I read a Thomas Friedman column this week that really required a smackdown. So I supplied one at New York:
How much political capital should Democrats invest in a probably doomed effort to save the political career of Liz Cheney? Earlier this week, Never Trump Republican Linda Chavez penned a column urging Wyoming Democrats to take a dive this November in order to give the incumbent a chance to survive as an independent, assuming (as it safe) that Cheney will be purged in her own party’s primary. And now, in an apparent coincidence, in comes New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman suggesting a far more radical step by Democrats to align themselves with the small slice of Republicans who follow Cheney’s example in repudiating Donald Trump. He wrote:
“Is that what America needs in 2024 — a ticket of Joe Biden and Liz Cheney? Or Joe Biden and Lisa Murkowski, or Kamala Harris and Mitt Romney, or Stacey Abrams and Liz Cheney, or Amy Klobuchar and Liz Cheney? Or any other such combination.”
Friedman phrases this as a question, but clearly he thinks it’s a good idea given the “existential moment” America would face if Trump is allowed to regain the presidency in 2024. It’s a bit of a loaded question, too, since it postulates that nothing short of a previously unimaginable “sacrifice” by Democrats and Never Trump Republicans alike can stop Trump — and that it would, in fact, succeed in stopping Trump.
I certainly agree that Democrats dumping Kamala Harris to give their vice-presidential nomination to a conservative Republican who opposes legalized abortion and is a militarist by conviction and heredity would be a “sacrifice,” to put it very mildly. It would also be very, very weird. Friedman cites the recent establishment of a mind-bending coalition government in Israel to thwart Bibi Netanyahu as a development comparable to what he is suggesting. But as he acknowledges, Israel has a parliamentary system in which multiparty coalitions are the rule rather than the exception. A presidential system in which parties invariably run separate tickets for the top job is another thing altogether.
The U.S. has had exactly one example of multiparty fusionism in a presidential election. In 1864, in the midst of the Civil War, Republicans nominated Democrat Andrew Johnson of Tennessee — then serving as U.S. military governor of Tennessee — to run with Lincoln on a “Union” ticket. The experiment did not turn out well, beginning with Johnson’s drunken inaugural address in 1865 and continuing with the racist solidarity he exhibited toward ex-Confederates after Lincoln’s assassination, culminating in his impeachment and near removal from office. There are important reasons politicians sort themselves out into major parties, which should be apparent in an era of polarization over issues other than the scofflaw behavior of Donald Trump.
Is the threat of Trump’s return to the White House the equivalent of the U.S. Civil War? Not in itself, I would contend, though that horrific development could lead eventually to grave conditions comparable if not equal to a civil war. The premise that a Biden-Cheney fusion ticket would uniquely doom Trump to failure is even more dubious. There has never been much evidence of a mass following for Never Trump Republicans, and such as it is, it is mostly composed of people who would (and did in 2020) gladly vote for Biden and Harris. The baleful effect that replacing Harris with Cheney on the ticket would have on Democratic turnout could easily offset or exceed the alleged benefits of bipartisan and trans-ideological fusion.
So Democrats should say thanks, but no thanks, to Friedman for the idea of submitting their party to some sort of unwieldy and unnatural coalition of national salvation, so long as there is the slightest possibility of beating Trump the old-fashioned way. Liz Cheney deserves great respect for the courage she has shown in defying Trump at the expense of her own career, and if Biden is reelected with her support, perhaps she deserves an ambassadorship, a minor Cabinet post, or a major sub-Cabinet position. But she has no business being at the top of the line of succession to a Democratic president.
Kerry’s op-ed on Iraq in today’s Washington Post is at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6753-2004Apr12.html
I agree that Kerry should lay low. All these bad things that are happening to Bush are Bush’s own fault, and there is no way the worst of it can get better for him. However bad Iraq looks now, it will get worse. Furthermore, Bush is so irresponsible that, whenever new facts are discovered about his conduct, they will always be bad.
What you do not want is for John Kerry’s name, voice, or face to be associated with the bad Bush stuff. Let those things stick to Bush.
Sometimes I don’t understand how people can come up with certain ads. For instance, there is this attack ad of Bush’s that has a bunch of goofy talk about John Kerry and taxes or something. What sticks with me about that ad is how upbeat it sounds. I don’t care what they are saying, I just associate “John Kerry” and the upbeat tone. Wouldn’t it be nice if Bush would run upbeat “John Kerry” ads right up to Election Day!
We really do not want to see Kerry juxtapose himself with mayhem in Iraq or an irresponsible and frankly criminal White House.
I certainly agree with Kerry laying back right now, talking economics and jobs and raising money. The “Free Media” is working to discredit Bush on his strengths — War President and Anti-Terrorist — and what Kerry needs to do is be prepared to sell his case to those who are open to retiring Bush after they have been convinced by non-partisian information that a new President is in order. It’s a two step thing — first, strong questioning of Bush’s effectiveness, and then movement toward the alternative. Kerry needs to save his energy and assets for the right time to make the sale and close the deal with Independent voters.
The methodology behind the Rasmussen polls is, I gather, pretty unconventional, since, apparently, it involves robo-calling. Other things being equal, I’d give more weight to the conventional (and more expensive) polls.
On the other hand, I’m not sure why the Rasmussen polls should not be measuring genuine movements within whatever subset of the American population their methodology actually selects. On still another hand, I’ve certainly seen a number of cases in which Rasmussen goes one way, and conventional polls another, even on the same days.
RE: “And the latest Newsweek poll, conducted April 8-9, has Kerry ahead by 7 (50-43).”
You should qualify your statement, that these particular numbers are the projected result in a head-to-head matchup, and in the absence of a Ralph Nader candidacy.
When Nader’s candidacy is factored into the equation, Kerry leads the Newsweek poll, 46% to 42%.
Okay, so let me get this straight: Iraq is becoming a quagmire of immense military, political, economic proportions, AND in terms of lives lost. The actions of Mr. bush prior to 9/11 define the word mis-management.
How can he be moving UP in the polls?
I say that the dems need to draft Richard Clarke as their nominee.
Ruy Teixeira really needs to explain why he is so positive with Newsweek,CBS, and other polls and does not even mention Rasmuusen. Rasmuusen seems the most legit because it has a large sample (1600) and is of likely voters as opposed to registered voters or adults.
Help me understand Ruy!!
Yes, but . . . if the strategy of letting Bush self-destruct all by himself is working so well, then why are the two men essentially even in the polls? I know that it’s still early, but if this is how Bush looks during a BAD stretch, what is he going to look like after his campaign succeeds in defining Kerry as a waffling, tax-supporting, Jane Fonda-loving Massachusetts liberal? Because that’s what they doing with those ads. And I’m just not seeing a very urgent response by the Kerry people to (1) counter those images, and (2) keep the pressure on Bush. Complacency with this incredibly ruthless crowd is a mistake.
My suggestion being, I’d like you to consider reading the text for a “state of the union” address that I believe is imperative for this country of ours. To get to it, all you need do is click on the below enclosed U.R.L
http://www.bcvoice.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=205
By the way, the proprietors of the http://www.BCVoice.com website have provided a couple ways for you to leave your comments.
Plus, the media isn’t focusing that much on Kerry right now anyway, so he should wait until Sept. for some really hard hitting speeches.
I agree with FranklyO. I think Kerry needs to let events take Bush down while he promotes his positive alternative. A couple weeks before the election when a critical mass of voters have become critical or doubtful will be the time to have some hard hitting ads. And them the ads should be Buish’s words . For example an ad built around him laughing about the nonexistant WMDs or an ad quoting from Woodward’s book.
Kerry is doing the right thing for the right time, right now. The Bush admin is in a self detruct – death spiral mode and Mr. Kerry is taking full advantage by staying out of the way. Doesn’t cost him a penny, and every time they open their mouths to gasp for air, they get weaker and weaker.
Hey if the oponent is knocking himself out why waste your energy (and limited funds) trying to achieve what he is going to acheive on his own.
Kerry has been too cautious in the past two weeks. Bush is vulnerable right now, and Kerry needs to be attacking at the same time he’s unveiling his major policies. Let’s not forgot that Bush/Cheney is running lot and lots of negative ads in key states, taking full advantage of their current, substantial advantage in funds raised. Thus, while Bush is other respects seems to be reeling from the situation in Iraq, the 9/11 hearings, and the still-weak economy, he and his people are hammering Kerry on TV. And history shows that negative ads are very effective, particularly when the opposing candidates is not yet well-known among the general electorate (remember the Alamo and Mike Dukakis).
Kerry is back to trailing in Rasmussen. Condi has made America go back to loving and fearing Bush, as has the continued turmoil in Iraq. Bush is still the favorite, by a wide margin.
So Debra,
This means then that the next ARG and Newsweek polls are likely to show Bush ahead? More and more I’m getting the feeling that Texeira’s analysis has a lot of pro-Dem spin, rather than objective analysis that would help Dems make mid-course corrections.
Dan O.: “Does the DNC and Kerry campaign have a major ORGANIZED EFFORT to register voters and to get out the vote?”
I’m sure there’s an effort. It’s the “organized” bit that, at least for the moment, I have my doubts.
These results track the Rasmussen Daily polls for the dates they were condutced. April 8-9 for Newsweek Kerry was ahead: April 6-9 for ARG Kerry had the largest lead over Bush on April 7th.
The results mesh.
Independents will probably wait until the debates to decide. Democrats and Republicans have already made up their minds. If you look at the data, Independents are more critical of Bush than that of the national average, especially w/ Iraq related things. Kerry should do well w/ Independents, and we should see that in the home stretch. A Kerry-Edwards ticket would ice it, considering how well Edwards did w/ Independents and Republicans in the primaries (ex. Wisconsin). Edwards could also help out in West Virginia.
As for the electoral college, if you have a lead in the popular vote by about 5%, it will be virtually impossible to lose the electoral college. The popular vote and the electoral college were both virtual ties in 2000. In fact, looking at the 1948, 1960, and 1976 elections, the winner of the popular vote won by a humble margin, while he won the electoral college by quite a bit.
I’m not yet convinced of a Kerry lead. There’s the Rasmussen poll, and his numbers among independents in the ARG poll are statistically even with Bush’s. His lead comes from having (at least apparently for now) solid backing among Democrats, whereas Bush’s numbers have softened a bit among Repugs. Bush will, in the end, carry more than 90% of Republicans who turn out, and if Kerry is going to have a chance he needs at least a five point margin among Independents. So far, that ain’t happening.
I agree with the other posters. Until Bush is defeated and is safely back in Crawford, TX, we cannot rest on our laurels. We need to be ahead by 20-plus percentage points or until the electoral college votes him out in December of 2004. We cannot relax until a new president is sworn in!
Individual State polls can better indicate any important trends.
However, actual votes that are COUNTED in each State will determine the election.
Does the DNC and Kerry campaign have a major ORGANIZED EFFORT to register voters and to get out the vote?
Remember you can alway vote using absentee ballot, but you need to request a absentee ballot early!
You will also note that these polls are of either registered voter or just “adults”. That makes them not much less useful than a poll of “likely voters” or one that performs an analysis electorally. I know it is more expensive but I would much rather see polls generally show electoral spreads, not popularity spreads. We all know too well from 2000 that the popular vote means little if the electoral battle is lost.
But how does this translate into electoral votes? If all the lead is in New York or California or Massachusetts, it does little good.
I think Kerry is ahead also but Rasmuusen Reports, which had Kerry ahead earlier in the week on their daily tracking poll now has Bush ahead by 3 because they say Ms. Condoleeza’s testimony went over well with the American Public. Also, a recent poll on Florida by Mason-Dixon has Bush ahead there by 51-43. Help me I’m confused!