Everybody seems to be for Dean

Remove all ads!

Exaggerating to be sure but it does seem that way. Dean seems to be taking control of the primary. That's not a surprise. I've been seeing that Republicans want Dean to win the primary over the last year or so as well and a post elsewhere piqued my interest again.

Recently, Bush's administration has said they are preparing to face Dean in the election. This has upset some Democratic leaning folks (do a search on Slate for recent articles) as being a way for Bush to help Dean - making his election seem inevitable. Ditto the criticism of Gore's endorsement of Dean when the other Democratic candidates/Presidents have historically refused to endorse a candidate apparently (see Clinton not endorsing Gore for example).

I read months ago about Republicans donating significant amounts of money to the Dean campaign believing that a Dean v. Bush matchup is the easiest opportunity for Bush (other than Kucinich, Braun, or Sharpton I suppose but they are unelectable in the primary). Then, I read a post that made me realize the real lengths some Republicans are going to help Dean win the primary.

The following posts are by a guy that helped Haley Barbour get elected Gov (for those who don't know, Barbour was involved in a contentious bid for Gov of Mississippi). He is over the top in his presentation but what is interesting is the length people are going to get Dean to win the primary:

So, he goes to the meeting and this is what transpires:

It seems to me that as more and more people line up behind Dean, for opposing reasons, that one group is going to be dead wrong about his strength as a candidate vs. Bush. I really don't know which side is right - thoughts?

[ December 13, 2003, 19:42: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Unfortunately, Dean cannot defeat Bush in the general election.

With the United States at a state of War, you need someone who can speak with military experience and counter the President. In this regard, the only candidate that has a chance is Clark.

Of course, Al Gore may have endorsed Dean so that the Democrats will not win the election. This would set up Gore for a run in 2008.

 

Actually, what I've heard through the grapevine says that there is a power struggle within the Democratic party and that a lot of folk are rebelling against the DLC (Clinton's folks) and this was a way for Gore to slap the DLC and and try to reassert himself. I saw this article and it is basically what I had heard:

http://cagle.slate.msn.com//news/DeanMorris2/main.asp

Interestingly, that article talks about a move left, saying this represents a shift away from "sanity." This is what Republicans like the guy above I quoted are banking on and they're thinking that this move left is going to end like Mondale did.

The power plays are actually kind of interesting in a 'Godfather' sort of way. Edwards for example is running for President only because he could not win re-election in North Carolina. While his rep as the young golden boy was growing in Washington and in national perception he was seen by those he represents as more and more a disappointment. When internal polling made it clear he couldn't win re-election in NC, he announced a bid for President. Losing the Presidency isn't necessarily an end to a political career ($1 to Al Gore) but losing his re-election campaign for Congress probably would have. It will be interesting to see where he crops up next.

I personally can't help but wonder if Gephardt wouldn't be the strongest candidate. He is undoubtedly the strongest debater and it won't surprise me if some huge victories in the debates are necessary to push the Dems over top.

If Dean wins the primary, his VP selection will be crucial of course. Clark might give him the foreign policy boost he needs but Clark may still be pissed at him. Dean approached him early about being VP and wasn't too diplomatic about it and this apparently upset Clark who can be touchy. Also, as the article talks about, Clark is more of a DLC guy and the internal power struggle in the Dems will have to be put aside for that marriage to work. If that marrigae went through, I suspect it would be rocky behind closed doors.

This is becoming a more general election thread I guess but that's cool

 

I'm glad to see that Dean is getting some attention on this board at last. I wanted the cons to bring this subject up so that we could start the race for prez going here. I knew that all of you could not resist bashing him on this internet nonsense that the conservative media is so hyped-up on.

Well, I don't know about the good old boys in a rockin place like Jackson, Mississippi, a stronghold of liberalism I'm sure, but a good friend of mine attended the Dean rally here in Houston, and the word she used was "electrifying." Yes, she got to meet him and he appears to be what those of us, I guess liberals, are getting pumped about. First, someone who can move the old conservative order of dems out of the road for once. Second, having a leader for a real opposition party forming at the grassroots level.

The dems had been in power so long that they don't know how to pose any effective opposition. They just don't know how to be an opposition party. Just as the republicans have been the opposition so long that they have not realized that they are the establishment now. They still go around mindlessly bashing government and the media, and they run both those shows now.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure the cons are real scared of those giants of politics, like Kerry and Lieberman, real threats to Shrub, that they are forking over their support for Dean. Give me a break, guys, before I fall over from laughing so hard. Shrub will have it much easier against those old timers, than he will if Dean gets the nod. I mean, come on! Would you really be scared of the towering figure of Joe Lieberman?

The problem is that Dean needs Clark on the ticket. That would be strong. It's hard to tell if Clark could help him really could pull it off, but the attempt would be a blast, especially against a draft dodger like Shurb. But if Dean cuts a deal with the conservatives in the democratic party, then he may end up with Lieberman or Kerry on the ticket. And that would really be a disappointment for those of us who would like to see a minority opposition party with some real teeth to go on the attack against the conservative, now establishment, party.

But this thread reminds me of that nonsense that was going around about how Ralph Nader would not withdraw from the 2000 race, which doomed Gore. The talk was that Ralph wanted Bush to win so that Americans could see what a disater for the country Bush and a government run by the republicans would be; that they would run the country into the ground if given the chance. I won't comment on whether or not that is happening yet, since I'm waiting for the debate to unfold. But as for that rot about Nader, that's all it is - rot.

Nevertheless, if the gods are good, and Dean gets his chance, win, lose or draw, it's going to be fun, fun, fun. I may even join the democratic party - maybe.

 

One word comes to mind when reading Laches' first post: hubris.

It has been comical to watch the media whores try to paint Dean out to be a "far left liberal" who is "out of touch with mainstream americans." Centrist Dean has a much better chance of winning than they realize.

Lately, it seems that the Unelected Fraud has gone out of his way to offend voters from across the political spectrum. Many moderate voters are turned off by Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) - they see it as a waste of money; they see it as a war that has increased terrorism and as a war that has tarnished our world image. Many true conservatives (not partisan hacks like Sean Hannity) are angered at the Unelected Fraud's irresponsible fiscal record and his recent pandering to hispanic voters over the illegals issue. Liberals and conservatives alike show great disdain over the misnamed "Patriot Act".

Obviously, that's not all. There is a new Halliburton scandal in the news. The Valerie Plame issue was never resolved. Bush's two PR stunts may come back to haunt him ("mission accomplished" and "thanksgiving"). He still has negative net job growth on his resume. The situation in Afganistan has gotten worse; the situation in Iraq could get even worse. He just signed medicare reform package that hurts seniors. The list goes on.

Personally, even though I think Dean is great I hope Wesley Clark wins the nomination. I get a huge smile on my face whenever I imagine Wesley Clark, a Rhodes Scholar, debate Bush, a man who can scarcely put together complete sentences. Don't get me wrong - I favor Clark, but I'd vote for any democratic candidate at this point. Hell, I'd vote for a macaque monkey over Bush.

 

@Chandos
Just to clarify, as I think I've mentioned in passing, at this point I'm leaning toward hoping that Dean gets the nomination so that I could vote for him in the general election (I'm a registered Ind). I also haven't seen the media bashing him on the internet stuff - the exact opposite in fact. Maybe some of the Rush Limbaugh folks have been attacking him on it but I since I don't listen to him I guess I'd have missed it.

I think Lieberman or Kerry wouldn't frighten the Republicans but I think Gephardt could.

Well, I've never heard anyone say that the reason Nader stayed in is because he wanted things to go poorly. That seems a strange thing to imagine. He is too idealistic for that in my opinion. That said, Nader did cost Gore the election. Just as, with less certainty, Perot may have caused Bush I the 1992 election. That's not bashing Nader, that's just the way things are.

@Inquisitor X

I agree to a large part - wait, we're not talking about my hubris I hope, that's another issue.

As far as the rest of your post, there is some I agree with and some I don't. I agree that Dean is currently playing stronger with Independents (like myself) than the Republicans like those quoted in the first post are giving crdit for. I also agree that Dean's apparent fiscal responsibility is a strong point and that concern over the Patriot Act grows.

What I disagree with is that I don't think the scandals will have much impact. I don't think the 'mission accomplished' sign and Bush holding up a fake turkey for a photo op will have any real impact on the election. They will provide some good one liners (Dean has the best so far, paraphrasing: "there is more than one fake turkey in the White House"). However, these aren't going to upset the middle that realizes that this stuff goes on with all politicians and that's why they're politicians. The job growth may hurt him but the turn around in the rest economy may offset that - there is too much time left to know in my opinion at this point. The same thing with Medicare reform. We'll have to wait to see how it plays out. Bush picked up an endorsement from the AARP over the bill and a lot of seniors will be influenced by that. If the criticisms manifest before the elction, then it could have a negative impact. However, with much of the bill not slated to begin before 2006 though, iirc, then we may not know (I do like Medical Savings Accounts though and they start in 2004 - they have potential to be much better than a Flex plan). There is also too much time to tell with Afghanistan and Iraq. Hussein was caught today for example - who knows what will happen over the next year.

I also don't think Clark would be a strong candidate. Clark couldn't remember whether he was pro-choice or pro-life early in his election. He just isn't ready in my opinion. Eisenhower was Pres based on being a General but he was after the largest and perhaps most significant war in history where he built extremely difficult alliances. Clark's record while nothing to sneeze at can't match up to that. He is also very, 'blah' in the debates and can't hold a candle to Gephardt and Dean's debating ability.

If I'm a Dean advisor I'm trying to figure out a way for him to balance the line between aggressiveness and being 'Presidential' over the rest of the campaign. Dean can hurt himself at this point more than the other Dems can hurt him.

I don't know how it will play out. I think it may have a lot to do with what happens elsewhere over the next 6 mos to a year.

 

I really don't think it matters who the Dems throw at Bush...After Saddam's capture, it'll take a miracle to get Dubya out of office.

 

(Hopefully this doesn't happen, but) or a big screw-up. Lol, we're talking invading another country or an Enron on a larger scale. But yeah, the Dems seem real divided right now. In any event, Dean will get the nomination. Clark bad-mouthed the current Admin. far too much. Even though he does have military experience, which seems to be a large matter in presidential elections. Just think how many prez's have been in the military. At least 11.

 

Laches - The links you posted were very harsh on the Dems and Dean. I'm glad that you did clarify that because I read your post several times, and I was not really sure where you were coming down on this. I know you are a Independent and you had some good words for Gephardt. I was a little surprsied to see you post a link to an article by Morris. He is a notorious turn-coat Clinton basher and he is a Fox commmentator, so with some of us he has almost no credibility. I will try to find a link about the Nader deal and post it. But note that these links don't represent my views of Nader. I think you will find them interesting though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,393674,00.html

http://www.mikehersh.com/Why_did_Nader_help_Bush.shtml

[ December 15, 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

An article from today with recent polling:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22493-2003Dec22.html

Edit on Iowa Monday-

I'd say at this point Dean has been officially beaten like a red headed step-child in Iowa. Quite the surprise. Obviously the nomination is a long way off but Kerry, and Edwards, seem to have served notice that they're not going to just bow out of this thing.

And Gephardt has to feel gloomy.

[ January 20, 2004, 03:19: Message edited by: Laches ]