A Tim Ear
ShareIn 8 days, Democrats around the country will be collectively wondering, "who?" when they sit down and bother to watch the person charged with delivering Democratic response to Pres. Bush's State of the Union.
VA Gov. Tim Kaine will have been in office exactly 16 days when he makes his national debut. As bizarre of a decision it was for Democrats Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Bill Richardson (the three charged with picking the SOTU responder) to choose Kaine, it's not nearly as bizarre as Kaine accepting the invite, or so argues Nathan Gonzales of the Rothenberg Political Report.
I think Nathan's absolutely right. In fact, Gov. Kaine, there's still time to say no. [CHUCK TODD]
Note: Check out the update at the bottom of this post.
Continues Gonzales:
Kaine wasn't elected governor of Virginia by demonizing President Bush. And in his swearing in ceremony just last weekend, he said his administration would "be a non-partisan, Virginia agenda that includes all."Becoming the point-person for the Democratic Party in a nationally-televised doesn't match the definition of non-partisan, even though he may deliver a softer, less partisan speech than other responses in the past. And by becoming a face of the national party, it hurts his ability to stress his own background and values that helped him get elected.
While the opportunity to address the nation is tempting to any politician with a pulse, Kaine may have more to lose than he has to gain.
For Kaine, this really could hurt him as he's in the midst for fighting for his legislative agenda. And for Democrats, nationally, the risk is that Kaine won't be strong enough in combatting Bush, because he's got to tend to his own state's politics.
Dem strategist Steve Jarding has a better idea for Democrats: go find a SOTU responder who's not an elected official. Find someone who's first name is "General" or get Warren Buffett to talk about the economy or even some ordinary American. Where does it say in the bylaws of the Democratic Party that the SOTU responder has to be an elected official. Maybe Kaine will do the Democrats a favor, say thanks, but no thanks, allowing the party to (sorry for the cliche) think outside the box on its response. [CHUCK TODD]
Update: A sympathetic Dem chimes in with a defense of why Kaine:
I think 2006 is going to be much more about management and results than most people think. It's smart to highlight a Democratic success story. And it's much smarter politics for Kaine to accept than it was for the nationals to ask him. Because at the end of the day, he's probably not going to do what they want him to do.He probably won't beat the crap out of Bush and he'll probably lay off the "Culture of Corruption" mantra.
If he's smart, he'll do what he did at the end of the campaign, saying something like, "We know how to do it in the states clearly a lot better than they know how to do it in Washington. We get results... they don't. And when they don’t get results, you get screwed."
It's a way to attack Bush without being shrill, talking about the real bread & butter stuff that Bush sucks on, and highlighting how the states are getting stuck with a raw deal. We need more messengers out there who don't come across as shrill. Kaine (if he does this right) can demonstrate to folks how to do that. It'll be hard for his state legislature to hit him for doing this, if he stands up there on national TV and gives them credit for working with Democrats.
This person clearly makes the case for how Kaine can better his own politics with accepting the invite. But if Kaine chooses this route, it's going to make a lot of Dem activists upset. That said, the "competency" issue is probably the Dems' most potent issue, more potent than corruption.
Advertisement
Join the Discussion