Democrats Debate How to Hit Bush
_______________________
by Peter S. Canellos
Published on Tuesday, August, 12, 2003 by the Boston Globe
WASHINGTON -- Democratic Party leaders and rank and file are increasingly divided over how best to take on President Bush -- whether to match his assertive style, finger point for finger point, or offer a contrasting tone of moderation.
Most of the leading presidential contenders, backed by seasoned strategists, are taking the latter approach, offering detailed criticism of Bush's stewardship while taking pains not to alienate those who have respect for Bush as a leader and commander in chief.
But last week brought the strongest indications yet that the party regulars are frustrated with the muted tone. Former Vice President Al Gore gave a fiery speech attacking the Bush administration and implying that Democrats are not being aggressive enough in countering the president. And a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center showed a sharp increase in dissatisfaction among regular Democrats with their party's leaders.
"In each of the three polls we've done we've seen a lower rating for the party among Democrats," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, noting that registered Democrats are "very antagonistic to Bush. They really want a candidate to stand up to Bush."
The current thinking, according to strategists and those involved in the campaign, is that Bush remains personally popular among swing voters, even if they disagree with some of his policies. At a time of intense concern about national security, many voters are inclined to defer to the president, and still suspect that Democrats are weak on defense. Thus, they said, the party's candidates must zero in on weaknesses in the economy and the chaos in Bush's postwar Iraq policy, while persuading the electorate that they, too, are vigilant against terrorism.
The result has been many candidates competing for the mantle of Clintonian moderation.
But to many in the party's base, Bush's assertive tone and message call for a similar response. They yearn for a sharper line of attack and echo the Republicans in foreseeing a combative campaign with strict ideological dimensions.
"If the election were held tomorrow it would be very close, but the Republicans would win for one reason: Their base is hot. Their base is rallied. Their base is exercised. And ours is not," said Donna Brazile, who managed Gore's 2000 campaign. "We can win by focusing on the basics -- rally your base, enlarge it, and energize it."
The Pew Center poll suggests Brazile is right about the respective satisfaction of the two parties' rank and file: Only 38 percent of Democrats gave their leaders high marks for "standing up for traditional issues," down from 44 percent in May, while 57 percent of Republicans were satisfied that their core concerns were being represented, up from 55 percent in May.
Kohut, the Pew Center director, suggests much of the dissatisfaction stems from the Iraq war, where "the majority of Democrats were opposed and the party leaders went along with it."
As the costs of the war add up, and information comes out casting doubt on Bush's assertions about Saddam Hussein's weapons, those who opposed the war become angrier, strategists say, and their efforts to defeat Bush take on the dimensions of a moral crusade. In that mindset, core Democratic loyalists are increasingly unhappy to hear their candidates measure their words in the Clinton style.
Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean's unequivocal opposition to the war vaulted him from the fringes to the center of the campaign. Now, he's vowing to take on Bush aggressively on a broader range of issues, and he even ran a taunting TV ad on Bush's home turf in Texas last week to prove it.
Dean's challenge has been enough to goose some contenders, like Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Representative Richard Gephardt of Missouri, into amplifying their critiques of Bush. But in those campaigns, there is sharp disagreement over how far to go to mollify the party's base. And the Dean surge has sparked warnings from leaders of the party's centrist wing to avoid alienating swing voters.
"There are those who want to make this a retroactive debate on the decision to go to war in Iraq," said Ed Kilgore, policy director of the Democratic Leadership Council. "The reason not to make that a central part of the campaign is that Democrats are divided on that. The second reason is a party already fighting a perception of being weak on national security shouldn't be out there saying, `Don't send troops into battle.' "
"It takes time and patience, and it also takes an effort to persuade people" that the Democrats offer a more positive vision of the future, Kilgore said. "We are angry about the Bush presidency, too. But you have to understand the majority of people don't hate this man. It takes persuasion. We don't have to make them hate him. We just have to make them want to fire him."
On the trail in New Hampshire, the sharpest contrast is, inevitably, between Dean and Senator Joseph Lieberman, who warns in speeches of the dangers of matching Bush's "extremism" with "extremes of our own."
Kristin Carvell, Lieberman's spokeswoman in New Hampshire, predicted that voters will turn on Bush without a lot of frothing rhetoric by Democrats.
But Joe Trippi, campaign manager for Dean, said, "You had the approach of silence for 2 1/2 years and look what happened."
Dean's appeal, Trippi said, isn't ideological: He's an enforcer who wants to hold Bush accountable for his right-wing positions. "You're going to have one tough, direct Democrat against one tough, direct Republican," he said. "It's a hell of a lot better than a tough, direct Bush against muted silence."
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company
commondreams.org |
