Dukakis, Once Burned, Refuses to Be Optimistic About 2008
Michael Dukakis has seen this script before: a Republican administration besieged by scandal and running out the clock on its second term, while wide-eyed Democrats confidently lick their chops, knowing there’s no way in hell voters will reward the G.O.P. with four more years in the White House.
It was around this very moment 20 years ago, the summer when Oliver North told Congress he was “authorized to do everything that I did” and Reagan fatigue took hold, that Mr. Dukakis, then the 53-year-old governor of Massachusetts, emerged at the head of a crowded Democratic presidential pack. By the time he was formally nominated in Atlanta the following July, he’d opened a 17-point lead over Vice President George H.W. Bush.
“I can handle this guy,” Mr. Dukakis supposedly replied around that time when John Sasso, his consultant in exile, asked to return to the campaign. “You worry about the first 100 days.”
So you can understand why the numerous harbingers of a triumphant 2008 for Democrats—George W. Bush’s Nixonian approval ratings, polls that show voters favoring a Democratic White House candidate by double-digit margins, the electorate’s historical aversion to three-term rule by one party—haven’t prompted Mr. Dukakis to begin planning his trip to the 2009 inaugural celebration.
“We’re not going to outspend the other guys,” he said during an interview in his modest office in the political science department at Northeastern University, where he was the first to arrive (at 7:30 a.m.) on a recent midsummer morning. “We’re probably not going to outstrategize them. And some crazy guy will blow up a building with three weeks to go, you know, and then we’ll be back in Bush-land again.”
Since his fall collapse was made official on Nov. 8, 1988—an eight-point, 426-to-112 electoral-vote loss to George H.W. Bush—Democrats have held up Mr. Dukakis’ general election campaign as a case study in the perils of not hitting back. In 1992, Bill Clinton, with his rapid response team and pitch-perfect shaming of Mr. Bush in their first debate, showed he’d learned the lesson; in 2004, John Kerry showed that he’d forgotten it.
But while Mr. Dukakis readily indicts himself for fatally ignoring the 1988 version of Swift-Boating—the G.O.P.’s success with Willie Horton, he said, “was my own damn fault; no one else’s”—he worries that his party has oversimplified the lesson of his defeat, and of Mr. Kerry’s and Al Gore’s, too. And if Democrats don’t learn the right lesson soon, he fears they’ll be locked out of the White House for a third straight time in 2008—no matter how rosy the electoral math now looks.
“We have to organize every damn precinct in the United States of America—all 185,000,” Mr. Dukakis said. “I’m serious. I’m deadly serious. I didn’t do it after the primary [in 1988]. Don’t ask me why, because that’s the way I got myself elected from the time I was running for town meeting in Brookline to the time I ran for governor.”
And when he talks about organizing, he doesn’t mean the legions of eager college students—think the orange-hat-clad “Perfect Storm” that Howard Dean sought to rain down on Iowa in 2004—who are shipped off to key states for crunch-time grunt work. He also doesn’t mean limiting the outreach to “likely” Democratic voters, because—especially after seven years of George W. Bush—“there are huge numbers of disaffected Republicans out there. Who says they won’t vote for us?”
“I’m talking about every precinct,” he said, “with a precinct captain and six block-captains that make personal contact with every single voting household. And I mean starting a year in advance. I’m not talking about parachuting in with two weeks to go. That’s baloney. And these people are people who’ve got to be from the precinct, of the precinct, look like the precinct and talk like the precinct.”
The way he tells it, this was the missing ingredient in his 1988 effort—a powerful and utterly economical tool that, if properly deployed, could have blunted the Bush campaign’s character-assassination-by-paid-media, and one that could spare Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama his ultimate fate.
True to his technocratic roots, Mr. Dukakis has the idea of replicating, on every street, avenue, and rural route in the country, the kind of personal relationships that once powered big-city political machines—with precinct captains calling on their neighbors every few weeks, asking them about their concerns, talking up their candidate and following up on any questions they might have. Mr. Dukakis’ vision is rooted in good government—making sure, for instance, that a neighbor’s concerns about school vouchers are satisfactorily addressed.
That kind of personalized operation early on, Mr. Dukakis believes, can keep voters from believing the worst when the Willie Horton and Swift Boat campaigns begin.
“There’s a chemistry there, which is hard to describe unless you’ve done it,” he said. “Otherwise, it permits your opponent to paint you as something you aren’t. It happened to me. It happened to Kerry. They tried to do it to Clinton. They’ll try to do it to anybody.”
Here’s how Mr. Dukakis broke down the struggle that Mr. Kerry—Mr. Dukakis’ lieutenant governor from 1983 to 1985—faced three years ago.
“You never had a sense that people felt personally connected to the guy, right? Had he had that kind of operation going nationally, there would have been a much stronger feeling of personal connection. Why? Because average folks in the neighborhood are out pushing him.”
Mr. Dukakis says he pleaded with Mr. Kerry to build a meaningful precinct-based organization in 2004, but couldn’t break through. Now he’s working informally with the Democratic National Committee, where Chairman Howard Dean—he of the 50-state strategy—is much more receptive to the concept. But so far, Mr. Dukakis said, none of the 2008 Democrats seem serious about his brand of organizing.
“The guy who ought to be doing it, above any of them, is Obama, because he’s probably got 300,000 contributors,” he notes. “Every one of those people, as soon as the contribution comes in: ‘Thank you and will you be a precinct captain?’ Or, ‘Thank you, this guy is your precinct captain—will you be one of his block captains?’” Next Page >
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Dukakis is right about lining up those precincts, however precincts are not going to fall in line if Hillary Clinton is is the democratic nominee. It's not just because of some vague notion that she can't win because of negative perceptions that are really never identified. It's because of real concerns about trusting her to end the war in Iraq and bring all the troops home. She might bring most of the troops home but she would leave a residual force in Iraq to train the untrainable--Iraqi Security. Then she would label those troops something other than combat troops when in fact these troops would be fighting for their lives every day. We'd have to then send back all the troops sent home to protect them. In fact, she's already said Bush's surge is working, which should pop a red flag to anyone who was considering voting for her. Hillary supported this war for years and just when she announced her candidacy for the presidency she all of a sudden became a beacon for ending the war. Political winds make up her conscience. That's not someone you can trust. No wonder Hillary hasn't apologized for her vote to give Bush a gun so he could pull the trigger on Iraq. She feels she has nothing to apologize for.
Trust too was an issue with her husband. Bill Clinton spoke of woman's rights and then gave us Monica Lewinsky and talked about equal oportunity for gays and then gave us not only Don't Ask, Don't Tell but The Defense of Marriage Act.
A lot of people may still go to the polls and vote for Hillary Clinton but they won't work for her campaign.
I disagree with Mr. Dukakis' comments that Senator Kerry did not want any involvement with any grass-roots movement within the party in 2004. I was a grass-roots volunteer for the Democrats in 2004 and Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards put forth more of an effort to reach Democrats in my little town and across this country than Mr. Gore did in 2000 and Clinton did before him in his last election. After President Clinton was elected there was an assuption that local political efforts weren't necessary any longer to connect to the people. More households could be reached by commercials on TV and cable and by using the media. Mr. Kerry certainly utilitzed those forms of communication, but he also traveled and visited many small towns that had felt no connection to the Democratic Party in years- including my small town in Western PA. His campaign set up offices in my hometown and volunteers went door to door,signed up new voters, made phone calls, attended local events and handed out literature and arranged for rides for those who would find it difficult to get to the polls. Senator Kerry's whole campaign was aimed at reaching the people. Please don't blame him because the DNC in 2004 did very little to support him and the grass-roots efforts. To this day, many of our party's leaders do not even support Chairman Howard Dean's fifty state strategy.
Finally, I have to agree with some of what Steamboater above says, to get a good result from local level involvement in the Presidential race we will need a candidate that people are excited about. Take me for example, I got involved because I believed in the vision Senator Kerry held for our country. I personally liked the senator and I thought he would make an impressive president. This time around, I am not exicted at all about our candidates. I see nothing special in any of them, so far. It will take a lot for me to give as much time, effort and money as I did in 2004-this time around.
Dean and Dukakis are absolutely correct. Precinct organizing is the foundation behind the GOP's 72-hour GOTV effort that they deploy every election. It is the type of organizing that McGovern used in 1972.
If you read the rules for nominating candidates of your state or county Democratic party, you will see that organization at the precinct level is the crux of the process.
I live in a solidly Democratic, urban county in Texas where the voter turnout is beyond pathetic -- we just "passed" a multi-million dollar school bond issue on a voter turnout of 11% in an off year. I can't find a voting Democrat here who's ever met their precinct chair or knows what one is.
Dukakis and Dean will execute their 50-state, every precinct strategy over the cold lifeless bodies of the Democratic consultants who've steered the party to victory since 1990.
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and end this madness.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
"Tank" Dukakis is in total denial about why he lost so big in 1988. The more voters saw of him the less they liked him. Any Democrat has to run as a moderate (or fake moderate)because a hard core lefty isn't going to be elected president. Mr. Dukakis was a proud ACLU card carrying lefty and the country wanted no part of him.
Wait a sec, capemay, did I read that right? You were "excited" by Senator Kerry during his campaign in 2004, but don't see ANYTHING you like in the EIGHT major candidates running this year?
Wow. Just wow.
Weak, weak, weak. Dukie is all sour grapes. What, he really believes that he was swift-boated? He arrogantly pushed a program to let murderers with life sentences out of prison on furloughs, and was so very surprised when one raped and attempted to murder again WHILE ON FURLOUGH. He thoroughly deserved to be skewered over his own STUPIDITY AND ARROGANCE.
And really, it wasn't Willie Horton that cost him the election; he lost in a landslide. It was the obvious fact that he was (and remains) waaaaaaaaaaay liberal. Once the electorate figured that out, he was a goner.
Hillary will be the nominee, folks, and you can organize all 185,000 precincts if you want to, it won't help. She is the ultimate polarizing figure; if people don't like her, they will either vote against her or not vote at all. Say "HELLO" to four more years of Republicans in the White House.
Democrats still don't get it. It's the message that gets people elected! Strategy helps only when the message is appealing, money helps only if the message is appealing, and so on. If the Democrats loose in 2008 it will be because their message is unappealing. No amount of money and no amount of strategy in the world will get someone with an unappealing message elected. And BTW 1988 was not as the author described - GHWB got Reagan's third term. Reagan was not as unpopular as the press would like to believe. It wasn't possible for Dukakis to get elected because his message was unappealing AND the Reagan legacy - a strong conservative approach to economics and social policy - was working exceedingly well. Voters saw the proof so GHWB got the nod because voters heard him give the same message as Reagan and thus they thought they were getting a kind of Reagan third term. It burns many liberals to think this but it's the truth.
Democrats still don't get it. It's the message that gets people elected! Strategy helps only when the message is appealing, money helps only if the message is appealing, and so on. If the Democrats loose in 2008 it will be because their message is unappealing. No amount of money and no amount of strategy in the world will get someone with an unappealing message elected. And BTW 1988 was not as the author described - GHWB got Reagan's third term. Reagan was not as unpopular as the press would like to believe. It wasn't possible for Dukakis to get elected because his message was unappealing AND the Reagan legacy - a strong conservative approach to economics and social policy - was working exceedingly well. Voters saw the proof so GHWB got the nod because voters heard him give the same message as Reagan and thus they thought they were getting a kind of Reagan third term. It burns many liberals to think this but it's the truth.
Democrats still don't get it. It's the message that gets people elected! Strategy helps only when the message is appealing, money helps only if the message is appealing, and so on. If the Democrats loose in 2008 it will be because their message is unappealing. No amount of money and no amount of strategy in the world will get someone with an unappealing message elected. And BTW 1988 was not as the author described - GHWB got Reagan's third term. Reagan was not as unpopular as the press would like to believe. It wasn't possible for Dukakis to get elected because his message was unappealing AND the Reagan legacy - a strong conservative approach to economics and social policy - was working exceedingly well. Voters saw the proof so GHWB got the nod because voters heard him give the same message as Reagan and thus they thought they were getting a kind of Reagan third term. It burns many liberals to think this but it's the truth.
Reagan fatigue?
Right there, not even two paragraphs in, there it is..."Reagan fatigue." There it was...proudly stated as fact...standing tall, as if to say "didn't you know" or "we the media has declared - therefore, so it is."
Well, when one doesn't believe in God, one will certainly believe in one's own imagination! Needless to say, the rest of this article proceeds down this path of bogus, hocus-pocus.
The left and their media - living in dumb-dumb-ville!
Yeah!!! Yippeee!!!
Morons.
"Crazy guys" don't tend to blow up buildings - Islamic radicals do.
This quote alone shows that Dukakis and most of the Democratic old guard simply DO NOT GET the threat from radical Islam.
American Eagle 1392
>
So, Michael Dukakis, the worst political candidate in US history, is not optimistic. And, your point is?
Democrats are asking for defeat...continuing to pander to extreme left wing...Dukakis has it right....and lets not forget that the Iraq war is slowly turning also...this has left the Democrats looking weak on defense, they already look weak on immigration..(remember, those illegals are not going to get to vote in the election, no matter how much they scream and protest)...
'rats can have all the precinct captains and money and organization they want, but until they learn one Very Simple Lesson, they will never win the WH, no matter who the GOP nominates (Bush proved that): The hard left that dominates their "message" is totally out of the mainstream; nominating, Kerry, Hillary, Obama...cmon !! Until they overcome the hard left, they will remain on the outside. There are plenty of normal democrats, (including algore before he went off the deep end), but they never see the light of day. Frankly, even though I am no democrat, I wish they would; it would be better for America
Well said re "Reagan Fatigue" and "Reagan's Third Term." Notice also the strained attempt to associate Nixon and Bush. Hardly a "fair and balanced" piece.
Congress, controlled by the Democrats, is at 18% approval rating, matching the previous all-time low. Hey, aren't the top two Democrat contenders members of Congress? Hmmm . . .
Democrats failed to realize in 1988 that they were running against Reagan. In 2008, they will be making the OPPOSITE mistake, thinking that they will be running against Bush. Still, it doesn't matter. Hillary is the annointed one; you could put a red-bottomed monkey on the Republican ticket, and plan on having bananas in the White House come Jan 09. Over half the electorate will not vote for her under any circumstances.
The weird thing about how this article made me feel is the fact that I was only 10 years old when Mr. Dukakis was in the race. I do remember my parents talking about it with other "old people" and they're bantering back and forth. The thing that sticks in my mind, and this goes for both sides of the aisle, that these articles are like business strategies and analysis that you find in the back of the business section of a newspaper. It sounds like these presidential hopefuls strategize to make the right statements in order to make the public feel a certain way. These people come up with highly strategized and psycological phrases and words in order to not serve the people but to serve their own aspirations and goals. Not that there is anything wrong with the previous statement, its just that the business of the federal government seems to have become a club for an esteem part of the American society. The funny thing is, is that everytime that you go out and get into conversations about these topics or issues that involve our country and its politics, everybody knows how to run it and the elected officials never do what we think is the most obvious of things. I guess we're dumber than we think...
Yep, you read me correctly.
I consider the vision,integrity and experience demonstrated by Senator Kerry in 2004, missing in the candidates running now. None demonstrate true leadership.
The republicans have already won the election. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have made sure of that. They are proof positive of everything that is wrong with the Democratic party. They campaigned on what I call the, Camelot Doctrine. Which is basically painting an idealistic picture for all Americans of socialized medicine, equal dispersion of wealth (w/o having to work for it....France anyone) and the promise to protect the right to litigate to your hearts content - with no eye on wasted tax payer money - even if it gets you absolutely nowhere.
The problem with this idealistic world is that "Voting Americans" recognized the agenda for what it is, fundamentally flawed. Idealistic worlds can never work because they are delivered in a static state (one not effecting the other). While most educated Americans know that the world constantly operates in the dynamic state (one effecting the other). Only the extreme ends of both parties view the world in an idealistic state and vote that way. Proof positive in not one bill being passed in Congress and their 18% approval rating. Compared to Mr. Bush's 36%.
Democrats deal with the minority issues: Only 15% of Americans don't have health care. Only 3.4% of Americans are unemployed. Only 6% of Americans are not satisfied with their lifestyle. Less 20% of all Americans live below the poverty level. And this is the 3rd best economy Americans have ever experienced. Any other country and I do mean any would kill for those statistics.
While the Republicans deal with the reality of the world and things that affect the everyday life of Americans...taxes, security, not having to wait 2 years for an MRI. They also look to solve pressing future issues, Social Security and Immigration. Even the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room, Iraq, won't matter. Americans don't like us there, but know we can just pack up and leave. Some Americans might not like the way it gets accomplished, but in the end it gets accomplished. And that is much more than any Democrat can say.
The republicans have already won the election. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have made sure of that. They are proof positive of everything that is wrong with the Democratic party. They campaigned on what I call the, Camelot Doctrine. Which is basically painting an idealistic picture for all Americans of socialized medicine, equal dispersion of wealth (w/o having to work for it....France anyone) and the promise to protect the right to litigate to your hearts content - with no eye on wasted tax payer money - even if it gets you absolutely nowhere.
The problem with this idealistic world is that "Voting Americans" recognized the agenda for what it is, fundamentally flawed. Idealistic worlds can never work because they are delivered in a static state (one not effecting the other). While most educated Americans know that the world constantly operates in the dynamic state (one effecting the other). Only the extreme ends of both parties view the world in an idealistic state and vote that way. Proof positive in not one bill being passed in Congress and their 18% approval rating. Compared to Mr. Bush's 36%.
Democrats deal with the minority issues: Only 15% of Americans don't have health care. Only 3.4% of Americans are unemployed. Only 6% of Americans are not satisfied with their lifestyle. Less 20% of all Americans live below the poverty level. And this is the 3rd best economy Americans have ever experienced. Any other country and I do mean any would kill for those statistics.
While the Republicans deal with the reality of the world and things that affect the everyday life of Americans...taxes, security, not having to wait 2 years for an MRI. They also look to solve pressing future issues, Social Security and Immigration. Even the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room, Iraq, won't matter. Americans don't like us there, but know we can just pack up and leave. Some Americans might not like the way it gets accomplished, but in the end it gets accomplished. And that is much more than any Democrat can say.
Among other garbage, here for time number 8,000,000,000 or so we are spoon-fed the nonsense that the "Willie Horton" affair was some nefarious Republican plot that is looked upon with shame and wariness by the media. Don't buy it, and take just a second to reject every such attempt at re-writing history. Dukakis was fairly and soundly defeated because America did not want his liberal policies, of which Horton was just one example. Horton was and is a murderous psychopath who should have been executed or at the least kept in jail for life.
I want to thank Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for helping the republicans keep the White House in 2008. There democratic leadership of Congress proves that. Let's hear a Howie Dean, Yeeaaahhh!
There you go again!
In the final analysis, it is the quality of the ideas and the quality of the communication which will get politicians elected. Politics has almost devolved into a beauty pageant but you still have to have a theme, a mission, a vision and the ability to communicate them.
Hillary the "experienced" candidate has no real executive experience. Obama the "change" candidate has no real proposals for change other than electing him President.
The Dems have typically lost because of their core liberal beliefs regardless of how much mustard they put on themselves. When Duk answered that question about what he would do if his wife were a rape victim, you could just fold your tent and go home.
The Dems are not going to get elected because in a dangerous world they have no real strategy other than they don't like Bush. In the final analysis, ideas really do count and the folks are not as dumb as politicians think they are.
Game, set, match ---- Republican President in 2008. Learn to love it, learn to live it!
There you go again!
In the final analysis, it is the quality of the ideas and the quality of the communication which will get politicians elected. Politics has almost devolved into a beauty pageant but you still have to have a theme, a mission, a vision and the ability to communicate them.
Hillary the "experienced" candidate has no real executive experience. Obama the "change" candidate has no real proposals for change other than electing him President.
The Dems have typically lost because of their core liberal beliefs regardless of how much mustard they put on themselves. When Duk answered that question about what he would do if his wife were a rape victim, you could just fold your tent and go home.
The Dems are not going to get elected because in a dangerous world they have no real strategy other than they don't like Bush. In the final analysis, ideas really do count and the folks are not as dumb as politicians think they are.
Game, set, match ---- Republican President in 2008. Learn to love it, learn to live it!
Well, its finally coming out...the truth is that the American Public really want a new president who will continue the policies of the last 7 years:
Tax Cuts for the wealthy
Free trade with China no matter the consequences
Massive government deficits
Secrecy in Government
War without end in the middle east
coming cuts in Medicare and Social Security Benefits
Increasing Military Spending
Let's all be honest folks!
Just to clarify- it was AL GORE who first introduced rapist/murderer Willie Horton into the '88 campaign, during the Demcoratic primaries, not George H.W. Bush.
Facts matter.
Just to clarify- it was AL GORE who first introduced rapist/murderer Willie Horton into the '88 campaign, during the Demcoratic primaries, not George H.W. Bush.
Facts matter.
"Yep, you read me correctly.
I consider the vision,integrity and experience demonstrated by Senator Kerry in 2004, missing in the candidates running now. None demonstrate true leadership."
You're one-of-a-kind, then. I mean it.
Why would anyone give a flying leap concerning anything this loser has to say? The damage he did to Massachusetts is still being repaired and we still have the nickname "Taxachusetts" thanks to him. He's a 'has been' in every sense of the phrase including his stance to make Massachusetts the USSR's number one nuke target during the cold war by guaranteeing the highest number dead per megaton with his executive order 242, (go ahead, read it, it's on lawlib dot state dot ma dot us)
We are coming up on 11 years of LIBERALISM in the White house. George Bush's stance on amnesty for illegal immigrants, the second largest senior entitlement in history, the 'no child left behind' Act, hardly a dent in federal bureaucracy or federal spending, a seemingly unstoppable explosion of new IRS tax codes, unsecured borders, etc. - liberals should be trying to get Bush elected to a third term! The only thing he did right was respond to 9/11 and respond to Saddam to circumvent UN corruption and keep the jihadists busy in their own back yard.
But if Hillary was president on 9/11 she would have done the same thing; just about anyone with half a brain would have. Despite the carping by liberals, Iraq and the WOT are NOT political issues - they are SECURITY issues! It doesn't matter what political stripes you have on your back - you had better take care of security issues or the entire country is toast.
Let the Dukakises of the country go back to sleep in the past and teach their little political 'science' ideas to unsuspecting college students while the rest of us try to stay on top of reality.
We need a conservative in the WH and there are a few of them running this time that look very good. If you can't quite recall that Ronald Reagan was broke and virtually unheard of in 1979 - ask Dukakis to refresh your memory...
The onlky reason Dukakis had a 17 point lead at any time over Bush was that everyone knew Bush and no one knew Dukakis. In the ensuing 15 months, the country got to know Dukakis better and the lead turned into a rout the other way. Given a little more exposure, it could have been a shutout. If we get Obama, look for the same trend.