| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity. | ||
I got together last night with Mike LaSalle from Men's News Daily, Jon Henke from QandO, and James Joyner from Outside the Beltway to discuss the 2004 election. Below is an edited transcript of our chat.
John Hawkins: To begin with, what do you think happened to Dean? How did he go from way out ahead to not winning a single primary?
Mike LaSalle: The conventional wisdom is that he peaked too early. But, I think it has more to do with the realization on the part of mainstream Democrats that he was unelectable against Bush.
Jon Henke: I think that's the lasting question from this election cycle. Dean, in my opinion, capitalized on his (admittedly brilliant) ability to lower the transaction cost of grassroots campaigning. By doing that, he ran on an early publicity bubble. The media bought it, and ran with it. In my opinion, though, his actual support was never as high as his apparent support. He was merely the loudest dog in the fight.
James Joyner: He was an unknown quantity who revealed himself to be, shall we say, a bit unorthodox. Also, events on the ground changed. The capture of Saddam and his poor reaction to it caused a double take.
Jon Henke: James makes a good point. Everything was going his way, early on...including media attention. When things stopped going his way, they stopped in a big way. And the media took note of that, too. The media was both his salvation and his downfall.
Mike LaSalle: Dean hit the cover of both Time and Newsweek over the summer. The mainstream press hyped his candidacy from square one because, on the one hand, he was their personal favorite and secondly, because it gave them something to talk about. Something to fill newspaper and magazine columns, and was fodder for the talk shows.
John Hawkins: I think that after the Gore endorsement that he got so far out ahead of the pack that everybody started pounding him. The GOP, the other Dems, the media, and he made a lot of gaffes in a short period of time in the weeks before the Iowa primary when the voters were paying attention. It cost him his momentum and then the 'Yeargggghhhhh' heard round the world finished him.
James Joyner: Yep. Although the Yeeargh came after the fiasco in Iowa. After two years of retail campaigning there, he came in, what, 3rd? He was clearly not ready for prime time. Running for president is unlike running for governor of Vermont. He wasn't up to the brutality of the campaign.
Mike LaSalle: I think the Dean 'screech' was incidental to his fizzle, and only served to accentuate what everybody already knew about him (eg., that he could not win against Bush).
Jon Henke: McCain in 2000. Dean on 2004. What does that say about the public's patience for 'straight talk'?
James Joyner: Straight talk is a gimmick. I'm not sure that Dean or McCain were any 'straighter' than anyone else -- they just managed to sell themselves that way. Kucinich is a straight talker, too.
Jon Henke: I think 'straight talk' is mostly just brashness. It can work for awhile, but you end up saying things your opponents find useful.
John Hawkins: Another question: Is the Democratic contest over? Can Edwards come back and win it or does Kerry have it in the bag?
Jon Henke: It's not over till Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday will probably decide it.
James Joyner: Oh, I think it's already over. Edwards lacks the money to run competitively Super Tuesday. Unless Kerry winds up in some amazing scandal, it's his nomination.
John Hawkins: I think Edwards could have an outside shot. Kerry is almost tapped too and I really think Edwards is the more electable of the two. If Edwards were say able to win half the states on Super Tuesday, I think he'd go all the way. But of course, that's possible but unlikely.
James Joyner: I don't see how Edwards wins either New York or California on Super Tuesday. And he's not running away with the South, either.
John Hawkins: The best shot I think he'd have would be to rope super-dull John Kerry into a debate, score some big points, and get enough of a boost to be competitive.
James Joyner: Could be. Not sure why Kerry would agree to go mano-a-mano. Frontrunners rarely do. Plus, it's not like he's a novice debater.
Jon Henke: I'd worry about a John Edwards VP. He'd be deadly in a debate against Cheney. Edwards: glib, self-assured, charming - VS - Cheney: worried, tense looking fellow. Kennedy/Nixon.
James Joyner: Cheney is actually pretty good in debates. Plus, I'm trying to remember the last time the VP mattered. Even Dan Qualyle didn't seem to hurt the ticket.
John Hawkins: Speaking of the VP -- If Kerry wins -- which looks likely -- who do you think he'd go with as his VP?
Jon Henke: I've been saying Edwards since last October, but I'm beginning to wonder. But whoever they pick for VP will be the obvious choice to run in '12. And Edwards will still be young enough in '12.
Mike LaSalle: Edwards is jockeying for a say at the convention, and obviously for a slot in the number two position. Kerry needs a southerner, and he has nowhere else to go but Edwards.
John Hawkins: But Kerry at least has tossed the idea out there that he's going to write off the South. If that's his philosophy, why get a southerner?
Mike LaSalle: Gray Davis? Hah hah hah....
James Joyner: Bob Graham's available!
John Hawkins: Don't write Bob Graham off. If Kerry thinks Graham can bring in Florida, he'd take him in a heartbeat.
James Joyner: Absolutely. I'm not sure Graham has that much pull anymore, but it's hard to say.
John Hawkins: What about Hillary? She'd certainly help mobilize the Democratic base if he selected her. Of course, she'd mobilize the GOP base too.
Mike LaSalle: She wants the big job. She's been number two for too long.
James Joyner: Yep. She's so amazingly polarizing. Plus, I'm not sure anyone wants a VP with more star power than they have.
John Hawkins: Yes, she would overshadow Kerry...
Mike LaSalle: She'll save it up for 2008 and hope for Dem failure this year.
Jon Henke: No chance. She's been absolutely firm on her denials of any higher aspirations this time round. She can't go back on it.
John Hawkins: Sure she can John! That's the beauty of politics -- people have such short memories. If Ted Kennedy can get away with leaving a woman to drown in a tidal pool and get away with it, Hill can get away with that. Plus, she might have to run against Giuliani in 2006 -- Rudy could beat her. That would knock her down a few pegs as candidate and make her much less viable in 2008.
Mike LaSalle: Good point... she could go down at the losing VP this year and be primed for 2008. But if she took the VP slot I can't imagine she'd really want to win.
Jon Henke: I don't think so, John. She's not popular enough to do such a complete about face.
John Hawkins: I don't know -- the veep slot isn't such a bad job...I think Evan Bayh could be a good choice. He could bring in Indiana. Another question -- should Kerry skip the South?
James Joyner: I think he has to be selective. If Florida counts as part of the South -- an open question -- then, no, he has to contest it. Remember, reapportionment has hit since 2000. If we had an exact repeat of 2000, Bush would win by a substantially larger margin.
Jon Henke: Definitely not Florida anyway.
James Joyner: Absent some catastrophe in Iraq or a worsening of the economy, there are only a handful of states in play, anyway. Arnold claimed California was up for grabs--or sale, to be more accurate -- on MTP this morning. But, I don't see it.
Jon Henke: I've seen polls that indicate New York is actually running somewhat close.
John Hawkins: I haven't seen state by state polling data yet, but Zogby says Bush, right now, at his weakest, is winning in a landslide (on the whole) in the states he won in 2000 and is only a point back (overall) in the ones Gore took.
James Joyner: The Zogby numbers are interesting. I'd not have guessed that Bush had gained ground in the blue states. The Democrats are quite angry, still, about 2000. And the war seems to have them fired up.
John Hawkins: So, if you're John Kerry-- How do you attack Bush? What do run on?
Jon Henke: That's an interesting question. I think the answer is 'they don't know, yet'. It's hard to say we're losing the war on terrorism....what with no further terror attacks on the US.
James Joyner: 'He lied about WMD' and 'loss of jobs' and 'tax cuts for the rich,' likely.
John Hawkins: The "lied about WMD" one is going to be tough for Kerry since he has explicitly said Saddam has WMD on so many occasions and if the economy is good -- and it looks likely to be -- I don't think the tax cuts for the rich and loss of jobs is going to resonate.
Jon Henke: Both the economy and the Iraq war look decent and improving. Come August, I don't think either of them will be in serious play for the Democrats. I think Kerry is going to have to play 'wait and see' to find out which issue will have any traction. That's why we're seeing all the quibbledick issues right now. They're throwing out the chaff to see what sticks. 'AWOL', for example.
James Joyner: And I'm not sure on the terrorism issue. I think Bush gets no credit for the lack of attacks. Indeed, I'm not sure how much he deserves. If we could capture Osama in, say, September....
John Hawkins: Why don't you think Bush deserves credit for the lack of attacks?
James Joyner: We had no attacks on American soil pre-9/11, either. I think lack of terrorist attacks is considered 'status quo.'
Mike LaSalle: I disagree. I think Bush's success in National Security is going to play heavily on the mind of independent voters in November. That middle 10% may decide Bush is the man to maintain the course on national security issues. No matter how much the Dems try to stoke fire from the Patriot act and 'Finding Osama'.
James Joyner: I'm not sure that he's done all that much of substance, really. Taking out the Taliban was huge, of course, and I think al Qaeda has genuinely been hurt. But I'm not sure it's enough to have stopped attacks. We're amazingly vulnerable, still. I don't think that's changeable.
John Hawkins: I can't believe you don't think he has done a lot "of substance". He has been huge! He got rid of the Taliban and Saddam, Al-Qaeda has been decimated, Libya has given up WMD...
Jon Henke: One wonders whether the Libya and Khan problems would have been resolved if we'd tried another course.
James Joyner: The problem with AQ is that it's cellular. Taking out the main base in Afghanistan was, of course, big. I think Saddam was very tangential to the war on terror -- and I supported taking him out.
John Hawkins: I don't agree that he's tangential. Taking out terrorist groups with global reach and rogue states that support terrorism is what the war on terrorism is all about. We couldn't win the war on terrorism with Saddam in power.
James Joyner: I still think Bush wins. There's obvious reason to throw him out of office and Kerry has a lot of Senate votes to haunt him.
Mike LaSalle: Without the war, Saddam would have bided his time for the next 10 - 15 years, eventually acquiring nukes, and perhaps long range missile capability. Bush nixed the problem before it happened.
James Joyner: I think Saddam was a regional menace and a threat to the U.S. But he was less of a supporter of terrorism than the Saudis, Pakistan, Iran, and others.
John Hawkins: So if you're George Bush, what do you run on and how do you hit Kerry?
Jon Henke: Strategically, I think it would be good to let the 'Winter Soldier' issue do it's damage to Kerry...but not to be directly involved in it.
James Joyner: Kerry has a very poor national security record, even skipping past the war protestor days. Voting against Gulf War I, against most of the modern weapons in the early 80's, his mixed vote on the current war.
Jon Henke: And that record in the Senate. John 'weak on Defense, disabling the CIA, asking the UN for permission' Kerry.
Mike LaSalle: The main campaign events haven't even started yet - but I think the Republicans better get moving if they expect to change the language and assumptions of the debate before the great middle third start making up their minds and National Security better be a central theme in that debate, or the repubs are toast.
Jon Henke: I think Social Security reform might be a good way to assuage the Conservatives, and I think Bush is going to have to do that.
John Hawkins: I'd run on national security, taxes, a gay marriage Amendment, and an assortment of other issues and I'd nail Kerry for being a Massachusetts liberal, his poor record on defense, his flip-flopping on the issues, and his disgusting activities in the post-Vietnam era.
James Joyner: I think Bush is soft peddling the gay marriage thing. It helps him in the South, where he doesn't really need it, but likely hurts in the toss-up states. I don't think he's got much choice, though. His hand has been forced.
John Hawkins: To be honest, I don't think the gay marriage issue will hurt Bush anywhere except with voters in cities where he had no chance of winning anyway like Berkeley or San Francisco.
James Joyner: Could well be. The thing is that the swing voters are probably the same on gay marriage as on abortion -- they personally oppose it but don't think there's a need for a Constitutional amendment.
James Joyner: I think the Bush AWOL business has likely scared the GOP from spending too much time talking about the Vietnam era.
John Hawkins: I don't think so James. After all, the Dems are going to hit Bush on the AWOL if they can get away with no matter what Bush does. So why not rip into Kerry for his post-Vietnam activities?
Jon Henke: I disagree, John. The Dems are getting the AWOL story out of their system now, before Kerry is the candidate. That way, he can distance himself from difficult Vietnam talk, while they've already done the dirty work.
James Joyner: Kerry is inoculated on the war protestor stuff because of the Silver Star and Purple Hearts. Neither Bush nor Cheney, who both avoided service, can credibly make the charges stick.
Mike LaSalle: You're right, AWOL inoculates Kerry against his coming home antiwar activities.
Jon Henke: Oh, I think it will be done. But, it should probably not be done by the Bush campaign, as that could easily look bad. And God knows the DNC isn't shy about claiming 'help, help, they're questioning my patriotism. I'm being repressed'.
John Hawkins: Kerry is positioning himself to say, 'The American people can trust me on foreign policy because I won medals in Vietnam'. That's why you want to point out that Kerry was speaking on the same platform as Jane Fonda at events, marching under a Vietnamese flag, and calling his fellow vets war criminals.
Jon Henke: His fellow vets? Heck, he called himself a 'war criminal'. He admitted to violating the Geneva Convention.
Mike LaSalle: If Kerry goes down that road ('I am a vet, therefore you can trust me on foreign policy'), the Bush campaign will hammer him on the red-diaper-doper-baby stuff. Vietnam as a campaign issue is looking like a Mexican standoff.
John Hawkins: You're right Mike, they will, and that's currently the way Kerry is going. But, a standoff works. Kerry is running on his service in Vietnam, Bush isn't. So bottom line guys, who's going to win November and by how much? Bush or Kerry?
Jon Henke: I wish I could give an answer, but it's just too early. We really can't tell which issues are going to gain traction.
James Joyner: It's just too early to say. Too much can happen between now and then. I'd guess that Bush wins by 25-30 electoral votes.
Mike LaSalle: Any major success on national security between now and election may seal Kerry's doom. Conversely, a major boondoggle or embarrassment may sink Bush.
Mike LaSalle: I think the economy is a dead issue, so it boils down to national security. Gay marriage is just dessert compared to the main course.
James Joyner: I think Mike's right.
Jon Henke: Who knows? Maybe everybody will suddenly forget Econ 101 and get the heebie-jeebies about outsourcing. Kerry will offer to dismantle any company that sends a job overseas and sell it off to pay for health care. Follow that up with a clever line about Bush sending jobs to Iraq. And the voters might just eat it up. It's far too early to make any educated guesses.
John Hawkins: I'm predicting Bush by a healthy margin. Maybe 53%-47% nationwide, something like that. I say that because I think Kerry is a really terrible candidate who only looks good in comparison to Dean and Clark. Edwards vs. Bush would be closer.
Mike LaSalle: Bush, 51-49.
James Joyner: Anything's possible. But Bush is such a weak campaigner. Still, I don't see him losing any of the states he won last time, and would think he'd be able to pick up New Mexico and a couple other close ones.
Mike LaSalle: Does anybody know the relative height of Bush v. Kerry? If Kerry's significantly taller, it'll come out when they shake hands during the debates. Could be factor!! The taller candidate almost always wins. All other things being equal.
James Joyner: One advantage Bush has is the GOP convention is several weeks after the Democrats'.
Jon Henke: And the GOP is nicely timed just one month after the Iraq handover. They should have a VERY nice story to tell.
John Hawkins: You guys are worried about conventions and height =D -- I think it'll come down to issues like security and the economy that I think Bush will be killing Kerry on by mid-summer. Well, as always, time will tell. Gentlemen, it has been a blast. Thanks for participating guys -- I really appreciate it.
|
|||||
|
|
| |||
