Junto Boys

Why Howard Dean?

There are a lot of theories as to why Governor Dean is leading among Democrats, the most notable being that he is the left-most mainstream candidate and that the party grassroots is to the left of the average Democratic voter. That is fair enough. But consider this. . . Only two sitting United States Senators and no House Members won the Presidency in the 20th Century. Warren Harding and John Kennedy were the only ones who went directly from the Senate to the White House. Since Franklin Delano Roosevelt all Presidents have either been Governors or Vice-Presidents or Generals. So if you look at the Democratic field, Howard Dean is the only one who fits the trend. General Wesley Clark is barely known and hardly distinguished even if he does run. John Kerry, Bob Graham, John Edwards, Richard Gephardt, Joe Lieberman and even Hillary Clinton are facing long odds. Bob Dole getting the nomination in 1996 was a rarity in itself, but he went the way of George McGovern. It's not to say that it cannot be done, but a good gambler bets the trend not the anomaly.

Why Governors?

Governors also get to be the Washington outsider, a favorite play among those trying to distinguish themselves from those Beltway Gridlock bums. Add that to the distinction that governors have already served in an executive capacity, and you have a pretty tough candidate. While Gebhardt and Lieberman drone on endlessly about legislation and policies that they want implemented, Dean can talk about the problems he faced as governor and how he solved them. This is not a small factor in choosing a candidate. Howard Dean was little known this time last year so his message must be working. He's also articulate and seems more serious than the numerous Senators. When Senators complain, we wonder why they aren’t doing more in the Senate to solve these problems. When governors complain we hope that they will finally be the answer to the inept presence in Washington.

The American Presidency was not intended to be the most important of the three branches. The founders felt that the legislative would actually guide policy. But since biblical times, people have demanded a king, an emperor and now a president. They want one guy to look up to. Governors have the advantage of looking Presidential. Who can take John Kerry seriously when he votes to attack Iraq and then complains that Bush attacked Iraq? How can you take Bob Graham seriously when he was ranking member of the Senate Intelligence committee and then attacks Bush for faulty intelligence. Dean has no such contradictions. What he seems to have is conviction, executive experience and the advantage of being outside the mess. I'm thinking Hillary Clinton would even have a tough time beating him, but she has the same advantage that former Vice-Presidents have. She has already been in the White House.

A good gambler would bet that Howard Dean is the man, unless Regent Hillary gets into the race and convinces enough people that she was the real President of the 1990s.

Of course, I don't see how Bush can lose to anyone in 2004. Even with a shaky economy, he won back the Senate in 2002. The media will continue to complain about Iraq and the daily death toll, but next year will be different. Iraq will be more secure and the economy will be even better than today. According to Rush, 20 Years ago Ronald Reagan was a year away from re-election and trailed Walter Mondale in the polls by 5 or 10 points. He only lost one state in the 1984 election. Clinton lost both Houses on Congress in 1994 and trailed Dole in the polls this time in 1995. Clinton won pretty easily in 1996. Bush hasn't trailed in any poll all year. The country has no where to go but up. Bush should win re-election by a comfortable margin.