Are Dean and Clark Sitting at the Kiddy Table?

Jay Currie's analysis of the 2004 elections is one that is interesting (and humorous), even though I think there is danger in it.

As Republican pundits from Bill Kristol to Andrew Sullivan try to muffle their glee at the prospect of Dr. Dean as the Democratic nominee, cool heads of the Democratic Party have long since made the following political calculation:

Proposition the first: Barring catastrophe, there is not the slightest chance of beating Bush in 2004.

The second: No serious person wants the sort of catastrophe which could leave Bush vulnerable or worse.

The third: No serious person will seek the top spot on the Democratic ticket facing almost certain defeat.

The fourth: Democratic Party activists -- tin foil hats, Michael Moore fan club memberships, Moveon.org charter members, psych degrees, Boston, Berkeley, Seattle -- have not had a presidential candidate since 1988.

Therefore: Time for Children's Hour.

I don't happen to think it's that simple. I don't happen to think that this race is one that the GOP can't lose. I do happen to think that if we, as Republicans, take the race too lightly, we have an excellent chance of losing.

President Bush, whom I have publicly stated my preference for in this upcoming election, has done little recently to motivate his base to support him in the polls. The sum of immigration reform, a giant Medicare expansion, proposed new spending of billions of dollars on non-necessary programs, and a seeming unwillingness to ever use his veto powers, Bush isn't making friends on the right.

What do we who call ourselves conservatives like about Bush? He's a decent man who is far more intelligent than his opponents credit him. He's proven a worthy leader in the war on terror. He's given us a few very reasonable tax cuts--and cuts that make logical sense unless you happen to believe that the main functions of tax collection are income redistribution and maximizing returns.

President Bush has proven himself to be a man of much greater vision than I ever would have expected. The problem for me, as a fiscally conservative Republican, is that his vision often differs wildly from what I believe the direction of our government should be taking. Instead of helping us create an economic future for our country that is one of economic freedom and continued growth, he truly is creating new financial obligations that will be with us for generations.

I like Bush on a very personal level. I like his heart and his strength. I like his decency. And I absolutely am enamored of his willingness to shepherd our nation through the war on terror. Like many conservatives, these are the reasons that I will vote for him.

But (and, yes, I know that this is not scientifically collected data), I've heard more talk over the last few weeks of "reaching a breaking point." I know people who are so angry or disappointed over the President's approach to spending, trade, immigration, or the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment that they are reaching a place where they withhold their vote out of spite. I find it unlikely that any of them would vote for Dean (if, indeed, Dean is the candidate the Democrats elect to face Bush), but they may well stay home and not bother voting at all.

They are especially likely to stay home if they believe that Bush will win in a landslide.

I believe that Bush will win the election, although I also believe that we Republicans need to be mindful of the threat that we are faced in the upcoming elections. As I have said before, we need to be active and organized in facing this election if we truly want to see our candidate win.

I will vote for President Bush to continue in the presidency because I want him to finish the job he started. This won't be a vote with a caveat; it will be a vote of what I consider to be necessity. There is not another candidate in this election who will be as determined and thoughtful in winning the war against terrorists. There will not be another cabinet so involved with an attempt to encourage positive growth politically in the Middle East and in Africa.

What I'm saying, is no other candidate and cabinet will do as well in ensuring the future safety of our nation, and there really is nothing more important than that to me.

Are Dean and Clark and all the rest simply sitting at the kiddy table as Currie suggests? Are they just placeholders until the serious Democrats start campaigning for the 2008 elections? There may be a strong argument to be made that Currie is right; I just happen to believe he is not.

And the stakes are too high to treat it as a joke. Truly and honestly, if either the good Dr. Dean or Wesley Clark win this election, all of the good work and effort that we have spent as a nation trying to carve out opportunity in the Middle East will be lost. If either of them win, then the blood shed will not be an utter loss (we will have toppled two tyrannical regimes, after all), but the opportunity to help create a Middle East where terrorism fails to flourish will likely be gone forever.

Neither Dean nor Clark has the vision or the guts to stay the course.

Read the story.

Posted by zombyboy at January 15, 2004 03:40 PM | TrackBack