Dean bashers: Are You Prepared For the Merd YOUR Candidate Will Face?

Let's say that I can accept legitimate arguments against any candidate, Dem, Indy or Repug. I've always thought that we Dems were a bit better than our repug adversaries because we try to win our arguments on the facts, not innuendo or outright lies.

All of our Dem candidates are 1) better than bush, 2) strong on some points and weak on others and, 3) all too human, and therefore, fallible. There are legitimate questions that should be raised against any candidate, including Howard Dean. I have long said on this board that I am not a supporter of his stand on guns, but that I find common ground with him on many other issues. I respect the job he did in Vermont and I have BIG respect the anti-war stance he took in 2003. And, I'm sorry to say, I have an enormous block against those candidates who gave bush his fucking IWR. Those realities have me leaning toward supporting Dean here in the Nevada caucuses next month, but in the GE, I will vote for *whoever* gets the Dem nod, maybe even Lieberman.

The Sharpton attack at last night's debate was a cheap shot, and Al's main thesis has pretty much been debunked in less than a day. But I want to ask the Dean bashers here a question - if Dean is knocked out of the race and your candidate replaces Dean as the front runner or even goes on to become the nominee, do you really believe that your candidate is so lily white that they will not undergo the same sort of half-truth accusations that have plagued HD the last few weeks? Do you really think everything negative in your candidate's closet has been fully vetted at this point? Do you really think that the RW won't make every attempt to turn your candidate's perceived positives into glaring negatives? If you do, you're living in a dream world. Whoever eventually becomes our candidate, we must be ready for the RW - as well as some of our beloved DINOs - to attack, attack, attack, and mainly through half-truths and outright lies, lies meant to put our candidate on the defensive.

So, consider this: if you buy into the current anti-Dean fables (as opposed to the anti-Dean legit issues), aren't you locking yourself in to accepting and believing the fables that will be told down the road about *your* candidate? If Kerry or Clark prevails, do you really think they will be immune from the 24/7 onslaught that is currently hitting Dean? Their "problems" won't be minorities, it won't be "anger," it will be something else just as divisive and just as much a fantasy of the RW and their media whores, just like 95% of the crap being thrown against Dean right now is little more than fantasy fueled by talk radio decibels.

So please, pick your battles. A vigorous debate about Dean or Kerry or Clark is welcome. But vigorous debate isn't the same as stinking up the joint with half-truths, context-free sound bites and the worst that our brand of national politics allows, especially when those flames are being fanned by the heat emanating from the hell that is today's repig party and their minions.

Dems in '04. Our strength lies in our diversity...and in our discernment.

...and not as a person (i.e, the "anger" issue). He, IMHO, is as weak as a canidate as GW back in 2000. Compared to the vast experience that Clark and Kerry have he is a weaker canidate, IMO.
If Clark or Kerry gets the nominee, the media will hit them hard, true.
I will vote for Dean if he gets the nominee. But I think he is a less experienced, weaker canidate than either Kerry or Clark. I appreciate hearing Dean's anger, but in the end, I just think he doesn't have enough experience and I think he'll be hard to elect (which you probably have heard brought up many many times).
Deans a good guy, got nothing against him, but I think Kerry or Clark is a better choice. :hi:

planting stories about Kerry being a "phony" that some here on DU dig up as news stories.

Kerry had the right wing press ramp it up on him during his investigations of BCCI, IranContra and CIA drugrunning, He had the FBI on him and Richard Mellon Scaife did an Arkansas project on Kerry before many even heard of Bill Clinton.

Nothing came of it. He's clean, he's careful, and he's ethical.

plus having made war on various countries as a general.

no thanks.

Dean's experience - elected 6 times by the voters of Vermont, never lost an election.

Clark's experience - never ran for office. spent entire adult life cloistered in the military, mired in a culture where everyone has to either obey or be obeyed, totally unlike electoral politics.

as for Kerry - despite his "vast experience", he was bamboozled by the Bush administration on the Iraq war. he refuses to admit his error, hence he has to attack those who were right. his conduct is unbecoming of a president.

pray tell has this got to do with the subject at hand?

Someone starts a thread with a well thought out premise & your response is to bash a couple candidates?

...all of their experience is relevent for the position of President. Bush has BOMBED in foreign policy because he has no knowledge of the world. Clark and Kerry know the world, know its leaders, and know what to do.
Bush doesn't know what he's doing, and it shows.

How refreshing.

I've never bought into any of Dean's fables.

I do not think Dean is the best representative because what his record shows, because of what he has done in this campaign, not because what the media or another candidate days about him one way or another.

I didn't jump on the Dean bandwagon because I pay attention to the facts and the facts led me to Kerry. Did I waiver, yeah, when I was bombarded with the false representation of Kerry's IWR vote by the media and "another" candidate. Did I believe them or did I look into it for myself, looked into it and understood what was being done.

I don't see Clark as being able to have minor issues face him because he already has some dandy ones on his plate. I think his political inexperience will not help in a general election and there will be mistakes made that will put him in the spotlight... he's already made some and that's why he stepped out of the spotlight and is in NH.

I do know Kerry has been in the spotlight for thirty years. Will there be minor issues about this or that in a general election, sure but the spotlight in Massachusetts shines bright on a politician and in Vermont, it does not shine as bright. Kerry's stood under the spotlight for a long time and Dean's just had a couple of months of what its like. If Dean weathers the storm he'll be a better candidate to face bush and I'll be happy to support him.

If he doesn't... vote for Kerry and we'll take the White House back from bush and the gang.

keep communicating the things that are wrong about Dean. I am trying to help those now in love with Dean to discern that he will only harm and betray them in the future. It's time to take a long, hard look at Howard Dean and see him as what he is: a socially liberal Rockefeller Republican in a donkey suit, a man who governed like a Republican, a man who calls himself a "fiscal conservative."

Dean is already planning to balance the federal budget in his second term; he has said so in speeches. Look at his record in Vermont, where he turned to cutting programs for the elderly, programs for the disabled, programs for the poor, in order to balance the state budget. Do you honestly belive he'll be different as president?

The man has made so many contradictory statements about Iraq that it's nearly impossible to keep up with them. Last night, though, he said that positions on the IWR don't matter, and asserted that he was the only one to oppose the war, "except for Dennis Kucinich. And Al. And Carol." Why not just say "I was one of the four candidates who opposed the war"?

Even though he always complains about the buckshot in his rear, I see no evidence that Dean will be able to stand up to the GOP's charges. (In fact, his complaining is a pretty good indicator that he won't be able to take it.) He's already cried to Terry McAuliffe, asking him to make everybody stop picking on him. The GOP will drive him nuts. They won't shoot buckshoot at his rear, they'll be firing to kill with serious artillery. And he has vulnerabilities in many areas. Many Dems see that. Meanwhile, many Republicans are sick of Bush and will vote Democratic if we give them a decent nominee.

You're right that the GOP will attack the Democratic nominee. That's why we need a nominee who can take it without becoming upset, a nominee who can give back as good as he gets.

Howard Dean is not that person. Howard Dean must not be our nominee.
We must nominate a real Democrat with a strong record, a Dem who has fought tough races before and won, a Dem who doesn't have all the negatives that Dean does.

It's time to stop playing and get serious about 2004. That means that either Dean is out of the race or he'll take the party down with him. It's that important. It's not just about beating Bush, it's also about saving our party from a disaster of massive proportions.

1. Fiscal conservative & balancing the budget - we all know that Dems are the REAL fiscal conservatives, but ask Joe Six Pack, and he says it's the repugs who are the fiscal conservatives.

Dean was fiscally *responsible* in Vermont. bush has made fiscal irresponsibility and budget-busting spending an issue in this election (even with repugs!), and any Dem who does not take that on and use it against bush is either weak or an idiot. Dean is the *only* Dem candidate who can look bush in his squinty eyes and say "I had to balance Vermont's budget and I did." The best the others can say is "I helped Bill Clinton balance the budget and produce a surplus." They will have to balance THAT against the reality that they gave bush the green light to run up at least $200 billion in debt via this war, while simultaneously raising their negatives with some voters via the Clinton taint.

2. "I see no evidence that Dean will be able to stand up to the GOP's charges" - and why is that? Because he "cried" to McAuliffe? I think you may have missed the hidden agenda in Dean's request, ie: to basically cut himself free from the tentacles of the DNC. He did it with his grassroots organization, he did it with his fund raising and turning down matching funds, and he completed the trifecta by forcing McA to side - if tacitly - with the DC politicians who Dean is running against via his outsider status. But as far as being able to defend himself and stand up to attacks and smears, he'll have no problem with the GOP. He HAS had problems with his own party, and Dean admits that it has caught him a bit off guard (he explicitly said so about Sharpton's attack). If and when he becomes the party's nominee, he will simply revert back to the bush bashing that got him this far, aided and abetted in large part by bush himself (and his crumbling credibility and disastrous foreign and domestic policies).

3. "That means that either Dean is out of the race or he'll take the party down with him." - sorry, but Dean is not Mondale. Dean is not Dukakis. Even if he was, we survived those two "deaths" of the democratic party and went on to win 3 pres elections in a row (I count Gore as a win). Even when Nixon won his second term in a landslide, we "won" in the end because, like bush, his fascism came back to bite him in the ass. And Nixon was a small-time crook compared to bush and his cabal.

4. "We must nominate a real Democrat with a strong record, a Dem who has fought tough races before and won, a Dem who doesn't have all the negatives that Dean does." - and who, exactly, has a strong record? And who is a "real" Dem? They're all real Dems, though Clark certainly came late to the party. And, as far as not having negatives, the whole premise of my post was that each and everyone of them will have tons of negatives going into October. The repugs will make sure of that.

You may well disagree with my premise, but occasionally - occasionally - I think that we on these boards are too smart by half. Were elections to be ever be decided on real issues, a real message and top-level experience, then Mondale, Humphrey, Gore and Dewey would have all had their terms in the WH. For all the evidence available on which candidate is truly the best, we end up with the Nixons, Reagans and bushes of the world. More simply put, the country seems just fine hiring governors with no foreign policy experience to act as their chief executive (ie: Carter, Reagan, Clinton, bush II - OK, he wasn't elected).

Whatever else, we are in for a bumpy ride. Let's hope that there's a payoff at the end of that ride - that is, if the ride is even allowed to happen.

"Were elections to be ever be decided on real issues, a real message and top-level experience, then Mondale, Humphrey, Gore and Dewey would have all had their terms in the WH."

So why are you not doing your part to make it that way? You recognize the problem and then continue its longevity. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but Dean is not going to make any real changes to lead us to our desired goal I agree with DBDB, why are Democrats backing so many right leaning policies?

Also your assumptions above are wrong, if issues truly matter and record mattered, Nader would have won is 2000 and not the corporate serving lesser of two evils Gore. Just MHO

TWL

Are you referring to posters in this forum? Or is it Sharpton? I regard Sharpton's questioning of Dean's ethnic makeup of his cabinet to be fair, since, as Sharpton pointed out, Dean brought up the issue of race in the first place. It's a fair question. Not an attack. An attack is something more personal, like attacking his style. Sharpton didn't call him a name or shout at him. It was just a debate question.

Is the strategy of the Dean campaign to categorize questions as attacks? That's what Bush does. No questioning or dissent allowed, or that is characterized as attacking and unpatriotic.

Relax. He's in the lead. He's not really in a position to be complaining about attacks. If he drops out of the lead, he won't be focused on so much, and he'll dream of the days he was focused on. But he seems solidly in the lead right now, wouldn't you agree?

It seems to me that most bashing posts by supporters in this forum are by Dean supporters. Just an observation. Example: In the first 20 posts right now of the forum, 7 were by Dean supporters, 3 were by Clark supporters, 1 was by a Kucinich supporter. The rest were by supporters of unidentified candidates (could be anyone). There were four clearly bashing posts. All four were by Dean supporters. All 3 of the Clark posts were saying something favorable about their candidate, and the Kucinich post was speaking in favor of his candidate.

where they are. They're in and around Baghdad, and north of there, up near Tikrit. :-)

Actually, I meant posters in these forums, not Sharpton.

On edit: hey, I just hit 600 posts!! :-)

The only constant that I've ever observed in presidential primaries is that they are rife with surprises and upsets.

While the smart money is still on Dean, there could be an upset. In fact, I'll make a prediction here: if Dean doesn't win the Iowa caucuses, it will be in a squeaker of a loss to - get ready - John Edwards.

If Edwards wins Iowa, it will indeed be a major shocker. But I doubt it will happen.

Iowa's system isn't just running in and voting. You have to go and stay for the whole caucus; the voting is the last thing they do. It requires a much bigger commitment than voting in a primary. So the caucus is about organization.

Gephardt has union workers all over the state; his people will turn out. But right now the weather forecast calls for a mild low of 29, no rain or snow that night, which will probably be a help to Dean, who counts on more first-time voters and whose organizers have less experience at this.

Another factor no one talks about is the 15% rule. Candidates who don't attract at least that much support at a given caucus get NO votes from that caucus; their supporters can join someone else, or sit it out. In a multi-candidate race, many of these will support the candidate they think can stop the frontrunner, because the longer the race stays competitive, the better chance their candidate has of coming back in later primaries. The caucus isn't one vote; it is a series of votes until all remaining groups are over the hurdle.

For example, Edwards and Kerry are polling around 10-17% range, depending on which poll is right. Their supporters can make a deal - it's perfectly expected in the Iowa system - "We'll support you in #105, you throw your votes to us in #318." You can bet there will be more cell phones than winter hats in each caucus, relaying the numbers to HQ and awaiting instructions. Each major candidate's office will look like an air traffic control tower, with computers and phone lines and stat boards and coffee, everything but the radar.

So in Iowa, anything can happen. Expect a surprise, because polling can't tell you who will trade support to who else, or who the voters' second choices are.