Are Repugs Rooting for Dean?

I don't know how much weight to give this wing nut article, but I want to start a discussion about Dean's chances in the general election.

Hell, I think Dean is great - I like all the candidates, esp Kucinich and Sharpton - but I'm REALLY scared that he's not going to beat the Boy King. I suspect I'll get flamed but I want to emphasise that this post is not a personal attack on Howard, just a post from a very worried Democrat.


http://www.washingtondispatch.com/printer_6309.shtml

Should Republicans Help Nominate Howard Dean?
Exclusive commentary by CK Rairden

Howard Dean is a dream candidate...

Howard Dean is even more to Bush advisor Karl Rove. Dean is a Karl Rove wet dream. He is an anti-war liberal in a time when soccer moms have become security conscious. Dean has also promised to raise taxes if elected president. These are two losing platforms that have a McGovernesque train wreck written all over it.

Dean is a very easy target for the Repubs.

They know how to.

Don't get me wrong. I like Dean, and will vote for him if he gets the nomination. Hell, I'd love it if he won. Would be a real kick in the teeth to the GOP. But he is not my first choice (I prefer Clark). Actually, my first choice is anyone capable of beating Shrub.

I'm sure they would love to get Dean as the nominee, and are scared to death of Clark, since he is the 'unknown'.

He is quite well known. No need to even mention him since he poses minimal threat once they start broadcasting Pristina and the fact that he was canned from the Pentagon.

to beat Clark. Clark has ZERO campaign experience... the repuke will hammer the fact that Clark got fired from his command, made bad decisions, and can not make good decisions while under presure.

They'll paint him as General Queeg. Then because Clark's whole campaign is based on him being the better warrior that can protect us from the evil doers better than Bush... he'll have NOTHING to run on.

The Clark supporters have this idea that CLark will call Bush out on being AWOL and BUsh will be driven right into the ground... but the fact is it is far more likely that Bush will say the past doesn't matter because what is important is the current war on terra.

What does Clark have if not the "I'm a better military man than him" argument? If Bush knocks that attack down, what then does Clark have... NOTHING.

...the neocon radio geeks (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) talking about him. All weak arguements and insults.

But that won't change how easy it will be to attack Clark and rob Clark of his only real campaign issue... being a better warrior than Bush.

Without any experience in campaigning or holding office, Clark will have nothing to campaign on.

They know he's not far enough left for their attack polictics to work. Deans centrist politics makes Bush's right wing views look extreme and out of touch (not that he needed much help from Dean).

But heck, don't take my word. Ask Molly Ivins:

My fellow Dems, I think we have got ourselves a winner
By Molly Ivins
FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM
Edit ....
Dean gives a hell of a speech -- even if you're Republican, you should go and hear him just for the experience. But I fretted about Dean on TV -- TV is so important. How could anyone poker up on Margaret Carlson of PBS, not one of the world's toughest interviewers? But then I saw Dean laugh his way through a Chris Matthews interview (which he should have done with Tim Russert, who was hell-bent on gotcha questions), and I know the guy can take care of himself. So he fights back if you get in his face -- that's not all bad.
I know, he's even less of a liberal than Bill Clinton was, but I don't think Dean is a moderate centrist. I think he's a fighting centrist. And folks, I think we have got ourselves a winner here.
More ...
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Dec/12082003/commenta/117981.asp

CAN'T WAIT!

post. Sorry
T

of an earlier post...by you.

twice?

Interesting.

it got locked b/c I didn't follow DU rules - i think the post is OK now

re posting right wing sites - shouldn't we be paying attention to what the enemy is talking about - I mean this piece is encouraging freepers to donate money to Dean! This definitely merits a discussion.

?

But personally, I'd prefer rat-bastard, treasonous, American-hating, Constitution-wrecking dickhead motherfuckers.

The right wing and their media enablers are most certainly the enemy, and I won't pull punches. I don't want to work with them, I don't want to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them, I don't want to find common ground. I want to destroy them and discredit them inasmuch as possible. After all, they've never offered any quarter, and they're pretty successfully attempting to do the same thing.

'The enemy' is decidedly not too rash a term, thanks.

I saw the original post, and it was corrected and reposted, along with her opinion of the piece.

Totally within DU rules.

I for one think it's important to see what the 'enemy' (right wing sources) is thinking. But it should be done within DU rules.

and psych-out campaign, to convince you that they anticipate the race because Dean is so easy to beat. Who do you suppose they are trying to convince?

Think about it--the Democratic contender will have all of Gore's votes, probably Naders, many disaffected Republicans, Swing votes, Independents.
Bush is not welcomed anywhere in the world and can't even go out in US public without the entire even being orchestrated. That is a disgrace for a US president. So stop repeating this crap.

Lately the Repugs have started attacking Dean. Publicly they say they hope Dean will win. Privately they're scared to death of a populist uprising.

Try to read more mainstream press. Stay away from neo-con propaganda eh.


"If you have no enemies, it is a sign fortune has forgot you."
- Thomas Fuller (1608 - 1661)

Given that it is, you might ask yourself the following:

1. Is this really an article? (Answer: no, it is commentary, and is even labeled as such. It's opinion.)

2. Why would a right wingnut source publish something negative about the Democratic front-runner? (Answer: Isn't that obvious?)

From what I see so far, the people perpetuating this tinfoil hat theory that the Republicans WANT to run against Dean are in two camps: those who favor or are working for D.C. insiders, and those who are Republican shills, pundits, talking heads, etc.

Does it necessarily follow, then, that Republicans want Dean as their adversary? (Answer: No. As a matter of fact, it could mean the opposite.)

all the better when they get broadsided next November. I'm a Dean guy, I admit, but even I had my worries about his "electability." But Dean is looking more and more like a steam roller. If Bush is supposedly underestimated, Dean shows how dangerous it is to be not only underestimated but intelligent--and relentless.

man is that ever the truth. That, I think is my favorite part---that relentless energy and tireless assault.

I think he and the campaign were really impressive in the last month, especially. They seem to believe that there isn't any place on the map where they can't make their case and win voters.

were over after Dean's speech in FL. Dean blew the roof off that place.

Same speech he makes in other venues x 10.

but you can really tell Dean is gowing into his groove. It was amazing to watch him work that crowd and get them excited... there was such a contrast to the others.

That's an appealing quality in a candidate.

Dean is not antiwar.

Please get the facts straight before you post this nonsense.

to be fair.

I won't post the other candidate's site who is advocating Google bombing, though I did before. Are you building up the numbers now for the Google bomb that Dean is the GOP candidate? Heck, they will be able to credit DU for this bomb.


Here is what it takes to google bomb:
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzgoog1206,0,2339508.story?coll=ny-business-headlines

SNIP...."The latest Google bombing appears to have spread within a matter of weeks.

It apparently doesn't take much for Google to make the association. At least 826 pages link to the Bush bio but just 32 of those pages include the phrase "miserable failure," according to a Google search.

In previous pranks, tricksters have rigged Google to bring up spoof pages. For instance, after France refused to join the coalition forces fighting Iraq, a Google search for "French military victories" brought up a spoof page that said no documents were found and asked, "Did you mean 'french military defeats.'" END SNIP

with this variation on the briar batch and the rabbit, but it will backfire on them. Let them have their stupid little plots, we'll see what happens come November. Republicans have always had a history of shooting themselves in the collective foot, I think that will be the case here.

It seems to me that the Rethug machine attacks those that they are afraid of - there's no way that Faux and their ilk would spend 'attack capital' on somebody they "want to win". I think the RW is plenty scared of Dean - he's revealed a pair of cajones that Rove and Co weren't expecting.

down-and-out dirty politics. They don't know how to play any other way. And they're not known for their brains, contrary to what some media might say. They're known for brute force and scum politics. No wonder they're baffled...

It's not going to work this time.

They're very confused.

... with the Republican crystal ball.

Really folks, these ridiculous canards are pathetic. If you think the RW has a clue who they could beat and who they couldn't, tell me why they have screwed *everything* up so royally.

Pundits have been calling for Dean to fail since day one. He's too angry, he's too liberal, he's not liberal enough, he's peaking too soon (that's my favorite, like you can call the peak of a campaign before the fact) and on and on and on.

I actually think that Dean is so far out of the box, nobody has a freaking clue what he's doing or why it is working. And that speaks volumes.

Something is happening here and you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Me Too.

minutes ago.

The wingnuts have *no idea* what is going on. They don't know what to do!

... getting fed up. If you don't like Dean, fine. You can go hide in a closet somewhere and gnash your teeth, because he is INCHES from locking up the nomination.

And frankly, I think he deserves it. He has come at the whole process from a new angle, something nobody sitting in Congress was ever going to do.

Is he perfect? No, he's just the best we have. I cannot WAIT until the initial primaries winnow the haters and losers from the field. They are not helping themselves or the Democratic party.

this way: there are only forty some-odd days until the first primary.

but I dislike Bush more. If the people-powered Howard gets the nod, he's got my full support. Hopefully lots think this way.

I do not like what he's done to cover his butt over the last 3 years, nor the fact he is a typical DC insider power broker... but I'd vote for him in the general in an instant if he got the nomination.

It is Clark that I would have a real problem voting for.

I simply don't trust him.

Doesn't this bother anybody?

Wesley Clark to Speak at Transamerica Reinsurance Breakfast
Wesley K. Clark, retired four-star general and presidential candidate, will address the 16th Annual Transamerica Reinsurance Breakfast being held on Monday, October 13 in conjunction with the ACLI Annual Conference in Miami.

General Clark is one of the nation’s most highly decorated military officers. First in his class at West Point, Clark’s leadership experiences have taken him from Vietnam to Latin America and ultimately to the position of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, where he led a unified force to victory in Kosovo without a single Allied casualty.

Clark offers insight into current military conflicts around the world and their implications. As global markets increasingly sustain American business, international political and military strategy plays a vitally significant role. An expert on coalition building and the resolution of conflict and its after-effects, Clark presents a singularly informed and dynamic view of leadership.September 2003



http://www.transamericareinsurance.com/newsbreak.asp?Month=9&Year=2003

Isn't this an obvious indication of where Clark's allegiances lie? It is really disturbing to me.

And the ACLI... what are these groups... what do they do?

Lobby for corporate insurance interests issues.

A real MIC connection.

nt

... if you are one of the anti-Dean nutcakes here or not, but your post makes you look like it.

I'm all right but I truly am fed up. We finally get some good candidates and all their supporters can do is work on taking down their rivals.

If you aren't one then don't worry my comments aren't directed at you. If you are, go soak your head :)

first of all, your article is from August 6, 2003. Among the nuggets in there: "Dean has likely peaked too early . . ." The misconceptions that Dean is an "antiwar liberal" and comparable to George McGovern and his landslide defeat in 1972 are going to come back and bite them in the butt, hard.

Dean is hardly a "liberal" in the "tax and spend" way that they conceive. Some have said he is a "fiscal conservative" and a "social liberal" and I think that is fitting. His tax plan resembles that of Clinton, and that was an era of budget balancing and social programs.
As a lower middle-class tax payer I never felt unduly burdened by taxes under Clinton, my property taxes were quite manageable (unlike the present direction they are headed), and social services were viable and working.

The comparisons with McGovern, though, are what is really going to kill them. If they think Bush is going to win in a landslide just because McGovern did, they are as ignorant as they are reputed to be.

See this article from Democratic Underground on June 15, 2003, by Mike McArdle for why this strategy is *completely* flawed and not based on anything resembling reality: Why Howard's Not George--main reasons, summarized:

1. McGovern alienated significant portions of the Democratic base (by coming across as the candidate of acid-dropping free-love unwashed hippies and losing crucial support of unions and other important Democratic constituencies)

2. McGovern survived a contentious and damaging convention (the Democratic convention was so contentious, in fact, that "the candidate was further behind in the polls when it ended").

3. The "Eagleton Disaster" (after Nixon's dirty-tricks machine revealed that Eagleton had been treated for depression with electro-shock therapy--big stigma then--"McGovern handled the situation as badly as it can be handled, first standing by Eagleton and then a few days later letting the press know that he wanted Eagleton to step down. It made McGovern look indecisive and the ensuing search for a new running mate during which McGovern was turned down by numerous prominent Democrats made the campaign look ridiculous. It was a death march from that time onward.")

4. McGovern was seen as a cultural threat (similar to #1 above, and also his platform included such "radical" tenets as abortion rights, amnesty for draft evaders, and decriminalization of marijuana).

In addition, Nixon's gang used the dirtiest tricks imaginable, including sabotaging the only other possible candidate, George Muskie, and having George Wallace shot in a bungled assassination attempt (see ratical.org's The Taking of America, 1972--Muskie, Wallace and McGovern). At the time, Wallace, a 3rd-party candidate was polling at 18% and the remaining 82% was split exactly evenly between Nixon and McGovern. Wallace would have splintered Nixon's supporters and spelled his defeat. After eliminating Wallace, they then brought out the "dirt" about Eagleburger.

Of course, BushCo is equally slimy and even includes some of the old original Nixon Gang of Criminals but this is definitely not 1972, Dean has the support of a huge and growing even huger cadre of prominent and influential Democrats, and he is more than equal to the mud, dirt and shit they are and will be slinging.

Brains and beauty will always win out against hate and money in the long run. Good post!
:yourock:

and they are working very hard to make some dems think that they are not. Besides, there really is no other viable choice if we want a Democrat in the oval office.

http://www.polipundit.com/
since at least the summer...

snip...
Give, Give, Give

To everyone who took up my call to donate to Howard Dean in June, here's your new assignment: Give all you can to John Edwards and/or John Kerry.

The rationale is simple:
1. We still want Dean to be the nominee so that President Bush can crush him and have long coattails.
2. The biggest threat to a Dean nomination is no longer Dick Gephardt, John Kerry or John Edwards. It's Weasel Clark, for all the reasons outlined below.
3. To help Dean, we have to bring down Clark's vote totals in the crucial states of New Hampshire and South Carolina.
4. In New Hampshire, donating to neighbouring-son John Kerry will help ensure that Clark won't surpass expectations by finishing ahead of Kerry.
5. In South Carolina, Clark can be stopped by neighbouring-son John Edwards.

Donating online is easy. Just click here to donate to Kerry or click here to donate to Edwards.

that's what's wrong with the Democratic party in a nutshell. Too many of us are completely reactive.

First, you can't trust what republicans say. They say they want Dean (well, sometimes they do. other times they worry that he's the Democratic Ronald Reagan). Do they mean this? Is it reverse psychology? Double reverse psychology? We don't know and we should stop wasting time trying to figure it out.

Second, republicans aren't always correct in their assessments of electibility. Can't we trust our own instincts about who is the best candidate and who will be most appealing to the majority of voters instead of reacting to what we think they think? Many Democrats honestly won't believe that Howard Dean is the best candidate or that he will be the most appealing. That's fine and they should support someone else. But second guessing ourselves out of fear of what republicans really want is a losing proposition.

Third, nominating a candidate because we think that that candidate won't be able to be demonized by the right wing as a godless, gay-loving, abortion-loving, gun-hating, terrorist sympathizer is just CRAZY! ANY CANDIDATE WE NOMINATE WILL BE PORTRAYED THAT WAY! We could nominate Zell Miller and he'd be portrayed that way. If they could do it to Max Clelland they can do it to anybody (and even if you are suspicious of the results of the 2002 Georgia election, there is no denying that they succeeded in convincing way too many people that a man who gave three limbs in service to his country was Osama's best friend).

We need a candidate who can fight against $200 million worth of demonizing, because we won't be able to find someone who can avoid it. They republican playbook will be the same no matter who we put up. Howard Dean is in the best position to do that because he is the best able to attract supporters who can talk to their neighbors, friends and coworkers one-on-one and bypass the media spin. Many people don't understand the appeal, but they'd be foolhardy to deny it. The crowds, the meetup supporters, the many, many small checks -- it's a phenomenon.

Dean has quite a centrist record and the ability to run what is essentially a national grassroots campaign to communicate that record. I believe that he'll win. But if he can't, then nobody else could have either.

just because it would mess things up... if another candidate pulls ahead... I expect this same exact theme to be floated again. It is what they do...

OK, THIS is why I signed on to DU. This should be a seperate thread.

CLark folks have nothing of substance to run on since their guy has no record... so they're resorting to a desperate play to whine that Bush really wants Dean because Dean can't win.

Look at the numbers... Dean is already at a statistical dead heat with W. Dean would absolutly stomp Bush.

Dean is not raising taxes, he's repealing BUsh tax cut. THat's not a tax hike, that's just restoring tax rates to the levels they were at under clinton.

And Dean's not anti-war... he's anti-war without justification.


But I'm sure the Clark folks will pick this BS up and run with it.

NT

could you show me (link to) the numbers you are refering to with Dean vs. W?

Not sure of a link...

Here's part of it anyway...

6. If the election were held today, would you ... (asked of registered voters)

-Definitely vote to re-elect Bush as president, 41 percent.
-Consider voting for someone else, 20 percent.
-Definitely vote for someone else, 36 percent.
-Don't know-refused, 3 percent.


And this was from Zogby back in september...

Overall opinion of President Bush has also slipped to 54% favorable – 45% unfavorable, compared to August polling which indicated 58% favorable, 40% unfavorable.

Just two in five (40%) said they would choose Bush if the election were held today, while 47% said they would elect a Democratic candidate. In August polling, respondents were split (43% each) over President Bush or any Democratic challenger.

;-)

:) Then he will be treated like any other Democrat.

I think that the right is in for a rude awakening, having bought their own propaganda about Dean being beatable, and the subtle encouragement from the media and other sources may soon make him unstoppable.

Barring some really effective campaigning against him from the entrenched forces of privilege--which is always possible--Dean can win here, and it can all blow up in their faces.

What's frustrating is that I don't think he's the best candidate by far, and it's irritating to see him effectively enjoy much of the machine of the media to beat other candidates to the nomination. I still say that Edwards has the best agenda, is much more liberal on domestic policy, has the statesmanlike finesse and gentility to heal the rifts with the rest of the world, and on top of that, has a much better chance against Bush.

Dean grates on my nerves with his extremely derisive and autocratic style; this is not the face to present to the world or the personality to help bridge the divide in this country. He will also be a Clintonesque moderate, further marginalizing the left in mainstream politics.

If he continues with his pompous dictation of edicts and namecalling of establishment politicians--he'll need to work with these "cockroaches", after all--he could well cause himself endless trouble. With the horrendous mess he's going to inherit, if he continues with his strutting style, he may condemn himself to being a one-termer, and sweep the fascists back in in '08, this time to stay.

It's hard to be dispassionate on the subject. He's said and done some good things, but his personality is one that I find very alienating; remember: American politics is much more folksy than it probably should be, and people with an abrasive air of superiority often find it hard going. As a disclaimer, too, remember that I have simply had a bellyful of his deceitful smearing and the sanctimonious rancor of many of his supporters.

As another warning, though: I've heard precisely this character issue being raised by many people from many strata of society; it's not just me.

from him being a nobody... to him being a far left wacko... to him peaking too soon... to him not being able to win... and now it is that he'll only be a one-termer.

LOL!

Dean is a dream come true to the Repugs. He'll be painted as a liberal from the Northeast which will absolutely bury him in the South and probably the Plain states and some Western states, they'll nail him on the Vietnam medical thing and then going skiing, he's got a record of raising taxes on everything in sight in Vermont..... I can only guess what else they'll pull out of the woodshed. No, I don't think they're joking when they say they want Dean. Not at all. There's no "reverse psychology" working here. You're giving them too much credit.

I think the one they fear the most is Clark. In a time of war, you have a military man, and on the domestic side he can put together a team to deal with that. Problem is will some of our party's base regard him as Repug-lite and jump Green?

And No, I still haven't decided who I like yet.

the whole "military man" panacea that Clark supporters talk about is wrong.

Clinton defeated two WWII vets, one right after the OK city bombing

The non-military Ronald Reagan beat a Naval Academy Graduate and sitting president Cater in 1980 during the cold war, when Russian ICBMs were pointed at many US cities.

George Mcgovern, a man who flew 35 combat missions in WWII in Europe and won the Distinguished Flying Cross lost 49-50 states to a guy who pledged to end the Vietnam war.

A lot of Democrats once hoped for a Reagan candidacy as Governor of California because he "would be so easy to beat". That even carried through to his first election as president. Who would have believed that an obviously stupid right wing B movie actor could ever be elected governor let alone president? I certainly didn't. But, who would have believed that a complete idiot like the Texan-in-Chief could now be smelling up the white house?

I believe that the repugs are making a big mistake (as are a lot of DLC types) in believing that Dean is destined to be an easy win for Cowboy Booties. There appears to be a real groudswell of enthusiasm out there for Dean that continues to spread. That, combined with a growing undercurrent to a government of the rich, for the wealthy, by the ruthless, may bring about a real surprise to both the establishment Dems and the repugs.

... thank you.

:eyes:

I just heard that it is not a dupe. So it is ok.

:shrug:

:shrug:

because they thought he would be the easiest to beat. Or the way the Republicans were rooting for Clinton in '92 for the same reason.

They are oversimplifying him when they compare him to McGovern.

underestimating the importance of defense and national security.

Rove had one strategy for 2004: Iraq and W the war hero.

Now it's W the Fuck Up stuck in Babylon who seems to not realize that he's bleeding.

They all got channeled into the hive mind to go on their "We will kill Dean because he is the closest we can find to an opponent on our popular Iraq war and we will slam him with it" crusade but they badly miscalculated the Iraqi reaction to all this.

NONE. IGNORE THEM.