I heard it on BBC News Hour this AM (radio)--the 2004 election...

with Maggie (?) Comstock and Joe Lockhart.

Let's see what Ms. Comstock, a Bush political adviser in the past,( but who knows, she sounds like she's got the message programmed already) said:

First question was on security:
The BBC interviewer cited Bush's polls in the 60% range due to Saddam's capture. Comment passed by.
She linked terror to Saddam and no one challenged her, because she was racing along with her comments. Lockhart said events like this seem to pass quickly.

The election:
Comstock immediately mentioned 1) Dems raising taxes on people, esp. the middle class and 2) the liberals in party choosing the candidate during the primaries. I have not a clue what Lockhart said, because I was really listening hard to her spin. Note the first thing is the tax issue. The second is the use of the word "liberal." Those are the first two talking points that come to the GOP mind.

So I'm mulling all this over at 7:40 AM MT. The irony is almost too much. I wonder: if Dean is running such a great campaign positioning himself as anti-centrist Democrats, ie, being described as a liberal, from the Democratic wing of the part, a progressive, etc. etc.--why are people buying it when the way he is setting himself up for attacks in the general election will ultimately work against him....And FOR WHAT, if he's really a centrist anyway???

It's a lousy long term strategy for the general election. Possible results: disappointed supporters who finally figure out he's not as "liberal" as they thought; liberals like me who are fed up with the game he's playing and realize that Kucinich is the true liberal, but can't win...so feel more pragmatic and want Clark, who's pretty damned liberal or Kerry, and maybe even someone else; "mushy Democrats, those who wake up on October 22nd, 2004 and are confused and decided to stick with Bush because at least he's "darned right about fighting terror, why switch horses now?"; and the GOP, picking over all Dean's primary gaffes, largely of his own making, in addition to his tax policy and his positioning himself outside the "mainstream" Democratic party--a liberal in GOP terms.

Mind-boggling. So I get up and walk my dog. Much less complicated...

Hi, Gloria :hi:

I heard it, too. In regard to Comstock mentioning raising taxes, Lockhart was quite effective in his response, pointing out that it's the wealthy who have gotten the tax breaks and that is where any "increases" would most likely go.


Cher

the emphasis on the wealthy is consistent with Kerry, I'm pretty sure. Definitely with Clark's position.

It seems Dean is the one with the problem on this....among other things!

blog.johnedwards2004.com

He burned a Dean supporter (or, at least, someone you claims to be a Dean supporter, but likes Jesse Helms).

I don't think Lockhart would blog there unless he liked Edwards.

Furthermore, Edwards's is candidacy is more about middle class opportunity and equitable and fair taxation than anyone's.

Which is precisely why we NEED Clark. At least with him you know what you'll get. He's got no holes that require plugging. He is an honest and upfront man. He's big enough to admit when he's made a mistake. Why not a Clark/Kucinich ticket?? I like Dennis', have given money to his campaign, I like his domestic agenda.

This whole process has totally ticked me off (primaries, and which states choose early, set the tone, etc.) I make it my business to tell at least 3 people a day how important it is to vote in the primary or we will get stuck with a candidate that no one in the GE really wants.

just my .02 on xmas day.

so hold your nose and vote for them or accept 4 more years of Bush.

I respect your opinions. I think you are right. I like all of the candidates, except JL, and was having a hard time choosing. I thought I might just watch this Dem primary and keep my emotions out of it. But then came Clark -- that did it. I believe that Clark can beat bush*. He really does need more media exposure though.

I just talked to my nephew in Seattle and he mentioned the young guy running, who has two little kids. He couldn't remember his name. I said "John Edwards". And he said yes, that's the one and he sounds pretty good. So busy working people raising their kids really don't even know the candidates yet. (I did put in a plug for Andy, running for Sec. of State in Washington.)

and hear him talk about reaching out to the kind of voter you just described.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=437

with just ANGER....I'm afraid some people have bought into the anger, but can't go beyond it.

I flirted with Dean for about 2 weeks because of the anger...but quickly decided that that wasn't enough.

and good analysis!

If anything, Dean is anti-Bush-enabling-Democrats.

much sense. They're all running against Bush. They just don't think that sounding like you're not going to be strong on national security is a winning strategy for a Democrat.

There is nothing about Bush's policies on nat'l security that I consider to be strong. It is a myth that the Wa Dems have been unable to expose. Opposing Bush policy equates with wisdom, not weakness.

Our security isn't enhanced by destroying other countries and slapping them back together in a way that pleases us. It puzzles me that anyone could think that makes the US safer. The only results I see are strengthened enemies, lost allies and an empty treasury.

...

Right. Not planned. Containment. Unilateralism. International law. Respect for the sovereignty of other nations. Diplomacy. A democracy that eschews aggressive and unnecessary war, as her own sons and daughters are the cost.

What a bitter joke to hear Bush and his little helpers say that once Iraq is a democracy, we will be safer because democracies don't threaten others! May Iraq's principles be stronger than Washington's.

did everything they could to make it appear they were going to behave.

Clinton and Gore both considered Hussein a huge threat.

I don't see a no vote sitting well with 80% of American voters.

a threat. Around the globe people protested this invasion because the evidence indicated Hussein was not a threat. His nearest neighbors did not consider him a threat. Our own intellegence does not seem to have considered him a threat.

It is most of the other candidates who have a pandering, losing strategy on this one. They want to say Iraq WAS a threat but Bush is not handling the situation correctly (which of course he isn't). But by affirming "threat" they validate the war for the general public, who are too busy scrabbling for a livlihood to parse the fine points of International Law or Multi-Lateralism. If the other Dems were out there saying loud and clear that Bush took us to war and cost American lives (and Iraqi's, but I don't see any outrage over that, since our pusillanimous Press won't show the real cost in dead and mutilated children...but I rant)...anyway, if the other Dems would hammer on the evasions, prevarications, manipulations that took us into war they might make a bigger dent in Bush's armour. Every time they say Iraq was a threat they bolster Bush, as I see it.

I am not a Dean supporter, btw.

I am not surprised by bringing up the tax issue. On this one I think Dean is not only making a strategic error but also just plain wrong from the perspective of fostering economic inequality, wealth disparity, and the relative tax burden to different economic strata.

...have said and/or currently say that Hussein was a threat.

Clearly, Bush behaved in a way that would guarantee a mess (no doubt, intentionally). However, an up/down vote which was essentially on the issue of whether Hussein would be deemed a threat to national security was no way to investigate the nuances of how best to deal with Hussein.

not looking good for Dean "wisdom"

WashPost/ABC
12/20/03
-----------------------------------Bush--55-----------Dean----37

Past national polls, which asked more head-to-head questions, showed repeatedly that Dean fares much worse against Bush than Senator John Kerry or General Wesley Clark.

WashPost/ABC
11/02/03
-----------------------------------Bush--54-----------Dean----39
-----------------------------------Bush--51-----------Clark----40
-----------------------------------Bush--50-----------Kerry----44

USAT/CNN/Gallup
9/21/03
-----------------------------------Bush--49-----------Dean----46
-----------------------------------Bush--46-----------Clark----49
-----------------------------------Bush--47-----------Kerry----48

Dean’s lack of military and foreign policy experience is at least vaguely understood by the public at large. “ …when asked in the poll whether they trusted the president or Dean more to handle national security and the war on terrorism, 67 percent said Bush and 21 percent Dean. “

It is a myth that the Wa Dems have been unable to expose.

but their positions appear to be more popular than Dean's vis a vis polling strengths versus Bush

A leader does what is right.

That would maybe decimate the Democratic party and we could rebuild it from scratch. That might be the best choice.

As you can see from the excerpts below, Dean is no liberal, although he is running in the primaries as one.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Throughout the 1990s, Dean’s cuts in state aid to education ($6 million), retirement funds for teachers and state employees ($7 million), health care ($4 million), welfare programs earmarked for the aged, blind and disabled ($2 million), Medicaid benefits ($1.2 million) and more, amounted to roughly $30 million. Dean claimed that the cuts were necessary because the state had no money and was burdened by a $60 million deficit.9
....
Most of the Democrats in the legislature rebelled against Dean over the budget cuts, and he ended up depending on Republican votes to pass most of his proposals. At the time, a local Vermont newspaper wrote, "The biggest items on Dean’s agenda for next year are likely to provoke more opposition from the Democrats than the Republicans. Nevertheless, Dean said he feels no particular pressure to deliver the goods to his party or to promote the Democratic agenda."15

In the mid-1990s, Dean even aligned himself with the likes of Republican Newt Gingrich on his stance on cutting Medicare. He opined at the time, "The way to balance the budget is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut everything else."16
....
The Rutland Herald described how one protestor, Henrietta Jordan of the Vermont Center for Independent Living, "said it would be much fairer to raise taxes on people with expensive homes and cars, children in private school and a housekeeper at home than to cut programs that helped the 66,000 Vermonters living with disabilities."17 Dean responded callously, brushing off the pleas of Vermont’s most vulnerable by saying, "This seems like sort of the last gasp of the left here."18"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The rest of this article is here:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean.shtml