SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: KLP who wrote (6372)8/31/2003 4:50:36 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793822
 
"Think Piece" from the Sunday Times.

Worried Democrats See Daunting '04 Hurdles
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

WALPOLE, N.H., Aug. 30 - The race for the Democratic presidential nomination shifts into a more intense phase this Labor Day weekend, with some party leaders worried about the strength of their field of candidates and fearful of what they view as President Bush's huge advantage going into next year's election.

Many prominent Democrats said that Mr. Bush might be vulnerable, given problems with the economy, and continued American fatalities in Iraq. But they said he could be unseated only by an aggressive, partisan challenge that built on Democratic anger lingering from the 2000 election, and by a nominee who somehow managed to survive a complicated nominating fight that was pulling their party to the left.

"It's going to be tough," said Walter F. Mondale, the former vice president who lost his challenge to Ronald Reagan in 1984. "You're trying to beat an incumbent who has all this money, and who has got the field all to himself, while all this infighting is going on in the Democratic Party."

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, said: "It's going to be very, very difficult to defeat Bush next year. He will have more money than any candidate in history."

Even at a packed rally for Howard Dean this morning on a farm in this community just across the border from Vermont, some Democrats were expressing concern that none of their candidates appeared to have what it would take to defeat Mr. Bush, with many mixing strong praise for Dr. Dean with skepticism about his ability to defeat Mr. Bush.

"I think it is a weak field," said John Meyer, 41, an architect from Henniker, who said he was waiting to see if Gen. Wesley K. Clark would enter the race. "A lot of them are lackluster candidates."

Against this daunting general election backdrop, the nominating contest is as unsettled as any Democratic presidential competition in 20 years, with candidates who have struggled for months to win attention from a nation that seems to have things on its mind other than an election that is 15 months away.

For now, Dr. Dean is widely viewed by Democrats as the leading contender, followed by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Their two-way contest within a contest follows a remarkable surge this summer by Dr. Dean, a physician and former Vermont governor who was once viewed as little more than a one-issue maverick. It also speaks of a shortfall in Mr. Kerry's strategy of clearing the field by presenting himself as the inevitable choice of his party.

But many Democrats express reservations about both these New Englanders, and that is reflected in the failure of either to draw the institutional party support that typically rallies around a perceived winner. Some Democrats worry that Dr. Dean would prove an easy mark for Mr. Bush, given his liberal views and his lack of any experience in foreign affairs; others warn that Mr. Kerry is an awkward public figure who has run a timorous campaign.

At least three other Democratic candidates ? Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina ? have turned their attention to what has become a fight for third place. Their calculation is that Mr. Kerry or Dr. Dean will founder in the opening Democratic contests.

"I think it's a three-person race: It's us, Dean and Kerry," said Steve Elmendorf, a senior adviser to Mr. Gephardt, in a formulation that was echoed with only slight variations by advisers to Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Edwards.

The remaining candidates are Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who has yet to show signs of strong support; the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York; Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio; and Carol Moseley Braun, the former senator from Illinois.

Associates of General Clark have said he has told them that he will probably join the race. But aides to most of the other candidates say he is too late to have a good shot, and they view him more as competing for a second spot on the ticket.

The candidates are girding for an unusually frantic nomination schedule that starts with the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 19, and could effectively be over by March 2, if not sooner, when 11 states hold contests. Some candidates see opportunity in this confusion: Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Edwards have made the risky decision to endure losses in Iowa and New Hampshire ? states where they are weak and that normally help winnow the field ? and hold on for later primaries in states more hospitable to them.

Though the Labor Day weekend is a traditional demarcation point in American campaigns, the Democrats have spent much of the past eight months making policy speeches, raising money, nailing down supporters and traveling to states like Iowa, South Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and, of course, here in New Hampshire. But they are now preparing to move into a significantly more intense and higher profile part of the race.

The first of six officially sanctioned Democratic debates takes place on Thursday in Albuquerque. Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Kerry are going on the air with television advertisements in Iowa and in New Hampshire this week, their aides said today, following Mr. Edwards and Dr. Dean.

And in the coming weeks, the last two major Democratic candidates will go through the formality of announcing their candidacies. Mr. Kerry is to make his announcement on Tuesday in South Carolina while Mr. Edwards has scheduled his for Sept. 16 in North Carolina. Mr. Edwards, who was struggling with choosing between running for a second term in the Senate or proceeding with a presidential campaign that so far has not taken off, is almost certain to bow out of the Senate race and run for the White House, his aides said. After the 2000 election, Mr. Edwards was viewed by many Democrats as one of the most exciting new faces in the field, but he has been eclipsed by Dr. Dean and Mr. Kerry.

The fluidity of the contest was underscored this week with a poll in New Hampshire that showed Dr. Dean pulling ahead of Mr. Kerry in a state that Mr. Kerry had all but taken for granted. The results, several Democrats said, were at least partly driven by the fact that Dr. Dean alone has been advertising heavily in New Hampshire over the past month and has been riding a positive wave of national publicity, including cover stories in Time and Newsweek.

Still, it had the effect of gutting Mr. Kerry's pretense of inevitability while thrusting Dr. Dean in the role that Mr. Kerry held last summer: the man most Democrats view as the candidate to beat.

Aides to Dr. Dean's rivals said there was no shortage of issues with which to try to discredit Dr. Dean. They pointed to what they said would be his poor chance of beating Mr. Bush, given his lack of foreign policy experience; stands that could hurt him in Democratic primaries, like his opposition to gun control; and shifts in positions on major issues that his opponents said would undercut his effort to present himself as the straight-talking outsider.

But the unorthodox character of Dr. Dean's candidacy ? and the nature of his support from men and women who have been drawn into politics for the first time by his candidacy ? has turned Dr. Dean into a difficult target for conventional political attacks.

Aides to his rivals said they had drawn a lesson from Dr. Dean's unsteady appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in June, which was mocked as near disastrous among party leaders but now appears to have served to rally his base around him. Several said they feared that Dr. Dean would be strengthened by conventional political attacks. As a result, Dr. Dean's rivals are all stepping gingerly, waiting for someone else to risk the first shot.

"No one wants to be the person to take on Dean," said Ron Klain, a Democratic consultant who was a senior adviser to Al Gore in 2000.

Dr. Dean's success poses a particularly big problem for Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Kerry's advisers planned to spend much of the weekend debating how to handle him in the weeks ahead. Many Democrats say it is hard to see how Mr. Kerry could survive losing to Dr. Dean in New Hampshire.

"There's at least a 90 percent likelihood right now that either Dean or Kerry will be the nominee," said Mr. Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan. "And the race is as even as it can be. His advantages are purely stylistic. Kerry's are substantive and experiential."

Dr. Dean's success poses a problem for Mr. Gephardt as well, underlining what have been the central problems for the candidate that some White House officials once viewed as the probable winner of the nominating contest: Mr. Gephardt is a familiar character at a time when his party is looking for new faces, and he helped Mr. Bush devise the resolution that led to the invasion of Iraq.

"Gephardt has a tired Democratic message," Jane Byle, a retired school librarian, said the other day, after turning out to see Mr. Edwards in Waterloo, Iowa. "We need a more current message."

Mr. Gephardt's advisers say he would almost certainly fold his second bid for the White House if he lost Iowa, his neighboring state, which he won when he ran for president in 1988. And many Democrats in Iowa say Dr. Dean would probably defeat Mr. Gephardt if the vote was today.

What is increasingly clear, several Democrats said, is that primary voters are not likely to choose someone who is promising to run a nuanced campaign against Mr. Bush. Dr. Dean has set the tone on that, as he made clear again today.

"John Ashcroft is not a patriot," he said, referring to the attorney general's advocacy of the Patriot Act. "John Ashcroft is a descendant of Joseph McCarthy."

Harsh or not, Dr. Dean's attacks on Mr. Bush have heartened Democratic audience, and the pitch of attacks on Mr. Bush by other Democrats has increased with each new sign of Dr. Dean's success.

"My impression is that Dean has been very good for Kerry ? but I'm sure Kerry doesn't feel that way," Mr. Mondale said. "Kerry got into the race and he was very correct and almost cautious, feeling his way, and not coming across very strongly. In the last two or three weeks, you've seen a new kind of Kerry developing. I suspect that Dean's challenge had something to do with that."

In Iowa, Gov. Tom Vilsack said in an interview that Democrats in his state were feeling better about the political landscape next year.

"Democrats in Iowa and across the country recognize that this is a vulnerable president," Mr. Vilsack said. "The president is going to have to defend his policies. He isn't going to be able to get by with platitudes like compassionate conservatism."

One prominent Democrat said that while Mr. Bush was "eminently beatable," the Democratic nominating process seemed nowhere near producing someone who could do the job. "The trouble in 2004 is not that Bush is going to be strong, but rather than we are going to be weak," this official said.

nytimes.com



To: KLP who wrote (6372)8/31/2003 6:28:59 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793822
 
How an Actor Did It
By Matthew Dallek
Matthew Dallek, a former speechwriter for Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), is the author of "The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan's First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics."

August 31, 2003

WASHINGTON ? The Sacramento Bee editorialized that "there is something scary about the idea of actors in politics." Numerous pundits similarly dismissed the idea of an actor running for high office in the Golden State. They scoffed at his lack of experience and his tendency to stumble on the stump. The politicians said that he was "shallow" and out of touch with the lives of ordinary citizens. Democrats, especially, liked to make fun of his films, and a handful sent a raft of memos to their boss, the incumbent governor, promising to "hang [the actor] on the specifics." The governor, for his part, said the thought of the actor in the statehouse "moves me to great lengths" ? and called him a simpleton who excelled at "parroting the words of scriptwriters."

Ronald Reagan was the target of these arrows in 1966. But with the "lightweight" charge coming at Arnold Schwarzenegger from several directions, the 37-year-old sneers sound awfully current. Reporters, pundits and politicians are calling Schwarzenegger "just an actor." If he wants to counter these attacks and close the gap with Democrat Cruz Bustamante, he would do well to steal a page from Reagan's playbook ? by demonstrating that he can stay calm, answer a question and generate the brainpower needed to govern the nation's most populous state. He doesn't need to be a diehard policy wonk, but, as Reagan did, he needs to demonstrate at least a passing familiarity with statewide issues.

True, Reagan had far more political experience in 1966 than Schwarzenegger has. Even so, when Reagan threw his hat in the ring, "he was green," as one of his top advisors later acknowledged. The affable actor didn't know about the intricacies of the state budget, and voters didn't know his positions on the environment, abortion and other key issues. Reagan had a short fuse on the stump and a penchant for bromides that fired up the faithful but made some of his consultants cringe. Worse, he was prone to headline-grabbing gaffes. He muffed the location of the Eel River (one of the state's most important), stormed out of a meeting in front of a large black audience, and left the impression that under a Reagan administration the Redwood forests would go unprotected when he said: "A tree is a tree. How many more do you need to look at?"

Reagan adopted three strategies to counter the attack on him as a lightweight. First, he hired strategists from both wings of the GOP to show that he was credible. Reagan hired the two most talented Republican operatives at the time, Stu Spencer and Bill Roberts; moderates both, they helped him bone up on issues and shed his image as an extremist. In 1966, Reagan had to convince moderate Republicans (and reporters) that he was not close to the John Birch Society, one of the state's most radical organizations. With the help of his consultants, Reagan issued a shrewd one-page statement that said anyone who supported him was accepting his philosophy ? and not vice versa. At every opportunity, Spencer and Roberts delivered that message to the GOP's moderates, many of whom recalled the divisive debacle of Barry Goldwater's 1964 White House run and feared that Reagan would repeat the sins of the past. The statement was a winner.

Then there were the fund-raisers. While Spencer and Roberts sent a message to the middle, conservative power brokers made overtures to the GOP's right wing, shoring up Reagan's base and bringing the candidate one step closer to the elusive goal of unity in the GOP. To promote that unity, Reagan cast as wide a net as possible. Instead of relying on stalwarts in the Young Americans for Freedom and California Republican Assembly, Reagan hired a trio of consultants in their 30s who gave the campaign a shot in the arm; part of a rising generation of fresh-faced conservatives, aides such as Lyn Nofziger could appeal to both wings of the GOP because they had avoided a prominent role in the 1964 fiasco.

Few doubt that Schwarzenegger's team is formidable. Warren E. Buffett is a famous financial guru, George P. Shultz served as President Reagan's secretary of State, and Pete Wilson served two terms in the office Schwarzenegger is fighting to win. But to win over the GOP base, Schwarzenegger needs to showcase mainstream conservative supporters like Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) and David Dreier (R-San Dimas) to assure the right that its voice will not be silenced ? to reach out to the wing that is not his natural constituency. He also needs to be careful that people like Buffett don't overshadow him. When Buffett told the Wall Street Journal that Proposition 13 was an obstacle to fiscal sanity, Schwarzenegger had to issue a statement defending the initiative, which served to deepen the suspicion that he is a creature of his handlers.

Schwarzenegger should also follow a second part of Reagan's strategy: take questions. In 1966, Reagan told his advisors that he wanted to hold Q & A sessions with reporters and Republican audiences to confront his critics head-on. Advisors fretted, but Reagan proved adroit at the give and take. He impressed moderates who thought that the man didn't have a brain, and reporters like Jack S. McDowell of the San Francisco Examiner came away from events convinced, at least, that Reagan "was not dumb." Reagan proved that he could handle the attacks on his character. At Occidental College, students jeered him with placards that said, "Who Wants Boraxo [a former Reagan sponsor] in Sacramento?" Reagan looked them in the eye and said, "That may be only soap to you, but it was bread and butter to me." So far, Schwarzenegger hasn't done enough of this.

The Q & As let Reagan assure his supporters that he could win and show skeptics that he was not going to self-destruct. The excitement of a first campaign ? and of the candidate's strutting his stuff on stage instead of on the big screen ? proved infectious. The audiences loved it. One Republican official told Reagan in 1966, "I am absolutely amazed at the performance so far, considering the big spotlight on you."

Schwarzenegger needs to convince the electorate that he too is ready for prime time.

One final point for Schwarzenegger to imitate: Reagan was willing to work. He studied. He learned about the state. He mastered enough specifics to dampen speculation that he would fumble in Sacramento. He promised to ride to the rescue of a state on the brink. Instead of dwelling on the "socialist tide" allegedly lapping at America's shores, he began to focus on taxes, crime, street riots and the student unrest he memorably called "the mess at Berkeley."

He used events to formulate a compelling vision for law and order that helped to offset the image of an actor reciting his lines. He cited reports on Berkeley issued by the state Senate and studied black books stuffed with memos and note cards packed with information about statewide issues.

The factoids helped him to appear knowledgeable and reasonable, "not as a fanatic who wanted to tear down all government," as one aide put it.

In 1966, many of the state's most senior Democrats, and an equal number of reporters, failed to grasp that Reagan was a credible candidate. They made the mistake of thinking that Reagan could never shed his image as an actor. In fact, Reagan beat Gov. Pat Brown in 1966 by almost 1 million votes. Today's Schwarzenegger critics need to remember the past and rethink their strategies. If Democrats want to avoid repeating one of the great mistakes of 1966, they need to rely on a stronger line of attack than dismissing Mr. Universe as a lightweight.
[latimes.com]
latimes.com
CALIFORNIA POLITICS
a d v e r t i s e m e n t

[CareerBuilder Expo, September 10th]



To: KLP who wrote (6372)8/31/2003 11:34:13 AM
From: JohnM  Respond to of 793822
 
All it says to me, Karen, is that Tomasky is on "the left", which it hardly takes this note to establish. Lots of folk are on panels at such conferences. He may even consider himself a "socialist". Who knows. Hardly matters.