 |
 |
 May 21, 2006
THE POLITICAL GRAVEYARD....In the New York Times today, Mark Leibovich revives an old chestnut: Republicans respect their losers while Democrats throw theirs in the trash heap of history. For example:
Is this really true, though? Dole left politics after 1996 and has had no serious role in the Republican Party since then. (Elder statesman? Please.) Goldwater may be considered a conservative icon today, but for a decade after his 1964 defeat he was a pariah. George Bush Sr. can't even get his own son to take his calls, let alone anyone else in the party. Newt Gingrich has a little more clout with Republicans than Al Gore does with Democrats, but not much. And Tom DeLay? Fugeddaboutit. And Democrats? Adlai Stephenson became ambassador to the UN in JFK's administration. Hubert Humphrey lost to Nixon in 1968 but still made at least a respectable run for the presidency again in 1972. Jimmy Carter lost in 1980 and then began a career as the "best ex-president ever." Howard Dean got himself elected head of the DNC. Al Gore's star is rising even as we speak. I admit I'm playing devil's advocate here. It really does seem as though Republicans treat their losers better than Democrats. (Mondale and Dukakis are probably the star exhibits.) But in the postwar era, with the exception of Nixon, no one from either party has run for president, lost, and then eventually come back to win. I suspect there's less to this myth than meets the eye. —Kevin Drum 1:42 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (71)Comments
That explains why we are currently being governed by losers. Posted by: nut on May 21, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK(Adlai STEVENSON, not "Stephenson"!) I'll channel Bob Somerby here for a minute and note that strangely absent from the Times article is any mention of the media's "war against Gore" as one of the primary factors, if not the primary factor, in Gore's loss to Bush. That Democratic "insiders and operatives" adopt the very epithets promoted by the media (e.g., "unlikeable") instead of pointing out that it was the media who pushed these epithets (many supplied by the RNC) to sabotage Gore's campaign is the real scandal. Perhaps Republicans don't stigmatize their failed candidates because there's no such leftover residue of unsavory media criticism with which to stigmatize them. Of course Republicans treat their elder statesmen better. Republicans are dedicated to an ideology of freedom and tradition. Democrats are simply trying to win at the moment. It's to be expected that republicans will stand by their candidates, while democrats while abandon both their candidates and their 'principles'. Posted by: American Hawk on May 21, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINKExcept for Clinton, the Democrats haven't nominated anyone who knows how to run a national campaign since Johnson. Posted by: Boronx on May 21, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK"Elder statesman? Please." No kidding. Dole has always been a partisan attack dog. I actually was prepared to start thinking of him as elder statesman until he came out in support of the Swift Boat Liars, questioning Kerry's injuries... this in spite of his own admission that his WWII injuries may have ben caused by his own grenade bouncing back at him. I guess once your soul is sold, it's just plain gone. Posted by: pupils on May 21, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINKAl Gore's star is rising even as we speak. Many argue he didn't lose the 2000 election, although to be honest, if he had run a better campaign (and found a way to win his home state), this would all be moot. Posted by: Vincent on May 21, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINKHah! Rove was frog-marched out! On national TV! And you missed it because you were in the john! Oh, you should have been there... Posted by: leopold on May 21, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINKCarter best ex-president ? You have a great sense of humor, Kevin. Posted by: Mike K on May 21, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINKWas this written by Kerry's people or what? Posted by: reef the dog on May 21, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINKDole became a very specific sort of elder spokesman, not an elder statesman Posted by: David on May 21, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINKDukakis is certainly a figure of fun, but then he deserves a lot of scorn. Not only did he lose, but he lost because he wasn't a gutsy enough fighter. He let us down! I remember the Willie Horton crap, and his utter flubbing of the question "If [Mrs] Dukakis were raped..." Gore, too, was reviled for losing an election which was rightly perceived as his to lose. But he, too, fought back. He has said what we feel about the asshole Bush with clarity, force and conviction, and that will get my support every time. I don't know about Mondale...don't remember him at all, actually. But the point is, you have to be somewhat better than moribund, have some admirable qualities, and show leadership. That's all it takes, really, for a "failed" politician to become a respected elder statesman. Not so with the Repugs! Posted by: Amit Joshi on May 21, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK
KEVIN DRUM: It really does seem as though Republicans treat their losers better than Democrats. This is correct, but it's missing important factors. Republicans treat Democratic losers worse than Democrats treat Republican losers. The media treat Democratic losers worse than they treat Republican losers. To the extent that they are influenced by Republicans and the media (which is large), Democrats also treat their losers worse than they treat Republican losers.
If the roles were reversed and it were the Republicans who had done most of the losing over the last 40 years, I wonder if they would be so magnanimous. Dukakis and Kerry managed to lose elections that any competent candidate would have been able to win; hence the scorn. The Republicans don't have anyone recently who fits that description. I think the treatment of Mondale, a decent man in a no-win position in 1984, probably comes closest to agreeing with the thesis. Posted by: Charlie T. on May 21, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINKRepublicans generally have fewer plausible candidates, so they have to be more careful to maximize the potential of the ones they have. For the last contested Republican nomination, there were only two serious candidates: Bush and McCain. The rest either had limited appeal, like Lamar Alexander, or were extremist freaks like Steve Forbes and Gary Bauer (or like Pat Buchanan from 1996). Whereas for the last contested Dem nomination, you had Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Clark, and Dean, all of whom would have taken the race to the wire as Kerry did. Posted by: kth on May 21, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINKUm... Isn't this also a case of which side's former candidates are invited onto the chat shows and to provide commentary at conventions and such? The slant towards Republican guests runs so strong in the media that there is little room for current Dems, much less inviting some who used to hold office. Posted by: NotThatMo on May 21, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINKI'm also impressed how often the repubs revive their past criminals, such as oliver north and negroponte. Indeed, foxnews seems to exist solely as a medium to whitewash the actions of former war criminals and to pave the way for the next generation of the same. Posted by: Nads on May 21, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINKThis isn't Democrat or Republican... America treats losers badly. We are a nation of winners and "winners" and we don't have time for the people who can't cut it or come in 2nd place. I'm sure the girls who came in as 1st runner-up in Miss America are nice girls, but outside of Suzette Charles, who remembers them? The 4th placer at the Olympics? The other 4 nominees for Best Actor (pick your awards show, but isn't the Golden Globes really... a distant second to the Oscars)? I'm not saying we should be proud of it - and indeed in these mean-spirited times of "personal responsibility" where your failures are your own damn fault - but let's at least be honest about it. Cause it's not especially nice. Carter went for years in the wilderness (remember how the Democratic National Conventions in the eighties liked to pretend he wasn't there?); the Republicans pretended Gerald Ford never happened. That's what we do. It's who we are. All of which means to say - there's a reason Hillary Clinton will be running for President in 2008 and Al Gore won't be. And it's not because she's a woman. Here's to the Losers. Because once you lose... it's over. And that's the American way. Posted by: weboy on May 21, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINKThe main difference as I see it is that Republicans are willing to rehabilitate their politicians who fall into scandal but have something to offer the party (think: Eliot Abrams, Oliver North, etc.) while Democrats are more likely to view scandal-plagued politicos as truly plagued. You might say "But what of Clinton?" but first ask yourself how large a role old Bill actually has in the party. Sure, his books sell a lot of copies and he's as charming as ever, but is he really doing anything within the party itself? Posted by: Omeros Peanut on May 21, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINKI think what you've proven is that Mark Leibovich could think of nothing to write about. Posted by: KathyF on May 21, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINKweboy: Well, I think that -- true as it might be as a cultural generalization -- it still amounts to internalizing a meme. If the meme sucks -- reject it. Otherwise, it's the height of conservativism to respond to it with the essentialist argument that "this is who we are." Bollox. It's who we've been *told* we are. It's a social construction. Personally, I think Gore has the best chances of anyone we've seen as an '08 hopeful in the Democratic Party. He has a Dean-like strong and appreciative support of the base and the netroots, and he's capable of snakecharming the moderate DLC types into avoiding the usual cannibalistic/fratracidal ritual in the name of *cough* "electability." Gore *was* elected, thank you very much -- and this was prior to the scales falling from the world's eyes regarding Mr. "Compassionate Conservative." Fool me twice and all of that ... I'd also like to see Hillary ask for and receive the VP slot. That would instantly neutralize so much of the Madame DeFarge buzz, the crazy idea that Hil's intent on taking over the world and holding mass forced conversions to Methodism or something ... Gore could be the "alpha male" and Hil the supportive second bananna. Sure, it's a little sexist -- but think of how it checks the fog machine. And this way, a Gore/Clinton restoration ticket can run on the blisteringly simple, Reaganesque premise of whether we're all better off now or eight years ago ... Bob Posted by: rmck1 on May 21, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINKEven though this isnt the same thing. You are forgetting Ronald Reagan who lost the 1976 G.O.P. primary to Gerald Ford did come back to win the presidency during the next election 1980. Posted by: nybxniv on May 21, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINKOmeros Peanut: I would argue that William Jefferson Clinton, aka The Big Dawg, is still the Uber-elder-statesman of the Democratic Party. No Democrat (least of all his lovely wife) speaks as rivetingly as he, no former or current Democratic candidate to any office is so enshrouded in the patina of hard-fought victory. Any of us who remember Tom Harkin's '03 Steak Fry where hundreds of rain-soaked activists heard Bill admonish us not only to "fall in love" with a candidate, but to "fall in line" when it's time to fight the GOP can deny this. Oh how did my fellow Dean supporters (and myself) wanted to argue with this -- but we we we cold-cocked by the man's charisma, the deep affection he still enjoys, even among longtime activist dissenters on the left ... That he's been steeped in vigorous activism on behalf of the tsunami victims and getting people involved in community activism generally, that he's made a peace with GWHB similar to Carter's and Ford's post-office affection for each other -- is an added gravitas bonus. I highly doubt that his cellphone has been particularly idle in the dispensing political advice dep't. in nationwide races. Would anyone? The guy knew how to cut issues. And -- most importantly -- he knew how to work with the other party and *govern*. He's a giant among political pipsqueaks in today's demoralizing climate. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on May 21, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINKHow exactly was Mondale tossed aside? He was chairman of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs from 1986 to 1993, when he was made ambassador to Japan by Clinton. He was chosen by democrats in Minnesotan to step in when Wellstone was killed eleven days before the senate election in 2002. Dukakis is an exception, I think. He became radioactive because of his humiliating loss. As was pointed out, it had more to do with how and why he lost than the loss itself. From a Republican presidential candidate perspective, heard much from Phil Gramm recently? Perhaps, just perhaps, this has more to do with the political machinery that the GOP runs which finds work for everybody, acting as a conservative work-as-welfare socialism. Or it's just another example of the GOP-controlled media pushing out completely bogus talking points that get picked up and repeated. Oh how did my = Oh how my Sheesh, the caffeine's just not working today ... Posted by: rmck1 on May 21, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINKSomebody above called Bob Dole not an elder statesman, but rather a specific type of elder spokesman. Yeah ... for Viagra. A fate we're doubtless not going to see befall 42 if he can help it, I think :) Now a Viagra testimonial from *Monica* might be something to look forward to ... if only the mechanics of that sort of act didn't, uhh, flatly preclude it ... Bob Posted by: rmck1 on May 21, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINKPuppethead beat me to the comment on Mondale. The good republican example, thought, which no one has mentioned, is Howard Baker -- but then he may be the last "losing" Republican presidential hopeful that had much to contribute. Posted by: Gene O'Grady on May 21, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINKEven though this isnt the same thing. You are forgetting Ronald Reagan who lost the 1976 G.O.P. primary to Gerald Ford did come back to win the presidency during the next election 1980. As far as relations with his own party go, Al Gore lost the 1988 primary and came back to win the nomination in 2000. Posted by: cmdicely on May 21, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINKExcept for Clinton, the Democrats haven't nominated anyone who knows how to run a national campaign since Johnson. Which wouldn't be so bad, except that, barring Clinton, the Democrats haven't nominated anyone who hired anyone who knew how to run a national campaign since Johnson, either. Posted by: cmdicely on May 21, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINKGene O'Grady: Well, I think there are separate categories for primary losers. Alan Keyes? Dennis Kucinich? I think the most salient factor is still in how many more losing nominees the Dems have to kick around than the GOP. Ford and GHWB were, after all, sitting presidents -- so their status can't really be fairly compared to guys like McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and Gore ... Bob Posted by: rmck1 on May 21, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINKI'll channel Bob Somerby here for a minute and note that strangely absent from the Times article is any mention of the media's "war against Gore" as one of the primary factors, if not the primary factor, in Gore's loss to Bush. Well, maybe the Times didn't mention it because its not really all that accurate. Gore's failure to leverage Clinton's popularity -- his decision to run away from the most popular outgoing President in decades -- was the main factor in making it close enough to be disputed, and the Supreme Court the main factor in resolving the dispute in Bush's favor. The media's "war against Gore" -- certainly real in the sense that the coverage was skewed -- was a small factor, by comparison. Posted by: cmdicely on May 21, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely: Reagan in '76 and Gore in '88 were decidedly second (or perhaps even third) tier candidates in those races, though. Sheesh, when Ed Koch anointed Gore for some remarks on Israel, it was the instant Kiss o' Death, with Jesse Jackson's (also third-tier) candidacy causing all sorts of Tri-State Metro media action ... Reagan was more like fantasy football for a still-nascent hard right wing. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on May 21, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely: I'd have to second that; A deciding amount of Gore's mistakes were of his own making -- starting with his Lieberman pick. Then there's the moving his campaign to Tennessee in the beginning of the summer (it shoulda been there in '99), his correct but impolitic support for the assault rifle ban (that alone prolly cost him Tennessee), his last minute pork pandering to Robert Byrd for an endorsement (Byrd's stump speech on Gore's behalf was monumentally painful), his decision to "stalk" Bush in the second debate (Ouch) -- even that cinema Kiss with Tipper at the convention ... ugghh. Not to mention the slowed-down pseudo-aww-shucks demeanor that came off impossibly affected, his slow response to the "serial exaggerator" meme ... As a candidate, you have to expect stuff like that -- end of story. And yeah, Chris -- hiring incompetent campaign strategists are a helluva large chunk of the general Democratic problem. I still get nightmares remembering Joe Trippi ... *sigh* Bob Posted by: rmck1 on May 21, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINKIn my humble right-wing opinion, Clinton was a winner for the Democrats because he managed to avoid being shackled, neutered and put in the front window by your party's kooks. He had the appearance of running the show and moderate voters warm to that. Clinton certainly had to deals with the leftwingers but when he made concessions it was usually behind closed doors and in public he never let them forget who could actually raise money and win elections and if they didn't like what he was saying then they could leave. What were they going to do? Vote Republican ? Ronald Reagan, more or less, had the same philosophy. There was no faction in the GOP however motivated or valuable, that couldn't be shown the door and fast if their presence was going to cost the Reagan White House something meaningful. A lesson few politicians learn or have the nerve to carry out in practice. Posted by: mark safranski on May 21, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINKThe widespread acceptance of the canard that George, Sr. doesn't tell George, Jr. what to do do is astonishing. Junior doesn't have a clue; senior was 8 years as V.P., 4 years as Pres., and how many years as head of the CIA? How do we know thay don't talk? Bob Woodward? Tom Friedman? Senior made junior Governor of Texas and then President. Junior hired all of senior's old administration officials and then attacked his father's arch enemy. Posted by: dave on May 21, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINKrmk1: "cold-cocked" is correct usage, if a bit ironic. Posted by: data on May 21, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINKThe widespread acceptance of the canard that George, Sr. doesn't tell George, Jr. what to do do is astonishing. Junior doesn't have a clue; senior was 8 years as V.P., 4 years as Pres., and how many years as head of the CIA? How do we know thay don't talk? Bob Woodward? Tom Friedman? Sean Hannity? data: You're wrong; "cold-cocked" doesn't make any sense even as a neologism. "Cold-conked" is a prizefighting term; as in being conked out cold (i.e. unconscious). dave: I think you're also wrong, and there are legions of former Bush I insiders to attest to this -- most notably, Brent Scowcroft. GHWB also ran the CIA and represented us at the UN; it's impossible to believe that this internationalist who was disparaged by the hard right for his "New World Order" would have invaded Iraq without the kind of legitimate coalition we had in the Gulf War. It's also known that Father dissented to Son on the Iraq war in a phone call, in which Son hung up on him. Not remotely difficult to believe. Cf. also Powell, James Baker, Bernard Trainor, etc. etc. etc. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on May 21, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINKLast week Wesley Clark Jr. expressed rather pointed opinions on both Democrats & Rebublicans; Warning the following link contains strong langauge & unapoligetic political opinion, enjoy! http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2006/5/17/213321/962 Posted by: John Breene on May 21, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK
CMDICELY: Gore's failure to leverage Clinton's popularity -- his decision to run away from the most popular outgoing President in decades -- was the main factor in making it close enough to be disputed, and the Supreme Court the main factor in resolving the dispute in Bush's favor. The media's "war against Gore" -- certainly real in the sense that the coverage was skewed -- was a small factor, by comparison. Well, your conclusion is hard to measure. I don't believe a reasonable case can be made that persons who liked Clinton so much that they were bothered by Gore's retreat from him would therefore vote for Bush instead. Nah, that couldn't have happened often enough to matter. So the only real harm to Gore came as a result of not having Clinton actively campaign for him, thereby drawing in voters who otherwise would not have voted at all. Probably lost a few, yeah. But again, how do we measure that? Clinton's popularity was for the job he did, not for his character. So how much value was there in his becoming what amounted to a character witness for Gore? And how would the Republican counter to Clinton campaigning have influenced voters? We didn't see these dynamics eventuate, so we can't know. As for Leiberman, apart from his lack of charisma, few voters knew what an awful choice he was at the time. We do know that the media portrayed Gore negatively throughout the campaign. Their relentless characterization of him as a dishonest, out of touch, elitist dork could not have failed influencing the opinions of many--even those who voted for him. Probably even those who think they weren't influenced by the media. Surely, the Gore campaign made mistakes. I just don't think it can be shown that not using Clinton more was one of them; and insofar as it may have been, because of so many variables, it cannot be measured. Conversely, we know that the media influences opinion, else hundreds of millions would not be spent to send out messages from them. In spite of that, though--in spite of everything--Gore did win. Afterward, it was stolen from him by people using the same dishonesty as employed by the media beforehand--oh, and let's not forget: they had a hand in the aftermath as well, as their narrative misrepresented many aspects of the recounts and court cases. The media . . . they are not our friends.
Every four years we see the ritual character assassination of the Democratic nominee -- at first lied about by the right-wing machine, then the lies are at first subtly and then entirely incorporated into the maintstream media discourse. This has never been done to any Republican nominee of the last 40 years. It cannot be a coincidence that Democratic nominees are seen as having run incompetent campaigns. Dukakis, Mondale, Kerry -- these were all accomplished politicians with a history of being able to win tough elections (that's why they got to be the nominee). They lost because they were not able to survive the character assassination onslaught -- as, indeed, none of the Republican nominees could have either. To return to Kevin's topic, the Republican losers are treated better (by Republicans, Democrats, and the media) because their characters have never been assassinated. Posted by: dan on May 21, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINKjayarbee: Well, I don't have anywhere near the negative view of the media that you do. While I think it's a factor, I don't think it was anything like a conspiracy to take down Gore. Remember all the GOP flack of the major networks for calling a Gore victory prematurely? I mean, if there's some sort of systematic conspiracy, it can't run both ways. But I really don't want to debate this with you; you're extremely hardened in this view, and that's fine. What I *would* like to dispute with you is the pick of Lieberman -- because that signalled to everyone that Gore was distancing himself from Clinton by nominating the National Moral Scold who made a big speech in the well of the Senate naughty-naughtying Clinton. I understand your point, and I understand the kind of consultant thinking that would want to distance Gore from Clinton, to avoid having Gore tarred with the character brush. But what this *also* did is separate Gore from the accomplishments of the Clinton administration in a visceral way that's hard to counter with rhetoric. The symbolism of Gore up on stage with Clinton would have not merely signaled the character stuff -- it would have been a reminder to voters of the successes of that administration. As cmdicely points out, Clinton -- despite Lewinsky -- left office with an approval rating only rivaled by Reagan. Clearly many voters had made their determination on Lewinsky and decided to withhold scorn. I think the Gore people -- being somewhat socially conservative themselves (remember Tipper's PMRC?), simply miscalculated on how much the Lewinsky scandal cut into the Big Dawg's enduring appeal ... Bob Posted by: rmck1 on May 21, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINKInteresting thought experiment. Suppose the positions in the Florida recount had been reversed, and Gore had eked out a razor-thin, heavily disputed win. Does anyone have any doubt that W would have spent the next four years nursing grievances in preparation for another run? As for Gore's campaign, I think you can make a good argument that he was a bad candidate (robotic, overhandled, performed poorly in the debates), and I think you can also argue that his campaign managers did a bad job from a strategic point of view ("The People vs. the Powerful" now seems rather prescient, but it was presented very clumsily at the time). But on a *tactical* level, I think Gore's people actually ended up doing a surprisingly good job. They pulled off a remarkable comeback in the closing days, and did nearly everything they needed to do in the key battleground states, including Florida. If not for the butterfly ballot, we might now be venerating Shrum and Brazile the way Republicans venerate Rove. Posted by: Zorro for the Common Good on May 21, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINKZorro: I'd agree with you that the virtues of the Gore campaign were more tactical than strategic, but I'd put that responsibility more with local leaders and activists (and the abiding memories of the Clinton era) than with much that came out of the Gore campaign. Bob Shrum is the walking disaster area that tried to turn John Forbes Kerry into that other JFK, by manufacturing "heroism" out of a signally unheroic war. There was a great deal of misreading the mood of social conservatism in both campaigns, and without Shrum, I think you would have heard "The People vs The Powerful" at a much stronger pitch, much earlier in the campaign. As it was, it was more a distress signal that Shrum's initial cautious themes ("lockbox," anyone?) just weren't cutting ice ... Same thing happened with Dukakis in the last two weeks of the campaign, when he cut loose the stolid technocrat theme ("this election is not about ideology; it's about competence") and ran as a full-throated populist. He gained points up until the election. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on May 21, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINKRe Gore: Let's not forget the execrable effect of the pretentious and selfish Nader voters, who would have gotten Gore elected if they'd just decided to care about what was really doable. Nader's chic and hollow pretensions about how the parties were "alike" (not that anyone is perfect) now look like the debunked bad call of the century. As for you, Mr. Leopold - you've got some explaining to do. I'd like to see you fisked by Colbert or whatever. Uh, does anyone know what is up with all that? (I did end up in a fetal position, but more from overindulgence than disappointment. And to clear some earlier confusion, the girlfriend "staying home" in context meant not around me. Well, I want to have plenty of mojo for next week, or whenever it is that Rova Pipiens will take his waltz. Posted by: Neil' on May 21, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINKWait, maybe that was "Bufoon americanus" - oh, that's his *boss*... Posted by: Neil' on May 21, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK
RMCK1: Well, I don't have anywhere near the negative view of the media that you do.I understand. But whether or not it applies to you, you have to agree, don't you, that not having a view of the media which is as negative as mine, could be the result of having been influenced by them. If that were the case, and they had influenced you to think negatively of Gore, but you think you're basing your opinion on him stems from his actions, couldn't it instead be because of theirs? After all, how did you come to know about Gore's "mistakes" if not via the media? RMCK1: Remember all the GOP flack of the major networks for calling a Gore victory prematurely? I mean, if there's some sort of systematic conspiracy, it can't run both ways.Except for Fox, the other networks weren't in on the conspiracy. That has no bearing on the bias in their campaign coverage. That bias, though, did have a bearing on their willingness to reverse their call, as well as their subsequent premature call for Bush. That's not having it both ways--you're talking conspiracy, I'm talking bias. And it was evident throughout the media, not just television networks. RMCK1: But I really don't want to debate this with you; you're extremely hardened in this view, and that's fine.Well, fine, yeah... except that with characterization you are making the implication your view is one of reason, while mine is devoid of it and close-minded--even as you close your mind to further debate. RMCK1: I understand your point, and I understand the kind of consultant thinking that would want to distance Gore from Clinton, to avoid having Gore tarred with the character brush.Here you seem to lump my thinking with consultants. My point about Leiberman is that he had little impact, as is the case for V.P. nominees. I can conceive of no great number of voters sitting in their homes and thinking that they loved Clinton so much they would vote for Bush because Leiberman had been mean to Clinton. I can conceive of no great number of them being more than cursorily aware of it, in fact. RMCK1: The symbolism of Gore up on stage with Clinton would have not merely signaled the character stuff -- it would have been a reminder to voters of the successes of that administration.The fact of Clinton's great numbers at this point means that voters did not need reminders of the administration's successes. And let's not forget, inasmuch as you've likely accepted the media-driven theme of Clinton's charisma vs Gore's lack of it, any such contrast would never be so apparent as when they were "up on stage" together. RMCK1: I think the Gore people -- being somewhat socially conservative themselves (remember Tipper's PMRC?), simply miscalculated on how much the Lewinsky scandal cut into the Big Dawg's enduring appeal ...Well, you can think that, but you can't demonstrate it. Whereas, the influence of the media has been documented in numerous studies. But if any of what you say is true, why is it not also true that, as you point out regarding Al & Tipper's longstanding association with morality concerns, the very fact that Gore did not strongly embrace Clinton could have won him votes from some voters who care strongly about such issues? The media is not representative of Democratic voters. It is the voice for power and money. The lowliest reporters have incomes greater than about half of Americans. They are ambitious careerists, striving to please those who pay them. And those who are most influential are themselves power players, virtual kings in a land of peasants. That kind of influence coming at voters in a non-stop stream far outweighs some momentary coverage of Joe Leiberman acting all high and mighty about Big Dog.
I don't believe a reasonable case can be made that persons who liked Clinton so much that they were bothered by Gore's retreat from him would therefore vote for Bush instead. Neither do I, and that's not my argument. My point is that Gore had a tool and failed to use, not that people reacted directly and consciously to his strategic choice and withdrew from him. Further, its important to note that people who would otherwise have been inclined to support Gore don't need to vote for Bush to be a loss for Gore. That is, obviously, the worse case, but they can also vote for a third-party or not vote at all, either result being a loss of a vote (rather than a net loss of two, if they vote for Bush) for Gore. So the only real harm to Gore came as a result of not having Clinton actively campaign for him, thereby drawing in voters who otherwise would not have voted at all. I disagree. Gore did not make heavy use of the accomplishments of the Clinton/Gore administration -- in which he had been frequently noted to be more influential and empowered than is usual for the Vice President. This was a major source of substantive accomplishments that he made poor use of, for apparent fear that he would be tarred with the "scandals" of the Clinton Administration (which hardly hurt opinion of Clinton, particularly on the job approval side, so its hard to see how Gore's leveraging of the substantive accomplishments would have hurt him). As for Leiberman, apart from his lack of charisma, few voters knew what an awful choice he was at the time. "Apart from his lack of charisma"? Yeah, if you don't count the fact that he did nothing to advance the campaign's chances of providing a positive distinguishing reason to vote for Gore/Lieberman, and occasionally undermined it by trying to outmoralize the right on the campaign trail, I'd say Lieberman didn't do much to harm the campaign. Well, other than serving as a sign of the Gore campaign's rejection of Clinton and endorsement of the idea that a change was needed -- but a change that the Gore campaign only symbolically validated and thus increased the public demand for, without ever substantively clearly offering it. Now, the Bush campaign, which was offering it as a central part of their message, stood to gain from that. And for people on the left who rejected the symbolic message for Gore, well, it meshed well with the Naderite message that Gore and Bush were cut from the same cloth, and served as a reason to vote Nader or not vote at all, and certainly was demobilizing.
Their relentless characterization of him as a dishonest, out of touch, elitist dork could not have failed influencing the opinions of many--even those who voted for him. Well, part of the reason that worked so well is that Gore was, as a campaigner, an out-of-touch elitist dork. Even if not dishonest. In spite of that, though--in spite of everything--Gore did win. No, he didn't. When the electoral votes were counted by the Congress, Bush had an absolute majority. Gore lost.
Clearly many voters had made their determination on Lewinsky and decided to withhold scorn. I think the Gore people -- being somewhat socially conservative themselves (remember Tipper's PMRC?), simply miscalculated on how much the Lewinsky scandal cut into the Big Dawg's enduring appeal ... I think this is part of the problem, though the impression I get is that Gore's personal anger at having himself been lied to played a very large role. Posted by: cmdicely on May 21, 2006 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK
ZORRO FOR THE COMMON GOOD: I think you can make a good argument that he was a bad candidate (robotic, overhandled, performed poorly in the debates) If it's repeated often enough a good argument can be made for almost anything, but that doesn't make it factual. Gore creamed Bush in each of the debates according to all polls conducted thereafter and according to the general consensus of the press in the immediate aftermath. It wasn't until days later, with constant replaying of his "stalking" and "sighing", together with Republican talking points picked up by nearly all in the media, and including even so-called liberal pundits who were making careers of mocking Gore... it wasn't until these things had transpired that there became any question at all about who had won the debates. In many instances (most notably, Chris Matthews), media people who had initially called it a strong win for Gore simply reversed themselves and started referring to it as a clear win for Bush, without ever making mention of the fact they had previously believed Gore won. Your remark is just another example of the insidious influence of the media.
I'm really not sure you can generalize from the limited data set. Mondale and Dukakis had no chance of making a comeback because they were decisively rejected by the electorate (as were Dole and Bush Sr, and certainly no one ever talked about them running again). As for Kerry, if his '08 campaign tanks, I think it will have far more to do with the fact that many Dems never really liked him all that much to begin with. That's certainly how I feel. Posted by: Zorro for the Common Good on May 21, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK
CMDICELY: When the electoral votes were counted by the Congress, Bush had an absolute majority. Gore lost. If you and I have a foot race and you beat me, but my father, who happens to be the timing official, declares that I have won it, would you be telling people five years later that I won and you lost? Wouldn't you say, "I won that race. They stole it from me," for the rest of your days? Not that you could actually beat me, mind you..:)
Re voting: It may be debatable who really had the edge with chads, considering the variables, but There are more Democrats, so more options, more diversity. Republicans are a smaller part of the population, fewer of them and little diversification of thought. So, why change? Republicans are a smaller part of the population - always have been. The problem is Dems don't vote.... Posted by: Stephen Kriz on May 21, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINKOK, so what is your explanation for Al Sharpton getting treated like royalty in the Demo party? Jesse Jackson? These 2 clowns are colossal losers, but you'd never know it by the way they get placed at the head table at all the Demo events. Posted by: Down goes Frazier on May 21, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely: Trenchant takedown of jayarbee's post. I agree with every point. > "Clearly many voters had made their determination on Lewinsky > I think this is part of the problem, though the Agreed; Gore doubtless felt personally betrayed and allowed this to Had Bob Dole been even remotely less hapless, doubtless I would have jayarbee: > RMCK1: The symbolism of Gore up on stage with Clinton would have > The fact of Clinton's great numbers at this point means that Not at all. The essence of a campaign is to frame the issues -- to And I also agree with Chris that this cut into the contrast between > And let's not forget, inasmuch as you've That's cute, JRB. Lemme ask you something -- do you bother to read My problem with your worldview, JRB, is that it denies human > of Clinton's charisma vs Gore's lack of it, any such contrast would This isn't remotely significant; Gore and Clinton shared many a stage Bob Posted by: rmck1 on May 21, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINKWho's "throwing out" Al Gore? Not me, that's for sure. I disagree with the whole premiss. Perhaps the party insiders act this way, but not the voters. Losers like Dukakis and Kerry were foisted on us by party insiders, so it's not surprising that Dem voters aren't loyal to them. Republicans respect power above all, and few Republican losers were without power inside the party. Nixon had his hooks, his 60 loss did'nt render him powerless at all. And Hillary Clinton is NOT Bill Clinton. And Hillary's nomination is NOT a sure thing. And Al Gore is NOT like Nixon, no matter what the damn New York Times insinuates. Posted by: Joey Giraud on May 21, 2006 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINKYou could argue that the biggest loser in the 2004 Demo primaries was Howard Dean. He raised a ton of money and got national attention, but only won one state. He had one of the biggest flameouts in modern political history. The Dems reward this loser by making him head of the DNC. Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on May 21, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINKAl Gore's star is rising even as we speak. I think you are exaggerating. Posted by: republicrat on May 21, 2006 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINKFrequency: Ask state Democratic Party chairs around the country -- expecially in red states that barely had a DNC presence before this last cycle -- how much of a "loser" they think Howard Dean is :) Hehehehehe .... But of course, seeing that you have zilcho insight into DNC internal politics, I doubt very much this would hold much meaning for you ... Joey Giraud: I don't think the that article's point was to "give up" on Gore; quite the reverse. The Nixon comparison is positive -- an example of how a phoenix can rise from the ashes of national defeat. (Not that anything *else* about Milhous is even remotely admirable, of course.) The press is sounding a note of encouragement that Gore's days might not yet be up -- if the Democrats can transcend their recent pattern of treating their losers so shabbily. As I say, I'm a Gore booster. Despite my intense criticism of his campaign, I believe that he's learned tactically -- and most importantly, has found his own voice on some of the most critical issues of the day. He's my ideal candidate. He's beloved by the activists -- but can also pass the centrist smell test. We're not going to find any other potential candidate with those two diametrically opposed attributes. I'm in for a Draft Gore movement. Anyone else? Bob Posted by: rmck1 on May 21, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINKKevin, you forgot George McGovern, which supports Leibovich’s thesis. McGovern lost by a hefty percentage, so he has been classified “loser” and for 30 years has been a non-person in the Democratic party. That is truly a tragedy. He is a good and honest man who ran against a crook. He was defeated by Nixon/Rove style attack politics that played on American’s fears of Communism. The big themes of his campaign have been proven right—the Viet Nam war, the military-industrial complex, human rights—but his own party, which should be singing hosannas to an unappreciated prophet, pretends he never existed. Posted by: James of DC on May 22, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINKIf the Florida Democratic party -- still run in 2000 to a large extent by rural white moderates and conservatives -- had done even a slightly better job in getting out the black vote, Gore would have won the state without dispute, and thus the election. I'm not arguing that the Republicans may have stolen Florida, but if the Democratic organization had been on its toes, the GOP would never have had the chance. As for Kerry, if his '08 campaign tanks, I think it will have far more to do with the fact that many Dems never really liked him all that much to begin with. That's certainly how I feel. Posted by: Zorro for the Common Good on May 21, 2006 at 8:43 PM I concur. It was the Washington party bosses who liked Kerry, just as they will try to shove Hillary Clinton down our throats less than two years from now. Posted by: Vincent on May 22, 2006 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINKWhile the media was being bought out by righties, we slept. All the spin since is dismissive of Dems, while suggesting crooks like Reagan were heroic. Yeah.... right. Mondale was one of the champs in the Civil Rights era. But he made a schoolboy mistake by promising a tax increase. McGovern did the same thing with the Eagleton deal. Both were shunned as future candidates for that, but Mondale, as some have noted, certainly became a statesman. Ultimately, though, such a discussion is meaningless. Is it somehow admirable that the GOP treats crooks like Nixon and Reagan with reverence? Discussions like these arise when we get stalemated on the serious issues of the day. Posted by: Kevin Hayden on May 22, 2006 at 3:38 AM | PERMALINK'I'm in for a Draft Gore movement. Anyone else'
It should have been Gore-Clinton in 1992 and '96. The world would be a lot different place. Not to mention how different the world would look now if Dubya hadn't been allowed to steal Florida's electoral votes in 2000! Posted by: Stephen Kriz on May 22, 2006 at 6:40 AM | PERMALINK
RMCK1: Trenchant takedown of jayarbee's post. I agree with every point.Yeah, because it's always a good idea to kiss your tag team partner before joining the smackdown. Clearly, many things Clinton did in his administration were to greater or lesser degrees morally repulsive (I certainly didn't vote for him in '96 ... ) . . . Had Bob Dole been even remotely less hapless, doubtless I would have swallowed my disdain for the Welfare Reform Act and voted for Clinton.Trying to follow your logic here hurts my head. Clinton was too repulsive in '96 to earn your vote, but you would have voted for him anyway if only Dole hadn't been so hapless? Do you base your vote on pity? Maybe hapless became synonymous with capable when I wasn't paying attention? That's cute, JRB. Lemme ask you something -- do you bother to read my posts?If I'm responding to a post of yours, I read each word in it... I compose progrock -- ever heard me go off on the rock press? I also minored in sociology; I've read Chomsky and The Mind Managers and tons of other literature on the subject....even those which are irrelevant. I need no smug lectures/assumptions about being "bought in" to media bias, thank you very much.You need something, my hapless friend. You might start with practicing what you preach, such as actually reading my comments. My turn to ask you something: Do "likely accepted" and "bought in" have identical meanings? Are they equally pejorative? If not, why did you see fit to ascribe words to me which I had not used? Did you suppose I was not familiar with the words "bought" and "in" and was thus unable to use them if I chose to? And the quibble over these words comes after the fact of my already having couched my remarks concerning the possible influence of the media on you personally in very many hypothetical terms and phrases, such as: "whether or not it applies to you"; "could" (emphasized in the original); "If that were the case"; "couldn't it" (Bold is new). All of these you ignored. You even ignored what you must have considered to be the most grievously offensive of all (likely accepted) in favor of your two-word false quote (bought in). Clinton managed to win broad press support despite a sex scandal that would have downed any number of lesser politicians.This is audaciously revisionist. Clinton's press support was about as broad as your quoting ability. Clinton managed to win broad public support, owing to citizens' ability to read, not newspapers, but their paychecks--and to the fact that about half of them had received blowjobs without any detrimental affect on the work they performed. My problem with your worldview, JRB, is that it denies human agency. I disagree with you, therefore I must be "influenced" by media in a way in which I'm unaware. It's an insulting tautological argument, unfalsifiable, and thus worthy of a flat-out ideologue.I've got the flat-out idea that you log too many hours spitting out words and too few studying their meanings. I didn't say that you "must be" anything. I asked you to consider that the media may have influenced your opinion. Your response was to claim insult and authority, demanding that I accept your immunity from media influence. No matter how clumsily worded my remarks may have been, they advance a concept which, while possibly difficult to express, is not difficult to discern: If we agree that the media influences opinion; and if we agree that the media fairly uniformly concluded that Gore was his own undoing rather than theirs--indeed, to the virtual exclusion of any mention of them even playing a part--then can we not also agree that at least some significant portion of those persons who share the media's view came by it as a result of repeated exposure to it from the media? Further, can we not also accept that a sizeable number of those persons would be unaware that their opinions were deliberately shaped by the media? Finally, wouldn't such persons generally maintain that they came to their opinions on their own, weighing all the facts? When it can be shown that those promoting an opinion have selfish motivation for deliberately concealing a conflicting opinion, the pervasiveness of the promoter's opinion is no indication of its factuality. Indeed, logic points the other way. After making your points again and again to which I had already partially assented, you hypocritically accuse me of tautology and intolerance, while lacing your comments with sarcasm and insults. In the spirit of joining in the good fun, I have added to your discourtesies herein because I'm annoyed by imperious harangues from egotistical twits. But that's just me.
Should we assume that Mondale's appointment to be Ambassador to Japan was the equivalent of exile to Siberia? Posted by: focus on May 22, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINKActually, Reagan for president and lost twice before winning. His bid at the GOP convention in 1968 seemed ridiculous and self-indulgent and went nowhere, but he came within a whisker of beating Gerald Ford in 1976. George Bush Sr. ran in 1980 and lost to Reagan. Both were elected President. Many have lost early bids only to gain the noination at last. Albert Gore ran in 1988 and lost to Dukakis before winning nomination in 2000. Dole ran in 1988 and lost to Bush, only to be nominated in 1996. Hubert Humphrey lost to Kennedy in 1960 and won the nomination in 1968. Posted by: Edward Furey on May 22, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINKjayarbee: > RMCK1: Trenchant takedown of jayarbee's > Yeah, because it's always a good idea to kiss your Aww, jeez ... wait -- it must be media influence :) JAYARBEE: The media has been proven in study after stud-- ... FRED BARNES: Oh, shut up, Jayarbee. Nobody believes that liberal ANNOUNCER: We'll be right back, and our panel will examime > Trying to follow your logic here hurts my head. Well, that's because politics is complex and morally ambiguous, > Clinton was too repulsive in '96 to earn your vote, Clinton did many things that were offensive to many people. Some The Welfare Reform Act of '96 wasn't morally repulsive; it was That's why they call it a political *calculus*, JRB ... > but you would have voted for him anyway That's right; Dole didn't have a prayer of winning, so > Do you base your vote on pity? Maybe hapless became My point (obvious though it is) is that protest votes > You need something, my hapless friend. You might start with Well, honestly my response was overreactive and didn't quite fit Gore ran a hapless campaign. Had he a folksy quip or two handy, Yes, there were a handful of Beltway journos who had it in for > "Clinton managed to win broad press support despite a sex > This is audaciously revisionist. Clinton's press support was I was referring to '92 -- you know, when Pat Robertson was hawking > I've got the flat-out idea that you log too many hours But that is, nonetheless, the iron logic of a tautology. I neither > I asked you to consider that the media Which is truly patronizing if you think about it ... You think I ... > Your response was to claim insult and authority, demanding Any honest and perceptive observer is immune from "media influence" > No matter how clumsily worded my remarks may have "The media" is not a monolithic bloc. > and if we agree that the media fairly uniformly concluded Bad logic. Gore *was* his own undoing, because it's very > indeed, to the virtual exclusion of any Nobody in the press is going to say "yeah, I tried so goddamned > then can we not also agree that at least some significant Sure. Media influence is pervasive, and many people don't spend If there was a systemic bias against Gore (aside from a few > Further, can we not also accept that a sizeable number This is what I mean by denying human agency. How can But it truth it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a I've made an argument for why I believe the way I do. > When it can be shown that those promoting an opinion have No, logic has nothing to do with it. Lacking the > After making your points again and again to which I had already Tautology has a specific definition (essentially, it's a circular > and intolerance, while lacing your comments with sarcasm and Well to be fair, I *did* refrain from crass ad-hom, Bob Posted by: rmck1 on May 22, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK | |
