Joan Swirsky
Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2004

After only three years, the president and his staff have successfully restored political debate to issue-focused discussion and – it appears from the Iowa primary results – reconditioned the entire country to expect more from its candidates than fulminating anger or shoot-from-the-hip accusations and sound bites.

The candidacy of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose early lead and seemingly continued popularity presaged a resounding victory in the Hawkeye State's caucuses, was resoundingly upended when voters decided to put Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in first and second places.

Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt, long on distinguished service and on the “organization” that media experts predicted would catapult him to victory, trailed the pack.

How to explain the Kerry-Edwards phenomenon? What did the Iowa voters see in these men that seemed to elude the media “experts” completely? And what happened to Dean’s “base,” those angry leftists, young Turks and Bush-detesting Democrats he counted on so heavily to sweep him to victory?

My guess is that most Americans, including Democrats – whose memories of Sept. 11 are still painfully alive – support President Bush in his efforts to fight terrorism and are heartened about his inroads in dismantling the Taliban in Afghanistan and deposing Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

That is not to omit their optimism at a recovering economy and steadily increasing numbers of new jobs.

But Democrats still would love nothing better than to see a donkey instead of an elephant in the White House next year.

So they voted for Kerry, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and seasoned politician, because he voted for the war in Iraq. The fact that Kerry then voted against the funds to restore order in that country was secondary in their minds. They voted for the guy who supported Bush’s policy of pre-emptive strikes against our enemies to keep Americans safe.

And they voted for Edwards because, as I noted, Americans (including independent-minded Iowans) have, over the past three years, come to genuinely like and respect a politician who speaks positively about our country and its possibilities and refuses to engage in the retro “scorched earth” strategies that flourished in the '90s. They voted for a guy who, temperamentally, is just like President Bush.

As for Howard Dean, his candidacy proved, among other things, to be a stinging repudiation of his endorsers: former Vice President Al Gore; former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley; Iowa’s pride and joy, Sen. Tom Harkin; and former President Jimmy Carter (who praised Dean to the skies but fell short of an endorsement). In other words – the Old Left.

Dean’s candidacy also exposed the fallacy that the Internet was the new and improved way of raising money and attracting constituents in running for president. After the rise and fall of the '90s economy, this conceit of the Dean campaign was surely the second Internet “bubble”!

Dean bet his whole candidacy on opposing the war in Iraq, but the Iowa public didn’t bite. It remains to be seen whether he is angry enough to take his fight down the line and sabotage the wannabes who are left to fight for the Oval Office.

It wouldn’t be surprising if Dr. Dean, who is not a team player and is an unlikely candidate to take second place to anyone in the presidential race, morphed into a latter-day Ralph Nader, effectively inflicting a death knell on the Democrats’ hopes for a victory in November.

The Deaniacs, whose anger fueled Dean’s ephemeral ascent, still complain that President Bush “stole” the last election. But what they and like-minded Democrats are really incensed about is that the president stole their copyright on compassion – the very essence of their self-deluding belief system.

As politicians are wont to do, Kerry and Edwards – and especially Gen. Wesley Clark, the longtime Republican-cum-newly minted Democrat who is now enjoying high poll numbers in New Hampshire – will try to co-opt the Bush administration’s “toughness” in their run for president.

If Kerry is the nominee, there is sure to be a legitimate debate between a left-leaning Democrat and a right-leaning Republican. Above all partisan considerations, this kind of ideological debate would distinguish why and how America is above all other countries on earth in its embrace of free speech and enterprise.

But if the Southerner Wesley Clark beats John Kerry in his backyard of Arkansas or if the other Southerner, John Edwards, beats John Kerry in his backyard of North Carolina, the entire political canvas will change.

As the primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina unfold, watch all of the candidates move to the middle and, I predict, to the right of middle. If there is one thing we’ve learned about Democrats over the past many years, it is that their “ideology” is shaky at best, non-existent at worst.

It is also instructive to remember that, historically, Democrats always tout high taxes and accommodate the countries and organizations that have proven, over decades, to be antagonistic to American ideals.

This is where all of the Democratic candidates depart dramatically from the Bush administration. Yes, the president has greatly influenced the Iowa primary, but he stops far short of inflicting higher taxes on our country’s hard-working public and far-far short of compromising America’s security to the “spin” of a presidential contest.

Joan Swirsky is a New York-based journalist and author who can be reached at joansharon@aol.com

Editor's note:
If you love George Bush – you’ll love NewsMax’s "Bush Collection" – Check it out – Click here Now