Democrats' Perception Problem

History shows that Republicans almost always win when they successfully paint Democrats as "weak, far left liberals." See Ronald Reagan. See Mike Dukakis. See Walter Mondale. See George McGovern. Republicans and their friends at Fox news have already begun that line of attack on Howard Dean and John Kerry, the two Democratic frontrunners in the 2004 presidential race.

Dean supporters are quick to point out that Dean is not that liberal, has a high rating from the NRA, always had a balanced budget as Governor, and isn’t anti-war - he was just against the Iraq war. All of that is true and Dean is not the liberal some say he is (or even the liberal many of his early supporters hope he is!).

However, reality is not what’s important in an election. Perception trumps reality every time. Indeed, whatever perception exists in the minds of the voters is reality. I’m not trying to be existential, this is just marketing 101. In marketing, if consumers believe your product is the best, then it is. Similarly, if voters believe you are liberal, then you are. Unfair? Sure. But that’s the way it is. For example, there is no doubt George McGovern was and is a good man. However, he lost and lost badly.

Now, I do disagree with Joe Lieberman's shrill anti-Dean rhetoric. And, as I've written here before, Al From and Bruce Reed, are far too condescending when imploring Dean to move to the center. There is no doubt that Howard Dean is already moving away from some of his ultra-liberal supporters and towards the center. His push left early was pure strategy and it paid off. If he wins the nomination he’ll further chart a centrist course to let the all important swing voters know who he really is. As a Vermont insider, Garrison Nelson, a Vermont political analyst, states: "Dean can move toward the middle - because that's his instinct. Nelson said: 'I've known him 20 years. Howard became a liberal six months ago.'"

But, it may be too late. The perception may be already shaped - the so-called "liberal media" calls Dean a liberal just about every time he gets press coverage on CNN, MSNBC and the major networks. Of course, we already know how the Bush apologists at Fox will describe Dean. And, despite the RNC’s and Mark Raciot’s lies saying they don’t have money, Bush will have over $200 million dollars to further shape that perception. That’s a lot of money. Many household-name products don’t spend that much over 5 years! Bush will be able to pour all of that into less than one year!! (assuming there is no serious Republican primary challenger, which is a good bet.)

Dean certainly is a fighter and gives a terrific stump speech. But, Dean himself has already given Bush and his attack machine plenty to work with. Major Dean gaffe's include his down right dumb statement about the possibility that American may not have the strongest military someday. My friends, the vast majority of Americans do not want to hear that and in fact, most Americans want to be assured that will never be the case. Yes, Bush's bungling of the economy will be a major issue in the race. But, so will national security. Americans want to feel safe. Its true Bush hasn't made us safer, but the perception still exists that he does a good job on those issues.

Dean also served up another quote for the Bush machine to play over and over in its television commercials. In April Dean said: "We’ve gotten rid of [Saddam Hussein], and I suppose that’s a good thing.” Howard, Howard, Howard...even numbskulls like these can hit that softball over the fence. Dean even had a chance to clarify his remarks. But, in June, Dean went on national television and was asked about his April quote. Dean said "We don’t know whether in the long run the Iraqi people are better off, and the most important thing is we don’t know whether we’re better off." Let me clue you in on something Howard. Most Americans believe the Iraqis and the rest of the world are better off with Saddam out of power. Why? Because its the truth. There's plenty of ways to expose Bush's poor leadership on national security, but saying you don't know if folks are better off without a brutal dictator and his murdering sonsaround isn't this isn't one of them.

Lately, Dean has also been saying that the US should be more like France, Germany and other nations. Another thing Americans, for better or for worse, do not want to hear is that they should be more like other people. Any potential merit aside, that's just bad politics. Yes, it fires up the far, far left, but when carved up and taken out of context by Bush and the Rove lie machine, middle Americans will no doubt form a very different perception of Howard Dean than those hanging out at Daily Kos and other Dean-leaning web groups. Yes, Dean gets angry and will try to fight the perception. But, if Dean isn't willing to help himself by slowing down long enough to think about what he is saying so he doesn't write the GOP's commercials for them, what are Democrats to do?

Yes, John Kerry is out there. I like him, and unlike Bush, Kerry has credibility on security matters and the economy. But, he has his problems too and is a also a good candidate to be Gore-d and misrepresented by the media and Bush's cronies.

Enter Wesley Clark. Clark's story is that of a dream candidate: "A military hero who was awarded a Purple Heart, Clark had to teach himself to walk again after being seriously injured in Vietnam. He's a family man, a father of one who's been married to his wife since 1967. He's worked as an investment banker, and speaks four languages...Top of his West Point Class; Rhodes Scholar [economics]; published author."

As I've said here before, Clark will speak credibly on the economy and security matters. He's got a loyal following already, and this month's Esquire - read by all those coveted Nascar Dads, young professionals, and a bunch of those twenty, thirty and forty-something "guy's guys" - anoints Clark as the man who can beat Bush.

Salon’s Joe Conason sums it up best: “Clark ...possesses some of the most attractive qualities of both Dean and John Kerry without their problems. He has an exemplary military record. He has executive experience. He doesn't have to explain a vote in favor of the Iraq war. And he would enter the race with enviable name recognition. He has also displayed a willingness to tangle with the worst thugs in the GOP, namely Tom DeLay. They will send any such chicken hawks to rough up Clark at their own peril."

As Joe C said, Clark could be the answer. Clark is tough as nails, has a great bio with the ability to speak credibly on security and economic matters, and his Akransas roots will play well in the heartland. And, Clark will no doubt remind voters of the stong military records of past Democratic Presidents like Kennedy, Truman and FDR. Clark will remind voters that like those Presidents, he can make America safe and prosperous, with all Americans getting a fair shot at getting ahead.

Of course, Clark still has to declare his candidacy. If he doesn't run, then look for Dean or Kerry to smartly add Clark to their team to strenghten their image and to guard against the looming Bush bankroll and the dirty the attack ads that come with it.

10 Questions for Howard Dean

from IndependentsforKerry.com:

Ten Questions For Howard Dean
1. Why did you support sending Vermont's nuclear waste to the poor, mostly Hispanic town of Sierra Blanca, Texas, 16 miles from the Mexican border -- a plan described as "blatant environmental racism" by Paul Wellstone?

2. Why did the Dean administration increase funding for Vermont's state colleges by only 7% while you increased funding for prisons by 150%?

3. Why did IBM, the leading polluter in Vermont, receive your Environmental Achievement Award nine times?

4. What did you mean when you said, "I've had 40 or 45 private meetings with IBM since I've been governor. And IBM has gotten pretty much everything they've asked for"?

5. When you talked about moving the retirement age to 68 or 70 which was it? (Check Source)

6. Why did you wait for the courts and legislature to bring about the civil union bill before you supported it? Why did you sign the bill in private when you finally did sign it?

7. Why do you oppose the Israeli Labour Party candidate for prime minister Amram Mitzna's call for unconditional peace talks with the Palestinians?

8. While you acknowledge that you "haven't condemned Congress for passing the Patriot Act," Bernie Sanders from your own state of Vermont is leading efforts in Congress to overturn the Act. Why are you not supporting Bernie Sanders' efforts and condemning Congress for its attack on civil liberties?

9. How do you respond to Annette Smith of Vermonters of a Clean Environment who says: "Dean's attempt to run for president as an environmentalist is nothing but a fraud. He's destroyed the Agency of Natural Resources, he's refused to meet with environmentalists while constantly meeting with developers, and he's made the permitting process one, big dysfunctional joke. EP under Governor Dean meant Expedite Permits, not Environmental Protection"?

10. Since you pride yourself on your "fiscal responsibility" why do you refuse to even consider any decreases in the bloated Pentagon budget?

***
Interesting questions to say the least. I'm not sure where I stand on all of these, but as the new "frontrunner" Dean owes an answer.

Joe C takes on Matthews...someone had to do it...and a look around the net.

Here is today's entry by Joe Conason - one of my favorite journlist/writers out there.

And, yes as I've posted here before, Fox and O'Reilly are STILL ducking Joe and his book.

Meanwhile, its still business as usual in Washington. Its time for a change. We deserve better.

And, in case you missed it, PBS had some honest to goodness bi/non partisan discussion on Iraq from Senators Biden (D) and Hagel (R). Am I the only one who thinks Gwen Ifill is the most under-rated news anchor of our time?

Gene Healy, that nutty libertarian who spent way too much time in the herpes triangle (DCers know what I'm talking about) has this on the Iraq-AQ "connection." Yet another non-Democrat to point out Bush's shortcomings.

They say all politics is local...here are two local pols, one from Arkansas and one from key swingstate Wisconsin, getting out front on the Clark endorsements...

Right-wingers are criticizing General Clark as a fan of "nation-building" - are you kidding me? The American people are way too smart to not get that's exactly what Bush is doing in Iraq.

Clark set to enter 2004 race

The summer rumor mill is working overtime with all kinds of fantasy 2004 ticket predictions and no one's name has popped up more on those lists then charismatic southerner General Wesley Clark's. The frequent CNN military analyst, former 4-star general and NATO Supreme Allied Commander is often listed as the Dem's dream VP. The reality is that Clark is poised to announce his bid for the top spot.

No less than Democratic get-out-the-vote guru Donna Brazile, made a bit of a "pre-announcement" the other day. Given her vast connections, Brazile no doubt speaks with informed speculation. Particularly given that Clark has sought advice from Brazile.

Further setting the table for a Clark bid, Clark himself ratcheted up his critique of President Bush's bungling of Iraq and Afghanistan in past few days. Clark also stepped down as an analyst for CNN - further raising the stakes. Clark reportedly privately called supporters of his candidacy and told them to "crank it up."

Clark has seen a groundswell of support from regular everyday Americans. But, of course, Clark is not short on big time, connected friends. In fact, some report that the vaunted Clinton fund-raising machine will leap into action to assist the General's campaign.

It now appears that the former Rhodes Scholar, (he studied economics at Oxford) who finished first in his class at Westpoint, is about to get a big boost from more Democratic heavyweights. Today this report was published that Clark will announce "backed by powerful members of the United States Congress."
With growing concerns over this mishandling of Iraq, the bungling of Afghanistan, Bush's dropping the ball on finding Bin Laden, letting the Taliban reform, and a strong yearning for true leadership in the war on terror, Clark will be a force. Clark will speak credibly on the economy as well. (pointing to all the unemployed Americans won't be too hard anyway!) This month's Esquire - read by all those coveted Nascar Dads, young professionals, and thirty-something "guy's guys" - anoints Clark as the man who can beat Bush.

Clark may not finish at the top or even high in the NH and Iowa primaries, where there are strong anti-war activist networks who will be wary of voting for a former General. But, Clark doesn't need to win NH or Iowa. As a political novice, expectations will be low to start, but you can take it to the bank that he'll be among or at the top on Super Tuesday when a broader spectrum of Democratic supporters will go to the polls. Supporters in his native Little Rock are lobbying for Clark's home state of Arkansas to move up its primary to give Clark an early victory to build momentum. And, when the Big Dog officially comes out for Clark most of the traditional Democratic base will coalesce into a formidable field army for the General. Clark will also pull in droves of swing-voters, independents, and significant numbers of "McCain Republicans." Bush's dirt machine led by Karl Rove will try to sling mud at Clark, but Bush's dwindling numbers will expose the dirty tricks as desperate acts.

You'll see Clark run a positive campaign in the primary built on his integrity and credibility on attacking Bush on security and foreign affairs by offering real alternatives and solutions. Clark will not slice up his opponents like the knife fights between Lieberman vs. rest of the field and Kerry vs. Dean. And, once he knocks them out of the race, don't be surprised if Clark doesn't tap John Edwards and Dick Gephardt for posts in his shadow cabinet, Attorney General and Labor respectively. Bob Graham of Florida is a possible Homeland Security chief, but he will likely run and win a third term in the Senate. Former Clinton UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke is a possible Secretary of State, or possibly even George Mitchell.

Now, here's my big prediction...Clark will tap fellow southerner Mary Landrieu to be his running mate! The Louisiana Senator, is a strong woman with military and foreign policy credentials and southern charm to make this one heck of a 1-2 punch. And, she proved she can beat the Bush/Rove spin machine. Tell me that doesn't make sense. Mark it down that you heard it here first! (ok, maybe second or third - but early for sure!!)

Of course, if he doesn't run, Clark will make one heck of a VP candidate for someone...

Update question...could Howard Dean be Clark's #2 guy?

Another Update: article in the Boston Globe on Clark...I like how the author used the almost exact ending line as me!! :)

Does size matter?

Throughout modern politics, partisans have engaged in a false fight over big government vs small government. We hear this big v. small debate all the time and no doubt it’ll be a constant theme as we head into the 2004 election season.

A look back in time provides a great example of the pointlessness of the rhetoric surrounding this ongoing debate. In an editorial published not long after 9/11, Sen. Charles Schumer attempted to make the case that a return to "big government" is the only way to confront the challenges that lie ahead for our nation post September 11th. First, let me note that big government is one of those terms, like "liberal" for example, that is recklessly slung about to the point that no one really knows what it means. Does big government mean 1) too many federal employees/officials, 2) too many federal agencies/programs, or 3) too much
spending by the federal government?

For an illustrative example of the ambiguous nature of the phrase, Sen. Schumer noted that President Clinton did more "shrinking [of the federal government] than any other President." This statement is partially true. But, it reflects the minimal value of the ambiguous phrase big government.

It is true that President Clinton did reduce the size of government. However, it is also true that the federal government spent a lot of money during that time period. Much of it on the military. As Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton, then chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the time and then Defense Secretary Cohen noted, it was President Clinton's "fiscal policy that allowed, and his pen that signed, the largest increase in military spending in some 15 years -- historic investment in the next generation of tools and technologies, and the largest increase in military pay and benefits in a generation." Now that our troops are spread across the globe and we are still fighting Bin Laden and other shadowy foes, I for one am glad we spent that money and made that investment in America.

So, did the government get smaller because we cut its size or bigger because we spent more money? By utilizing a rhetorically empty phrase like big government Sen. Schumer - and others who recklessly toss it around - does nothing to advance the real discussion that should be taking place. Instead, rhetoric like this sparks more needless race to the bottom debates on the size of government as opposed to the real issues of how government is run and what exactly is happening in government. Case in point is the right-wing tabloid National Review’s piece published the very next day entitled, “Is Chuck Schumer on Crack?” No real discussion on the actual issues, but plenty of personal animus for Schumer and a never ending spew of useless rhetoric. Partisan ideologues get a kick out of this type of exchange, but it does nothing to help our national debate or benefit Americans.

Of course the empty rhetorical question of big v small government is really irrelevant. Government is one area of human existence where size doesn't matter. The important point isn’t whether government is big or small, the real question is whether government is working efficiently and positively impacting the people who permit it to exist.

Much of the rhetoric is driven by people who claim to love America, but consistently deride our form of government. At its core, their attack is based on a false claim on what government is. They claim government is some person-less machine that runs every aspect of our lives. Obviously that is false.

Government is people. If everyone who worked in government walked off the job government would no longer exist. Government is not a machine, rather it is people getting together to make decisions about collective responsibility and how to best deal with needs and issues that impact us as individual citizens, but are impractical for us to address in our individual capacity. Snowplowing is an example. Instead of all of us taking turns shoveling our neighborhood streets, we pitch in and buy a big plow and pay someone to come to our streets to take care of the problem.

Homeland Security is another prime example. President Bush has spent millions of tax dollars to produce and promote the color coded terror system. Yet, firefighters and other first responders are still shortchanged on proper equipment. Equipment they desperately need to protect us better then we could protect ourselves. The point is that collective money must be spent on many important services that we need, but can't afford to effectively provide for ourselves.

JFK himself summed it up as follows:

“I know that there are those who want to turn everything over to the government. I don't at all. I want the individuals to meet their responsibilities. And I want the states to meet their responsibilities. But I think there is also a national responsibility. The argument has been used against every piece of social legislation in the last twenty-five years. The people of the United States individually could not have developed the Tennessee Valley; collectively they could have. A cotton farmer in Georgia or a peanut farmer or a dairy farmer in Wisconsin and Minnesota, he cannot protect himself against the forces of supply and demand in the market place; but working together in effective governmental programs he can do so. Seventeen million Americans, who live over sixty-five on an average Social Security check of about seventy-eight dollars a month, they're not able to sustain themselves individually, but they can sustain themselves through the social security system. I don't believe in big government, but I believe in effective governmental action. And I think that's the only way that the United States is going to maintain its freedom”

Indeed, those who attack every single government program attack freedom itself. We need to be organized to defend ourselves and strive towards domestic tranquility. That’s all government is, citizens coming together to work toward common goals. To get there, we don’t need big government or small government - just good government.