Why it'll be Dean vs. Bush

There's only one thing you have to know about Howard Dean: He used to be the governor of Vermont. Thought you already knew that? Well, maybe you did, but given the history of who our presidents are and where they come from, it may be the most important fact about next year's Democratic primaries.

Here's why. The last successful candidate for president of the United States who went directly from the U.S. Senate to the White House was John F. Kennedy. His successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, one of the greatest senators of the last century, got the presidency through the vice-presidency. The next in line, Richard Nixon also arrived via the vice-presidency. Likewise with Gerald Ford. But Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were both ex-governors. George Bush the elder was another former vice-president, but Bill Clinton and George Bush the younger? Both ex-governors. You can keep going back in time. Dwight Eisenhower was a great general in the tradition of U.S. Grant, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Jackson and, of course, George Washington. But Harry Truman, though he served in the Senate, arrived at the White House via the vice-presidency. His predecessor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, made his political bones as governor of New York.

TRENDING: Nancy Pelosi's election-rigging H.R. 1

So there it is. In modern times, with the exception of great soldiers, the only other way in is through the vice-presidency or, more likely, by having sat in a state governor's chair.

There's actually quite a bit of sense to this. The voters aren't stupid. Senators really earn their keep by venting on the great issues, or by articulating the popular frustrations. They live by the bon mot and spin, weave, shuck and jive according to parliamentary rules. The most they ever managed was their own Senate offices. But a governor's job is different – they actually have to run things and not just flannel-mouth them to death. Governors have track records, good, bad or indifferent. In short, they have less room to hide. So if a governor's track record as governor is consistent with what the voters want in a given election cycle, mere senators can't compete.

So the question about Howard Dean is whether or not his track record as governor of the Green Mountain State works with what the public wants this time around. I think it just might, and here's why:

It has been said before – but can't be said enough – Howard Dean is no liberal. His Vermont track record – balancing virtually ever budget as governor, although the state constitution doesn't require it – proves that. What Howard Dean did and did brilliantly was to spot his party's vacuum on foreign policy. Most credible Democrats were afraid to criticize Bush on the Iraq war because they were frightened by polls showing strong public support. But Dean knew the Democratic primary electorate better than Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards or Graham. He tacked sharply left on the war, and the Bush administration's incompetence managing post-war Iraq has made it easy for him to keep to the left. Meanwhile, Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards all voted for the Iraq war resolution and, except for Lieberman, have been furiously back peddling ever since. But they're just playing catch up. Dean has "branded" that issue, and his opponents can't compete.

Here are a few other tidbits about "liberal" Howard Dean's tenure in Vermont:

• He supported workfare for welfare recipients and dropped the caseload by 40 percent;

• Those who think Howard Dean is somehow in the pocket of the gay-rights lobby had better think again – he signed Vermont's civil-union bill only after the legislature was forced to pass the bill by Vermont's Supreme Court. When Dean signed as ordered, it was away from any cameras.

• As governor, Dean was sharply criticized from the left for failing to meet promises about providing universal health care and prescription-drug benefits to seniors. A balanced budget was far more important to him.

Here's my point. Lots of my conservative friends are hoping that Howard Dean wins the Democratic nomination. They see him – or think they see him – as some Vermont hippie with a peace sign around his neck and flowers in his hair. But Howard Dean is no hippie. If anything, he is exactly what he is – a rich man's son (originally from the Hamptons) who figures he owes something to people less fortunate than himself, but won't do anything that threatens his inheritance. Substitute "government finances" for "inheritance" and that sums up Gov. Howard Dean.

In 2000, it was rich man's son Gore vs. rich man's son Bush. Don't be shocked if 2004 shapes up to be another titanic Battle of the Scions.