The GOP are really scared of Dean

You know at first they compared him to McGovern, there were reports about them wanting him to win because he'd be easier to beat etc. The DLC picked up that flag, because they are the DLC and always listen to their republican masters.

But I got this email from Newsmax, as everyone knows is a conservative magazine.

The title of the email was "The truth about Howard Dean."

So then they were blasting the "liberal media" who is, of course, protecting Dean, according to Newsmax.

Then they went off on the "truth."

But you know what? All the criticisms they made were about Dean NOT BEING A REAL LIBERAL. That's right. They talked about the programs he cut to balance the budget. They talked about his support for guns, etc.

I was surprised. Then it occured to me that this was targetted to other Democrats, not Republicans. They DON'T want him to win the Democratic nomination.

Then I began to wonder why. It occured to me. A couple of days ago there were a couple of polls from New Hampshire that had Deans favorables and unfavorables. He had (and these are estimate numbers, but close - I don't remember the actual numbers) 66% favorable rating and only a 15% unfavorable. These are Colin Powell like numbers.

Then assuming that if Dean wins the nomination all the Democrats "come home" and support the eventual nominee. And knowing the Democrats have such a visceral dislike (even hatred) for George W. Bush and the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq, coupled with consistant polling that shows up to 70% of Americans support a national health care plan. Suddenly, Dean doesn't look so liberal. And the whole McGovern thing is out the window.

If you add to this the Swartzenegger outsider appeal factor and suddenly DEAN FUCKING WINS THE ELECTION. And that is why they are getting scared.

I have always liked Dean. I've always said I will support either him or Clark (personally hoping for a Dean-Clark ticket - in that order), but I was always kind of worried about his electibility. The more I think about it, the more I think he will appeal to states like New Hampshire, West Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, etc. All states won by Bush. Again, assuming Dean wins all the "red" Democratic states. He can win comfortably.

This is why the GOP DON'T want Dean to win the nomination. They want to run against a Kerry or Lieberman. Basically, a Washingtonian. So Bush can run against Washington. If Dean or Clark is the nominee, then Bush becomes Washington.

Any thoughts?

There's a good demographic there too isn't there?

I know the pros don't talk about vice-presidents this early, because ALL of the candidates are running for president.

Edwards is pretty fiesty. This would be a very energetic team.

Either way, or with some other VP choice that's why Dean will be the next POTUS.

especially not one who has no problem smearing and lying about him every day practically.

The GOP hasn't changed there position. If they could have any candidate nominated it would be Sharpton or Kucinich or Mosley-Braun

But they know that isn't going to happen and there next best choice is Dean.

This posts argument flys in the face of the acknowledged wishes and opinions of every pollster, strategist, and politician who wants to see Bush win in 04

lost Georgia for the first time in about 100 years.

Before making such sweeping statements, you might consider the sources and/or the methodolgy employed by those whose "wishes and opinions" you seem to find so credible. A good place to start would be college level courses in persuasion, marketing, statistics and analytic methods.

I'd say I'm sorry if I sound like some pedantic asshole, but for this fight, we will all have to teach each other what's really up on the ground level and STOP granting paid for "journalists" the leeway to mould public opinion.

It won't be so hard, really. I overhear all sorts of people saying basically the same thing every day on the train. Often all they lack is reinforcement and/or a comprehensive perspective.

and here's why..........

Rank and bile By Eric Boehlert

G.I.'s speaking out, angry vets signing petitions, generals attacking him. George Bush's once-rosy relationship with the military is turning sour.
--------------
Could 2004 be the year when the military vote swings to the Democrats? That might seem too farfetched a hope for Democrats, who have watched the military become a solidly Republican bloc over the past 30 years, to the point where a recent study found Republicans outnumber Democrats 8-to-1 among today's officers. But that trend, at least, could very well come to an end -- and the entry of four-star Gen. Wesley Clark into the presidential race as a Democrat and powerful Bush critic surely helps.
--------------
The reason is simple, says Hackworth, a White House critic whose Web sites, Soldiers for the Truth and Hackworth.com, have been documenting the contempt many service men and women feel for the Iraq war planners. "Most military guys who understand war, professional soldiers, they recognize America is engaged in its largest and nastiest war. And like in Vietnam, they don't see any light at the end of the tunnel," he says. "My e-mail, overwhelmingly from soldiers and vets, says these guys are really pissed off about the handling of the war. And what's amazing is the huge number of folks from this group no longer relating to the Republican Party
-----------------
Merle Black, professor of government at Emory University in Atlanta and an expert on politics in the modern South, thinks that for now the military is with Bush. But a change in fortune would be disastrous for the White House: "If Bush loses the military vote, he loses the election," says Black. While the number of votes that come out of the military community, including family members and retired veterans, is relatively small in comparison to all the ballots counted on Election Day, Florida's disputed recount proved just how critical a voting bloc it is. (As a political entity, there are roughly 2 million active-duty soldiers and reservists currently serving, not to mention their extended families. There are an additional 10 million veterans, with the largest percentage made of up of aging World War II fighters.)
---------------------


More importantly, the voting bloc represents a larger civilian population, largely white, male and somewhat Southern, that today places national security at the top of its concerns. It's a voting bloc that has become increasingly hostile to the Democratic Party in recent years.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/02/military/index.html

Like I wrote in my post. He is my number two choice as of now. The problem, i've seen so far is that he is too green. He doesn't look very comfortable.

Maybe he will look better in the future. Maybe he will improve. But he doesn't have the skills.

That's why as of now, I hope he is VP.

wes is my first pick, and john kerry is my second, i like al sharpton, but he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning

of possible swing states. I've been hearing there are changes happening there, although it's hard to believe since I lived in that conservative hell for 18 agonizing years. It's historically been VERY conservative, except for the far eastern edge and Lawrence. I still have to drive through Russell, "Home of Bob Dole" every time I drive home to see the folks.

I hope it's changing, I really do.

Glad to see Colorado on your list. What to do about Colorado Springs?? Maybe the pissed of military will swing it.

at least a major organ of some type, excluding the brain, of course.

and any of them are going to skunk Bush. Just spank his un-wiped shitty ass.