Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[virtualobserver]

1. people aren't buying the Bush\Rove nonsense any more

and he will continue to sink in the polls.

Bush's recent speech caused him to dip 5-6 points. Rove has no magic.

Any strong Democrat will defeat Bush.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[virtualobserver]

12. I understand your fear.....

but once the source has been de-legitimized, and it soon will be in a total sense, the money machine will hang like an anchor around Bush's neck.

Bush and the RNC are PR and nothing else. You cannot "spin" your way out of total disaster.

Bush will be lucky to survive the effect of his own policies, much less the attack from a strong Democrat.

[Fovea]

2. And then thousands of Americans

take to the streets with signs saying

Are you more secure than you were 4 years ago?

Gov. Dean or AWOL Bush?

And Bush is outta there.

There is less than zero crediblity left in the Bush camp.

I have a hard time imagining him getting any back by Nov 04.

[Sagan]

3. that's pointless

You could insert ANY candidate's name into that scenario.

Thanks for candidate-bashing, though. Glad to see you've caught the spirit of DU.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Sagan]

8. why would any candidate fare differently? including Kerry AND Clark?

Is it your position that Rove would be hesitant to push the "weak on defense" lie on ANYONE?

It doesn't matter if it's the truth or not. That's the whole point.

[Bombtrack]

40. maybe because they faught in Nam instead of Skiing in Aspen?

and have also worked for decades on the intracacies of US defense policy.

While Dean giving physicals and running montpelier

[salin]

70. Sadly, even heroically losing limbs in Vietnam

against a chickenhawk, didn't innoculate Senator Cleland from rabid "terror soft/loves the enemy" charges.

No truth matters to the GOP strategists - they figure out the base (not in voting base, but in animal - ala "base instincts") reactions -create lies - get them out there to resonate and then drop them IF they get caught.

Along with the Ga race as evidence, I point to South Carolina and "McCain's black child" with some scurrilous inneundo of 'illegitimacy' placed on the child.

[Bombtrack]

76. Yeah, in Georgia, which is more pro-Bush than the country as a whole

your argument seems to be that "the Rove machine is ruthless, therefor why look at weaknesses and strenghts". It doesn't hold up. Another argument that is bullshit is that anti-war Dean can win by "exciting the dem base" and not by appealing to swing-voters. First of all only 53-63 percent of democrats(depending on the poll) apposed the decision to invade outright. And there are and will be more registered independants in this election than ever before.

And although I haven't seen any specific polls on it, I'm damn sure that a majority or a large majority of middle class dems and especially independants want there taxes raised, which Dean will do.

[salin]

84. Two points

First my point wasn't about the receptiveness of the voters to the charges - it was that they will use these types of slanderous results against any candidate. THUS the lesson is that NO candidate (nor their campaign) should assume they are innoculated they need to strategically anticipate and counter such attacks. My criticism was not over the candidate (dean vs kerry vs clark) it was over the assumption that certain candidates were innoculated against certain types of charges. I want our candidate (whichever one) to win. WE follow faulty logic in our planning - and we lose.

Second point - why do you and others buy in to bushies faulty logic that preventing a tax cut from going into effect is a tax hike? If I pay no more tomorrow than I paid yesterday - I have not had a tax hike. Many of the tax cuts were phased in - those have not yet been enacted; thus no tax hike.

Further more - I believe that ANY president who wants to save the US from financial ruin (the GAO head just forcast that the cost of these deficits projected out a few years will raise the level of debt per man, woman and child from about $24,000 per person (where it was before all of this cutting) to $100,000 per person - and that most of these increases were not due to 911 nor the war on Iraq. Will the tax cuts you have received, when cut across several years make up for the increase of $75,000 liability for each of your family members? Also how much have your taxes increased locally or at the state level in the past two years? Our property taxes have just been hiked, we now pay a state tax of an increase of .01 per dollar - these are in relation to the drop in federal funds to pay for essential services to the states and local municipalities. I personally received a tax hike due to your tax cuts. Many people are breaking even.

Playing this false game now against a single candidate will hurt the real president when they are faced with having to straighten out the long-time economic path of this country and to head off the financial disaster left by BUsh.

All of this said not from the perspective of promoting a single candidate - but from a perspective of long-term strategy for whoever the candidate is - and on the tax cut issue for the democratic party (long term) when they take back control of the government - rhetoric now that hamstrings future responses when we are further fucked up does not help the party.

For a primer on the eoonomic disaster of these tax cut policies, read Krugman's piece in last weeks NYT Magazine.

[Bombtrack]

97. no, Dean will raise taxes on the middle and working class

Kerry and Edwards will block planned cuts as you suggest Dean just plans to do, but your wrong. Dean will hike income taxes on the middle class period. Ultimately the federal government does not control state and local taxes, and as far as deficits go, Kerry, Edwards, and Leiberman have plans to reduce the deficit, without raising INCOME taxes on the middle and working class.

I haven't looked at Kerry and Leibermans plans but I know Edwards plan makes a hell of alot more policy and political sense than raising the income taxes on voters who don't want there income taxes raised.

Yeah, I've heard Dean's speech. But he does dance around the truth. Plenty of people want that money back. And they'd rather the president close corporate loopholes, raise unearned income taxes, and cut federal beuracracy to pay down the deficit than to take away there ALREADY ENSTATED cuts.

[DemBones DemBones]

86. Remember that Cleland "lost" after GA went to computer voting.

We also supposedly elected a Republican as governor -- much to his surprise. The polls had Max Cleland and the Dem governor, Roy Barnes, winning. Election results were "surprising."

[virtualobserver]

14. Of course he would.

Against Kerry, they use every statement Kerry made supporting their logic for war, and they use his IWR vote.

[ozymandius]

52. Pete, it plays the same way no matter who gets nominated.

I've read your scenario twice, substituting "any Democrat" for Dean. It plays the same way. So I don't understand what you are trying to express in this thread.

[Cooley Hurd]

9. Not Clark or Kerry...

It's a given the Rove machine will use the 9/11 boogeyman to attempt to scare the voters. What else do they have? The Iraq War? The economy? It'll be one carrier landing after another for the repugs in 2k4.

However, I'm convinced that Dean can overcome that kind of campaigning. As long as he keeps on message about the economy (most specifically, the jobless rate) and the ill-conceived Iraq war, he'll be able to kick ass come 11/04...

[Code_Name_D]

23. Correct

The Repugs are going to attack whom ever gets the Democratic nomination. Kerry is no exception to this. So the question is, what are they going to do about it?

Kerry, Leabermen, and Gepheardt's political strategy is going to be to follow the DLC play book to the letter. Which sums up like this.

Raise donations, most of it corporate donation.
Spend donations on TV adds with nice sounding sound bites.
Chat with the right wing freeks on Fauks news to get your message out.
Ignore political attack, while not attacking. (No one likes mud slinging.)
Make as many personal appearances in battle districts as human endurance will permit.
Repeat until victory.

It's a formula for failure.

Dean on the other hand is trying a vary different approach. And the first step to that approach is to through out the DLC play book. For one thing, he is not depending on the "liberal biased media" to get his message out. Their is what I call the "ready media" which includes places like the DU, Barcop, the Guy James show, Radio Left, BuzzFlash, and other internet recourses. They are the ready media because they are ready and waiting to be of service to the Democrats. So far, Dean is only among a tiny hand full who has taken advantage of such recourses. Then their are the Dean meet ups, in a class of their own, and have the potential to revolutionize politics.

These form alternate media channels for which Dean can send his message through, bypassing the right wing filter. But another big change in strategy is the nature of the message. Dean is willing to attack Bush using his own record, and his own words. He also pays vary close attention to what the opposition is saying about him. When a smear attack is made, Dean is out with a response within hours, making it hard for "credible" news sources to carry on with the attack.

Its too soon to say if this new approach will work. But it seems to be working so far.

[NNN0LHI]

29. Gosh Sagan. I didn't see you complaining about candidate-bashing here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=377242&mesg_id=377242

[salin]

71. nor did he participate

in that bashing thread. Unfair accusation unless you catch one calling against bashing, engaging in bashing elsewhere. There are far too many bashing threads in GD to chime in on each and everyone of them.

[Sagan]

100. and your point is?

I didn't even read that thread. Am I the candidate-bashing cop, now?

God help a LOT of people here if that ever came to pass. The ban-stick would be broken by the time I was done with it.

[NNN0LHI]

104. My point is that...

...you did not complain about or even comment on all Dem candidate bashing as others and myself do. But rather instead, you seem to pick and choose to accuse some posters and then condemn them for certain candidate bashing, while ignoring the same being done to other candidates.

Here is your post I was commenting to:

3. that's pointless

You could insert ANY candidate's name into that scenario.

Thanks for candidate-bashing, though. Glad to see you've caught the spirit of DU.

My opinion is when you make an issue by commenting on and accusing certain posters for what you percieve to be bashing, yet see fit to ignore the same type of bashing being done to other candidates that alone shows bias to me. By making that choice and not being consistent and condemning all bashing on its face is in itself a form of candidate bashing. Perhaps a subtle form? But it is nonetheless still a form of bashing. Hope that answers your question?

Don

[Sagan]

107. I can understand that..... However....

I cannot police every single candidate-bashing thread. There are too many of them.

[indigo32]

6. Pete

I'm gonna take you at your word and ask you back, just as honestly, which candidate can stand up to that.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[ComerPerro]

13. That must be why

People on TV are accusing him of "waffling" on the Iraq issue. Because he is immune to those sort of attacks.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[virtualobserver]

28. and the latest polls indicate that Americans like that U.N troops idea.

and they are starting to say the war wasn't worth it. That will only get worse.

[ComerPerro]

35. Dean can also state that he did not give Bush a blank check for war

And he has not changed his position on the war.

I am sorry, but i think Kerry will be hit hard by "pundits" on television and talk radio.

It doesn't matter what Kerry's motives or intentions were. It only matters what the people are made to belive, and what lies they are fed.

[Donna Zen]

49. Please read

the latest TPM by Josh Marshall. Dean is certainly not as consistent as one would think. That said, when bushco set the trap it had multiple entrances planned to catch all comers. Dean is fine on the war with me, but saying that his position is rock solid from day one is simply not the case.

[ComerPerro]

56. Im not saying its rock solid

But I have seen Kerry get attacked all over television and the radio for "waffling" on the Iraq issue. And he hasn't won the nomination yet. But many people are treating this "waffling" as a fact, and not the right wing spin that it is. Therefore, I forsee this hurting Kerry once this lie starts being repeated daily and the right wingers make up a few email lies about it.

[indigo32]

16. I'm sorry but I've seen nothing in Kerry

that tells me he can win, and i've only become more and more convinced of that as I've watched him. This is not to say that he wouldn't be a good President. Not at all. but...
#1 He was the golden boy at the beginning. Supposed to be his race (in the primaries) and he's losing it.
#2 I've seen no evidence that Bush's inaction during Vietnam has ever had sticking power... and besides that this race just simply isn't about Vietnam.
#3 Yeah, right or wrong, he went along with the Iraq vote, key words... went along. IF it's so all important... why not go with the one who took the initiative.

Dean is creative, a fighter, has a good record to run on... he can win this.

[virtualobserver]

38. Kerry has Bob Shrum at the helm.....

architect of the Gore 2000 "don't attack Bush" campaign.

The incompetence shows.

Rove rolled Shrum......Trippi or Carville would have decimated Bush.

[salin]

72. Didn't Cleland also vore to for the war resolution?

Didn't protect him. And Rove/bush were only playing a secondary role in orchestrating that campaign.

Kerry and Clark, as well as the rest - have to prepare for this kind of onslaught. To feel and strategize as if they were innocuated would allow them to be slandered without a quick enough response.

[Enraged_Ape]

7. The Rove machine will play dirty pool no matter who gets nommed

Even if Clark or Kerry get nominated, you better believe they will find something on them to either hammer into the ground or to ignore, depending on which is more politically expedient. Don't forget that Gore went to Vietnam while the Shrub went AWOL from the Texas National Guard; the "liberal" media didn't tell us much about any of that in Campaign 2000.

Our country, and indeed the world, are swirling down the toilet thanks to the greed of a few insanely rich oil men. We all know this; some of us are just in denial about it. But it needs to be reiterated over and over and over again by ANYONE who gets the nomination. We are NOT better off than we are for years ago, and whether the nominee is Dean or Kerry or Clark or Braun or "Grandpa" Al Lewis, he or she must not let the people of this country forget it.

[CMT]

11. you overestimate Rove and underestimate Dean

which is what too many people do. Of course Bush/Rove will try to discredit Dean on National Security. How to counter that? First, by telling the American People that when he repeals the Bush Tax Cuts which largely benefitted the wealthy that some of that money will be put towards funding homeland security--which Bush promised to do but failed to deliver on. Second, you ask Bush as many times as possible "Where is Bin-Ladden?" and why did you divert from the real war on Terrorism to launching a pre-emptive war on Iraq? when you (Bush) concede that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. You also ask why Bush did not releaase certain information for the panel investigating 9/11 and question what he has to hide? (just like Cheney wanting to hide participants in his energy task force). As for Frank Luntz his focus groups always panned Gore and his debate appearances but that apparently didn't change the fact that he won the electiion. And Yes we hit Bush daily on Iraq and the "$4 billion a month, $87 billion per year and rising" of "your tax payer dollars" which we are using to "rebuild Iraq while our own infrastructure is declining."

Rove is not some master that we have to keep pretending to fear. His big achievement is getting the boy-idiot in the White House but he did it not at the ballot but thru the Supreme Court. As for 2002, I would argue the Democrats defeated themselves that year.

As for Dean, his campaign is always raising the bar and his opponents and the press are always saying, "No, he can't" but he always does. He can win this election.

p.s.
It won't matter who the Dem nominee is. The Bush/Rove people will attack all of them (yes, even Lieberman and Clark) on their patriotism and supposed weakness on national defense. And if they do produce Saddam prior to an election it would be as beneficial to Bush if his opponent is Dean as it would be to Bush if his opponent were any of the others.

[OrdinaryTa]

17. Kerry Strategy: Cave Early and Often

John Kerry's strategy to avoid seeming "weak" on defense is to cave in to Bush's warmongering. Kerry joined with Republican senators in voting to give Bush carte blanche to do whatever he wanted in Iraq. What a tragedy in world history. And what a disgrace to the Democratic Party. Kerry should withdraw his candidacy for the good of the party.

[Bombtrack]

24. and it will be 100 times easier with Dean

it's needless to say he'll attack everyone on everything.

The electorate agrees with the war by a substantial margin even as soldiers die. And they'd surely agree with it more with any number of possible October-surprises, which may not even need trickery to happen.

An anti-war candidate LIKE Dean will not be able to defeat Bush unless a huge opinion shift occurs your way, which is unlikely.

[clar]

48. That shift is taking place

right now. Between the bad news out of Iraq and the sticker shock over the cost, support is detectably waning. Most Americans now think that things aren't going well in Iraq. Don't overestimate the popularity of this war.

[Bombtrack]

54. 'not going well' is different than thinking decision was wrong to invade

there is no indication a majority would ever reverse that opinion, particularly when more progress is made.

[connor]

61. Beg to differ

From MWO's report on the latest CBS polling...

"Fewer than half of Americans (43%) think the war was worth the loss of life and other costs, the lowest number yet in CBS News polls, while more (47%) think it was not worth the costs. Last month, the public was evenly split on this question."

That's still a plurality, not yet a majority, but the direction of public opinion is evident. Even if Bush and Rove pull Osama and Saddam out of their pockets between now and election day, all it would take is one more terrorist bombing somewhere in the world to remind Americans that gee, this ain't no John Wayne movie, and things aren't magically better because you "got the bad guy."

The problem with the Republican strategy is that you can't scare people into blind panic forever. It's a two-edged, time-sensitive sword. The public may turn to the current administration for security from fear at first (irrational as that may actually be, given the fact that the situation represents a failure on the administration's part, it does make immediate emotional sense: you hide in the bunker you've got)...but time passes. If people stop feeling insecure, they'll vote their wallets. And if they still feel insecure, they'll finally blame the people in charge for not doing enough about changing that.

[virtualobserver]

62. Bombtrack is betting on Bush succeeding in Iraq...

and that is a bad bet.

[Bombtrack]

98. I'm betting on America, Britain, and co succeeding

although it will obviously take a couple years.

People here seem to want it to fail, and I think that's pretty deranged

[virtualobserver]

101. I just think that there is no hope of success

Tell me what Iraq will be like after we "succeed".

[Enraged American]

15. I agree. Here's why

Democratic Underground does not represent America. Most Americans are limited in intelligence. They like the macho-man Bush image. Dean will be portrayed as the intellectual's candidate. Most Americans hate intellectuals. They consider us sissies and cowards.

I mean, I know the mentality of the populace. They like Bush's tough-idiot style.

Dean = intellectual sissy
Bush = real American cowboy

That's how America votes. They vote personalities, not issues.

[ablbodyed]

31. Boy, is that true

I work with a bunch of idiots. If they ever had a thought in their lives, they were SOOOO frightened by the novelty of it that they vowed to NEVER NEVER NEVER to do THAT again. And you know what? It's probably the only promise that they ever kept.

[newsjunkie]

18. You make a good point

and the things you mention the Bush/Rove gang will trot out are right on the money. However,I think Bush has shown he cant lead this country in oh-so-many ways,and most Americans with a brain are noticing what a mess he has gotten our country in. Even a lot of Republicans are disgusted with Bush by now. Any of our impressive DEM candidates should be able to counter all that hype they will put out if we Dems work really hard to get people registered to vote and help them get out their message.We cant expect much help from the bushit-press but its up to us to make sure the word gets out anyway. Dean is a very inspiring speaker and the things he is pointing out are all true. Truth and sincerity is powerful.If he wins the primary he should be able to go all the way. Clark would be hard for Bush to beat also. Any combo of Clark/Dean/Hillary would be awesome IMO.
Anyway..I have a feeling Hillary will jump in,and if that happens Bush is surely toast.;)

[virtualobserver]

21. If no one takes the nomination....

I can see Hillary getting the nomination at a brokered convention.

[newsjunkie]

33. Thats a scary thought for Rove and Bush

and I think it could happen too. Hillary wont stand by and let us lose this.She will try to beat him if nobody else emerges that can beat him. Bill Clinton already hinted to that possibility and now Clark entering makes me think it may happen even more.

[Fabio]

55. I am not certain Hillary would win.

Tough to say. She is a very polarizing figure.

[clar]

51. Anyone

who thinks it would be good if Hilary's on the ticket just doesn't get it. At all.

[salin]

73. agreed - that would mobilize a base

part of which that may be growing disillusioned enough with bush to sit out voting. Put Hillary in the mix - and they will become SO active they will not only vote - they will send money, they will go out and get others to vote, etc. Her presence would mobilize those who just might otherwise get so frustrated as to sit out the election.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. There are other factors to consider

One of the most important is who is the Vice Presidential nominee. If Dean is nominated and has Clark, for example, as his running mate, he will have blunted much of the criticism that might be created about his lack of military/foreign affairs experience. This team, would, imho, be a good balance geographically and experience-wise.

Of course, if Diebold is in charge of voting machines, there is a possibility of more ballot hanky-panky. Personally, I think this is something that is a major threat to real elections in this country, and should be fought vigorously.

[Bombtrack]

20. Rove, TNR, the Weekly Standard, have all revealed he's the dream candidate

for good reason.

him getting 270 electoral votes is beyond unlikely, it would take everything to go perfectly right for the Dem party and everything wrong for the GOP, which never happens

70 electoral votes would be a likely outcome.

He has a 1/4 to 1/3 minority opinion on the war and on taxes, and the fact that he's the only person to ever sign a civil union bills will hurt him alot more than it would any candidate who simply supports it as a state's right.

His supporters care far less about analyzing electability seriously than sour grapes about there convinced "must be right" anti-war sentiment.

[virtualobserver]

22. they would never reveal their actual "dream candidate".

...especially Rove. Always remember that when they speak, nothing that they say is true.

[newsjunkie]

26. Exactly...

Whatever they say,think the opposite and you'll have the real story. They dont want Dean because he is inspiring young voters and is making lots of sense,where all they have is lies and hype and a failed pResidency in their wake.I never bought that 'We want Dean' crap. They are trying to use reverse psychology.

[Bombtrack]

43. you'll believe whatever suits your purpouses

see my previous post. By your logic they believe the same thing about Sharpton. Are they petrified of him getting the nomination as well?

National Republican journalists, strategists, and pollsters, are greedy assholes, but most of them are smart. But even are moron would realize that large majority oppositional opinion on taxes(think Mondale), and large majority oppositional opinion on foreign policy(think McGovern), as well as large majority REGIONAL discomfort on social issues(think Dukakis) all individually and plurally give you another landslide LOSER

[Bombtrack]

36. So they are actually afraid of people like Sharpton getting the nom?

They realize that noones been paying attention, and many RW pundits actually can be frank. Sorry, It's not reverse psychology when they say they hope Sharpton does well, and it's not when they say the same about Dean.

Many, many, republicans have or are planning on changing there party registration to vote for a lousy candidate, and sending money as well. At the very beginning of the primary process, the concensus was to support Sharpton. Now it is Dean.

If he does win the nom, it will be in large part to savvy RW voting. And it's just tragic that knee-jerk anti-war politically unsavvy dean supporters are ignoring it

[virtualobserver]

57. and who do the "politically savvy" people support.....

the "no traction" candidates who have been running for 2 years?

[Bombtrack]

59. democrats or republicans?

Dean has been running for far longer than any other candidate

democrats who understand what it will take to defeat Bush tend to support Kerry, Edwards, and now Clark

Edwards can thank the Rove machine for large part of why doesn't have more traction, and why Dean has had so much. Compare there 2 surprise fundraising vitctories for an example

[virtualobserver]

60. we shall see.

In any event,I will happily support Edwards if he is the nominee.

[connor]

63. ???

>>democrats who understand what it will take to defeat Bush tend to support Kerry, Edwards, and now Clark<<

Well now, that includes a HUGE presupposition, i.e., that said "understanding" is correct. Only time will tell if your grasp on reality is as certain as you indicate. Me, I think I see more than one thing you are either ignoring or mischaracterizing.

[ablbodyed]

37. As a gay man..

I'm afraid you're right. They'll crucify him on the civil union issue. Whimmies(WhiteHeteroMales) and their seriously limited female accomplices hate anybody with minds, anybody with the courage to be themselves.

[virtualobserver]

53. Don't think that way....

Dean's basic premise that the Republicans have tried to divide us for too long WILL resonate with the American people.

Dean does a great job of reframing the issues.

[salin]

75. But, do you think the voters who would have this

as their defining issue - would ever vote for ANY democrat?

[DemBones DemBones]

77. What a bigoted post!

"Whimmies(WhiteHeteroMales) and their seriously limited female accomplices hate anybody with minds, anybody with the courage to be themselves."

Are you saying that all women in relationships with white heterosexual males are "seriously limited female accomplices"? Limited in what way? Accomplices to what?

You seem to say that "anybody with minds, anybody with the courage to be themselves" can't possibly be white and/or heterosexual.

How incredibly narrow your world is!

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[DemBones DemBones]

80. Crazy software made my post echo & won't allow me to edit out

the dupes. :shrug:

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[charlie]

27. That's the RNC recipe to destroy any Democrat in 2004

It's a likely scenario for any candidate who gets the nomination, not just Dean. They'll all have to be ready for it.

[EagleEye]

30. Is there Anything New here?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[EagleEye]

34. Kerry is SOunding like . . .

..the Iraqi information director. The infidels are killing themselves at our gates. "Dean's campaign is imploding."

[virtualobserver]

58. Kerry is right about one thing....

somebody's campaign is imploding. But whose campaign could it be?

[muchacho]

39. as long as we're imagining

Why not this scenario:

1. Dean wins te nomination
2. The occupation of Iraq continues with the American death toll standing at 230.
3. Dean taps Kennedy and other democrats willing to stand up and fight.
4. The outrage from the military gets louder and get more media attention.
5. More lies are discovered in making the case for war with Iraq. A key cabenet official resigns.
6. The Bush case for war agaist Iran falls flat in public opinion. He seeks a "diplomatic" solution.
7. The pressure the Bush team put on the EPA to green light round Zero prematurely is underscored by firefigters and police with respetory problems. New moters in te area are aving lower birtweigt babies on average.
8. Bin Laden strikes again and Bush hides out in Montana for a few days before adressing te nation.
9. Dean takes every opportubity to sympatize with te victims and military and draw clear conclusions that Bush is to blame.

I support no candidate, I'm an issues man. But if your going to make up scenarios but if you are imagining a candidate you state you do not support will lose you are obviouly suspect. And Kerry would sail through with not of your listed problems?

please....

[Darranar]

41. Actually, no...

the right-wing machine can hit any candidate. Dean isn't the only one who could be attacked by this.

I think Dean is as electable as anyone, more so than some.

[clar]

42. Hi Pete,

I imagine I'm not the only person here who has no problem countering your scenario. First of all, it's a hypothetical scenario in the midst of an everchanging landscape. Everything's in flux. We have no idea how things will look in 6 month let alone in a year. I don't dare make predictions. Rove is going to go after Kerry or anyone else just as hard. Some damaging memes against Kerry include: his throwing away his medals (well, not his, but...) his vote against GWI and for GWII, his subsequent criticism of the admin on this subject, his extreme liberal voting record, his supposedly patrician background and air. You get the idea.

But let me address a few of your Dean concerns dirctly. With the right running mate, someone strong on National defense, Dean can neutralize a lot of the Rovian shit. Dean himself is a feisty guy, not easily painted as a wimp. Iraq is a tragedy. If things keep on the same trajectory, Bush is in big trouble with the military. Already the grumbling is rising. Reservists are certainly not happy. Alas, it doesn't look like things are going to get better anytime soon over there. Good for our candidates, tragic for millions and millions of people.

Underestimating Dean's agressive and invested supporters is foolish. It's not just money. This is an army of volunteers and they're going to be out there working like crazy for their candidate. Underestimating Dean as warrior/politician is definitely not wise.
The campaign is going to be able to raise enough money to fight back. That's my prediction. Dean may not be able to raise 225 mil, but it's not inconceivable that he could raise 125 mil.

BTW, Just want to point out that capturing Sadaam ain't gonna cut it. The way things are going, bushco needs to capture Osama and Sadaam, and find WMD. People are getting fried early on this war. Time is not on bush's side.

[Donna Zen]

44. Who politics

Because of their control of the main stream media and their solid base of support, they will turn Dean into the very image of Howard bin Laden. Who politics. When they can't run on what they want to do or how they're gonna do it...turn to whoville. And we're are will be left sitting here with our mouths dropping saying WTF. Dean would make a far, far, far better president for this nation than the current serial liar, but then so would have Al Gore. Can we fight them off...it will be difficult, but yes. That is why the crap thrown around on this board leaves me in such despair because it undermines our very chances.

[PAMod]

45. Pete, just fill in the blank [your favorite candidate's name here]...

and you've described next falls campaign, with nuances, of course, depending on who that individual is.

What you left out is the Democratic machine will be on overdrive as never before.

Let's pick the candidate we want to govern - each is electable if we unite and get to work.

We've won the last three presidential races, we're gonna win this time too.

Keep your eyes on the prize!

[PATRICK]

46. shrill and silly

but nothing to match the anti-Clark post that manages to tar him with a very thick brush mainly based on the point he comes from Arkansas and must be the worst of the worst DLC subversives.

Would someone like to imagine a crystal ball and how these boards will be when the campaign for actual votes among the greater Democratic electorate gets underway? Look to your candidate's advantages and help them be pro-active campaigners, not more "timorous beasties" afraid of Rove's shadow. You have to worry about what YOU are going to do, not what the other guy is planning. At this point they are just as muddled as anyone else becasue we have several people who can take Bush down in a fair contest with ease and several others who are better and more deserving than Bush.

Attacking the blackbox tactics is one grim preoccupation that needs more grunt work from us rather than just the candidates. Voter registration and fundraising, meeetups and internet activities, marches and media pounding. Spreading OUR message against fraud, lying and misinformation is just as important as expecting our eventual choice to be a lonely perfect(or martyred) Messiah.

Mass rallies in America's face that Bush cannot match. Calling every newspaper and local station on the garbage and making our voices and dollars heard.... I think this selling one candidate over another from any whiff of fear is plain stupid wrong and self-defeating. Personally I might like one able to rack up the largest mandate but other things might be better in the long run.

The way I see it, taking your just estimation of GOP tactics, either a bunch of our guys can win or not one of them can. Namely, none of them can win alone, on a pedestal, while all our pockets are being picked as we stare at our candidate with teary admiration. Each one of us somewhere has to make a stand and face down the dirt. A few of us, some even here on DU, may be making a critical difference, letting the sparks fly and freeing the people's mind and votes.

This is war, not a beauty contest.

[disgruntella]

47. a "what-if" scenario is not a strong argument

This same script could play out with ANY Democratic candidate. Even if it was Clark or Kerry, they'd find some other way to attack them on national security.

I'm sorry, but since you have just presented a "what if" scenario, that weakens your argument from the start. And I think it is unfair of you to single out Dean in your post.

[bitchkitty]

50. Fear of Rove spin -

that should not be the basis for a campaign. Bush is toast, and Dean is going to beat him. Fuck Rove.

[Orangepeel]

64. Two words: Max Cleland

It doesn't matter who is nominated, the right wing will use the same game plan.

That's exactly why we need someone who can transcend the rove/bush lies by working through non-traditional communication channels like a huge grassroots network that can talk to voters face to face.

[virtualobserver]

66. good point

If losing three limbs isn't a big enough sacrifice to prove your patriotism, I don't know what is.

Not to be vulgar, but I was visiting the Senate bathroom, and saw Max coming out of the stall. Given the configuration that I saw in the stall, he must have one powerful arm to negotiate that. Some of the simplest things are very hard for Max Cleland, and the fact that he had the ability to put aside an incredibly devastating injury and rise to the very top is so impressive to me. He is an incredible guy.

[OrdinaryTa]

67. Cleland Supported the War

If anybody knows first hand the horrors of war it would be Max Cleland. Despite this knowledge, Cleland voted for the Iraq war. His loyalty is not in question; his judgment is. All of the Democrats who voted for the war ought to have voted against it. We'd be in a much stronger position to win the 2004 election if those politicians had done the right thing when it counted.

[virtualobserver]

68. I won't defend that vote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it true that every Senate Democrat that lost in 2002 voted for IWR, and that no candidate who voted against it lost.

I think that I remember hearing that. If it is true, then it is an argument against "innoculation".

[DemBones DemBones]

83. Three words about Cleland's defeat: Black Box Voting n/t

[virtualobserver]

85. yeah, after years and years of accuracy......

suddenly exit polls are inaccurate.

[gully]

65. Well...

the shrubbies will try this with 'anyone' including Clark. Were in for a battle no matter who gets the nomination.

I'm ready, and so is Dean!

[Cha]

69. Anyone we nominate is going to beat bush. I think it will be even

more clear by 2004 that bush is un-electable.

So I want someone who I think will best be able to lead us out of this Quagsand that 4 years of the "Worst president(sic) in History" has gotten us into.

I want Dean; someone who didn't think the Iraqi Invasion was and is a viable solution. I like Dennis Kucinich, too, but I was already on Dean's Ship when Dennis decided to run...I like Dean too much to be jumping to Any other candidate.

Like Dean's Speech in Boston next Tuesday ..
"Democracy, Freedom, and Action,” "lays out what is at stake in this election and how Dean’s vision for America will restore political power to the American people."

I feel like I am a part of this process along with a Growing number of Grassroots People who Are going to "TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!"
:kick: :dem: :kick:

[Orangepeel]

74. I don't agree

I think it will be damn difficult to beat bush. He has the inertia advantage of incumbancy (many people who voted for him before aren't going to want to admit they were wrong), the media on his side, operatives who will stop at nothing, no matter how sleazy or illegal, and lots and lots and lots of money.

By all rights, he should be tossed out on his ass (but by all rights, he shouldn't be there in the first place).

It is precisely because I think it will be damn difficult to beat him that I think Howard Dean is our best chance. A traditional campaign and/or the kind of "beat them on their own turf" campaign the DLC wants to wage isn't going to work. We need to take advantage of what we DO have going for us -- more people, people who are enthused and willing to work hard -- to make an end run around the media.

[JNelson6563]

81. Do you suppose

that the reich-wing media won't do a umber on any other candidate? I would consider this a more intellectually honest excersize by you if you were to paint the potential scenario any one of the candidates might face.

I am disappointed to read this from you after yesterday's committment to working for winner of the nom, regardless. It seems counter-intuitive.

Julie

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[JNelson6563]

96. I disagree

I think Dean's Iraq stance has been a great strength. The first and foremost answer to attacks on what may be perceived as the greatest weakness of any candidate is easy.

Running mate.


Julie

[newsguyatl]

82. blah to your post

but one thing is certain pete. YOUR candidate's toast :-)

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[Kazak]

87. "Can Dean stop the next 9/11?"

To the best of my recollection, Bush already failed stop the first one...

[salin]

92. Of course bush and his cronies

ignored all sorts of intelligence warnings - including from day one of the transition. They shelved anti-terrorism efforts - and put Cheney in charge. Cheney, being too busy with his other task force (the energy 'paybackdonors' task force), didn't hold a single meeting prior to 911. Even after the intel briefing on teh Pheonix memo, even after the intel briefing on Minnesota. Even after the chatter got so loud that Ashcroft was told not to fly commercial. Even Ashcroft dropped the priority of the DOJ (and thus FBI) on antiterrorism efforts from the level under Clinton that in his budget priorities it wasn't even in the top 10 areas (it was high up by the end of the Clinton admin, btw) in his budget request of early September 2001 (even after all of the above mentioned).

Given that context - a level of denial, incompetence or "other priorities" it is not surprising that this administration failed to prevent 911. They were too busy fundraising. Too busy trying to kill Kyoto. Too busy trying to gut energy regulation. Too busy fighting Gray Davis in California over the energy crisis. Too busy trying to gut worker safety rules, agriculture safety rules, and environmental rules.

I think it is no predictor of whether another administration could prevent a future event.

Indeed, I think anyone of the current democratic candidates would do a better job on this front as others - as they are concerned about the people rather than simply making life more lucrative for their business cronies/political sponsors.

[SEAburb]

89. the "Dean will raise retirement age" scare ads,

with frighten edlerly people, would be enough to doom Dean.

[Cha]

Dean's quick and smart enough to counter those lies in a New

York second...but thanks.

[Fabio]

94. You really cant counter

ignorance, though -- and you see alot less intelligence from the electorate in the general election (IMHO). And Dean's ability to communicate positions will be muffled by republican $$$.

[virtualobserver]

95. I disagree with your premise.....

But why is it that only "Dean's ability to communicate positions will be muffled by republican $$$"....


Can't repub dollars muffle everyone else's ability to communicate, too?

[Fabio]

102. My premise is not that

Republican money cant be used against any of the candidates. Of course it can. I just think that Governor Dean has provided the most material to run against.

[SEAburb]

91. Kick

?????????

[deutsey]

93. I think that gives Rove/Bush way too much credit

They're masters of deceit and manipulation, but they're not infallible.

I think this scenario is far too "neat"; I've always suspected that larger part of reality that Rove can't control (about 99.9% of it), was going to overwhelm them, and I think we're finally beginning to see that happening.

At least I hope it is.

[HPLeft]

99. It's One Possible Scenario

It's not the only one, however. Still, I think that you've outlined a legitimate plan of attack against Dean. For instance, I think his statement about Hamas members being soldiers will come back to haunt him big time in the general election. While I agree that the United States needs to be seen as working evenhandedly with both sides to bring a lasting peace to the region, I think that Governor Dean completely misses the boat in regard to Hamas. They are the prime obstacle to a Palestinan State, and they will likely try to murder any prime minister who signs a fair deal with the Israelis, or use terrorism to disrupt any negotiations. They are as much legitimate soldiers as Timothy McVeigh was after his discharge from the U.S. military, and they are as emotionally twisted as his Christian Idendity brethern. As a physician, the Governor should know that. I have no idea what he was thinking.

I think that the RNC will take statements like this and use them to malign Dean. Will it work? In my opinion, it all depends on how badly Dubya's domestic and foreign policy efforts are doing in the fall of 2004. Dean's best chance is to hope that the sky is falling for Dubya - which is might just be.

I think that once we get to the general election, Kerry is the strongest candidate we have - and I also think that his actual skill-set for the job of President is the strongest of any candidate. He would make a great President - and I think it would very easy to build a positive campaign around JK's skill-set, biography and outstanding record in the Senate.

[dsc]

103. Say hello to President Dole

It literally mystifies me to see this idea that military records are the be all and end all of security. Did you sleep through the election in 2002? I didn't. I saw Max Cleland, who lost not one, not two, but three limbs in Vietnam painted as soft on defense. You don't think that can happen to Kerry dream on. If we run a campaign on foriegn policy we are doomed. It is the economy. If the economy is in the tank and the war is going poorly we will win no matter who we run. If those things aren't true we are dead no matter who we run. It is that simple.

[NNN0LHI]

106. You are relying on a false assumptions

You are comparing a regional race where they loved their president, being Georgia, and where the wingnut spin machine was able to convince the majority of voters there that Max Cleland was against their beloved president. And it was also before we invaded and occupied Iraq and everything has turned to crap for Bush. The Dole reference is not valid either. We were not at war when he ran, and we had never been attacked on our mainland by an enemy before that election as this country was two years ago. Doles military experience was not even an issue to most voters. So lets put that stuff to rest.

Do I hope the most liberal candidate wins this primary and election possible? I think you know I do? Do I agree with all of Petes points? No I don't. But we do have to acknowledge that we are living in a different time now, and admit peoples ideas on war and peace seem to have changed for most voters. We will ignore these facts only at our own peril. With the end result of doing so being 4 more years of Bush.

And don't forget the wild card either. The wild card is what events will transpire between now and next years election. We don't know. So lets not write off any of the candidates before the primary is over. We might regret doing so.

Don

[0007]

105. I disagree with ya Pete!

Ya can't keep fooling folks that have been tricked already. The people of this country is gonna want a change.

A weak candidate can beat the pants off of junior and his thugs as long as that candidate appears honest.