« Winners and losers from Saturday night | Main | Ashcroft & ChoicePoint: Need I say more? »
May 06, 2003
The Beatabushability Scale
While the nine Democratic candidates continue to jostle for rare media attention, and the press continues to savor its chance to filter the nomination process through to the public as it sees fit, the pundits and spin doctors are forgetting one important point. There is a list of things it will take to beat George Bush, and they are not the same criteria the mainstream media is using to determine which candidates to tell the American people about, and which ones to ignore.
Let's call it the Beat-A-Bush-Ability Scale:
First, you gotta be tough. Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys need not apply. Principled opposition to war may be the moral high ground, but not after 9/11.
Many Democrats like myself agreed with war on the basis of freeing the Iraqi people, not the basis of weapons of mass destruction. Regardless, Americans hate Saddam and most are not willing or able to differentiate between him and Usama. Many think (because Bush let's them) that Saddam helped plan 9/11. He did not. Still, you simpy can not beat Bush in 2004 if you opposed the war at all. This rules out Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun, Dean, and probably Kerry, too.
Second, you have to be likeable enough to get people to vote for you. What do you think Bush's whole ranch in Texas thing and that Prime Time spot from the aircraft carrier were all about? Rove believes images and appearances are stronger than thoughts and ideas. What if he is right? Many people agreed with Al Gore's agenda, but voted for Bush because he was more likeable. I don't understand how people can be so blind to the issues, but many figure what happens in Washington won't really change their life anyway, so they simply ignore the issues and go to the polls as if they were voting for class president. I really don't think Gephardt has a chance to be voted class President, do you?
Third, you can't beat Bush running as a Washington insider. I guarantee that Bush is going to make speeches about the "trouble with Washington" and his valiant efforts to "give the people their own money back" as if he were fighting tooth and nail against the special interests he himself practically works for. It's powerfully effective rhetoric, though. If Washington is the problem, then how can you blame Bush. At least he was trying to fix things, right? The flaws in this logic should be apparent to anyone familiar with politics, but most people are not, and you need a candidate who can stand up to these bold face lies. If you've been in Washington for fifteen years like Lieberman, will anybody listen?
Fourth, it's not so much what you say, but how you say it. Speaking skills still matter, even more so in this multimedia day and age. It's not so much substance as style. Witness Bush "beating" Gore in the 2000 debates. Edwards understands this. He built a successful career on knowing how to speak to jurors all across the South. He'll be the most prepared man in the room, with all the facts at his disposal, but he'll also have the ability to put it together in a way that people can understand. Remember what happened in Lieberman versus Cheney? I agreed with Lieberman, but Cheney made him look out of his league. My biggest fear with Graham is that Bush could do the same to him.
Fifth, you have to be able to relate to regular Americans and their concerns. I think Graham and Edwards could both do this, but all those notebooks might not help Graham. So far, I've yet to hear Graham propose the kind of simple but effective new policies that Edwards is talking about. On education alone, I think Edwards is saying things regular Americans will like to hear. With Edwards' knowledge of the law and ability to distill it in terms of everyday life, I think he has the full advantage here, and on all five points in the Beatabushability scale.
Posted by Mike at May 6, 2003 09:51 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.topdog08.com/cgi-bin/mt-trackback.cgi/48
Comments
Good comments and I'm pleased you grasp important parts of the 04 challenge.
No one can ever defeat an incumbent President, except maybe Jimmy Carter or Jerry Ford. To defeat a incombent you must cause the president to defeat himself, Clinton vs Bush in 1992.
Clinton cleverly played a sympathetic ear to the economy as well as portrayed himself as a decent guy who liked MacDonalds. Bush was a decent president, but he looked cold, distant, and out of touch next to Clinton and Perot.
Edwards might be too much the DA and thus unwittingly come across as too glib. Grahm has no chance from the get go.
Run against Rev Robertson and Newt Gingrich, taunt the hard right with derision and jokes about religious know nothings. Be a folksy Mark Twain full of sharp wit but no cruel intent. Be like Will Rogers and aw chuks the public, and offer not to bury Bush, but to pick up from him and carry on. Say you will put the bad memories of 911 to rest and abolish the terror color code. Be a sweatheart and hope the country falls in love with you. Reagan did as much in 1980. Kennedy used charm to cover a thin Senate record in 1960.
Truth is, Bush will very likely be re-elected. The country is not as itchy for change as the younger generation is.
I hope he dose lose because I fear the extremists.
I like your page, keep writing.
David Star@Audiea.com
Posted by: David A Fairbanks at May 6, 2003 11:38 PM
A thoughtful commentary. I am conservative and I think you laid out the challenges that the Democrats have in front of them.
I think Bush is beatable, but I don't think Edwards is the answer. He lacks experience, as did Bush in 2000. But 9/11 happened and that has changed the game. An inexperienced politican is not viable while we are in a war on terrorism.
The Dems need someone who is tough and supported the war. They need to realize unless the American public feel safe, all the other issues don't count. He needs to take away Bush's obvious advantage here so that the Dems can get on to the issues that favor them.
For this reason, Lieberman probably is the best bet for the Dems in 2004. I don't think the insider question is too big today. It has been in the past (let's see, Bush ran as an outsider, as did Clinton, as did Reagan, as did Carter... there seems to be a pattern here).
Anyway, I thought I would post this even though I wouldn't vote for a democrat.
Posted by: JimK at May 7, 2003 12:41 PM
The cynicism in this article is freightening. If I thought that way about the American people, I just would not bother to vote.
I believe the American people are misinformed and manipulated, and it is not easy to fix that, but going along and claiming that style matters more than thoughts is morally corrupt and intellectually unsustainable. A candidate that supported the obscene war Bush started to a great degree just to ensure his reelection does not deserve to be elected president of this country. I will never vote for such a candidate, who would not be much of an improvement over the inarticulate, mentally bankrupt and scaremongering Bush.
I will put all my efforts behind a candidate that is able to articulate an agenda that addresses the needs of the American people and does not support wars that put our security at a still higher risk, further endanger our economy, and leaves our diplomacy in shambles and the health and the education of our people in total neglect.
Posted by: ReneV at May 13, 2003 08:53 PM
What is the point of the Democratic party, if each individual candidate is a platform unto themselves? We could use instant runoff voting, or rank by number, and not need a primary at all.
I do think ideas are very important, which is why I want to make sure the Democratic platform has the best possible chance to win November 2nd.
I personally prefer John Edwards' ideas. You likely prefer a different candidate, and so on for the other seven and all of their own supporters. Bottom line, it's the convention delegation (not just the winning nominee) who decides the 2004 party platform. Whoever is nominated will be advocating that platform, and rest assured. It will be very, very different than the platform that Bush will be advocating.
I do not think it is morally corrupt to look at the primary in terms of selecting someone who can win, even among undecided voters who waffle on the issues. I think of it as seeing the big picture and thinking ahead to the general election, something political parties with any sense had done for years. Stopping now, and not worrying about the general election, is a recipe for failure and more conservative-packed courts.
Posted by: Mike at May 14, 2003 01:11 AM
The best way to beat Bush would be to impeach him remove him from office and hopefully execute him for treason. He lied in the state of the union address.FLAT OUT LIED! Don't sugar coat it . It wasn't an "exageration" it wasn't embellishment.He threatend me and my family and yours with Iraqi nukes.Thats called TERRORISM people!And since we at war with the terrorists he knowingly aided and abieted (Treason)with that lie he needs to be accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law
Posted by: Mike at June 29, 2003 12:57 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)