Wall Street Journals Political Diary:
The missing exit polls for the 2002 mid-term elections have finally been released and they offer strong evidence that the country is not as politically polarized as generally alleged. Rather, the national consensus has been shifting steadily to the right.
The Voter News Service, a media consortium that interviewed thousands of voters as they left the polls, didn't deliver its results on Election Night last year because of computer errors and other glitches. After some scrubbing for suspect numbers in individual states, the surveys paint a picture of a country that is not nearly as divided on a political knife-edge as conventional wisdom has it. In the 2000 presidential and House races, America may have been split exactly down the middle. But in 2002, Republicans opened up a gap. The GOP won the national vote for House seats by 51% to 46% and voters who identified themselves as "conservative" increased to 34% from 30%.
Even more importantly, the number of self-identified "liberals" shrank in 2002 despite all the frantic efforts of Michael Moore and Al Franken to whip up the troops. GOP pollster David Winston notes that, in 2002, the number of self-identified liberals dipped to the lowest level in the past four elections -- 17%. "Moderates" continued to dominate the electorate, representing 49% of all votes cast.
If the 2002 exit poll numbers were duplicated in next year's presidential electorate, the sledding would be rough for a liberal candidate. He or she would have to carry the Democratic base plus pick up "moderate" voters by a 2 to 1 margin. That's why if Howard Dean becomes the Democratic nominee, you can expect he will madly dash to the center, spewing rhetoric about balanced budgets and the need to leave social issues out of the campaign. But Democratic consultants wonder if a man who has called for repealing all the Bush tax cuts and signed a bill legalizing civil unions for gays in Vermont can pull off that trick.
--John Fund
Is Soros Shorting Howard?
George Soros, the wealthy New York investor who has pumped at least $12 million into groups dedicated to defeating President Bush, is having second thoughts about the wisdom of having Howard Dean be the Democratic standard bearer against Mr. Bush next year.
Last summer, Mr. Soros attended a glitzy fundraiser for Mr. Dean in the Hamptons and all but formally embraced his insurgent candidacy. Now, in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's capture, Mr. Soros has expressed concern that Mr. Dean may appear too hot-headed and negative to appeal to swing voters. Columnist Robert Novak reports that Mr. Soros has suggested to one friend he is taking a second look at former Gen. Wesley Clark. Mr. Soros was impressed by a $1 million fund-raiser investment banker Alan Patricof organized for Mr. Clark in Manhattan earlier this month. Mr. Patricof told me at a recent dinner that many people he meets who like Mr. Dean still want a strong backup candidate if the former governor falters before Iowa and New Hampshire vote next month.
--John Fund
Marriage on the Rocks
Those who argue that "gay marriage" poses no challenge to traditional marriage ought to take a closer look at the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. A majority of voters (53%) who see marriage as predominately a "religious" matter also oppose gay marriage by a strong margin of 77%. Voters who believe marriage is mostly a "legal" matter account for 33% of the electorate and support gay marriage by a solid 55%.
Which brings us to the real problem that nobody talks about. If marriage is a mere "legal" right, who can't get married? If any two people have the right to the legal benefits of marriage, why not three people? Why not two brothers? Why not a man and his father?
That's the trouble with the Massachusetts supreme court decision. It's hard to see on what basis marriage could logically be denied to anybody. Right now, the state doesn't ask if a man and woman are heterosexually inclined, if they love each other, if they intend to have children. Marriage largely regulates itself, with the exception being government efforts to prevent marriages intended solely to obtain a green card. But in the world ordained by the Massachusetts supreme court, wouldn't the state be obliged to make sure two women who want to get married are really lesbians and not just two women trying to acquire the legal advantages of marriage? How else to stop marriage from becoming a right available to any group of people who simply want to organize their affairs as "married" persons?
Right now, the law makes no formal presumption about the sexual orientation of people getting married, just their gender: They have to be of opposite sexes. Yet that small stipulation seems to have succeeded, for the most part, in keeping marriage from becoming a mere contractual convenience.
--Holman W. Jenkins Jr.
Howard's End
The Wesley Clark balloon has been reinflating, and it's not hard to figure out why. Howard Dean seemingly had the nomination wrapped up and was headed toward the center of the political spectrum at full gallop when the one-two punch landed. First came Al Gore's shrill endorsement, which highlighted Dean's antiwar stance just when Dean was trying to move beyond it. A week later came Saddam's capture, and suddenly Mr. Dean began to seem too puny to fill a president's shoes.
Mr. Dean was obviously stung by a Washington Post editorial last week that described him as having no conception of what's expected from the leader of the free world. His response, published on Sunday, explained his opposition to the Iraq war in a way that makes eye-openingly clear where he's really coming from: "Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat to America. The administration had not (and still has not) presented clear evidence that Hussein was on the verge of attacking his neighbors or threatening the United States or the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction or supporting al Qaeda."
Momentous questions in a democracy are often close-run things and there's nothing disqualifying about having opposed the war, about which there were good arguments on both sides. But the Dean revealed above has no appreciation of America's potential to shape the course of history or exercise leadership in the world. His America is one that grudgingly puts out the most pressing fire by the most expedient (and cheapest) means possible. If there's any doubt, see his ardent support for trying to buy off Kim Jong Il one more time.
For some reason, Saddam's crimes have come into focus since his capture. The rest of the country now is talking about breaking the democratic and developmental stalemate in the Arab world in an age when otherwise the mess in the Middle East can be expected to produce more mega-terrorism along the lines 9/11. Having come this far in his campaign, however, Mr. Dean's antiwar fury suddenly depends on weak words like "imminent" and "on the verge of." No wonder, two weeks after he'd practically been anointed the nominee, Democrats have breathed new urgency into the search for a Dean stopper.
--Holman W. Jenkins Jr.
Quotes of the Day
"To hear these guys talk, I'm against Nafta, I have an AK-47 under my pillow, I'm married to Osama bin Laden -- oh, and I'm against Israel" -- Howard Dean at a pancake breakfast in Clinton, Iowa Saturday.
"My policies are actually kind of middle of the road. I used to get 35 percent to 40 percent of the Republican vote pretty regularly" -- Howard Dean at a campaign rally in Dubuque Saturday.
Press Strategy for a Rainy Day
The Bush administration is smiling this holiday season in the wake of President Bush's surprise visit to the troops in Iraq and the capture of Saddam Hussein. But several journalists who gathered for a dinner last week with White House political director Karl Rove warn that the administration's message development isn't up to snuff in the pauses between major positive news events.
While Mr. Rove gave an upbeat and convincing analysis of the administration's prospects for re-election, such off-the-record chats are no substitute for fixing the White House's other weaknesses in dealing with the media. "There are only five people in the White House -- including Rove and chief of staff Andy Card -- who are authorized to speak directly with journalists on behalf of the president," one prominent media figure noted. "That guarantees the message they want filters out slowly and tentatively." Another attendee said the absence of White House communications director Karen Hughes, who returned to Texas this year, has been missed. "They do the basics right, but strategically they let bad stories and spin fester and grow too long hoping some good news will turn up," he said. "It usually does, but who wants to count on that?" |
