The worst president of our lives
Nothing more unites Democrats heading into a presidential election than determination to defeat George W. Bush.
Almost regardless of age, most see him as the worst president of their lives.
Retiring South Carolina Sen. Ernest “Fritz” Hollings put it this way: “I can tell you this categorically: We’ve got the weakest president … in the history of my 50 years of public service. I say weak president in that the poor boy campaigns all the time and pays no attention to what’s going on in the Congress. Karl Rove tells him to do this or do that or whatever it is, but he’s out campaigning.”
Bush’s sheer incompetence is impossible to overstate. The bad news and the lies just keep on coming. Yesterday, we learned that the U.S. budget deficit will reach a record $480 billion for this fiscal year. UC Berkeley economist George Akerlof, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize, told the German magazine Der Spiegel, “This is the worst government the U.S. has ever had in its more than 200 years of history.” He described Bush’s save-the-rich tax cuts as “a form of looting” that will bankrupt the treasury.
It was also recently revealed that the White House pressured the Environmental Protection Agency to suppress findings of deadly toxins in the atmosphere in lower Manhattan after 9/11 for fear public warnings would damage the economy.
Between dollars and lives, Bush chose the bottom line.
In Iraq, there have now been more American soldiers killed since Bush’s theatrical aircraft carrier landing off San Diego than before he announced the end of major combat. More than two dozen have died since the president left Washington to spend time roping and branding golf carts on his Texas ranch earlier this month.
Determination aside, however, so far Democrats appear to lack a candidate who seems a good bet to win. Of the nine men and women running for the nomination, several — Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Carol Moseley-Braunhave no chance whatsoever of securing the nomination. Despite high name recognition, Sen. Joe Lieberman is going nowhere; I’ve heard passionate Democrats say they might sit out a Bush-Lieberman contest.
Rep. Dick Gephardt has run before without getting anywhere, and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, another candidate who appeared to have everything going for him, including Vietnam heroism — impresses people with his intelligence, toughness and thoughtfulness, but has difficulty getting them to relate to him personally.
Which brings us to the short Yankee in the race, Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont. By all accounts, Dean appears the odds-on favorite to win the nomination. Dean’s brainy, quick-witted, aggressive, well-organized, a good fund-raiser, and has a cadre of passionate supporters and as impressive a track record as it’s possible to have running a tiny, rural state like Vermont.
The worse things get in Iraq, moreover, the better Dean’s outspoken anti-war views could end up looking. But the problems with a Dean candidacy begin when you start trying to name states Gore lost that the Vermonter looks like a good bet to win. OK, maybe New Hampshire. Even so, many Democrats can’t get past the suspicion that Dean can’t compete in the South or the Midwest farm belt and would end up a virtuous loser.
Maybe that’s why, as Amy Sullivan points out in the September Washington Monthly, the number of undecided Democratic voters has actually been rising in recent months, and why, as she argues persuasively, there’s still time for retired Gen. Wesley Clark to win the nomination.
If Clark runs, he can win. And unlike Bush, if he wins, he can govern.
(Gene Lyons is a columnist for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and winner of a national magazine award.)