Prospects of Governing
EJ Dionne at his absolute best, here talking with moderate GOP types about how a Kerry administration would have to effectively govern should he win. Its a question that warrants a great deal of attention since its a somewhat foregone conclusion that taking back the House is next to impossible for now (save for a 1994 style tsunami for our side).
Naturally, part of my own attraction to having a Kerry-McCain ticket would be that it not only symbolizes that a Kerry administration would be one that takes into account on all issues those concerns from the center and right in addition to the presumed left that would otherwise have little problem getting its case heard, but it would also force the issue. By mere stamp of party approval it would indicate in practice what George Bush ran on in 2000: uniting rather than dividing ... possibly even changing the tone. Dare to dream.
Kerry still has the opportunity to govern in this manner, but he'll have to make his argument now in the form of promises rather than look no further than his ticketmate as the embodiment of this. On that note, Lincoln Chafee adds this:
"The people are thirsting for someone who could forge some common ground and a lot of President Bush's 2000 campaign was based on that," Chafee says. "His 'I'm a uniter, not a divider' (talk) resonated with a lot of people." Yet, Chafee added sadly, "Here we are again."
Tying this in with another EJ Dionne topic ... a quick reading of Chapter Two in his latest book (Stand Up, Fight Back) is well worth the read. Dionne make what, from a moderate viewpoint, may be the single best critique of the Bush administration - that after campaigning as a uniter, not a divider ... after campaigning to change the tone ... after being handed on a silver platter said tone of bipartisanship in the aftermath of 9/11 ... that Bush has blown it. Conservatives ... have blown it. In that aftermath, Congressional leaders pushed tax cuts, the WSJ advocated that Bush run the board with the gamut of conservative causes during the era of goodwill extended to him, and the administration itself obliged in part or in full many of these desires. The campaign of 2002, make of it what you will, involved debate over the Department of Homeland Defense's inclusion of civil service laws protecting employer rights - a special favor by no stretch of the imagination, but a line in the sand for Bush and a tool for bashing Democratic candidates with if they didn't support the law that Bush himself claimed for 8 months was not something worth considering.
The point of that is to suggest that in the case of Bush, there's a track record. Its not one that matches the rhetoric levelled in his 2000 campaign, either. How does Bush govern should he win in 2004 (and presumably there would not be a deterioration in GOP votes in both Congressional bodies)? More of the same. If you're George W. Bush, you've got to hope people are happy with what they're seeing now.
Kerry still has some miles to go in laying out his affirmative case for election. But the critique of the present one is becoming clearer and clearer. I'll hit one sidenote here on Kerry's campaign, too. I caught the Nightline episode last week in which Ted Koppel followed Kerry around on a particularly lengthy stretch. He was visibly tired, groggy, and weary. But the signs of optimism that I took from that are this:
a) Kerry's ability to critique his own campaign work up till now is unparallelled. Clinton was good, but too coy. He would see mistakes in his work and fiddle around the margins. Kerry looks back on such things, perhaps the "for and against $87 billion" or "Benedict Arnold CEOs" comments and shudders at himself, vowing to right himself in tone. He's not afraid to do so publicly ... on the record ... and repeatedly.
b) in light of how Iraq has polarized opinion among party activists, it has to be the biggest badge of honor that, despite Kerry's own verbal flubs on the issue, he has not decided to ride the wave of anti-war fervor, instead staking out a position that is not entirely distant from that of Bush's current policy. I may have a short list of concerns on Kerry - some critical, but none fatal to my support of him over Bush - but on this note, I offer my unwavering respect. Howard Dean looked out at the anti-war rallies and saw an opening. He took it and ran. He followed. John Kerry saw the same thing nearly eradicate his candidacy in its own cradle. He staked out a responsible position (admittedly after some stumbling, as fervorous waves are sometimes known to induce). Somehow, through it all (perhaps even despite himself), he has led on this issue. When the story of this campaign is written, this may be one issue that gets more attention in hindsight than I think it has up till now.
EVEN MORE OF A SIDENOTE: Blogging goodness to arrive this weekend with a viewing of Farenheit 9/11 tonight as well as a full read of Clinton's bio during said time. Chances are if you're sick of either topic by now, it may be wise to skip this site for a week.