Tom Fina: Letter from Washington

[Paschall]

LETTER FROM WASHINGTON
To Democrats Abroad
February 19, 2004

Tom Fina, Executive Director Emeritus

Dean’s withdrawal from the Democratic Presidential primary makes the future
destination of his nation-wide supporters the most pressing issue for the
Democratic Party. It is more than ever important as the President suffers an
unprecedented reversal of his fortunes.

So far, Dean has not endorsed either Kerry or Edwards although it is known
that he has a poor opinion of Kerry. Instead, he has pledged his supporters
that he will continue, in a way that remains to be defined, the effort to
recast the policies of the Democratic Party while working to elect whomever
is the party nominee.

At the crest of the Dean wave, his organization counted over 600,000
adherents and raised unprecedented amounts of money from small donors. That
is a very considerable following made up, in large part, of younger people
drawn for the first time into political activity. They are potential
campaign workers and voters. Their money could free the Democratic party
from the corruption of big donors. They were attracted to Dean’s criticism
of the elected Democratic establishment in the congress which reluctantly
voted for the massive Bush tax cuts, to authorize the invasion of Iraq and
to appropriate the vast sums that Bush asked to continue the occupation of
Iraq. Both Kerry and Edwards have some of that on their records and both,
however much they are working to differentiate themselves from it, are
Establishment Democrats.

The question is the degree to which the intense dislike of the Bush
administration common to the Dean constituency will out-weigh its dislike
for an Establishment candidate. Will they vote or stay home?

It is too soon to know. Exit polling in the states that have voted show that
many young, liberal voters turned from Dean to Kerry or Edwards. They were
clearly motivated by the argument that Dean was not as likely to rally
enough of the general electorate to defeat Bush.

How Dean leads, or tries to lead, this army of sympathizers in the hour of
his adversity will certainly have an impact on the outcome of the November
election. Whether it will also have an impact on the orientation of the
Democratic Party is far less certain. Dean has never couched his candidacy
in fundamental policy terms but rather as a return to the "Democratic wing
of the Democratic Party". That is not particularly visionary much less
revolutionary. But, even that would be a significant improvement over the
supine response of the Democratic congressional delegation to the truculence
of the President and his majority.

Meanwhile, the Democratic primary continues. This was not the intention of
DNC Chair McAuliffe who tried to front load the Democratic primary to get a
decision early in the year with a minimum of internal party conflict so as
to allow the nominee a long, solo, run-up to defeat Bush. Instead, the
primary is dragging on but without dividing the Democratic Party and serving
to strengthen its candidate as well as whittle away at the President’s
standing. The Democratic debate is giving the Democratic positions
nation-wide free publicity while stimulating public interest and
involvement.

Conversely, the Republicans guessed wrong, too. The White House saw the
Democratic primary as a wonderful opportunity for Democrats to destroy
Democrats. The idea was to let them fight it out without the President
getting his hands dirty in sordid politics. It would be time enough to weigh
in when the last man standing was exhausted from the fight, his reputation
in tatters and his campaign funds exhausted. The Bush team was keeping its
nearly $200 million powder dry until it could "see the whites of their
eyes."

In fact, the President has taken a drubbing as all the Democratic candidates
followed Dean’s lead and centered their fire on him. And in a season when
the overarching Democratic goal is to defeat him, Bush has been a great
unifying and energizing force within the Democratic community.

That Bush was unexpectedly losing ground led to his two stumbling
counterattacks as he was forced into the ground war that he never intended
to start so early. The State of the Union message in January was an attempt
to regain the initiative. Both Republicans and Democrats found it
ineffective, a weak performance. It was quickly followed by a rare TV
interview with the formidable Tim Russert on Meet The Press. Again, the
political judges of both parties and the press gave the President a poor
score.

Thus began perhaps the most difficult period of the Bush presidency. Try as
the White House might, it has not been able to regain control of the
national political agenda. Events are driving the President rather than his
driving them.

His budget submission to the Congress has gotten as poor reviews from his
own party as his State of the Union address. The projected size of the
deficit has angered his fiscal conservatives. The revelation that the
administration had apparently knowingly underestimated the cost of the
prescription drug plan by more than a third added to their dissatisfaction.
His refusal to include any request for money for the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan until after the election has further undercut his credibility.
Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff have openly criticized the failure to provide
funding. While the White House was on the budget defensive, the CIA officer
responsible for finding the legendary weapons of mass destruction, finally
made it official: he thought there were none and that "we were all wrong".
That pretty much deflated the President’s repeated and emphatic assertions
that the weapons would be found. Only Cheney continues to insist that they
existed. Meanwhile, Bush was forced to back down on his opposition to giving
the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the US (that he unwillingly
appointed to investigate the failure to avert 9/11), more time to complete
its report. That report will now be issued later in the campaign cycle and
will almost certainly provide ammunition for the Democrats. If one
commission were not headache enough, Bush was again forced to appoint yet
another to investigate the shortcomings of pre-war intelligence on Iraq and
how it was interpreted by the White House. Although Bush thoughtfully set
the reporting date to fall after the election, that simply adds to public
distrust and may not stick.

While all of this trouble is brewing, the investigation of the White House
leak that deliberately exposed a CIA undercover agent (Valerie Palme), is
also coming to a head. The prosecutor has convoked a grand jury and is
presenting testimony that could lead to the indictment of one or more senior
White House officials.

On the other side of the world, the administration’s urgent plan to hand
responsibility for Iraq over to someone else - almost anyone else - before
the November elections is in deep trouble. As it has been from the outset,
the administration is sharply divided. Cheney and Rumsfeld want the UN, NATO
or others to take political responsibility while they maintain de facto
control in Iraq. The Department of State and senior uniformed services
officers want to give the UN real authority. Where CIA stands remains
unclear. The President, whose disdain for the UN and its minions is known to
all - including the minions- summoned Kofi Annan to ask that he find a
solution in Iraq that would permit the US to hand that scorching potato to
the Iraqi. Whether Bush is also prepared to cede real authority to the UN is
far from clear. Kofi Annan is likely to reply next week. Whatever his reply,
we may be sure that he has no interest in immolating himself and the UN to
save the skin of George Bush.

There is more, much more, to worry Bush. But two new polls will do. The
ABC/Washington Post poll released February 12 showed a declining trend in
public confidence in almost every aspect of the Bush presidency. The, a CNN
poll conducted before the Wisconsin returns were in gave both Kerry and
Edwards a 10 point lead over Bush among likely voters.

This is not to suggest that a Democrat will defeat Bush. He has many assets
and he has just begun to respond to his critics. He is a powerful
campaigner. But, in mid-February as the Democratic primary continues to
engage the public, Bush is hurting.

Comments: [e-mail]

Thomas W. Fina
Executive Director Emeritus
Democrats Abroad