Attacks on Dean Just Slide Right Off -LA Times

The Democratic front-runner seems immune to criticism that would sink other candidates. Supporters admire his blunt talk.
When Howard Dean appeared on NBC's "Meet The Press," the reviews were scathing, with most pundits calling the interview earlier this year a disaster. But others saw it differently. Traffic on Dean's Web site soared, and he collected more than $100,000 in the next 24 hours.

When Dean suggested America was no safer with Saddam Hussein in custody, rivals in the Democratic presidential contest seized on his comments as a major gaffe. But days later, more than 30 New Jersey lawmakers — joined by Gov. James E. McGreevey — elbowed onto a packed stage to endorse him.

The former Vermont governor has millions in the bank, more than any Democrat running, and a legion of followers, linked by the Internet, who crowd campaign events from Manchester, N.H., to Yuma, Ariz.

But there is one advantage that has proved even more valuable for the impulsive and irrepressible Dean: a Teflon coating.
snip>

But others say Dean's ability to withstand attacks — and even gain strength as a result — speaks to a depth of partisan support that could make him formidable in a general election.

Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist who helped elect President Clinton, compared Dean to the politician first fitted with the Teflon label, Ronald Reagan.
more....................

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-teflon27dec27,1,1065007,print.story?coll%3Dla-headlines-politics

So is W's. Ans so is HD's - only his is temporary, W will reclaim this in the general elections if they succeed in picking his opponent.

Don't think there are not passionate folks on the other side. To be sure, Dubya is not Reagan and does not inspire the same passion form as many Republicans. The passion right now is based on the War on Terror (not Iraq) and the right democratic candidate can take advantage of it.

is not the way to go.

so instead of typing it again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=28719&mesg_id=31406&page=

:hi:
Good Morning/Afternoon

I perceive a difference between capitulating to perceptions and spin versus honestly assessing national/international environmnent, as you put it.

One is manufactured and I think it's dangerous for the dems to play in Rove's poop-filled sandbox. The other is reality, and it is being distorted by the Bush administration. If you and I were to have a discussion about who is best capable of handling the realities of the national/international environment, it would be different from a discussion that accepts as a given that the Bushistas and the media are going to define the debate. One is about dealing with reality; the other is about letting the enemy define the battlefield.

and it's not temporary.

or blown out of proportion...

It amounts to people whining "Why don't these idiots believe our slanderous lies? How dare they think for themselves!"

"It's about all of us saying <expletive> to all the pundits,"

That pretty much sums it up.

Presidential candidates are on the record 18 hours a day for more than a year before the first primary. Misstatements are going to happen. Most democrats react to their own misstatements with visible guilt and horror similar to that one would show when one has run over children in a crosswalk.

There's simply no way one can hold the entire public policy agenda of the US in one's head ready for instant recall. Misstatements happen. The appropriate way to react is to apologize for the misstatement, correct the record, and then MOVE ON.

Dean's campaign has reacted appropriately when these situation has happened. The incidents are regretable, but minor.

At least one of our candidates learned a lesson from 2002...

"Whenever he screws up, the campaign is quick to point out that e-mail traffic is up, contributions over the Internet are up," said John Weaver, a former advisor to Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona who now consults for Democratic candidates.

"But those are all coming from tried-and-true supporters…. Surveys suggest a limit to his growth potential for a general election campaign, and that's what is worrisome to Democrats."


They must have read my mind :think:

be lagging and might illustrate your point...

Teflon is relative. I don't see a lot of pundits saying anything other than Dean is going to be the nominee!
Of course, that will reverse itself..if he is, then you will see the Teflon disintegrate because the media will carry the ball for the GOP..

Most people are spending their dough at that time on presents for loved ones, not giving to campaigns.

I wonder if the 2004 election will have a record low turnout. I used to assume it would be a record high. Maybe it's just me who will feel burnt out if Dean gets the nomination, but who knows. I think there are a lot of people on both sides who are not inspired by Bush or Dean. I guess that's where the ABB vote comes in.

Hmmm.

if the press is neutral or, more rarely good, it's a media plot.

it's exactly what the Republicans want. How easily we're giving them what they want, especially when they've been so openly gleeful, amazes me.

what they wish for.

snip>
A lot of people within the GOP, Karl Rove and Tom DeLay most recently, are making gleeful noises at the prospect of facing Howard Dean in the general election. If they get that chance, they will be facing a candidate who has already overcome enormous odds. They will be facing a candidate whose instant reaction message team has not missed a beat. They will be facing a candidate whose seeming deficiencies are well-matched by his incredible strengths. They will be facing an army of people who want their country back, an army riding on the words of Victor Hugo: “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” The idea here, simply, is that George W. Bush must go.

In other words, they will be facing another old folk saying. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/122403A.shtml

the Peter Hart focus group was fascinating and Hart remarked on it himself. That the Dems and independents leaning Dem had no real interest in Al Gore and anger did not seem their motivation. We may be overestimating the "anger" bit among most Democrats, the ones who wake up on October 22, 2004.

Which is why Edwards comment about not being able to win on anger along may be quite accurate.

People who address issues with anger and hostility are typically not the type who are able to compromise and problem solve in a mature manner. We find the anger quite childish and "non-presidential".

he went in with preconceptions about Dean, which I actually shared, but which his focus group didn't support.

In his post-mortem with the reporters, he actually reported incorrectly what the group said, in a way that supported his biases.

was practically drooling all over himself with glee at the thought of getting exactly what they want.

He wants you to think he Dean is the one they want to run against. Otherwise he wouldn't be publically drooling now would they? You are being manipulated.


See how silly it is to let the republicans run your brain? Forget what they want or think or say. Letting them run your brain is a really bad idea.

He makes "blunt" statements, but knows how to respond to the inevitable (and mostly self-serving) attacks.

Does anyone really think the so-called DINO (or "centrist"-agree with Bush) strategy is going to win the election?

I have seen so many of Dean's professed opponents on this war offering defense of the IWR and even the war, that it makes me sick.

Thank the gods we have some real anti-Iraq war candidates--Dean, Clark, Kucinich--in the running.

But Dean seems to be running the best campaign.

So, finally, after much hedging, I'm giving him money this week---Go Dean!

they love to builds things up

and then tear them to shreds

The Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist group that has feuded with Dean throughout the year, issued a statement last week asserting Dean's "running-mouth disease" had produced a storehouse of "treasure for Karl Rove, whose opposition research file on Dean must be bulging like Santa's sack of toys."

They are so last century, a couple unelected fat assed idiots Al From and Whozits his side kick who think they can run the democratic party. They don't realize that as soon as the politicians figure out the DLC has no power, they will leave in masses. The DLC will be a has been political movement just like the Moral Majority.

They may have had a point and a purpose when they first formed, but now they seem to think their biggest enemies are other democrats, the grassroots. What MorAns.

Dean vs. the 527s? Here's an obvious, extremely non-trivial example of how an "independent" expenditure of money to influence a campaign--even if it involves big bucks--might not be very effective at actually helping a candidate: Call it Howard Dean vs. the 527s. ... Supposed Howard Dean wins the nomination by March, in part by continuing to snipe at the Clinton years. The biggest "independent" Democratic fundraising groups--the so-called 527s--are, its been noted, controlled by Clintonites. The Media Fund, for example, which is trying to raise $95 million for an ad campaign, is run by former Clinton aide Harold Ickes. National Journal notes Ickes' plans to run ads during the period between next March and the summer convention in which the winning primary candidate often runs out of funds. Does Dean really want the party's message in this crucial period shaped by the very faction of the party with which he's picked a fight

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093002/

It doesn't matter what the big money people are doing now. In the long run they will fund the democratic nominee. Their only power is with the voters. No matter how much money they have they can never buy the loyalty of the voters to an extent that they can run Clark or Kerry as an independent. So what are they going to do with all those big bucks? They are going to play nice and pretend they supported Dean all along, and that includes Bill Clinton.
This is the part you don't get: people are going to make up their own minds this time around.

not everybody is buying Deans Power to the People spiel

and those 527's are going to start spending money DURING THE PRIMARIES...

Dean doesn't have a lock on anything yet...frontrunners often stumble

Besides..painting Dean as the anti DLC is laughable...good ploy tho!!

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

And so do all of Dean's detractors, and primary opponents...

They just can't go two minutes without saying something negative about him.

It's totally unfair to the other candidates... who won't shut up about Dean.

Corporate Conglomerates Know exactly what they are doing.
It is fact #1 of National Elections: MASS MEDIA PUBLICITY IS
EVERYTHING. Whether positive or negative that is what gives
a candidate credibility with the Party base. It may also rile-up the opposition party. But who cares during the primaries.

AND TRIPPI KNOWS THIS.

Dean is different from Bush on almost every single issue.

The corporate media REFUSES to expose Bush scandals, but they report EVERYTHING that Dean says (or does not say!)

Because of this fact, I see things different than you- The media echo-chamber believes their own fabrication that "it is unpopular to attack Bush". They are confused as to why their attacks on Dean are not working as well as they thought...

Dean=Bush sounds like Green party lies to me. Care to make this analysis using issues??

Deans utility deals are all over the archive at the Times-Argus - and they show nothing untoward - unlike Bush's dealings with Enron and the Univ of Texas investment advisor appointment.

When you are rumming against scum - and- unlike Gore - are willing to note the fact that Bush is scum and has a provable past that requires "interpretation" to keep him out of jail, the media will take the safer course of saying Dean is evil - without any specific charges - ans asking every Sunday what has Dean done this week to hide his evil.

Media bias is simple - but effective

It has already started with the Wash Post pretend Dean lies article where 2 errors - one on a the environ rules for 600 acres where Dean stated he was wrong and stopped opposing the fellows land usuage, and on talking about Black Issues - where he noted that Edwards was another White who had spoke on the topic while in the South and said he was sorry - is played into a bunch of out of context crap

Soc Sec age 70 (which is the eventual solution in 2043 if we can keep Bush from killing SS with private accounts) in 95 that he later signed onto Clinton's expand wage base for tax was sold as Dean lying!

:-)

etc.

well back to the Grandkids and going to the Beach for a Florida sunset!

till later

:-)

:party:

We don't need to hear any ---- = Bush stuff, I don't care which candidate it is. I didn't like it when Dean called Kerry Bushlite and I don't like it in this case either.

From the same article, which was great BTW. Thanks for sharing it.

<snip>

The campaign even posts some of the harsher criticism on Dean's Web site to spur fundraising. When a mysterious political group called Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values began airing an anti-Dean ad earlier this month with images of Osama bin Laden, the former Vermont governor's camp amassed $552,000 in a three-day Internet fundraising push.

<snip>

God I wish we still had the 'fuck you' emoticon!!!

Well, after the last couple of days\weeks... maybe not.

:bounce::shrug::bounce:

of that fundraising comes from Republicans following the call on Free Republic and other radical conservative websites. No way to ever really know is there. Since pugs ran as Dems in the Democratic primary in 2002 (MI)...openly (and without punishment for committing a felony for falsely filing Affadavits of Identity)...financially boosting up the candidate they feel is the easiest to slaughter is exactly what they would do.

Some rocket scientists in the Democratic Party produce an over-the-top smear ad against a candidate that they want to cripple and go down to defeat, and by doing so, they garner an extra $500,000 for that very candidate they want to cripple and defeat from Republicans who they also hope to cripple and go down to defeat... Wah????????

:shrug:

Ya think it was worth it?

:shrug:

"But others say Dean's ability to withstand attacks — and even gain strength as a result — speaks to a depth of partisan support..."

The "washington establishment" candidates are not supposed to like Dean. The more they attack, the more he seems like a powerful insurgent candidate. These attacks focus the camera on Dean, the place him at center stage and make him the issue.

The very fact that a stop Dean movement has been initiated only further enhances his visibility and credibility as strong candidate. In contrast, there is no need for a stop Kerry, stop Sharpton, or stop Kucinich movement. It sets Dean apart from the other candidates and has had a significant role in his success to-date.

However, even as they must by now at least, be beginning to understand this dynamic, will it change their campaign style? The odds on choice is that it will not. It is a bit late in this chess match to start playing another style of game.

The "attacks" that were leveled against Dean were only the attacks that have been deemed politically correct by the media elite. Notice that the Dean attacks that many of us here at DU have been leveling at Dean have not appeared on the major media. Notably, the quotes from Dean showing him to have a mile-wide streak of anti-populist, anti-social-safety-net feeling and a habit of demonizing the poor and unfortunate and the liberal left.

But where are these economics-oriented and social spending attacks showing up in the major media outlets? Nowhere! It is apparently not kosher to bring up these attacks in "polite society", i.e., TV and the elite print media--NYTimes, etc.

Try bringing some of the Dean attitudes evinced by these quotes shown below, and see how his poll numbers drop:


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

"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


No one gives a damn if Dean says we are not more secure after Saddam's capture....hell, that is obvious to all liberals. But the elite media will not attack Dean with "politically incorrect" attacks...after all, that might cause the election of a populist president, and the millionaires running the elite media cannot have that--that might hurt their wallets....

"Regarding slashing of social programs, what exactly did Dean do in his 11 years in office?

1) as of the year 2000, Vermont was rated 2nd best in the nation for the quality of medical care provided to Medicare beneficiaries
2) as of the year 2003, Vermont was ranked 3rd best in the nation for prescription benefits provided to Medicare beneficiaries
3) signed into law managed care consumer protections that are among the toughest in the nation
4) established the “Success by Six” program, in which Health care providers, social service agencies and others cooperate to connect parents with resources ranging from job training to parenting classes
5) overhauled Vermont's traditional system of paying for public schools with local property taxes, shifting funds from rich towns to poor towns through a "sharing pool," sparking an explosion in education spending,which has been up by 40% since 1997
6) ensured that virtually every child under 18 and more than 90 percent of adults are eligible for health coverage.
7) created the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee to identify strengths and weaknesses in the community response to domestic violence
8) established initiatives which included mandatory work requirements and lifetime maximum benefits, but were balanced by their support of children and their working parents with health care, child care, and job training (more at: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/ngachn/child~36.htm)
9) increased investment on Child Care Services by 176% since 1991
10) instituted the first state protocol for abuse investigations. In return, Vermont saw a 45% decline in physical and sexual abuse of children. This included a 64% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-3 and a 43% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-6.
11) increased human services funding by 33%, and education funding by 25%

I could go on. Based on a record like this, I find it hard to perceive him as a bungling idiot who intends to randomly slash social programs. What he HAS done consistently is show a willingness to tighten the budget for a purpose: balancing it. We’re not talking about “starving the beast” here, or making efforts to permanently cut programs. If anything, it seems to me he has a record for making short-term sacrifice in order to achieve a sustainable economy with adequate funding for social programs.

A few specific claims were made in the original post: “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.”

Did the cuts in state funding for education coincide with #5 posted above, for example? Or was it a short term cut made which he later corrected for starting in 1997? Either way, spending on education is up 40% since 1997. The author states he cut retirement funds for teachers and state employees. On the other hand, “signed into law agency fee protection for the state employees union, thereby providing union security for state employees” (http://www.nwaforchange.org/nwa/downloads/Election_Guide/09dean.pdf)

In any event, based on these observations, I think it fair to predict Dean would not run rampant slashing and burning social programs in the presidency.

Regarding “regressive” taxation:

1) again, when Dean entered office, the highest tax bracket in Vermont was paying the highest state income taxes in the country.
2) he cut income tax twice, removed the sales tax on most clothing, and reduced the state's long-term debt.
3) he raised the state's minimum wage twice during 11 years in office.
4) he created tax incentives to attract and keep new companies.
5) he created 41,000 jobs

In effect, he did one hell of a remarkable job for Vermont’s economy, and tax breaks like eliminating the sales tax on most clothing is the sort of thing that helps the average working man. Some of the benefits he offered to the average working man aren’t necessarily apparent at first glance.

On Roe v Wade and Women’s Issues, during his governorship:

1) he appointed more women to office than any other state governor
2) he signed an executive order enhancing state assistance to victims of domestic violence
3) he challenged the term "partial birth abortion" from a medical perspective, saying that it is a "code word" for extremism
4) pregnancy rates for young teens dropped 49%.
5) Vermont was the first state to institute a statewide protocol for abuse investigations. In return, Vermont saw a 45% decline in physical and sexual abuse of children. This included a 64% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-3 and a 43% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-6
6) He has consistently, irrefutably argued that what a woman does with her body is her own decision and none of the government’s business.

So, Roe v Wade may not be the litmus test he relies on, but it seems he is willing to fight for women’s issues in ways that actually work. What about this is there to criticize? One poster did raise an important issue, concern that stance on Roe v Wade should be the litmus test for judicial appointments. That’s valid. Unfortunately, I’ve had little luck tracking down info on his judicial appointments, other than their names (Jeffrey L. Amestoy 1997, Marilyn S. Skoglund 1997) and un-related issues.

And the urls where all of this came from, for those who care to peruse the data and sources for themselves, are as follows:

http://ventura.fordean.org/ventura/
http://fordean.org/aa/issues/environment1.htm
http://www.nwaforchange.org/nwa/downloads/Election_Guide/09dean.pdf
http://www.ajs.org/js/VT_methods.htm
http://www.women.state.vt.us/legalrtw.html
http://www.politicsus.com/presidential%20press%20releases/Dean/112403b.htm

"

Ironic, isn't it, that this sort of smear is running around considering that the teachers union in VT and AFSME have both endorsed Dean.

but, they will turn on ANY dem. Just check out the Daily Howler for a reminder what they did to Gore, which had nothing to do with Gore himself.

Dean may have figured out how to neutralize that. Like the quote in the article, it's an to the pundits. :-)

which is why his national head to head support dwindles.

Did you know that?

snip>
MARK SHIELDS: I want to say one thing, Margaret. At this point in 1980, Ronald Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter 61-33 in the Gallup Poll and in June, he had climbed all the way to 32 percent. And, in retrospect, it became my goodness, Reagan was always an inevitable victor. Bill Clinton at this point was running third behind both Ross Perot and George Herbert Walker Bush. So don't get ready for the inaugural yet.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec03/sb_12-26.html

circumstances were coming to Reagan and it was evident to anyone watching at the time.

He just keeps going and going, and he's got 1/2 million supporters going along right behind him, no matter what. And goes up in the polls to boot!!

just won't stop doing bad things and being crabby

and thoughtful debate that we dems guard so jealously in the primary season....No, wait....it's just dehumanizing drivel directed at the front runner, with the apparent intent to demoralize and promote cliche. It makes you wonder, who profits?

sorry to have offended your intellect.

:hi: