Isaiah Z. Sterrett
Democrats' blueprints
By Isaiah Z. Sterrett
KERRY LOST to the Republicans, so Democrats want Howard Dean, who lost to Kerry, to help them beat the Republicans.
They also like Hill, mainly because of Bill, even though she only holds a Senate seat because Rudy Giuliani got cancer — and because New Yorkers were too depressed over Giuliani's illness to ask what, exactly, Hillary was doing in their state.
Still delusional about Bush's win, Democrats now claim that they have no idea how anyone could actually believe that Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton are liberals. One columnist has decided that "they" — Republicans and conservatives — "will try to wrap a liberal skin around" Hillary "so tightly that it will be impossible for her to emerge.." The writer did not take into account that Hillary has been carefully knitting that skin for decades.
Democrats also want Confederate Flag Dean to run their party, even though he couldn't even beat John Kerry in a very liberal primary season. In a scintillating irony, Kerry picked up most of Dean's base after Dean's base realized Dean couldn't beat Bush. Oops! If only for Ohio.
The reason we know Howard Dean is a liberal is that Democrats said he was. This is a fact. According to the New York Times, in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, about half of the voters were self-identified liberals. Dean lost the state to Kerry 26%-38%, but won by 10-15 points among voters who call themselves "very liberal." As the Times went on to report, "Dr. Dean is the only candidate remaining in the Democratic field who advocates repealing the relatively small portion of the Bush tax measures that lower the taxes of the middle class, like tax credits for families with children and reduced taxes for some married couples with two incomes."
Even Robert Reich, a devoted liberal and lover of both Clintons, embraced the opportunity to label Dean left-of-center. Back in January, Reich wrote that Dean's seeming momentum was "[o]n the other extreme" to Sen. Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, Reich argued, was the opposite of the Vermont governor — who was much, much more liberal.
As for Hillary, everyone on the planet knows she's as left-wing as they come. There's no disputing it. Only a liberal would produce a plan so awesomely doomed and preposterously stupid as her early-90s take on healthcare, which even Mo Dowd called "big, unwieldy, bureaucratic and secretive.."
Hillary's supporters are now clandestinely hoping that she'll "move to the center." Much as when I say I'm going to sit through a football game, this is what Democrats always say they're going to do, but never actually get to. And, I hate to be the one to break it to the many participants in HillaryMania, but "moving" is not good for Democrats running for the presidency. John Kerry used to think "moving" was a healthy practice, too. He liked to "move" a lot. That's why he's about to be inaugurated the 44th president of the United States.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure the flip-flopper argument could kill Hillary the way it killed Kerry. Hillary is much smarter than the Massachusetts senator, and she'll benefit from having watched Kerry's demise. Republicans will be sure to call her a liberal, since she manifestly is, but she can still win unless the GOP comes up with a very strong candidate. (This is in contradistinction to 1980, when a generic-brand bag of fertilizer would have mopped Jimmy Carter.)
Though 2008 is lightyears away, while we're on the subject, I like Jeb Bush. True, people will start talking about monarchical rule, but the same people will also talk about universal healthcare and the evil of the PATRIOT Act — and Americans have grown chary of that. Gov. Bush has the support of a crucial state, he would help — if not ensure — the South for the GOP, and he's noticeably articulate. Also, it would be rather tedious to call a third Bush "dumb."
There are other possibilities, of course, and Republicans must keep our minds wide open. Rudy Giuliani would be a magnificent nominee, as would Condoleezza Rice. "Giuliani/Rice: '08" has a lovely, hawkish ring to it. "Hillary for the Future," with Howard Dean as DNC chair, does not. If Republicans are smart four years from now, never again will we have to hear the revolting phrase "President Clinton."
© Isaiah Z. Sterrett
KERRY LOST to the Republicans, so Democrats want Howard Dean, who lost to Kerry, to help them beat the Republicans.
They also like Hill, mainly because of Bill, even though she only holds a Senate seat because Rudy Giuliani got cancer — and because New Yorkers were too depressed over Giuliani's illness to ask what, exactly, Hillary was doing in their state.
Still delusional about Bush's win, Democrats now claim that they have no idea how anyone could actually believe that Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton are liberals. One columnist has decided that "they" — Republicans and conservatives — "will try to wrap a liberal skin around" Hillary "so tightly that it will be impossible for her to emerge.." The writer did not take into account that Hillary has been carefully knitting that skin for decades.
Democrats also want Confederate Flag Dean to run their party, even though he couldn't even beat John Kerry in a very liberal primary season. In a scintillating irony, Kerry picked up most of Dean's base after Dean's base realized Dean couldn't beat Bush. Oops! If only for Ohio.
The reason we know Howard Dean is a liberal is that Democrats said he was. This is a fact. According to the New York Times, in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, about half of the voters were self-identified liberals. Dean lost the state to Kerry 26%-38%, but won by 10-15 points among voters who call themselves "very liberal." As the Times went on to report, "Dr. Dean is the only candidate remaining in the Democratic field who advocates repealing the relatively small portion of the Bush tax measures that lower the taxes of the middle class, like tax credits for families with children and reduced taxes for some married couples with two incomes."
Even Robert Reich, a devoted liberal and lover of both Clintons, embraced the opportunity to label Dean left-of-center. Back in January, Reich wrote that Dean's seeming momentum was "[o]n the other extreme" to Sen. Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, Reich argued, was the opposite of the Vermont governor — who was much, much more liberal.
As for Hillary, everyone on the planet knows she's as left-wing as they come. There's no disputing it. Only a liberal would produce a plan so awesomely doomed and preposterously stupid as her early-90s take on healthcare, which even Mo Dowd called "big, unwieldy, bureaucratic and secretive.."
Hillary's supporters are now clandestinely hoping that she'll "move to the center." Much as when I say I'm going to sit through a football game, this is what Democrats always say they're going to do, but never actually get to. And, I hate to be the one to break it to the many participants in HillaryMania, but "moving" is not good for Democrats running for the presidency. John Kerry used to think "moving" was a healthy practice, too. He liked to "move" a lot. That's why he's about to be inaugurated the 44th president of the United States.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure the flip-flopper argument could kill Hillary the way it killed Kerry. Hillary is much smarter than the Massachusetts senator, and she'll benefit from having watched Kerry's demise. Republicans will be sure to call her a liberal, since she manifestly is, but she can still win unless the GOP comes up with a very strong candidate. (This is in contradistinction to 1980, when a generic-brand bag of fertilizer would have mopped Jimmy Carter.)
Though 2008 is lightyears away, while we're on the subject, I like Jeb Bush. True, people will start talking about monarchical rule, but the same people will also talk about universal healthcare and the evil of the PATRIOT Act — and Americans have grown chary of that. Gov. Bush has the support of a crucial state, he would help — if not ensure — the South for the GOP, and he's noticeably articulate. Also, it would be rather tedious to call a third Bush "dumb."
There are other possibilities, of course, and Republicans must keep our minds wide open. Rudy Giuliani would be a magnificent nominee, as would Condoleezza Rice. "Giuliani/Rice: '08" has a lovely, hawkish ring to it. "Hillary for the Future," with Howard Dean as DNC chair, does not. If Republicans are smart four years from now, never again will we have to hear the revolting phrase "President Clinton."
© Isaiah Z. Sterrett
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
