Delay gleefully admitted that he'd love to see Dean nominated

This guy is a comlete and utter prick, however he is not stupid when it comes to, and he is in fact quite effective at politics

So because when these frank confessions come from prominent right-wingers(and dozens apon dozens have), they are usually met with "reverse psychology" defenses from Dean-supporters, I just want to say in advance how ridiculous that Defense is

I certainly have no crystal ball that tells me that; do you?

right? (rofl)

Delay:

If Dean get the democrat nomination
"2004 is going to make the 84 election look like a sqeaker."

"I think it is wonderfull (chuckle) that he is doing what he is doing."

"I hope Dean is nominated by the democrats,(chuckle, chuckle)
I got to tell you!"


PROBLEM, THOUGH, IS A LOT OF INDEPENDENT ANALYST ARE SAYING THE
SAME THINGS.

will let myself make a decision based on anything Tom Delay says publicly. He is not in the feedback loop.

Dean and Trippi are brilliant........I sense Delay is trying doop the listening dem's.

calling them an extremist. They don't have the fodder to call Clark that so they are accusing him of being of poor character.

DeLay looked like he was whacking off when he was talking about Dean being nominated, but maybe he was acting.

Why do I care what that collosal prick thinks? I am not afraid of his opinion. I am SMARTER than Delay or any other Republican.

in the GOP primaries.

in the general election.

We thought that his flubbing would make him completely unelectable.

please stop this revisionist history, oh I guess that's required if you support Dean and wish to defend him

not during the race where it became clear that Bush was formidable

He was still the better choice for opponents. His winning was a fluke. McCain's would have been solid. He had crossover support from Dems (that's how he won Michigan).

to stop votes from being counted? The same questions would be asked if the Democrats had stolen an election the way Bu$h Inc. did. Would it not? Destroy? When you beat someone. You beat someone. When someone cheats you. You have been cheated. The truth sucks I know.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

because it would have resulted in 2 candidates that were acceptable to most dems

would have switched parties and voted in that primary to prevent this. The Republicans need a stronger centrist wing.

Then we'll see what happens then.

Dean had 3,500 supporters volunteer to go to Iowa to campaign for him.

3,500.

...careful what you wish for...

and Oregon and New Mexico and Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Maine as well as every state Gore lost and "lost"(FL)

nt

If you look at opinion polls on the issues, combined with his generally unpleasent personality, he's a perfect storm for defeat

greater than half of the independant middle, as well as a third to half of democrats are apposed to his position on foriegn policy over Bushes, with worse numbers for him on middle class taxes.

He also says something stupid enough that it requires apology on average about once a month and a half

I ask again, have you any objective evidence to back up your statement?

are what constitute evidence. Those 7 states I named: IO, WI, NM, MI, PA, ME, and OR are the GOP's first, biggest, and easiest targets of the "blue states" in 2004. Because Dean is, as democrats of my disposition believe, such a flawed general election candidate, I believe the GOP would effectively and without too much effort, win those states, as well as perhaps even more democratic states

I base this belief about the fact that he is a flawed candidate overall on what I adressed earlier, his issue positions, negative personality traits, and inability to refrain from apology-requiring dumb comments

I was beginning to think you had some sort of objective evidence of your assertions; I'm confirmed in my initial impression that those were your opinions only. Thank you.

More of that whacky world. Who knew.

;)

Many think Maine is in the Democratic win column, but from the ground, I'm seeing it very differently. First, we split our electoral votes, which makes the more liberal Southern Maine vote only part of the picture. Second, Gore did not receive 50% of the vote in 2000. Finally, the state is evenly split, and with Dean's "liberal" label firmly in place, we are likely to lose the state.

I live in the only town in my county to vote for Gore in 2000, and believe me that took quite a bit of work on the part of me and my friends. So the other day I was in the post office, and one of my neighbors was mailing a package of letters to Iraq that the kids had written. The people standing around broke into a discussion about Iraq, and I was pleasantly surprized to find that while they supported the troops, they all thought the war should have been in Afghanistan with Iraq being an oil grab. This was not a quiet discussion, and it was definately not being waged by "leftist." These people were all native Mainers who come to mind when one imagines the sterotypical no nonsense rural citizen of my great state. Dean's name came up. Whoa! The post mistress called him "crazy." They will not vote for him, and they would definately vote to dump bush...but Howard will keep them home.

Michigan and Pennsylvania? Dean leads Bush in those states...

And Dean can win WVa...strengthen Penn and Michigan....

Don't be scared....stand up for yourself.....see what happens....

I'm not disputing your claim but it would be nice for you to provide a little backup. I explained by prediction, and considering you're telling me to "check my information", the basis of which is quite often more reliable than head-to-heads in states where 3 quarters of the general election voters aren't paying any attention

like they want Dean because they are scared to death of him! They think if they can convince the dems that Dean is the one THEY want.....we will nominate someone else. Those slimeballs know how to deceive,and they do it very well. Repukes gleeful over a Dean nomination? LOL. It's pure bu$hit.

for almost a year

or is that pretend money?

It's helping Dean to clear the field.

I have heard that there are organized republican efforts to funnel
money into the Dean campaign through his Internet fund raising.

Is there any way to confirm this?

but here's a snippet from a so-so, amateurish, but nonetheless
comprehensive critique of Dean:

Dean is trying to tap into a base of support that transcends party boundaries. Republicans are coming to Dean events, and switching to the Democratic Party so they can vote for him in the primary. Whether this is part of a grand Republican scheme dreamed up by Karl Rove or not, it's providing Dean with numbers he wouldn't otherwise have. It's similar to the tactics the Republicans used in ousting Democrat Cynthia McKinney from her Congressional seat in Georgia: crossover voting.

Of the more than 100,000 campaign contributors Dean claims, Newsweek had to admit that some of those contributors are Republicans who believe that wherever Dean advances, President Bush gains.

One of these pro-Dean Republicans, CK Rairden, in an article entitled "Should Republicans Help Nominate Howard Dean?" in the Washington Dispatch, suggests:


"Republicans are already voting with their wallets for Howard Dean, logging on to Dean’s official Web Site and donating various sums of cash to the left wing candidate’s primary campaign. They want Dean to win the Democrat primary. The real question now emerges. Will rank and file Republicans cross over and vote in the Democrat Primary elections to help get Dean the nomination?
http://www.hermes-press.com/HDean/dean_republican.htm

But you won't see any evidence provided here.

I know of one republican who has donated to Dean and he attends Dean Meetups too. Why? Because he says he made a mistake voting for Bush, that he's the worst president ever and that with his kids getting older, he thinks the country needs someone like Dean. Some would call that cross-over appeal.

so, yes, you will see sources provided contrary to what you said.

and while somebody who has voted republican might vote for Dean, no republican with any meaning would have any reason to chose him over Bush.

The modern republican party stands for and is rooted around across-the-board tax cuts and traditional/religious values. Dean has across-the-board tax raises as his economic platform and doesn't belong to a church

you have deemed him to be without "meaning," whatever the hell that means.

There are plenty of sites on the Internet where one can examine campaign contributions. Surely you have something to substantiate your claim, or was that a pretend post?

Dean is way out in front and his support is growing exponetially.

He raises huge amounts of money almost effortlessly.

And he attacks Bush* EVERYDAY.

Oh yeah, the republicans definately want Dean. (/Sarcasm)

against bush. It seems to me that they would be using that "reverse pychology on Clark. Not Dean.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you are down right RUDE to make a comment. Lot's of people aren't great spellers (including myself)...but we have a right to post without being insulted. Are you trying to imtimidate him because he doesn't agree with you? I'm sorry...but I really, really, really get angry when someone has the audacity to publically critize someone else.

There are a couple of boards on DU where people are better behaved. If it's any consolation, people are angry here because we're all anxious about the idea of a second Bush term. Under the conflict there's a hell of a lot of concensus.

Don't criticise spelling. It isn't cool. As I just showed it can happen to anyone.

And Tim just let him. I had to turn that mess off because I certainly didn't want to add more to the Bush* economy by having to go out and buy a new TV.

But Russert did point out that Clinton disputes the 'character and integrity' charges against Clark, before going on to say he will wait to talk about it with Clark himself.

...the entire Republican party is engaged in a massive "reverse psychology" mind game conspiracy against the entire Democratic party, of which their sending money to Dr. Dean is only a clever, distracting ploy?

Oh wait, that actually is what the Dean supporters in this thread are claiming. Well then, it looks like your powers of prediction are pretty on-target. Your spelling skills, however, still need a lot of work.

I guess I have to enroll in spelling class then

Your post, with my corrections in red and needed deletions in gray:

This guy is a complete and utter prick, however he is not stupid when it comes to, and he is in fact quite effective at, politics

So because when these frank confessions come from prominent right-wingers(and dozens upon dozens have), they are usually met with "reverse psychology" defenses from Dean-supporters, I just want to say in advance how ridiculous that Defense is.

it's arrogant bravado, wagging-the-flag, and hubris of only Republican proportions. President Bush must be so proud. Any of our candidates could beat them on the merits of their record, which is abyssmal at best. What is happening is the handwringers in the Democratic Party are content to allow them to do it - so long as it isn't against their candidate (which it would be were they the frontrunner).

And it's very sad to watch you folks let them get away with it.

I suspect Delay's glee is neither reverse psychology nor a geniune warning about a Dean candidacy. I think he's telling his constituents that they needn't worry about the guy they've been hearing a lot about cuz the leadership has a plan to defeat him. I'm sure they have plans to defeat all the candidates.

and disgusting I find it that so-called Democrats do the GOP's work for them.

You should fear Rove. He plays y'all like a fiddle. He says frog, you jump so high it leaves a green smear on the ceiling.

believes he "is" the Government. He is singlehandedly responsible for some of the most atrocious offerings the Republicans have made spineless Democrats on the hill swallow.

Howard Dean will call him out by name, and I will gladly let Tom Delay become the face of the Republican party in defending their "record".

Do not fret about Tom Delay and who he wishes to see in the election, the Republicans have been all over the place on this, and it is because Dean is an unknown quantity. The second you let him frame the debate you lose - and that is what you hand-wringers do every day here on DU. Stop fretting, and start fighting. Tom Delay deserves nothing but contempt. We all know any of our candidates could win aginst their pitiful record of corporate whoredom.

Don't be afraid of Tom Delay, folks - he is the epitome of everything Dean is fighting against - and is only beating his chest, and wagging-the-flag, which is the only defense the Republicans have.

:evilgrin: = Tom Delay

Fear + :evilfrown: + Tom Delay + :mad: + Karl Rove + :silly: - reason = DUers who will stoop to any level to advance their losing candidates.

The GOP will attack Dean on the civil unions by showing endless clips of Gay Pride in San Francisco, not to mention showing the good Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

The GOP will gay bash and exploit the fears of gays, and homosexuality, that many Americans have, in order to mobilize the sheep to show up in force on Election Day. I would not be surprised if the pedophile smear is also used in connection to the GLBT community.

What are Democrats to do? Without doubt, some Democrats will be quite happy to screw the GLBT of their rights in order to appeal to that "elusive" center that invariably ends up voting Republican every four years. These are the kind of Democrats that had no problem voting for DOMA a few years back. They are also the same kind of Democrats that voted to restrict abortion rights this year in order to appease that same "elusive" center that I just mentioned.

Many more Democrats are not like DeLay, or the soft-on-civil-rights Democrats. These Democrats understand that equality under the law is one of the basic principles under which our Republic was founded. These Democrats also know that equality under the law has yet to be fully achieved for women, minorities, and gays.

The argument against the homophobic onslaught that the GOP is salivating about is that all Americans have the right to be free of harassment, persecution, and discrimination on the basis of their color, religion, sex, national origin, and sexual orientation. Democrats should stand fast on the principles that all Americans are equal before the law, and that to deny equal rights to some, for whatever pretext, is to deny equal rights to all.

Democrats should point out that not long ago many Americans were barred from entering restaurants because of the color of their skin, or to marry someone because they were of a different race, or to serve in the military because they were Black.

The attacks the GOP plans on Dean are the same attacks they will use against any Democratic candidate that has stood for equal rights for all Americans, and it matters not whether that candidate's last name is Clark, Dean, Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, or Sharpton.

We must stand together and fight bigotry in all of its permutations, and never be ashamed or gun-shy about being liberals!

You should add John Kerry to that particular list, in spite of you being down on him over his IWR vote.
Kerry was the ONLY senator up for reelection in 1996 to vote AGAINST the Defense of Marriage Act. That tells me, whatever his Iraq war vote, that he does stand for equal rights for all.
John
His vote took courage (something Kerry has shown before). I applaud him for it.

Kerry, as well as Lieberman, support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2003, which the GOP majority will make sure never sees the light of day.

Political science 101. They know a lot of people don't like Dean for this belief and are exploiting it.

They have a game plan for all of the candidates -- Clark would be the crazy Perot-style fruit-loop, they'll paint Kerry as an arrogant north-eastern elitist Dukakis, Gephardt gets the "big government" treatment, and so forth.

Yeah right. The GOP is never sophisticated. They don't need to be. face. And Delay is the most in your face of them all.

Please don't fall for the reverse psychology act until the Dean campaign can provide examples of GOP reverse psychology strategy used previously on any issue. They come at you. On the war. On their policy agendas. On their campaigns.

Delay went after Dean because he sees what wee all see. The media trying prop Dean up to be the nominee, just according to plan.

Delay's the meanest guy in DC and what he was doing was tweaking the Dems, "See, it's already over. We win. And you know it."

Trouble for ol' Tom is it's not too late. Dean has nothing sewn up. Not even close. If enough Dems wake up, we can save our party and our country from four more years of Bush.

You let Tom Delay do your thinking for you?

I just don't listen to Republicans when I'm making my decision. They may be trying to influence my choice one way or another... it doesn't matter, I'm making my choice by the criteria I myself set.

I don't believe they are more perceptive or intelligent in making decisions than I am.

Who friggin cares what this cockroach says. He also said the pukes were responsible for balancing the budgets despite not one republican vote for the budget that passed.

The guy is a piece of crap and he is shaking in his shoes like the rest of them at the idea of someone getting the nod that is willing to take the gloves off and expose them for the corupt cockroaches they are.

Anybody But Delay. :thumbsdown:

that DeLay would have said the same thing about any of the other Dem presidential candidates who happened to be leading in the polls. This is my opinion, for which there is no proof--as is the case with most opinions, even the others that have been offered in this thread.

our Democratic candidates and the Clinton Administration. Accepted absolutely no responsibility for anything that has gone wrong, blamed all bad on Clinton and gave Republican's all credit for anything good. Won't pick our nominee based on Tom Delay.

because you just might get it."

Clark Campaign Strategist Reid Cherlin responded to Tom `Chicken-hawk' Delay's latest cowardly comments, "The closest to real combat that Tom `Chicken-Hawk' Delay has ever come was when he got himself a student deferment from Vietnam and instead suited up in his exterminator outfit and defended the people of Texas against invading cockroaches, marauding red ants and hostile moths. Wes Clark has seen real combat, given his blood for our country, and commanded troops in battle, which is why he believes we need to win the war on terrorism instead of declaring victory when we all know that the terrorists directly responsible for 9/11 are still out there at large. General Clark lives in a world where he believes that America will be stronger, safer and more secure if we are focused on winning the war against the terrorists, getting Osama bin Laden and working with our Allies."

Just to remind people of the Chicken-hawk's views on military service, here is what he has said about his lack of military experience, in an excerpt from the Houston Press:

"He and Quayle, DeLay explained to the assembled media in New Orleans, were victims of an unusual phenomenon back in the days of the undeclared Southeast Asian war. `So many minority youths had volunteered for the well-paying military positions to escape poverty and the ghetto that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself.' Satisfied with the pronouncement, which dumbfounded more than a few of his listeners who had lived the sixties, DeLay marched off to the convention." <Houston Press, 1/7/99>

http://campaign.forclark.com/story/2003/12/21/131040/98

DTH

He needs to drop out and support either Kerry, Lieberman or Clark.

We have nothing to show after a decade of their leadership.

At least we had the Congress when Democratic "enemies" McGovern and Mondale were running.

.

So Delay says he'd love to see Dean be the nominee, eh? Here are some other very credible Delay quotes from the same interview:

- "The president didn't overemphasize weapons of mass destruction as the only reason to go into Iraq."

- "He supported terrorists. We have proven that to--to be the case so far. He had weapons of mass destruction."

- "Well, Tim, I got to tell you, sometimes--you know, it's harder to find Osama bin Laden than it is to find--or it's easier to find Osama bin Laden than it is to find Wesley Clark's foreign policy. General Wesley Clark, as you pointed out, was commander of NATO. He was also removed from that post because of character reasons."

- "It's amazing to me the comments that you're hearing now coming from national politicians running for national office. You'd think it would come from the French or their party or from these demonstrators that demonstrate in the streets that you see."

- "We would love to run against Howard Dean. He is so far out there on the fringe."

- "Tax cuts will lower the deficit and bring us to balance. That's how we balance the budget."


Yeah, Tom Delay sure knows what he's talking about.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3685396/

In advance. For example having Tommy Franks "speculate"
about scrapping the constitution for a military form of gov't.
PNAC is right out in the open.
They're increasingly brazen, and I think they're brazenly open
about wanting Dean as red meat, which he would be.

because apparently Dean DOES appeal to both Democrats and Republicans

that me and ole Tom Delay would have something in common, we both want Dean to get the nomination.

is a liar and the truth ain't in him.

He's lower than whale shit and whale shit lays at the bottom of the sea.

I don't think he should be a source of comment on our nominee.

I support a different candidate, but I don't see why anyone could listen to that MTP appearance and hear LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, TRUTH, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE.

Did I mention he's a liar?