Repig memo calls Dean next reagan

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/106829671744920.xml


Let us not be fooled by misguided conventional wisdom. Dean is a threat and Republicans better not ignore him."

<snip>

No, this is the considered judgment of two respected Republican pollsters -- Bob Moore and Hans Kaiser -- from Portland's Moore Information. Their Oct. 6 memo should be a welcome read (www.moore-info.com) when Dean visits here Tuesday.

"Howard Dean can win because he believes in what he is saying, because he can semi-legitimately spin his record as governor into one of fiscal conservatism, and because he comes across as if he actually cares about people . . ." they wrote, continuing a bit later: "The difference between Howard Dean and the rest of the Democratic candidates is that Dean comes across as a true believer to the base but he will not appear threatening to folks in the middle."

<snip>

"Dean's appeal is closer to Ronald Reagan's than any other Democrat running today. . . . The Democratic party used to chuckle about Reagan and his gaffes, which they believed would marginalize him to the far-right dustbin of history. But when his opponents tried to attack him for some of his more outlandish statements, the folks in the middle simply ignored them. Voters . . . looked to the bigger picture, where they saw a man of conviction who cared about them and had solutions for their problems."

Moore says he's never had more reaction to a memo. Tellingly, almost all Republicans -- fellow pollsters and clients -- thought the memo was dead-on. And they were dead serious.

The dead serious stuff is NEVER discussed openly by GOP operatives.

The ones about how they all want Dean to be the candidate.

this isn't talking points

blm seems to think that there is a GOP strategy to try to get Dean as the candidate, so that anything that gets released which is positive for Dean proves that they want to run against him, but anything they post which is negative of Dean also proves that they want to run against him.

So if they release a memo saying "We want to run against Dean" that proves they want to run against Dean. But if they release a memo saying "Dean could beat us", then it's a ploy to get Dean nominated because that's who they want to run against. Got it?

He wouldn't lie to me, would he? :silly:

heavily influence by their corporate structures who favored the GOP agenda?

Why do you believe the teflon most of them have granted Dean in 2003?

That's why editorial after editorial blasts him as a ultra-leftist, unelectable McGovern.

You think Dean is teflon-coated because the media isn't attacking him, eh? If the media isn't attacking, how do you know he's teflon-coated?

The reason the attacks aren't sticking is because most of his supporters realize the attacks are 95% bullshit, just like the 2000 attacks on Gore were bullshit. Unfortunately, Gore's camp never managed to attack back at the 'invented the internet' crap the pukies threw at him. Instead of getting pissed and calling them out as the lying assholes that they are, Gore did the gentlemanly thing and laughed them off, allowing the pukies to keep repeating them until they were believed.

>>>> Instead of getting pissed and calling them out as the lying assholes that they are, Gore did the gentlemanly thing and laughed them off, allowing the pukies to keep repeating them until they were believed.

This is how we lost 2000 folks. You CANNOT let smears and lies stand, or people believe them.

Only James Bond discusses the dead serious stuff

:tinfoilhat:

I'm surprised at you!

Very clever political schemers use it all the time. The idea is that you not only use information but manipulation of that info to influence public opinion.

For instance, the "leaked memo". When a government organ doesn't want to be seen coming right out and announcing something distasteful (or may even be prohibited from publicizing certain information by law), they can "accidentally leak" it to the public to prepare them for it, or to create a ruccus for some agenda.

You don't see it as a possibility that the scheming GOP, who have proven themselves masterfully adept at information manipulation and control, could "leak" a memo that seeks to trick the democrats into thinking exactly what the GOP WANTS them to think?

Suggested topics: "PSYOPS".

This was psyops all the way to sucker Dems.

The other day you were saying that they were all pulling for Dean, because they thought he would be easy to beat. So which is it?

who essentially said the same thing. He said the only Dems he finds appealing are Dean and Edwards (he wanted to say Lieberman, but I stopped him, and he offered up that Joe reminds him of the dad on ALF).

I think CW on Dean has changed, from "We want him, he's an ultra-liberal fringe guy who opposed our brilliantly successful war" (back in April) to "uh oh".

...who is a Repug also, used to tease me about Dean being the guy he wants so they can easily win.

he doesn't talk about Dean anymore. He knows now.

I keep telling him that I voted for the winner in the last three elections, don't ignore my ability to pick the winner. He hates it when I say that.

Maybe a little less 'IBM' in your blue?

Lookin' good.

The big-spending, budget busting, nation-building Republicans, calling the balanced budget, rainy-day fund governor an ultra-liberal.

Only an absolute moron could fail to see the irony, which means Bush will still get the freeper votes.

Gay marriage will be push-polled in swing states all over the country as a sign of a wildly out of the mainstream liberal Yankee.

supposed to be a put-down to Republicans?

Color me confused...

:crazy:

Reagan is their God.

Reagan ran very tight very successful Presidential candidates, successfully portraying himself as a reasonable guy despite his clear adherance to ideology. I don't get the impression that Dean is as ideologically driven as Reagan was (although that could just be his successful ability to portray himself as a middle of the roader).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

In so far as he would not really be the guy that ran the administration.

.....it should be funny to watch the reich wingers reaction to this "blasphemy" against their false god JellyBeanBrain.

...and this is what the memo is referring to with regard to Dean's ability to appeal and communicate to a broad range of people.

Dean is preceived as having a simple message and sticking to it. He doesn't talk down to people and people see him as one of them. People thought this of Reagan too. Another similarity is that Dems in 1980 thought RR would be the easiest Republican to beat. They never took him seriously.

But if it wins over some fencesitters--they're like twin brothers!

So, I guess that means they are both actors who really DON'T believe what they say.

I know that drives you conservatives crazy....

And I don't trust his neo-populism. I don't trust anyone whose positions are less than a year old DURING an election year.

If you can't deal with honest criticisms of your chosen leader, then by all means, dismiss it as hatred.

but in the general election it is going to be exposed for what it is and when it's all said and done people are not going to be able to trust a word that Dean says.

To hold up your positions must be principled. Only Republicans get away with changes and inconsistencies. Dems better have RECORDS to match their rhetoric. This is Dean's weakness.

... If the freaking voters were capable of 'intense scrutiny', Bush* would have never gotten more that 35% of the vote.

Some of you just need to look at how campaigns are won and lost and get real.

About 18 months ago (?) Time's site had posted an old article that was a look back at Reagan's rise to the office. I've tried to search back for it but to no avail.

It spoke of how Reagan was losing bad in the 1976 primaries until he chose the tactic of tapping into the anger of the Wallace Democrats in the South and got them to switch for the primary. That's when he picked up steam, but it was too late in the season.

In 1980, he ran that tactic all the way through and rode into office on populism.


Now, here's Dean, doing the exact same thing, but mirrored.

Who says lightning can't strike twice?

I generally read the Oregonian everyday but missed this one. Reinhard usually foams at the mouth but this was an exception.

Dave Reinhard is a rabid wingnut 95 or more percent of the time. I had the mispleasure of talking to him on the phone one time and I've never had so much rudeness from a so-called professional. He's very defensive, probably because he knows in his own heart that he's chock full o' shit.

and will become senile in office, huh?

Thank goodness for that.

All those pundits who don't want Dean to be the nominee because he will be 'the next McGovern' do not seem to realize that things change. Arguing against Dean on the basis of a 32-year-old campaign is ludicrous.

It is like the people who thought Reagan would be a pushover in 1980 because he was too conservative, just like Barry Goldwater was too conservative in 1964 and went down in flames. Well, Reagan did just a little better than Goldwater and that was just a 16-year difference.

Of course, since things change, using the Reagan 1980 analogy is also probably off the mark. So let's stick to the current political situation when arguing who should be our nominee.

--Peter

That's how the RW is doing it. Round and round and round we go, where we end up the RW knows!

Dean will in no way be mistaken as a serious option for Commander in Chief when the GOP exposes him.

is Dean not interested in maintaining a strong defense?

Here's NYFM's chance to actually make a point.

I'm not going to tell you because you won't listen anyway.

:)

Or is this another one of those "too conservative for us/too liberal for them" jabs?

when half are pulling you left and the other half are pulling you right, you're right where you belong.

If I am gonna attack Dean it will be from the left not the right. BTW I think he should cut from DoD, may make that budget balancing a little easier imo, and I also think DoD needs a cut. BTW keyword IF, but if I was to be critical it would be from the left, my way would differ from that of say, Joe Lieberman or some DLC stooge.

And invading tiny nations whose main export was nutmeg.

If you find this virtuous, might you consider another party in which to hang your hat?

Dismissing their honest views because you see it as hatred is exactly what the GOP does when they dismiss the left as irrational "Bush-haters".

For Dean that is definitely not going to be the case.

Reagan was the icon of a cultural movement while Dean is the figurehead of a political one within the Democratic Party (although he isnt even the clear frontrunner.)

they're planting these memos to make Dean seem stronger than he really is. Repugs have been doing this frequently in the last two years, so they can manipulate people's expectations, and bend the conventional wisdom to their liking.

:hi:

Newsmax - (Now there's a super right wing site if ever there was one.) (Yes, I look at what they are saying. Two reasons: 1.) Keep up with what they are saying. 2.)Sometimes, rarely but sometimes, a very partisan site will post an important bit of news to bolster ther arguments that everyone else ignores.

Anyway, they had an article about a week or two ago warning Reps that Dean was the most dangerous of the Dem candidates and not to underestimate him.

2

just stay on message, big guy. You're doing great!