Kevin Connors thinks the Democratic Party is in even worse shape than many think
In his National Post article, Matt Welch has the audacity to assert that California Governor Gray Davis, perhaps the most loathsome major office holder in America today, is a front-runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2004. He has a snowball’s chance in hell, but the fact that an idea so preposterous would even have currency is telling of the sorry shape of the party.
At least a plurality of pundits agree that the nomination is Al Gore’s for the taking, if he wants it. because “that’s the way things are done.” But he’d have to totally reinvent himself to be more than a joke in the general election. The same can be said of Tom Daschle, Joe Biden and Dick Gephardt; they represent a Democratic party that the electorate has roundly rejected in this year’s election.
Of those currently in the spotlight, only John Kerry would seem to have the least chance in November of 2004. But, I believe, he still falls far short of the mark. Joe Leiberman, while he has looked good vis-a-vis the War on Terror, is still quite tainted from selling out his moderate principles to share the ticket with Gore in 2000. And, sadly, there’s always his religion to consider.
What the Democrats need at this point is a knight in shining armour. An otherwise unconsidered figure to come riding in out of the shadows and save the day. I assert that The man to fill the bill here is Sam Nunn. At 64 and retired from the Senate since 1996, the Georgia professor and attorney is still quite active in politics and business. His moderate credentials are solid, he is highly respected on matters of education, defense, and foreign relations and is very well liked both in and out of Washington (but apparently not North Korea). Sam Nunn is the last best hope for the Jackass Party.
Far more likely that, instead of a knight in shining armor, the Dems will come up with another joker or knave.
…or Hilary.
I’ve a friend that posits that John McCain, after switching parties to change the balance of power in the Senate, will be the Dem’s standard bearer for 2004. Of course a number of things have to happen for that to even be possible, but stranger things have happened.
Keith
WOW. Just when you think you’ve brought up a fairly new and novel notion, you find somebody else has beaten you to the punch!
Stanley Kurtz concurs with the possiblity.
I rather like the possibility that the Dems will run Gray Davis in 04. That would kill the Jackass party for good, although being a large organism it would take decades to finish it’s death throes.
There’s always Al Sharpton. I would want to watch those candidate debates in person.
Yeah, but the commie wing of the party would never vote for Nunn in the primaries. That’s their problem, in a nutshell.
Step to the front of the class, CGeib. This may seem like something from Mars to Samizdata readers living in parlimentary regimes; but it is the great dilemma of the American two-party system: The “base” doesn’t represent a lot of votes in itself. But it is the constituancy that mans the phones, walks the precincts, throws the fundraisers and everything else needed to get elected. So the successful candidate must “energize” the base while not alienating the center.
The Jackass’s great problem, at this point in time, is that their base has become made up of a hodge-podge of interest groups concerned not one wit for the principles of good governance, but merely getting their piece of the entitlement pie. As this will, no doubt, generate conflicts for resources, it is necessary to obfuscate in an effort to keep everyone content.
For the Dems, this has created a house-of-cards which is collapsing around them. And, as yet, very few on the base realize this (denial is not just a river in Egypt). After the spectacle of the corrupt, lying, triangulation regimes of Clinton and Davis, the center has had it.
This doesn’t mean the pendlum might not swing the other way, say in four or six years. After all, political memories are notoriously short and everyone, short of hard-core libertarians, wants their piece of the pie. But that’s the status quo. The Jackass’s pragmatic strategists largely see this. Getting the opinion leaders on the base to come to grips with it is another matter.
Matt Welch also made this statement in the article, which I’m fairly sure is not true in the least:
This is not even close to what happened.
The vote in CA in Election 2000 was very close, as close as Florida was.
It was so close, in fact, that they didn’t certify their vote for almost a month after Election Day.
The “coast,” San Francisco and L.A. went for Gore, but the rest of CA was strongly for Bush!
What is up with Welch? Just a strong Democrat bias or what?
Matt is actually quite libertarian. He writes for Reason, among others. You’ll find a short bio and an interview with him here: http://www.stanford.edu/class/comm217/projects/solo/welch_interview.htm
I think Al Gore will find something else, cushy, to avoid running and losing and losing face.
Hillary is who Mickey Kaus is (was?) most afraid of — I’d guess she’s more likely than Sam Nunn.
Bush is very vulnerable, especially due to his excessive support for the rich; but will be less so if the economy doesn’t really tank and he gets rid of Saddam w/o too many US body bags.
Yet he’s closer to the middle than any like Dem primary winner; especially if the Dems try to move left to get those Nader votes back.