Burnt Orange Report

February 01, 2004

A Great Disappointment

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I have one more day here in Arizona, after missing yet more school and spending more money for a cause that for me, has grown beyond its original purpose. What has happened to me (and I know I'm not alone) in the last month, even the last year has opened up my eyes to much more than a political campaign. It has opened up my eyes to what is so very wrong in our country and the Democratic Party and more importantly what we have come to accept as politics as usual.

My god, how stupid have we as Americans become? How easily have we let ourselves become beholden more than ever to the latest wind change or news cycle? How come when disappointing results come in that we didn't expect it's time to retreat to the safe old ways of doing things?

I find it really sad that two people that I had come to respect so much in coming to UT for their work, their insight, and their commitment to a party that can do better, have given up hope under the guise of 'political reality'.

To that I say, like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2000, I dissent.

You know what? In the end you may be right. But I must say this before I become the last remaining Dean supporter on this Blog at the rate things are going.

According to Political Reality, Howard Dean should never have happened. Political Reality said that Dean shouldn't ever have been able to raise, and continue to raise the money he has. Political Reality says that you can't get thousands of volunteers to commit to travel across the country to help a candidate. Political Reality says that you cannot by any means let any control of your campaign be given to the grassroots. Political Reality shuns letting people self-organize, hell, even become involved if they aren't willing to do everything exactly like you tell them to. Political Reality can't change.

Well, guess what, this campaign didn't get to the end of 2003 by playing by the rules of Political Reality. Maybe this thing becomes a delegate race; maybe it isn't over after 2 states and less than 10% of the delegates being decided. Maybe it won't be pre-determined by a front loaded schedule. Maybe it will continue to find a way to waltz around Political Reality.

You know, I could end up being totally wrong about all of this, I admit that. But it will only be because once and for all, the system of caution and bowing to the 'way things should work, because it's the only way they have in the past' wins.

That day will be a sad day. Not for the Democratic Party, but for Democracy. Politics as usual will be the only winner at the end of the day. And why? Because people stopped believing.

P.S. Will someone please tell me which states "Mr. Electibility Kerry" is going to win for the Democratic Party in November that Dean isn't? i.e. Arizona- Deans makes it in play. Kerry? Hardly. That's the impression that Arizonans here have that I have canvassed and talked to, (excluding the obviously biased Deanster's opinions). Thus, can Kerry even put up as much of a fight as Dean can?

(all Massachusetts Liberal tags aside)

Posted by Karl-Thomas Musselman at February 1, 2004 01:07 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Karl, I like and respect you and admire your idealism. But Dean was never the great messiah some people regarded him as.
He came along with just the right issue (Iraq) at just the right time. His combative style resonated with Democrats who felt frustrated and cheated by the Bush administration. And his very innovative use of the internet is now a mandatory topic for study by all serious candidates. But if you take away the bombast, his policies are not really much different from those of Wesley Clark. So Dean tried to stand out by attacking fellow Democrats almost as much as he attacked Bush. Even in December, when he was getting high profile endorsements from people like Al Gore, Dean felt compelled to continue his puerile attacks on the DLC. If he had spent some time mending fences within the party instead of making snippy remarks about large numbers of Democrats, he might still be the frontrunner rather than an also ran.

Please don't blame the public for seeing his faults or the media for displaying them. That's what campaigns do. I was disappointed that Clark did not cope better with "gotcha journalism", but that's part of the process.

Before you criticize the way things have worked in the past, take a close look at why they did work and how they came about.
If you were able to remember the 12 years of Reagan and Papi Bush, you would know why Bill Clinton, a founding father of the dreaded DLC, was so appealing.
Looking back, what sort of Supreme Court would we now have if G.H.W. Bush had appointed right wing fundamentalists rather than Clinton's choices of Breyer and Ginsburg?

If you only vote for candidates who agree with you on 100% of the issues, you may end up never voting for anybody. Hell, even you BOR guys don't totally agree with each other. lol

Sen. Kerry is not my first choice, but I will strongly support him if he is the nominee. If he takes all the states Gore took in 2000 plus NH, WV, and NV, you will have a Democratic president in just over 11.5 months.

Posted by: Tim Z at February 1, 2004 09:10 AM

Tim Z,

You mean those Bush Sr. "right wing fundamentalists" like Souter, right? Didn't think so. Look, Bush only batted .500 when it came to SCOTUS nominees, so courts wouldn't be in that much better shape if he had won in 1992. Besides, you also assume that the late-Justice White would have retired under a GOP President. From his public comments, that is unlikely.

For what it is worth, I used to think Kerry was the least electable Dem candidate. Dean's performance in January: "Job is my favorite book in the New Testament" and the "I have a scream" speech changed that, and now I'd prefer to see him win. Kerry is still the No. 2 candidate I would pick, if I couldn't have Dean. Well, probably he is. It depends how much wackier General Clark gets, but for now, Kerry is my second pick. A multi-millionare liberal Senator from Massachussets, with a voting record to the left of Ted Kennedy, no substantial legistative accomplishments, and an arrogant and aloof demeanor that seems condenscending towards the people he talks to. We'll have a field day. Elitism doesn't play well with the American people. My early prediction (which, of course, is utterly meaningless, since it assumes nothing changes between now and election day, which is absurd) is that we beat Kerry by at least as much as Clinton beat Dole, 8 points.

Sherk

Posted by: Sherk at February 1, 2004 01:26 PM

did not cope better with "gotcha journalism", but that's part of the process.

An excellent point. Instead of bemoaning the high pressure tactics used by the press during a campaign, you should recognize this as submitting the candidates to a political boot camp - a simulation of the intense pressure they can be expected to face every day in the Oval Office. And if a candidate cannot even handle it on the campaign trail, lord help the electorate who would place such a person in the White House.

Posted by: Mark Harden at February 1, 2004 01:37 PM

I find it odd that Dean supporters really believe that Howard Dean is really more electable than John Kerry. If Howard Dean were the nominee forget about Arizona, hell forget about minnesota, wisconsin, iowa, pennsylvania etc... Hello Deanites we do need to win some states.

From what i understand Howard Dean plans a guerilla warfare tactic to win the nomination. Can someone say nut job. Not only will he lose but he will have no future in the democratic pary or any other party for that matter.

Sherk the way things are going dubya will be lucky to get out by eight points.....in the electoral college

P.S Liberal civil-union vermont governor is no better than liberal massachusetts senator CARL

Posted by: Tek_XX at February 1, 2004 02:18 PM

Sherk the way things are going dubya will be lucky to get out by eight points.....in the electoral college

P.S Liberal civil-union vermont governor is no better than liberal massachusetts senator CARL

Posted by: Tek_XX at February 1, 2004 02:19 PM

"Not only will he lose but he will have no future in the democratic pary or any other party for that matter."

I disagree. I think that if he drops out, Dean should go for Jefford's Senate seat when he retires. We know he can win Vermont!
Personally, I feel that Dean has done great things for the party, and will continue to if other Dems can manage to not knock him down at every turn.

Posted by: leodem at February 2, 2004 12:05 AM

Hey Sherk, growing up in Canada, did you ever hear that saying about the pot calling the kettle black ?
It seems that Republicans think they can score points by painting John Kerry as "elitst".
He has money and does come from that rather academia friendly state of Massachusetts. Though he did serve in Vietnam rather than with the "champagne battalion" of the Texas Air National Guard.
Of course the GOP has nurtured the myth of George W. Bush as some good ol' boy who achieved success strictly through his own efforts. In fact, Dubya is part of the fourth generation of a rich and powerful family who regard privilege as their birthright.
Former GOP activist Kevin Phillips has written a book which details the rise of the Bush clan called, American Dynasty. This book should be read by every Democrat. I hope it is out in paperback in time for the fall campaign.
Here is the official book site.
http://www.americandynasty.net/
An NPR interview with Phillips about the book is here.
http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1595494.html
And this is a review from the CSM.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0113/p15s01-bogn.htm

So as for charges of elitism, Bring 'em on!

Occasionally a Supreme Court justice disappoints the ideological expectations of the president who appointed him/her. With David Souter, the Papi Bush White House was looking for someone who had no paper trail on hot button issues like abortion. That backfired because the lack of a paper trail meant that even the GOP didn't know that much about Souter. Of course, G.H.W. didn't make that mistake again. The cynical appointment of Clarence Thomas showed a continuation of support for conservative judicial activism that started with the appointments of Rehnquist as chief justice and Scalia as associate justice by Reagan.
Republicans would love to pack the court with neocons in their 40s so that their legacy will extend well into the middle of the century.

Posted by: Tim Z at February 2, 2004 12:35 AM

Tek-XX, it's Karl-Thomas with a K. Not a C. Not a biggie but also not that hard to remember since it's like 4 inches away from the comment link.

Posted by: Karl-T at February 2, 2004 01:35 AM

Tim Z,

What the heck does growing up in Canada have to do with being a hypocrite? I just don't get it. I've lived under a quasi socialist system, know that it sucks, and never want to see it come to America. How is that hypocritical.

As for conservative "judicial activism," it is only activism in the sense that it dumps the last seventy years of judicial precedent. However, that precedent was invented out of no more than a liberal desire to see things that way, and has no constitutional foundation. Sorry, but contrary to 1930's and 1940's era Supreme Court rulings, the 10th ammendment does in fact limit the power of the Federal Government. The Supreme Court should rule that way. It isn't activism to return to the original meaning of the constitution or to believe that the law is what lawmakers intended it to be, not an activist judge. Nor is it activism to dump Roe, when Roe has NO foundation in the constitution, as even the decision admits, saying you have to gaze into the pneumbras and emanations of the constitution to find it.

Sherk

Posted by: Sherk at February 2, 2004 02:08 PM

Sherk-

If you long for the decisions of the last 70 years to be overturned, particularly those dealing with states' rights (as evidenced by your 10th Amendment comment) does that mean that you want to see Brown v. Board of Education overturned and see a return to segregation? I'm not really trying to fuck with you but I am curious.

-Andrew D

Posted by: Andrew D at February 2, 2004 04:32 PM

Geez Sherk, have you and Howard Dean been drinking from the same vat of Jolt Cola?

Just to spell things out, I was trying to bring up a possible linguistic difference in a humorous way which would help introduce my first point. You probably know that in spite of close proximity, Canada and the US still have expressions which have remained on their sides of the border, eh? One of the funnier Canadianisms I've heard is "gaunch pull", what an American would call a "wedgie". lol

Being a Chicagoan, if I wanted to call you a hypocrite, I would not have beat around the bush.

BTW, as an amateur astronomer, I'm big on penumbras, as well as umbras. Though I wouldn't take too kindly to a gaunch pull.

Posted by: Tim Z at February 2, 2004 04:58 PM

"WEE" THE PEOPLE.......AN AMERICAN SCHEME!
HAS UNCLE SAM EVER OFFERED A DREAM AND TAKE THE REST AWAY?
NIECES & NEPHEWS TIRED OF SLEEPING WHILE AWAKE?
WHERE IS AUNTIE VIGILE & HER SWEET MILITIA BREAD?
CAN'T SEE THE "LIGHT MAYOR" FOR THE NIGHTMARE?
REMEMBER THEE JUST JESUS!

Posted by: michael at February 13, 2004 07:49 PM

News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas

February 01, 2004

A Great Disappointment

By Karl-Thomas Musselman