Republican Games for Democratic Primaries

There is every reason to believe that the Republicans have made, and will continue to make, every possible effort to manipulate the Democratic race to their own advantage. Does anyone doubt for a moment that Rowe and team have been hard at work, for over a year, looking for one or more scenarios that they could play to their own advantage? The day has long since passed when a National Political Party, especially the Republicans with their Lee Atwater legacy, will sit back and honorably wait for their opponent to emerge from the other major Party. Why wait for the opposition to choose your opponent if you can "choose" him/her yourself? Trying to Select a "combatant" who matches up well against your opposition is standard to both sports and politics. This year, since only the Democratic designee is in doubt, both Democrats AND Republicans are free to cull through the Democratic field of candidates, anticipating that November match up.

When the Dean campaign began to "emerge", the Republicans believed, if the time came, that they knew how to run against him. If they pushed Dean hard enough, poked him enough times, he would generate enough "heated moments" for them to pull out of context and use to scare the middle away from Howard. Based on that assessment, and Dean's shallow resume on foreign affairs, early on it seems there were direct Republican efforts to boost Dean; by increasing his publicity, elevating his stature, and even directing some funds toward his campaign. In addition to promoting what they saw as a weak Dean candidacy, there was another benefit in this for Republicans. Dean was the Democratic candidate most willing and able to attack other Democrats as "Washington Insiders", and Bush-Lites".

From a Republican perspective, Dean sowed useful dissension among Democrats. His repeated charges would inevitably weaken another candidate, were one to emerge victorious over Dean, while angering backers of other candidates against Dean, should Dean emerge as the eventual nominee. There is some hard evidence of attempted Republican manipulation. There were some right wing Internet generated appeals uncovered asking Republicans to contribute to Dean. Of course these could have been the work of individual "Republican cells" (I enjoy that imagery) working independently on their own initiative and strategy. Personally I believe there was some Bush campaign orchestration, but no smoking gun has yet been found.

If it were prooven that the Bush campaign initially tried to promote Dean as a weak opponent, that isn't a good reason for Democrats not to rally around Dean now. The Republicans could have read it completely wrong. They could have totally underestimated Dean, and the groundswell of opposition Dean was tapping into. Even if some Republicans "plotted for Dean", they may yet regret that decision. I am not arguing the point either way here. I am just saying that it is naive not to assume that the Republicans will do everything in their considerable power to influence the decisions of Democratic voters in the Primaries.

It seems so long ago now, but who still remembers the attempts being made about 6 or 7 weeks ago to prop up Gephardt as the man the Republicans were REALLY afraid of? Did anyone believe that one then? Politics is a refined art on the national level. In trying to orchestrate the emergence of their most favored Democratic candidate, Republicans also promote the rise of Democratic Primary opponents to the Democratic candidate they least want to face in November. At least one right wing Internet source 6 weeks or so or ago was calling for donations to the Kerry and Edwards campaigns, this back when Clark started challenging Dean, but Kerry and Edwards were still lagging in the polls and low on funding. The rational then was to hurt Clark and help Dean, by promoting alternate "anti-Deans" to take the wind out of Clark's sails. This is sophisticated gamesmanship. It doesn't replace direct attacks on Democrats that Republicans want to hurt, it compliments it. And it is more stealth by one degree than getting Democrats to do their dirty work for them through our own infighting. It is the hidden thumb on the electoral scale.

For a brief time the Republicans seemed near certain that Dean had become unstoppable, and they revised their strategy somewhat. They shifted more toward laying the groundwork for direct Republican assaults on Dean. Bush's State of the Union speech seemed to be colored by the assumption that Dean would do well enough in Iowa to remain the front runner. Iowa and the "controversy" surrounding Dean's concession speech there has again shaken up the race, leaving Kerry and Clark as the probable leading contenders. Given that choice, in my opinion, the Republicans would prefer Kerry. He is more of a known quantity who they can more predictably counter with a conventional campaign, whereas Clark completely scrambles their radar.

The upshot? A sudden surge of John Edwards talk to undercut Clark again. At this late stage I doubt the Republicans believe Edwards has much of a real chance of beating Kerry. With Kerry soon to be coming off of victories in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and with Edwards having to fight with Clark in the South, with a relatively minor campaign presence almost everywhere else after New Hampshire, I don't think Edwards can beat Kerry in a national campaign. But Clark might. Kerry and Edwards both voted for the IWR. They both are "Washington Insiders", to quote Howard Dean. Clark provides a greater contrast to Kerry, while offering strong national security credentials that neutralizes the advantage Kerry holds over Edwards.

There are many thousands of sincere John Edwards supporters, who like the man for all of the right reasons. Mixed in with them, I suspect, are some Republican spinsters who hope a late rise by John Edwards might put to rest the Clark challenge. Personally I believe John Edwards could run a good race against Bush. Maybe Edwards would be our strongest candidate, maybe not. Maybe Clark wouldn't run as well against Bush as Kerry or Edwards would. And maybe Democratic voters won't allow the measure as to who is MOST electible be the deciding factor influencing their decisions. We must never be pushed into voting one way simply because the Republicans want us to vote the opposite. Neither, however, should we be blind to their attempts to influence us.

According to some politicos quoted in todays NY Times, some people seem to think that all the "values talk" in Bush*'s SOTU was meant to contrast Bush*'s religiosity with Dean's secularity.

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

Specifically, I wanted to be clear that I don't think we can let ourselves become mechanically reactive to Republican attempts at manipulation. We may know something they don't. Very specifically I believe John Edwards could make a good Democratic Party candidate for President. Just wanted to be clear about that.

I'm not sure if I agree with all of it, but I'll have to mull over some of it. Thank you for the food for thought. As always, Tom, your posts are ever thoughtful and insightful.

I had to kick this thread in honor of it.

:kick:

Very insightful - thanks for the brain food