|
A Blogger Symposium On The 2004 Election
by John Hawkins
I got together last night in a chat room with Mike Hendrix from Cold Fury, Daniel Drezner, who is a monthly contributor to The New Republic Online & who was an unpaid foreign policy advisor for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, Steve Martinovich, the editor and chief of Enter Stage Right, Bryan Preston from JunkYardBlog to discuss the 2004 election. What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation. Read and enjoy!
John Hawkins: First off, do you believe any candidates other than Clark, Dean, Kerry, Lieberman, & Gephardt that are currently in the race have a chance to win the nomination?
Bryan Preston: No.
Steve Martinovich: I wouldn't even include Lieberman & Gephardt on that list.
Mike Hendrix: Not really, no. It's a constant source of amusement to me to see the Charlotte Observer's hopeless crusading for Edwards.
Bryan Preston: He's campaigning for veep at this point.
John Hawkins: You know in the latest Newsweek poll, Sharpton is now tied with Gephardt & Kerry at 8% =)
Mike Hendrix: I do think there's still time for a Clinton-like dark horse to emerge myself.
Steve Martinovich: Named Clinton? :-) I think the only people who present a challenge to Dean at this point are Clark and Hillary Clinton.
Bryan Preston: I agree with you Steve, it's basically a two-man race with queen Hill out there in the shadows.
Mike Hendrix: Same here. If I had to lay money on it right now, I'd say it'll be Dean-Clark
John Hawkins: To me, Clark already seems to be fading....
Steve Martinovich: I think it's a bit early to count him out -- Dubya stumbled early on as well remember?
John Hawkins: Clark's only appeal seems to be that the Dems think he's going to get a free pass on foreign policy because he's a general and that he's not one of the other guys.
Bryan Preston: Yeah, that sums up his candidacy. He's a blank slate otherwise, so supporters have attached whatever they wanted in a candidate onto him.
John Hawkins: They're not even right about Clark not having to defend himself on foreign policy as Max Cleland could tell them. So each of you make a pick -- out of the current group of candidates -- who do you see taking the nomination?
Steve Martinovich: Dean.
Bryan Preston: As things stand now, Dean.
Steve Martinovich: Short of a Hillary Clinton entrance, anyone think Dean can lose?
Bryan Preston: Sure, but it would be tough -- he has already said enough dumb things to sink a normal candidate in a normal year and it just makes him stronger.
John Hawkins: I think he can lose. He has a tendency to flip-flop a lot and put his foot in his mouth, but Dean has the most money rolling in, the best organization, and the most grassroots appeal. The charisma impaired candidates in the race are going to have a hard time dealing with him.
Steve Martinovich: I just don't get the idea that Dean is charismatic.
John Hawkins: I don't find Deal particularly charismatic either, but he's not afraid to hammer home leftist themes that appeal to the base and he is a more legitimate candidate than loons like Kucinich & Sharpton.
--> Daniel Drezner has entered the room (Editor's Note: We filled Daniel in on what we were discussing)
Daniel Drezner: I think it depends on who among Clark, Edwards, Kerry, and Lieberman survives. If a viable challenger to Dean emerges early, someone other than Dean may emerge. The question is, will any of the other centrists follow Graham out of the race?
Bryan Preston: Probably not until Iowa.
Steve Martinovich: I can see Lieberman dropping out in a couple of months.
Daniel Drezner: I agree with Steve -- I think Lieberman is the next one to go.
Bryan Preston: Lieberman does seem to be suffering from bad timing and just a general inability to generate any interest.
John Hawkins: I think Lieberman and Clark both have the same problem -- the Democratic base identifies them with the GOP too much.
Daniel Drezner: The guy who really puzzles me is Edwards. A year ago, I thought he would be the front-runner at this point.
Mike Hendrix: Ahh, Edwards I don't worry about. Even people here don't like him that much. He squeaked into office himself.
John Hawkins: Edwards is like a project in basketball -- he's good looking, slick, draws trial lawyer money, he's from the South -- but he hasn't actually done anything yet. He's not all that popular here in North Carolina. Does anyone see Hillary or Gore getting in at this late date?
Steve Martinovich: I'd be surprised if either did. I think Clinton will stay out to let someone take the Bush bullet in 04. Gore isn't credible with the electorate anymore.
Mike Hendrix: I don't, not at all.
Bryan Preston: I tend to think neither will really get in this time around. Bush has yet to actually campaign, so Hill and Gore know that he's stronger than he appears right now
Daniel Drezner: I'd put cash money against Hillary entering the race. Gore.... that's an intriguing thought, but I doubt it.
John Hawkins: I don't think Hill or Gore are getting in either -- but isn't that just an indication that the people in the know on the left don't think Bush is vulnerable? Either one of them would instantly blow away the field...
Bryan Preston: Hillary would blow away the field, Gore wouldn't IMHO.
Daniel Drezner: Hill doesn't want to run against an incumbent. And the longer we get from Bill's presidency, the easier for Hillary.
John Hawkins: Gore was polling in the 40s against all these other candidates before he definitively said he wouldn't run.
Mike Hendrix: Gore's definitely a spent round. His glory days are long past - and they consisted of the Vice Presidency and the PMRC. Bye, Al.
Steve Martinovich: I don't know if Hillary would blow away the field John, a lot of Democrats hate the Clintons. Going from Gore to Dean isn't a celebration of Clintonian values.
John Hawkins: The thing is Steve -- there might be a lot of Democrats on the far left who like Dean better than Clinton, but priority one is winning. Hillary still has high negatives, but if say Dean wins she's locked out until 2012.
Bryan Preston: Dean's nominatable, but not electable -- Hill knows that.
Daniel Drezner: She can wait. Oh, yes, she can wait.
Mike Hendrix: And she will. Not exactly happily, but she will. Rubbing her hands and snickering all the while.
Daniel Drezner: Dean, as we view him now, cannot win. Remember, though, that whoever wins the nomination will have more stature than they do now.
Mike Hendrix: I think Hillary has everything to lose by running against Bush and nothing to lose by waiting except time. Which she has plenty of.
Bryan Preston: Yup, the Ann Richards scenario. She does not want to be beaten, and therefore retired, by Bush.
Mike Hendrix: Eggzackly.
John Hawkins: So let's say the most likely scenario happens-- it's Dean vs. Bush in 2004. How do you see it playing out? What does Dean have to do to beat Bush?
Mike Hendrix: Stop shouting and move way to the right.
Bryan Preston: He has to convince the nation that either the war is over, but Bush had nothing to do with it, or that the war is ongoing but should not be fought.
Mike Hendrix: The media will be all for him, of course, but I just don't think that means as much as it used to. 9/11 and the war on terrorism has cleared things up for a lot of people, IMHO.
Steve Martinovich: And IMHO, all roads are leading to victory for Bush. So long as Iraq doesn't go to hell, which I don't think will happen, and the economy continues to improve, Bush wins. Outside of a bimbo eruption, Dubya hits two terms :-)
Daniel Drezner: It's less what Dean has to do than what happens in Iraq and the economy. The worse those situations are, the less Dean has to do.
Mike Hendrix: Excellent point, Dan.
John Hawkins: That's true. But the economy seems to be on an upward trend and as they train more Iraqis to handle their own security, I expect to see the casualties slow down to a trickle in Iraq.
Bryan Preston: Dean will have a very hard time countering stories about high growth, which is on the way, and a handover of Iraqi sovereignty, which will probably happen next summer.
Daniel Drezner: GDP growth matters less than employment.
Bryan Preston: True enough (on growth), but the stock market is also up around 2000 in the past year or so and the investor class pays attention to that.
Mike Hendrix: Dan's right, the unemployment thing is the big concern with most people, I think. As long as unemployment remains an issue, no one cares a lot what the stock market or GDP is doing.
Daniel Drezner: It's the job issue. It was Bush's bad luck to inherit an economy where employment exceeded the natural rate of unemployment.
John Hawkins: I don't know, when Reagan got elected in 1984 unemployment was at around what -- 8%?
Mike Hendrix: I believe it was at 7% during the Clinton recession was it not?
Daniel Drezner: Hey, I hope you're right. I think the question is whether you think this will be a replay of 1984 or 1992
Steve Martinovich: I think the U.S. economy has effectively eliminated excess capacity and I think we're going to start seeing good job growth in time for November.
Daniel Drezner: The other wild card is whether there's anything to bin Laden's threats (sorry to sound like such a doomsayer).
John Hawkins: Well let's say there's a terrorist attack -- do people blame Bush or do they decide they need someone in the White House who's tough enough to take on terrorism?
Bryan Preston: Depends on how big, what's involved, but it's hard to see how a peacenik candidate takes advantage of an attack.
Daniel Drezner: Bryan's right. If there was another attack, but a minor one, then Bush could say that his policies are working.
Steve Martinovich: Bush gets slaughtered. His entire image is based on preventing a reoccurrence of 9/11.
Bryan Preston: Nah, I disagree Steve. Dean has already presented himself as not tough on terrorism, as has most of his party. Another attack just reminds everyone that we're still at war
Steve Martinovich: Bush had radically expanded the size of government, forced limitations in liberties, launched two wars...and then another attack occurs?
John Hawkins: See that's my thinking too Bryan. In poll after poll, the American people seem to expect another attack. I don't think they'll turn on him if there's another attack.
John Hawkins: Well let's talk about Bush -- if you're Karl Rove, what's your plan to get W. reelected in 2004?
Mike Hendrix: I would hope that Rove's strategy is to forcefully rebut all the 'Bush lied' lies.
Steve Martinovich: If I'm Rove I just stay the course. Wouldn't be prudent to get fancy. Constantly pound a consistent message out.
Bryan Preston: I think we've seen a preview of it already -- the local press angle was pretty effective. Bush went outside the Beltway to talk to local press.
Daniel Drezner: Yes -- bypass the national press, make them look like a wing of the Dems. Also, Rove will play the electoral college game. Which sucks if you care about free trade, like me.
Mike Hendrix: Smart too and perceptive. I think ordinary people are very mistrustful of the media nowadays on that sort of thing.
John Hawkins: I'd go with, "We cut your taxes and brought the economy back. The Dems are going to raise your taxes. When times were tough for America after 9/11, we fought the terrorists. Can you trust the Democrats to do the same? The War on Terrorism is still going on and we've had so much success, do you want to change horses in mid-stream?" Taxes and the war on terrorism would be the 1-2 punches I would beat them with constantly assuming the economy keeps looking good.
Bryan Preston: Yeah, John's got a good chunk of it.
Steve Martinovich: Exactly, a clear, simple and consistent message.
Daniel Drezner: If anyone but Clark wins the nomination, it will be easier to make them look inexperienced and weak on national security.
Bryan Preston: Yeah, and Clark looks like GOP lite -- the Dem base probably won't come out too strong for him.
John Hawkins: Dean vs. Bush would be like McGovern vs. Nixon in 72 -- a clear choice between the candidates.
Mike Hendrix: I think it's obvious to just about everybody that if the Dems win, the war on terrorism is effectively over.
Bryan Preston: Yeah, and we lose.
Mike Hendrix: So perhaps the only thing they can run on is 'Hey, we won the war already. We took out the Taliban. Let's move on.'
Bryan Preston: Yeah, but hardly anybody actually believes that.
Mike Hendrix: Yep, which is exactly their problem. Their only hope is in confusing everyone with 'Bush lied' crapola.
Daniel Drezner: If I was advising the Dems, I'd run on boosting employment & a more 'multilateral' foreign policy...the key is the economy.
Bryan Preston: When the public has a lib and a conservative, they historically go with the conservative.
Daniel Drezner: Well, since 1964.
Bryan Preston: Yup. The thing is, the 'multilateral' line cuts both ways -- Bush can argue that "should we be farming out our foreign policy to France?"
Daniel Drezner: You're correct, there's a counter to the 'multilateral' angle.
John Hawkins: Now Daniel -- if the economy is back up -- doesn't that pretty much kill the employment angle?
Daniel Drezner: It's WHEN and HOW FAST the economy grows. Remember, the economy was growing in 1992, but the perception was that it was too sluggish. So Bush 41 lost.
John Hawkins: I agree Daniel, but I think the growth has already started and they won't be able to ignore it in 2004. On the multilateral angle, I'd hit them just like Bryan suggested. I'd talk about how American foreign policy should serve American, not European, interests and I'd suggest that the Dems want France & Germany to have a veto over the use of America's military.
Mike Hendrix: I think the economy is the one thing the mainstream media can have their way with in terms of public perception. Most people simply don't know much about it and that means they'll more willingly accept the media line on it. The thing they want to know is, "is my mom going to be spending her golden years working as a greeter at Wal-Mart or not?"....
Daniel Drezner: Mike's hit the nail on the head.
John Hawkins: See I think that would be a big issue if the election were held this November. If we have a full year of say 3.5-5.0% growth and the stock market has come back up and we're adding jobs, the media won't be able to successfully spin it for the Dems.
Mike Hendrix: ...As long as the media can convince them that she will, the Dems have at least a prayer. For the rest, it all comes back to the war on terrorism - and Iraq.
Bryan Preston: Well sure, in a two party system either party always has a prayer, but the Dems are setting themselves for a big Kool Aid party next year.
Daniel Drezner: Anyone think there will be a significant third party challenger?
Bryan Preston: Nader'll get in.
Mike Hendrix: Yep, I think so too, Bryan.
Daniel Drezner: Now, if the Dems nominate a centrist, Nader could cause a LOT of trouble.
John Hawkins: The Greens might cost the Dems a few seats, the Libertarians a few seats for the GOP -- I'm just happy McCain isn't going to get in. A year ago, I had this fear of him running as a 3rd party candidate and sinking Bush that way.
Daniel Drezner: No, if someone runs on the right it will be an isolationist paleocon.
John Hawkins: Yeah, Buchanan maybe with the Reform Party, but he doesn't have enough support to do any real damage.
Steve Martinovich: I don't see any third party candidate playing a major role. Nader was 2000's Ross Perot.
Daniel Drezner: Does anyone think Arnold's victory requires the Dem nominee to work harder for California?
Mike Hendrix: I'd hope so. But somehow I doubt it.
Bryan Preston: Yeah, I think it actually puts CA in play a bit more.
John Hawkins: I still see the Dems winning in California unless it's a W. landslide, but I hope the Democrats will have to spend a lot more money and time there than they otherwise would.
Bryan Preston: Both parties will have to spend some $$ there. The Dems can't take anything for granted, I think.
John Hawkins: But we should have a big money advantage. The Dems have less money to spend and would be better off spending it in swing states rather than somewhere like Cali.
Daniel Drezner: From an electoral picture, the key states are the industrial Midwest. And I do think the economy is weaker here than elsewhere in the country.
Bryan Preston: Supposing Dan's right, Dean's candidacy doesn't help the Dems much. He's a northern lib, with no experience working with an industrial economy.
Daniel Drezner: Can anyone think of a VP candidate for the Dems that would really change things?
Steve Martinovich: Hillary!
Bryan Preston: It would have to be something shocking. Hillary would be shocking, but her negatives are high.
Daniel Drezner: Hillary's been the 2nd banana already -- no chance.
Mike Hendrix: No. I don't think anyone one cares much about the VP.
Bryan Preston: I think Mike's right -- veeps don't make much of a dent.
John Hawkins: I'm from the school of thought that says people vote for the people on top of the ticket and the VPs are just window dressing.
Daniel Drezner: Historically this has been true. If this race is a replay of 2000, however, every little bit matters.
John Hawkins: The best chance to make an impression with a VP would be a woman or a minority who might bring out voters who wouldn't otherwise go to the polls.
Mike Hendrix: The Dems need to be thinking along the lines of much deeper changes than just who the Veep nominee is, I think. Although I must say, I hope they don't. I want them to continue in their current 'stupid and mendacious' vein for a long while yet. It might give us more of a chance to fix some things that very much need fixing if they hang in there with their old standard line.
Bryan Preston: Yeah, the Dems just don't play when it comes to national security anymore.
John Hawkins: In my opinion, defending America has actually become a partisan issue.
Daniel Drezner: Call me less of a partisan, but I get very twitchy when one of the two major parties can talk about national security with any competency.
Mike Hendrix: Well, you have a point there.
Bryan Preston: Me too Dan, it's not good for the country.
John Hawkins: Yes, I find it very worrisome as well.
Daniel Drezner: Competition is good for politics just as much as for markets. Of course, a Dean presidency scares the crap out of me too.
Mike Hendrix: Much as I may seem one, I'm hardly a diehard Republican. But the Dems have left me so disgusted over the last decade or more.
Bryan Preston: I'm a solid Republican, but we need two parties that have credible candidates who can articulate a vision of America's place in the world and we don't have that.
John Hawkins: Gentlemen, is there anything else you'd like to cover before we call it a night?
Mike Hendrix: Yeah - Ellen Barkin.
Bryan Preston: Miss Afghanistan. She's proof that most of the world doesn't want Taliban-style nonsense.
John Hawkins: Thanks for participating!
|
