Kerry and Dean Still Craving that Power

November 9, 2004

Apparently energized by his resounding defeat the vanquished John Kerry has been calling important Democratic donors “to lay the groundwork for a political organization that would give him a voice in national politics and position him for another White House run in 2008,” says the LA Times. According to the article, he is jazzed about winning 56 million votes and wants to become “titular leader of the Dems,” a position I think should, by rights, be reserved for Bill Clinton. And Hillary may have something to say about that as well.

Then, the not-to-be-denied man of ambition apparently caused speculation about a 2008 redux when he told a fawning, applauding audience at a D.C. restaurant on Saturday that it took President Reagan a couple of times before he secured the GOP nomination. Don’t you just hate it when these libs invoke the Reagan memory, as if they liked him — or treated him with a modicum of respect? (Not to meander into a stream-of-consciousness tangent here, but I found it particularly annoying when during the Reagan memorial services they all pretended that they’d been Reagan’s best friend and contrasted him to George W. Bush. Of course the truth is that they treated him with equal disrespect, and painted him as an unengaged moron. But as we’ve noted before — to paraphrase Ann Coulter — for Dems, every day begins history anew, so that they are never accountable for what they did yesterday, much less years ago. They’re free to rewrite history to conform with their best spun self-description.)

And, speaking of people who are into themselves and the acquisition of power, the AP reports that screaming Howard Dean is considering a bid to become chairman of the DNC. I know this was being bandied about yesterday, but it fits with this post, so get off my back. Dean reportedly said in a speech in Albany N.Y. last night that President Bush’s re-election was not a mandate to ignore the views who voted against him. Well, maybe not, but it is a mandate to try to implement an agenda that those who voted against him will find utterly repugnant. So what’s the difference? Now the Dems are starting to play with the word “mandate,” as if it means that the free speech rights of the opposition will be revoked. These people are amazing.

Dean also said, “We’re not retreating. We’re not giving up.” My question: Who is “we?” Would that be the Deaniacs, the Michael Moorons, the Kerryites, the Dems in general, or the French?

Regardless, it’s interesting that Kerry and Dean both appear to be scrambling about feverishly to prevent their respective nose dives into obscurity. I, for one, am on their side. It would be a bad thing for our side if either of these two characters faded away too quickly. Just look at how Al Gore has grown in the aftermath of his political demise. He sets the gold standard for how not to act following a defeat. And that’s why we continue to appreciate him.