![]() |
|
||
|
The Open-Door PartyPosted on Jan 3, 2008By E.J. Dionne MANCHESTER, N.H.—Iowa voters in both parties staged a rebellion against the status quo and against the past. Mike Huckabee’s decisive victory over Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses marks a revolution in Republican politics. An outspent outsider triumphed over a former governor who played an inside game. Huckabee’s victory is also the revenge of evangelical Christians who had been taken for granted by the GOP establishment and decided to vote for one of their own, a Baptist minister turned politician. Change, particularly generational change, was also at the heart of Barack Obama’s victory over John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Voters under 30 supported him by better than 5 to 1 and he carried independents by more than 2 to 1, according to media entrance polls. Clinton’s difficulties in the campaign’s next phase may be compounded by the fact that Edwards narrowly pushed her into third place. Edwards thus earned himself a second chance, if not a major boost. The polls suggested that Edwards’ message of raw, passionate protest won him support among voters who decided late in the campaign. Obama’s theme of ending partisan divisions by reaching out to independents and Republicans may be an enduring legacy of Iowa. Indeed, at this initial milestone of the 2008 campaign, it’s clear that the Democrats are the party in the business of winning converts, and turnout at the Democratic caucuses broke all records. The contrast between the two parties was stark. Romney has spoken often about the future, but his core message was about the past: that he was the candidate who could reassemble Ronald Reagan’s alliance of social, economic and foreign policy conservatives. Moreover, the emergence of Huckabee and the re-emergence of John McCain as a powerful contender in New Hampshire forced Romney to turn early to a negative campaign aimed almost entirely at keeping his party’s conservative base away from his opponents. He has appealed to yesterday’s coalition in the name of old orthodoxies.It didn’t work, even with an Iowa Republican electorate that overwhelmingly described itself as conservative. That turned out to be a very small electorate, reduced to its evangelical core—six of 10 described themselves as born again—and that core loved Huckabee. In the Republican field at this point, only McCain seems to be reaching beyond the GOP heartland, and this trajectory worries Republican professionals who wonder where this nomination battle will leave their party when it’s over. “There is an interesting contrast between these primary campaigns that ought to be troubling to Republicans,” David Winston, a pollster who works closely with congressional Republicans, said even before the results were in. “The top Democrats are thinking about how to expand their electorate to bring in independents, whereas the leading Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, is trying to depress turnout by pushing people away from his opponents.” Indeed, Romney may no longer be a leading candidate after his Iowa loss. The Republican race has highlighted ideological divisions within the party—particularly on taxes, immigration and, to some extent, abortion. By contrast, the Democratic argument has been remarkably free of ideology. Democrats have battled more about how to get things done than about what to do, more about style than content. But the race could turn much harsher now that Obama’s foes, particularly Clinton, are fighting for survival. Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary will have a much larger turnout, and independents—roughly 40 percent of the potential electorate—will play a far greater role than they did in Iowa. Independents are on the whole alienated from President Bush and his party and they seem likely to vote in large numbers in this state’s Democratic primary, as they did in the Iowa caucuses. This would benefit Obama. In a recent Franklin Pierce University-WBZ poll that gave Clinton a narrow lead here, Obama was drawing 46 percent of his support from independents, while Clinton drew 33 percent of her backing from voters who did not declare a party affiliation. By coming into New Hampshire strong, Obama may keep independents on the Democratic side. This could hurt McCain, who leans far more heavily on independents than Romney does. But Romney’s defeat in Iowa may obviate McCain’s need for independents. One caucus does not a realignment make. But Democrats, particularly Obama, are fighting for the middle ground and the independents, while Republicans are largely talking to each other. Thus will Democrats have far less adjusting to do when the general election battle is finally joined. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By driving bear, January 7, 2008 at 7:16 am #
The true problem all the talking heads have is the fact that its to soon to tell who the front runners will be. I think it all up in the air until super Tuesday at the earliest since that is first primaries in a broad cross section of the country. Also I worry that since the general election is 10+ months away the American people will be burned out of election politics by then
Report thisBy driving bear, January 7, 2008 at 6:59 am #
They are both the youngest candidates in their respective parties.
They both received endorsements by celibs.
Oprah for Obama
Chuck Norris for Huckabee
They are both views as being for change.
Report thisBy cyrena, January 5, 2008 at 6:47 pm #
Village Elder,
Thanks for the excellent assessment. I was trying to figure out the Huckabee thing, but they really didn’t have anyone else, except those half-dozen core evangelicals I supposed.
Meantime, the part about Fred Thompson was my favorite.
Oh, we’ve got power back. My poor village was nearly wiped off the coast between yesterday and now.
Report thisBy Mudwollow, January 5, 2008 at 3:49 pm #
More like the revolving door party.
Report thisBy rage, January 5, 2008 at 3:15 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Let’s cancel the Hillary Show!
That’s right, and I include E.J. Dionne in this declaration. It’s time to stop carrying the corporatocracy’s water. Folks want to hear what all the candidates running are going to do about turning back the 14-point fascist tide that is the Dumya Dark Ages. Folks want to hear the voices of the CANDIDATES IN EVERY PARTY, not just the few winning the media’s rigged popularity contest! American Voters are sick and tired of the calculating poll manipulation based on the politically corrected canned responses corporations voice through their top tier shills and dupes. We’re sick of the staged pretenses and solicited testimonials from well paid witnesses. Until these jerks are elected, none of them has a single iota of experience being the President of the United States of America. So, when you get right down to it, American Voters really could not possibly care less about how much experience these conniving jokers arrogantly boast in the coy art of hyper-ambitious butt-sucking in the clandestine corridors of the various K Street think tanks in which they’ve made a career of whoring themselves in the off-season while working to secure more wealth and power for the unregulated corporatocracy against the best interests of their voting constituents. For a change, I implore Dionne and colleagues to give America genuinely INFORMATIVE and ENLIGHTENING coverage of the candidates’ real discussions and substantiated plans to soon end the Dumya-induced, seemingly irreversible slide into regressive 3rd world morass, instead of digesting and crapping out bogus propagandist generated highlights of the best public performances delivered by the top tier corporate ringers running for President.
Report thisBy ABC Psych, January 4, 2008 at 10:34 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hooray for the kids!! I know my teenaged granddaughter is getting active in a variety of causes. This ol’ grandma is cheering her on and doing what I can to back her up.
Report thisBy VillageElder, January 4, 2008 at 8:06 pm #
Change won in both primaries. The repuglicans had a field of stay the course candidates. Huckabee was the perceived change agent. Hillary was a plea for the status quo. Obama and Edwards are the top tier representing change. We’ve lost some valuable voices and dialog from the dems. Interestingly enough, Hillary was not a second choice.
The repugs have a group of authoritarian voices competing to continue the war on an abstract noun. Giuliani has been compared to Mussolini (there’s a TD article showing his style). Romney is a voice from the past, the manager without emotion or a new idea. McCain is off the reservation supporting a 100 year war or occupation. Rue Paul has his blimp and a cadre who want radical retrograde change. Thompson is waiting for the writers strike to end.
Report thisBy Stephen Smoliar, January 4, 2008 at 3:58 pm #
I finally got around to watching ...SO GOES THE NATION last night (VTR copy from IFC). If you have not yet seen it, cyrena, take a look and consider refining your argument! This documentary looks at what happened in Ohio in 2004 and does a pretty good job at looking at the events through both Democratic and Republican lenses. One point that you should consider in your argument is that the Bush strategists were very good about manipulating those “kids.” So, yes, pay attention to them; but pay attention, also, to those who know how to pull their strings! An even more important point is the punch line of the whole Ohio episode, which is that IT IS ALL ABOUT THE ENDGAME. There is nothing particularly astonishing about this proposition; but it is too easy for even the best of analysts (Dionne included) to overlook it. Given what the 2008 calendar looks like, my guess is that the endgame will begin with the Sunday morning programming on October 26; and that is when we shall all appreciate just what a blood sport politics is!
Report thisBy WR Curley, January 4, 2008 at 3:14 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
A few weeks ago, EJ Dionne shared the table of MSM privilege on “The News Hour” with Jim Lehrer and David Brooks. Lehrer posited that the war wouldn’t be a major issue in the primaries and the general election this time around, like it had been in the 2006 congressional contests. Brooks and Dionne agreed, citing the “success of the surge” and recent progress toward a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
A) According to the architects, military and political, of the “surge” (escalation), it could only succeed if it resulted in progress toward a political solution to the blood-sodden morass that is post-invasion Iraq. There is no such progress. The “surge” has succeeded only in barricading competing factions into checkpoint-controlled ghettos where anti-occupation furies continue to seethe.
B) At the risk of bunching Condi’s undies, we must acknowlegde that there was absolutely no movement on the Israel-Palestine front. Israel continues to maintain that it will not negotiate until all resistance to its expansionist policies is terminated. We’ve been hearing this mantra for more than forty years.
These three “political analysts” knew they were spouting horseshit. We all know they knew this.
In spite of which Dionne dutifully nods his assent to the MSM propagandists who assert that our Zionist/corporate misadventures overseas are not a factor with the electorate. And Iowans dutifully prove him wrong. But Dionne does not mention this inconvenient truth, now does he. Dionne does not mention the issues at all.
He suggests instead that the whole point to these quadrennial exercises in electoral politics is winning. Who in hell is he addressing with his sophomoric, post-election analyses? Not the voters, surely. The voters insist that the whole point is governing, and who will govern in the best interests of the nation. In short, who’s right on the issues that affect their lives. War, wages, health care. You know?
Ms Clinton’s persistent clamor that she will step right into the White House and pick up the reins on her very first day in office is, in effect, an avowal to continue the course set in motion by the current administration. Clearly, in Iowa, this is the wrong message.
So Mr Dionne can link arms with his press peers and slide and shuffle for his paymasters til doomsday rings the chimes. The voters just ain’t buying it.
WR Curley
Report thisElizabeth, Colorado
By cyrena, January 4, 2008 at 9:34 am #
EJ,
Good piece, but ya know…I think it’s just so much simpler than all this, this time around.
Bottom line, the KIDS came out in Iowa, to take their country back. We (the adults) have let a crazy SOB and his gang of thugs put them in harms way, and steal their birthright, and they came out to take it back.
Unless all of your guys and girl in this piece can do a real quick turn around, all of this analysis means less than diddly-squat.
How long did we think it would be before they said a loud and resounding NO - to this endless war? Why do you think Hillary flopped like a bird in Iowa? Why do you think Giuliani came in LAST…even lower than that crazy-ass Ron Paul…despite all of the ‘polls’ of the last several months?
They were resoundingly rejecting this war, and anybody who has had even the tiniest bit of support for it.
Ya’ll better start paying attention. To the KIDS!!
Here’s Mike’s letter…
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php
Report this