-->ClickPosted on 01/05/2004 5:32:34 AM PST by Theodore R.
Dean is no McGovern
Posted: January 5, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Please don't misinterpret what I am about to say.
No one has been more critical of Howard Dean than I.
I think he is a phony. I think he is a socialist. I think he is an autocrat. I think he is a deceiver. I think he is a hypocrite. I think he is irresponsible and dangerous.
But please don't make the mistake conservatives and Republicans are making. Don't underestimate him. Don't dismiss him as George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic presidential nominee who lost in a landslide to President Richard Nixon.
There are some fundamental differences between Dean and McGovern and between the America that existed in 1972 and the America of 2004.
The Dean-McGovern analogy is often made because McGovern's candidacy was built largely around his anti-war stance and Dean has strongly attacked the war in Iraq.
Unfortunately, that is largely where the similarities end.
There are several points those making this comparison forget:
McGovern wasn't running against the president who started the war in Vietnam. He was running against a president who had succeeded in taking the wind out of the sails of the anti-war movement. How did Nixon do that? In his first term, he ended the draft and began a process of Vietnamization – turning much of the fighting in that war over to the Vietnamese.
McGovern had some major problems in his campaign – such as a vice-presidential nominee who was forced to drop off the ticket when it was disclosed he had been treated for depression.
McGovern also proposed in his economic program the idea of guaranteeing every American a minimum annual salary of $10,000, presumably to be paid directly by the government whether or not the person worked.
But what has changed in America between 1972 and 2004 may be the most significant factor for us to consider.
It had taken about six or seven years for the anti-war movement that fueled the McGovern campaign to build. It was a war America had bungled politically almost from the start. At its worst, American boys were coming home in body bags at the rate of hundreds per week. By contrast, today's anti-war movement objects to a war that is being won, a war that is being fought in response to a direct attack on the American homeland and a war that is remarkable for its dearth of casualties.
Still, despite those stark contrasts, there is a remarkably strong anti-war undercurrent in this country today. Even after the capture of Saddam Hussein, some 37 percent of Americans have strong reservations about the war in Iraq. At various times in the last year, the unpopularity of the war has risen to close to 50 percent. That suggests it remains a very volatile issue.
It wasn't that volatile in Vietnam in 1972. People knew where they stood on the war. It didn't change from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute, based on developments – and, despite the costs, the hardships, the political bungling, the body counts and the protests, the anti-war sentiment never neared 50 percent.
What I'm saying is comparisons between Dean, or any other contemporary Democratic candidate, and McGovern is misleading because times have changed. America has changed. The political culture has changed.
In 1972, only 27 years after World War II, Americans, still understood sacrifice, commitment, integrity, principle, discipline, mission, stick-to-itiveness and the difference between right and wrong.
There is much more confusion today. A growing number of Americans are fat, lazy, immoral and stupid. That's the ace-in-the-hole of the Dean candidacy. That's what all the Democrats are counting upon – and, frankly, most Republicans as well.
Dean and today's Democrats start off with a much bigger constituency than did McGovern's Democrats. They should not be underestimated – or, as our current president might say, over-underestimated
In addition, Dean is a lot more photogenic than McGovern, and will not make a stupid mistake like selecting a Peace Corp person as his running mate. Further, the Democratic party today is far more motivated to win than it was in 1972. I expect it to be a very close election.
People who are predicting 49 state landslides are still reeling from the effects of the New Years Eve party.
-->ClickAnd have conveniently forgotten 2000 and how bitter that battle was. The fat lazy stupid citizens are still out there, en masse...just waiting. And the gullible and naive who think GWB is a shoe in are asleep at the switch too. I feel he'll win, but it'll be a fight. And a damn close one. I agree with the article 110%
Powell has remained a loyal Republican, inspite of suggestions by uninformed folks like you, to the contrary.
Shake your skull and get those things "in the back of your mind" some oxygen and daylight.
He'll win fifteen states, if he's lucky. More likely five.
But he IS calling for a one trillon dollar tax increase!
And that includes DOUBLING taxes on the middle class!
Dean also has NO FRIGGIN' IDEA how to handle the war on terror.
He's dead meat, and Bush will win 35 states, at least.
However, Dean will not suffer the humiliation of McGovern or Mondale because the political tide in California and the Northeast, especially in Presidential elections, has turned so Democratic that the Vermonter should get 150 or so electoral votes. Dean wlll carry the enitre Northeast from Maine to Maryland, except Pennsylvania and maybe New Hampshire and Delaware. He may possibly carry Minnesota, Iowa, or Wisconsin, but certainly not all three. All three West Coast states, and especially California, are likely to fall in the "D" column, as will Hawaii.
Watch for 2008, though. Hillary Clinton will probably make her move then, and the GOP may not have an heir apparent to Dubya.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.