should also point out that I was three months ahead of the OP with the historical analogy I derided above: McGovern : Nixon :: Dean : Bush.
“He seems like a reasonably smart, capable guy, but there is abolutely NOTHING about him that recommends him as a Vice Presidential nominee.”
Let’s see: he was a Rhodes scholar and top of his class at West Point so he is clearly very bright. He obviously has a lot of experience with national security issues including running a successful war and working closely with other NATO governments. He is in addition a Southerner which balances a ticket where the main candidate is likely to be from the North. That is actually a lot to recommend him for VP.
“His value to the ticket would be 100% symbolic. It would be a way for otherwise dovish, accommodationist, appeasement-minded Democrats to say…”
“Symbolic” matters in politics but as noted above Clark brings more to the table than symbolic value. BTW your description of “dovish, accomodationsist, appeasement-minded” doesn’t apply to any of the 6 serious candidates including Dean. The notion that opposing the increasingly foolish-looking Iraq war makes you any of those things is GOP porn and nothing more.
BTW those who still think that Dean doesn’t have much of a chance obviously haven’t seen the latest polls. Bush’s latest numbers are awful. http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
29% say that they would definitely vote for Bush but 41% say definitely against. Bush still has a (fast narrowing)lead against individual Democrats but considering that they are still largely unknown that is to be expected. The numbers on the generic question suggest he is in trouble. I think Kerry,Edwards and Dean have a very solid chance of beating him.
“Thank goodness he’s turning out to be much more of a centrist than anyone would have thought a few months ago…”
Ahem. As the thread you have coveniently linked shows I said at the time that Dean wasn’t that liberal. (Since then I have become slighly worried about the protectionist noises he has been making but I don’t think it will amount to much)
“though I still think he’s toast when Rove turns this into a referendum on gay marriage.”
Which will be hard to do since Dean doesn’t support gay marriage. I am not sure why you think this issue is that important. I think Rove will concentrate on national security experience and taxes; Dean should be able to fight back on both issues but he will have to work for it.
I haven’t the slightest doubt that “programs” will be found. After all, what would it take for an entreprenurial Iraqi to download a bunch of stuff from the net, affix some “Top Secret” Iraqi stamps, then turn it over for his green card and his check. Ca-ching!
Naturally, it will be examined by intelligence professionals with rigorous scrutiny, and determined to be authentic. Will the Faithful buy it? Does the Pope shit in the woods? Trouble is, no one ever got shot by the blueprint of a gun.
But the Bushiviks need to salvage at least a scrap of dignity. They will lower the bar as far as need be. Only scruples and ethics might impede them. 'Nuff sed.
Nonsense. To most Americans, “civil unions” are “gay marriage.” And in most respects, particularly the sociological aspects, they’re absolutely correct.
Because it is an extremely strong wedge issue. That is, an issue that motivates large numbers of people to vote against a candidate. Only 48% of Americans think homosexual relations should be legal at all, and only 40% support civil unions. Cite.
You and me, I’m sad to say, are far from representative of public opinion on this issue.
"To most Americans, “civil unions” are “gay marriage.” "
Hmm what’s your source for this?
In any case if it hurts Dean it will hurt Kerry and Gephardt who also support civil unions but ,like Dean, stop short of gay marriage.
Note also that Al Gore also supported gay civil unions including the Vermont law and it wasn’t really a big issue in 2000. And AFAIK Bush himself has never explicitly opposed civil union.
Sorry, Cyberpundit, but Wesley Clark can’t and won’t deliver a single Southern state for the Democrats.
Mind you, that’s not a personal slam at General Clark. There isn’t anybody in EITHER party who could deliver a single state from the #2 spot on the ticket.
If Lloyd Bentsen (who was infinitely more impressive in stature than Dan Quayle, and who has FAR more good ol’ boy Southern appeal than Wesley Clark ever will) couldn’t win a single Southern state for Michael Dukakis, it’s absurd to think Wesley Clark is going to help Howard Dean.
Again, I’m NOT saying Dean can’t win. I’m merely saying he’d be an idiot to pick Wesley Clark as his running mate, because Clark wouldn’t help him a whit in a single state.
I think that Dean has to start by writing off almost the entire South (Florida, of course, is different), and concentrating on holding all the states Gore took last time out (almost all of which will go for any Democrat nominated) and picking up a few critical states like Ohio.
Now, if Dean genuinely LOVES Wesley Clark, and wants to select him because “I might die, and CLark is the perfect guy to replace me,” that’s one thing. But if he thinks Clark would be a boon to his campaign, he’s simply kidding himself.
“Sorry, Cyberpundit, but Wesley Clark can’t and won’t deliver a single Southern state for the Democrats.”
Well, that is just an assertion on your part. If it was true that VP selections don’t matter at all for a campaign, the candidates wouldn’t spend so much effort trying to make the best choice. And when big states like Florida are so evenly matched even a small boost could make a difference.
Well, the Dukakis example doesn’t hold, because first off the candidate has to be a strong one on his own. Think of it as the VP only helping those candidates who help themselves.
Gore and Kerry and Gephardt never actually enacted any gay marriage/civil unions legislation, now did they? Big diffference there in voter perceptions, ya know.
“Gore and Kerry and Gephardt never actually enacted any gay marriage/civil unions legislation, now did they?”
No because such laws are generally passed at the state level. But if they come out openly supporting such laws I really don’t think it makes that much of a difference. Note that Gore explicitly stated his support of the Vermont law during the Presidential debate. If the issue was such political poison he would have hardly mentioned it at a such a high-profile event.
As for the polls 40% support hardly means the issue is politically fatal. Both parties have core issues which matter to some of their supporters a lot but which are supported by only a minority of the general public.
I saw Dean on two TV shows this morning, and he is never going to win anything till he hires a coach to loosen him up on camera! So wooden he makes Gore look like Jim Carrey.
His head was held stiffly, as if he were sitting for an 1850s photograph, his voice was monotone, his facial expression never changed from that deer-in-the-headlights look people get when the 60 Minutes crew shows up at their office.
Sad to say, no matter how good you are, you will never win an election in this day and age w/o being telegenic.
