Anti-Bush moderates
EJ Dionne writing in the Washington Post:
not just Democrats! but also centrists like me. The rest of the article is just as excellent, poiting out that the roots of anger at Bush were planted well before the war in Iraq. And this centrist discontent has been steadily building, to the point where Bush is facing routine sub-50 polling numbers.
(also see David Neiwert's comments)
The analytical mistake is to assume that the anti-Bush feeling, which is there, leads straight to the fever swamps of radicalism. In fact, the dislike of Bush among Democrats is more personal and partisan than it is ideological. Democrats are not, in fact, moving to the far left.
...
To beat Bush, they are willing to back a general whose views on many issues are unknown -- and who appears to have voted for Ronald Reagan. Whether they are right or wrong about Clark, pure ideologues don't do stuff like that. They back Dennis Kucinich.
Nor can former Vermont governor Howard Dean be seen as some kind of leftist. Yes, he won many left-wing hearts by opposing Bush on Iraq. But Dean has been a moderate, even conservative, Democrat on many issues, including Medicare and Social Security. Rep. Dick Gephardt is going at Dean hard on these questions.
If the rebellion in the Democratic Party were primarily ideological, closet centrist Dean would be going nowhere. What Dean understood earlier than his rivals is that Democrats wanted someone who did not seem intimidated by Bush. Iraq became both a substantive issue and a symbol. If Dean was willing to fight Bush on Iraq, many Democrats reasoned that he'd be tough enough to take him on across the board.
not just Democrats! but also centrists like me. The rest of the article is just as excellent, poiting out that the roots of anger at Bush were planted well before the war in Iraq. And this centrist discontent has been steadily building, to the point where Bush is facing routine sub-50 polling numbers.
(also see David Neiwert's comments)
Comments