"The Defection Card"

« Two Interesting Quotes About Dean | Main | Plame: The Defense Makes Its Opening Statement »

12/30/2003

"The Defection Card"

One of the contributions that weblogs can make is by drawing out the truly outrageous aspects of those comments, quotes or events that seem to pass benignly through the studied neutrality of the daily press. And no one does that more consistently, while never overdoing it, than Josh Marshall, whether it is calling Trent Lott out on his Dixiecrat nostalgia or catching the absurdity of the "flypaper" theory of Iraq. (Draw all the terrorists there and then we've got 'em!)

He brings exactly the right tone to Howard Dean's comments about what would happen if he is not the Democratic nominee:

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: December 28, 2003 - January 03, 2004 Archives

From the New York Times story on Dean's demand to DNC chair Terry McAuliffe that he tell the other candidates to stop attacking him: Dean says his supporters "'are certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician.' Though Dr. Dean has repeatedly said he would back whichever Democrat wins the nomination, he said Sunday that support was 'not transferable anymore' and that endorsements, including his own, 'don't guarantee anything.'"

I don't care if Dean says he'll endorse whoever wins. He's playing the defection card. And that crosses the line....The price of admission to the Democratic primary race is a pledge of committed support to whomever wins the nomination, period. (The sense of entitlement to other Democrats' support comes after you win the nomination, not before.) If Dean can't sign on that dotted-line, he has no business asking for the party's nomination.

Absolutely correct. This attitude, as much as the electability question, is the basis of my wariness about Dean. And it is surprising, frankly. Dean of all people should know how dangerous the left-wing's tyranny of small differences can be: He almost lost his last race for Governor of Vermont because of it. In 2000, Anthony Pollina ran for governor on the Progressive Party, charging that Dean was just too close to being the kind of conventional politician he now disdains. Pollina won 10% of the vote, Dean just barely 50%. Up until the day of the election, there was a real worry that Pollina's vote would hold Dean under 50%, in which case, under Vermont law, the legislature would have decided the election, and there was also reason to think that the legislature might have gone Republican. In the event, Dean squeaked by with just over 50%, the Republican conceded gracefully, and the legislature remained narrowly Democratic. (Here's a CNN story on how this race looked just before the election.) But, having come through that scare, shouldn't Dean know just how dangerous this kind of threat can be?

It is certainly true that a prolonged battle for the nomination, loaded with bitterness and vicious attacks, that extends well into the spring will be hurtful to the eventual nominee. The Kennedy-Carter battle in 1980 is the classic example. There is a point at which the party establishment, such as it is, needs to say, enough, and perhaps tell a candidate who still has a mathematical possibility of winning the nomination that it's time to join the team. But that point is sometime in March or April. It is most certainly not in December of the year before the election, when not one vote has been cast and not one delegate has been chosen.

The way a party finds its strongest nominee is through campaigns, voting, and a vigorous contest of ideas. Such a contest need not be destructive, and often leaves the eventual candidate stronger. So far, everything that the other candidates have said about Dean, even Lieberman's charge that his economic policies would lead to "the Dean Depression" are entirely within the bounds of normal, healthy political back-and-forth. There has been nothing comparable to Gore's use in 1988 of Willie Horton, which did allow George H.W. Bush to use the same loaded imagery with impunity against Michael Dukakis.

We don't choose a party's nominee on the basis of money, standing in the polls, or Meet-up attendance. If we did, we would have all had to coalesce around John Kerry a year ago. If you believe in "people power," you have to let the people actually vote before you can act as if you've actually accomplished anything.

Posted by Mark Schmitt on 12/30/2003 at 12:18 AM in 2004 elections, Decembrist archives | Permalink

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Oh, for heavens sake. Dean's comment was purely factual: He can't guarantee that all of his supporters will vote for any other candidate, even though he has promised his endorsement to whomever wins, not once but again and again and again. And anyway, what's he supposed to say on the eve of the primary--"Sure, absolutely, vote for the other guys; if someone else gets the nomination I'll just order my zombie minions to support him, that'd be fine by me."

Marshall's post ticked me off, and your endorsement of it does too. When the other candidates come out and promise to work for Dean if (I'm very tempted to say "when") he wins the nomination, then maybe they can get on their high horse about Dean saying this. But not until. (And certainly not when they're all still refusing to raise their hands when asked if he can win.)

Posted by: Evan | 12/30/2003 at 01:19 AM

"There has been nothing comparable to Gore's use in 1988 of Willie Horton, which did allow George H.W. Bush to use the same loaded imagery with impunity against Michael Dukakis."

If you read the Daily Howler, you'd know that this is just one of the oft-repeated media lies about Gore. Gore commented about Dukakis and the furlough (sp?) program, yes, but he never made the Willie Horton-specific racially coded appeal that Bush made.

Posted by: Rich Puchalsky | 12/30/2003 at 10:06 AM

Comments on the comments:

Evan responds with classic Dean rapid-response efficiency, but misses some points. First, if Dean's statement was "merely factual," then why would he say his support "isn't transferable anymore"? What has changed? Second, for the record, all the other Democrats have said, without reservation, that they will support the nominee, whoever it is including Dean, and they most certainly will. None has said anything to suggest that his or her supporters won't back Dean.

Rich Puchalsky is right about Gore and Willie Horton, and, as something of an expert on Gore oppo trivia, I should know better. Still, my point is that none of the other candidates has made a charge against Dean that is even comparable to the relatively mild and not racially charged use that Gore made of Horton in 1988.

Posted by: Mark Schmitt | 12/30/2003 at 11:09 AM

No html here? The Dean campaign success reminds me of Pets.com, the company that attracted billions from eager investors who believed in the internet hype and who failed to look any deeper. The company was hugely successful -- [dramatic emphasis] until they opened for business.[end dramtic emphasis] Billions lost. It was overhyped internet marketing by a quirky set who convinced others of something illogical, that people would rather by dog food online than at the local grocery store. That would be like convincing people that governing tiny Vermont was similar to running the federal government, which Dean has tried to do.

Posted by: poputonian | 12/30/2003 at 11:12 AM

"This attitude, as much as the electability question, is the basis of my wariness about Dean. "

I really think this is small potatoes for not supporting Dean.

I have to say I have seen him countless times at the debates say that he would wholeheartedly support Gephardt against Bush.

His comments on whether his supporters are transferrable is his opinion and he is entitled to it. I for one will vote for a conventional Washington politician if I have to...and I think most Dean suppporters would as well but we will hold our nose voting for those who couldn't think straight when it mattered most e.g.voting for tax cuts and Iraq.

Personally, I think many of these guys are going over the line when saying that Dean doesn't have the judgement to be President...these quotes will be parroted by Karl Rove exactly the same way Willie Horton was used against Dukakis.

Mark, I think what Gore did to Bradley in 2000 is starting to look like kid gloves compared to what these guys are saying about Dean.

Posted by: lerxst | 12/30/2003 at 11:15 AM

If the other democrats have, indeed, said they'd support whatever candidate were nominated, good for them. Oddly enough, though I follow politics almost obsessively, I have not heard that statement from any but two: Dean and Lieberman.

And Lieberman is the one who coined the phrase "Dean Depression". You honestly think that's less nasty than Gore's criticism of the Massachusetts furlough program?

As to the question of what has changed that prompted Dean to use the word "anymore": I'm not entirely sure why he used that word. He was, after all, widely quoted *months* ago saying that he wasn't sure how much of his support was transferrable to another candidate, so this isn't exactly a new development.

But I do observe that some things *have* changed. He's now much better known than simply as "the candidate who was against Iraq"; his support is much less squishy than it used to be (polls confirm this). More people are for *him* now, as opposed to just leaning his way. Also, the other candidates have made themselves increasingly unpopular with Dean's supporters over the past several months by attacking him, sometimes quite viciously. And their campaign staffs have gotten more and more hostile to Dean supporters as well; perhaps you saw the photo Atrios posted recently of a sign at Lieberman headquarters reading "HIPPIE DEANIES GO HOME".

I'm sure the vast majority of Dean's supporters will *vote* for whomever wins the nomination (unless it's Lieberman, in which case I'm afriad I would have to remove the word "vast"). I have much less faith that they will *work* for whomever wins the nomination, donate cash, walk precincts, make phone calls, drive voters to the polls, or any other the other efforts we're going to need. That kind of support has to be earned, and the other campaigns (Clark excepted) have not only not been earning it, they've been *alienating* it.

Speaking purely for myself, I will volunteer for whichever Democrat wins the nomination. But there are only one or two left I could feel enthusiastic about. Six months ago I would have been enthused about any of them. *That* is probably what Dean was talking about.

Posted by: Evan | 12/30/2003 at 12:49 PM

Evan is correct.

Dean was simply reminding the party about supporters like me.

I'll vote for the Dem nominee, period. But Dean's the only one I'll send money to, he's the only one I'll campaign for.

And he doesn't deserve to be criticized for acknowledging this true and important fact.

Posted by: chris f | 12/31/2003 at 08:27 AM

I'm on mailing lists for Dean, Clark, Kerry, and Edwards. I've given money to Clark and Dean.

Dean is the only candidate who seems to want something from me other than money, who offers a local organization (albeit self-organized) that I can plug into, etc.

Posted by: praktike | 12/31/2003 at 08:12 PM

When the other candidates refuse to condemn an ad associating Dean with Osama bin Laden, and repeatedly make charges that seem to forget that we are all trying to defeat Bush, it makes it harder and harder for me to give them my wholehearted support if one of them should be the nominee. Yes I'll vote for the democrat, but work for him, contribute $ (as I have for the first time ever to Dean)-no. It will be back to the cynicism I have felt pretty much since the murder of Bobby Kennedy.

Posted by: Laura | 12/31/2003 at 11:50 PM

Count me one of the Dean supporters who may not vote for the Democratic nominee. I've emailed several of the campaigns saying that if they win the nomination by putting out their own vision and proving to primary voters that they have what it takes to defeat the Bush juggernaut, they'll have my vote. But if they win by tearing down the only candidate who stood up to George Bush when it took some courage to do so -- and who has done more than any other single person to drive down Bush's approval ratings -- I'll either stay home or vote for the loathsome egomaniac Ralph Nader.

He is certainly no more loathsome than the Democrats who refuse to disassociate themselves from that awful Dean/Osama attack ad.

Sure, the country cannot afford four more years of George Bush. But I am not willing to endorse the final victory of the DLC wing over the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, either. Make no mistake, if a DLC candidate defeats Bush in 2004, it'll be in the driver's seat for a very long time.

Posted by: Seth | 01/01/2004 at 05:30 AM

The New Hampshire tracking poll might show that Dean is not entirely off the reservation. The relentless negative attacks have not moved any voters; they've only driven up the negatives of committed voters toward the other candidates -- i.e Kerry voters don't think much of Dean and Dean voters don't think much of Kerry. Now these voters will come around in the Fall and vote for the eventual nominee, but will they contribute money. Contributions are a significant step above just voting. The news this morning is that the FEC won't have enough money for February matching contributions. In the unlikely event Gep or Lieberman emerges by the end of the month -- where will they get money. What if they win the nomination? How will they compete with Bush's $200 million? Simply put, they have no strategy beyond New Hampshire.

Posted by: J. Hawk | 01/01/2004 at 12:07 PM