Rove wants Dean because he's afraid of Kerry and Clark's records...

[Hippo_Tron]

Of military service. Note this is NOT a Dean bashing thread. I just think that this idea that the media dishes out that Rove wants a Bush vs Dean race is because he is too liberal to win the presidency is complete bullshit. Rove wants Dean because when he gets on the debate stage he can't say "Where were you in Vietnam Mr. Bush?" Well Rove should be more careful what he wishes for next time because the way things look Dean might just win the nomination and the election.

[jeter]

1. Sure he does...

After all, i'd want to run against a guy who polls better than the other two.

You guys have to get over your military fixation. It hasn't seemed to help either candidate.

I understand where and why the argument started. But after all these months, maybe it's now time to concede that a military record won't help all that much.

[Clark Can WIN]

5. Did you actually read the whole post before you started typing?

It's helpful sometimes. :-(

But just for the record, I think you are fatally and tragically wrong.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

51. Right now Dean is polling best because of name recognition - just wait

until they start to hear about Clark. It's already happening - Clark's moving waay up in the polls.

[zulchzulu]

2. Agreed

Bush will still be able to land on aircraft carriers with his pants stuffed with pretzels and Dean would not be able to say anything about it. Add that other element about national security and foreign policy experience. Liabilities galore...

If either Kerry or Clark get the nod, they CAN bring up the Chimpster's AWOL cowardice. And probably will...

[jeter]

4. Do you guys not realise the folly of your argument?

I mean this is a page right out of the DLC play book and the very same strategy that lost us the 2002 midterm elections.

You are more or less conceding that a) foreign policy is the major issue of this campaign (especially military related issues); and b) that Bush and the Republicans are strong on this issue.

General Clark and Senator Kerry will never be macho or strong enough to appease people who are gung-ho couch potato generals. They will vote for Bush even if we put up a cloned combination of General Patton, Napoleon and Hannibal.

By putting up one of these candidates, solely on the basis that their "strength" would offset Bush and the GOP's strength. YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE STRONG. Why would someone vote for Bush-lite or strong-military lite when they can have the real thing?

The way we win this election is by dictating the debate ourselves. Not by allowing the GOP to dictate the debate and put up a candidate that will "counter" the perceptions the GOP or media make against Democrats.

That is what Bill Clinton did in 1992. He didn't win because he was from the south or because he moved to the right. He won because he had a) a strategy on how to win; b) identified the group that would vote for him; c) got out HIS message by appealling to that group (among the Dem rank and file); d) got them out to vote.

He ignored the GOP attacks on him (which were plenty). He HAD HIS OWN MESSAGE. "It's the economy, stupid."

That's not to say that this exact strategy will win us this election. But a variation of it will. A variation where WE identify who will support us and get them out to vote. WE SET OUR OWN AGENDA AND MESSAGE.

Let the Republicans respond to us. Or let us duke it out and see who's right and wrong.

If you nominate Clark or Kerry on the basis of their military records alone, this is what will happen.

The debate will become which candidate will do a better job winning the war against terrorism - or whatever else. We lose.

You catch my drift?

[maxr4clark]

12. Is Dean setting his own agenda and message?

It seems to me that Dean has run primarily against Bush, not for his own agenda and message.

[quaker bill]

32. Exactly

This is the essential weak point of the pro Clark / Kerry argument.

"General Clark and Senator Kerry will never be macho or strong enough to appease people who are gung-ho couch potato generals. They will vote for Bush even if we put up a cloned combination of General Patton, Napoleon and Hannibal."

No one can out "strong on defense' this president. They would love us to run against their strength.

however the op was on the notion that Rove better watch out because he doesn't know what he is wishing for in Dean. I agree.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

52. A four star General is "less macho" than a diminuitive Gov. from Vermont?

One who will be labeled a "draft dodger" - who later was seen skiing? I don't think so...

[zulchzulu]

40. You're not getting it

It's the full package I'm talking about. Not just the military background.

Here's the skinny. Each topic shows the experience of each candidate:

Foreign Policy Experience
Dean - None
Clark - Military-based
Kerry - 12 years in Foreign Relations Committee

National Security Experience
Dean - None
Clark - Military-based
Kerry - 8 years in National Security Council

Domestic Policy Experience
Dean - Governor of Vermont
Clark - None
Kerry - 18 years as Senator, other experience as prosecutor...

Military Experience
Dean - None
Clark - Decorated Viet Nam vet, NATO commander
Kerry - Decorated Viet Nam vet

That's pretty boiled down, but maybe now you catch my drift.

None is a huge liability for a candidate to have.

[oasis]

47. "none" is a lonely number. Credentials will be very important in the GE.

[unfrigginreal]

3. If Rove wants any of the major candidates, he wants Kerry

If you think that Dean has a problem in the South wait till you get a look at Kerry's numbers. Kerry also voted wrong on both Gulf Wars and Rove will certainly be making some noise about the first one. Vietnam will not be an issue in this campaign.

[maxr4clark]

7. According to Rove, he wants to face Dean

...but the question isn't who would be the worst matchup against Bush (and Dean clearly would not), the question is who would be the best.

What I want is a President who wants what is best for the country, not for himself or his circle of friends. What I want is a President who convinces me he has thought through his position, and has found the best position to support. What I want is a President who will leave us in better shape than he found us in. (Bush fails on all three counts.) And because the United States is what it is--the most influential nation on Earth, the first and strongest voice of democracy in the world--"us" is all of us, on all seven continents.

Lieberman, Kerry, Dean, and Edwards have all convinced me that they are seeking the Presidency for themselves first, and for the country second. Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards have convinced me that when they think things through, they don't arrive at the best answers about what to do. Dean has convinced me that expressing his anger at Bush is attracting Democratic voters, but not that he knows what to do if he were to get elected.

The one who has convinced me that he is in this thing for the country, that he thinks things through and finds good positions to support, and that he has the ability to lead the country to be better than it is today--that one is Clark.

I don't care if you come to different conclusions about who the best candidate is, based on the information we have available. We're all trying to predict the future, and reasonable people can disagree on that. I DO care, however, if you get distracted by trying to out-guess Karl Rove regarding who would (in the absence of the whole cognitive process of the campaigns and their effect on the voting public) match up best against Bush. I also care if you stop looking at the issues and just focus on the process of getting the nomination. I care about you getting distracted by these things because they aren't about what is best for the country. I want us--you and me--to VOTE for our candidates; and then to VOTE one of them into office and little George out of office. I want us to vote because I believe in democracy: if we all vote based on our understanding of the issues and the information we have available, we're more likely to get it right collectively than individually.

So if you want to change my mind about who should be nominated, talk to me about the issues. Convince me that Dean or Sharpton or Gephardt or whoever has a better vision for our country than Clark does, and that your candidate really wants what is best for us, the American people, rather than their friends or cronies or their ego. Persuade me that they are capable of working with what is likely to be a Republican-controlled Congress to make the lives of ordinary Americans better.

[Sean Reynolds]

8. Why would Rove come out and say he wanted Dean?

I mean that doesn't seem logical, right? It's like me saying to the police I want to off this guy. Rove is smart and he's not about to make it public that he wants ______ as the candidate because he runs a HUGE risk of scaring people away from that candidate.

Rove wants Dean like he wants a hole in the head. I'm pretty sure the internal polling has Dean doing best against Bush (see new CNN poll) and Rove knows it. I believe that Dean's grassroots scares Rove and he knows that if Dean wins the nomination chances of a 3rd party running is slim. So that 3% that voted for Nader MIGHT go to Dean, which is enough to give him the election. Not only that, but with the war STILL in bedlam, nominating a pro-war Democrat will only HELP Bush's case because he can just turn around and say "You have no right to bitch because you voted for the damn thing".

Dean's support comes from the base. The United States is basically 50-50, with little middle swing voters left. They know that the election will NOT be won by the middle, it'll be won by the party base. Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt can't get the base support against Bush and a lot of that stems from the Iraq war. So if we nominate them we'll get a split again and a 3rd party candidate will rip votes away from the Democrats. While Bush already has his base support.

[maxr4clark]

10. whether it makes sense or not, he said it

[Sean Reynolds]

11. I know he did and I believe it's reverse psychology.

Rove wouldn't risk it - he's too smart of a man. He's too evil as well.

[maxr4clark]

16. that's really clutching at straws

[Sean Reynolds]

36. How so?

Like I said, if you're going to kill a guy, do you go out yourself to the police before hand?

Rove's saying we want Dean because we're gonna KILL him in the general.

[maxr4clark]

15. a few things

1. All indications are that Nader intends to run.

2. To my knowledge, there is only one "pro-War Democrat"; that is Lieberman. Take a look at Clark's book, "Winning Modern Wars". He is not pro-War; in contrast, I believe he has far better complaints about Bush and his war in Iraq than Dean or any of the other Democratic candidates; and he has great ideas about what to do from where Bush has left us, too.

3. The US is NOT basically 50-50, it is 45-10-45, or figuring in the Nader group, 3-42-10-45. Any "base" Democrat who votes for Bush or Nader or decides not to vote is effectively casting a vote for Bush; do you really think that the people who would vote for Dean wouldn't vote against Bush no matter what? I don't.

ONE question about Dean is whether he can appeal to anyone outside the base.

The other, more important question about Dean is, would he do a good job of leading our country from where it is now to someplace better? I believe he would do better than Bush would, but I think Kerry or Clark would do a better job than Dean would.

I haven't put this forth before, but perhaps it is worth it. My main criticism of Dean is that I don't think he would make a very effective president. I loved Jimmy Carter and his ideas, but the Republican congress prevented him from getting anything done because they hated him. The same thing happened to Clinton's health care plans. I see Dean, with his argumentative personality and farther-than-average left stance, being unable to get anything passed through a strongly Republican legislature--which it looks like we're going to have. In contrast, I see Clark with his foreign policy credentials and rational approach to presenting his ideas as being much more effective at getting enough Republicans to support his agenda to get some of it accomplished. The foreign policy credentials count even on domestic policy issues because the Republican legislators have to answer to their constituents, and the foreign policy credentials will carry weight with Republican constituents no matter what the issue (that is arguable, of course, but I'm presenting my opinion).

[flaminbats]

18. Did you mean "Bill Clinton's ideas and the Republican Congress"?

"I loved Jimmy Carter and his ideas, but the Republican congress prevented him from getting anything done because they hated him. The same thing happened to Clinton's health care plans." :shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

21. The Senate might've been controlled by the GOP during...

The Carter administration. But the House was definately dem as it had been for many years.

[maxr4clark]

23. Yeah

See the post I attached to the wrong message, a few down (at this point).

I meant the whole Congress, not just the House. I am frequently misunderstood when I use the term "Congress"; perhaps I should stick to House, Senate, and Legislature (which, for the federal government, is the Congress = Senate + House, by my understanding). I think the confusion comes from the term "Congressman", which apparently has come to mean a member of the House of Representatives. I still think of them as Senators and Representatives, and only collectively as Congressmen.

At any rate, I wasn't trying to say that there were more Republicans than Democrats in either house of Congress during Carter's term, just that the Republicans in Congress at the time effectively blocked nearly everything that Carter tried to do. And I am relying on my parents' opinions for that statement.

[flaminbats]

24. Most of Carter's agenda was passed by Congress.

Carter's legislation to give Panama control of its Canal, legislation for a Windfall Profits Energy Tax which would be used to raise money for developing renewable sources of energy, and Carter's legislation to protect Alaskian lands from the oil industry..was all passed. The only major legislation which did not pass was Carter's healthcare proposal, which Kennedy blocked in committee for being too conservative. Carter's mistake was in not working with the liberals, Repukes had very little to do with blocking this healthcare bill.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Clinton's healthcare plans died in a democratic congress...

Or that's what I recall at least. And personally I think Clinton did a GREAT job negotiating with congress especially considering that he had to deal with that fascist Newt Gingrich. If I could go back to the Clinton years I would've given him a dem congress for his final two years as president in hopes that the social security plans that he spoke about in his 1999 state of the union would actually get passed.

[maxr4clark]

22. I meant first Carter then Clinton

I understood precisely why Carter cried when he lost his bid for a second term; he had so many good ideas, and he was frustrated at every turn. His efforts since leaving office show what a great man he really was.

I don't know whether Congress was technically more full of Dems or Repubs during Clinton's attempts at healthcare, but what killed that effort was the neocons' relentless persecution of Clinton on anything they could find. The "Whitewater Investigation" tied up Clinton's efforts and made it hard for Dems to support Clinton on anything, despite never amounting to anything Clinton had done wrong. That Clinton actually gave them something to complain about with Monica Lewinsky was incredibly poor judgement. You can read about what happened either in Hilary's autobiography, which my wife read, or in David Brock's book, "Blinded by the Right". Both treat their intentions to push for universal health care, and how that was stymied by their legal issues.

[flaminbats]

25. those plans died thanks to 39 repukes and one DINO who later switched.

But the Mitchell bill had the potential to pass, which lead to a filibuster.

[Leilani]

17. That is a ver thoughtful post

I too, am hoping for Clark, because I feel he would be best for the country. He is not a professional politician, unlike all the others, & I truly believe he is sincere in his goals for the country.

The world is in a very perilous place right now, & we need someone to steer us away from the unilateral course we are on. Clark has the respect of countries he worked with as SACEUR.

Most of the candidates have fairly similar domestic proposals, & issues will have to be negotiated with Congress. But a President's foreign policies are rarely checked by Congress.

Clark also has the most knowledge on how to get us out of Iraq.

[maxr4clark]

20. Thanks

If you haven't already, please take a look at Clark's second book, "Winning Modern Wars". I got it for Christmas. The first two or three chapters are mostly about how the war in Iraq happened, but then Clark turns to what should be done; in Afghanistan, about Al Qaeda, and to get out of Iraq. The last chapter is, I think, a more general statement of his view of the United States and where and how it should be led.

It isn't a very quotable book, but it is a fairly practical one that I think lays out Clark's ideas fairly well.

[Sean Reynolds]

6. Yes Rove wants Dean.

That is why he continually has the media paint Dean as someone that can't beat Bush - to scare the primary voters into not voting for him. How many news stories have compared Dean to McGovern? The attacks on Dean have been pretty strong as of late; just showing me that they're scared he MIGHT win the nomination. They're not attacking Clark, Kerry or the rest like they are Dean. You'd think that if Rove really wanted Dean, he'd keep quiet and run little negative stories as possible. I mean, can't upset the base that's gonna nominate Dean, right?

[maxr4clark]

9. Dean is compared to McGovern

...because there are a lot of similarities, and because noone on the DU wants to lose by a landslide. Besides which, Dean spends a lot of time talking about the sixties and seventies; it is only natural to compare him to Democratic candidates of that time.

The "Rove wants Dean" comments come from a statement made by Rove; they are not a baseless accusation of Dean.

Dean is being attacked by several of the other Democratic candidates far more than by the Republicans, at this point. Kerry in particular has lost a lot of points with me for attacking Dean, rather than by promoting his own ideas (Lieberman would have lost points too, except he didn't have any to lose). Clark has consistently chosen not to attack the other Democratic candidates, restricting his attacks to Bush alone. But even his attacks on Bush are accompanied with Clark's suggested alternatives.

[Sean Reynolds]

13. I know where they come from. But it's Rove.

I wouldn't take ANYTHING he says at face value. Ya' know?

I feel that Rove can manipulate the media and if he really wanted Dean, he'd not have them running all these negative stories. Just look at the ones that came out in the AP yesterday about the Vermont nuclear power plant. Of course that was debunked here at DU, but do you think the media will ever write up on that fact?

I sense the new CNN polls show us what Rove's seen all along, Dean is best to beat Bush. 5 points is a good starting point for Dean.

[Gore1FL]

33. Please name the similarities

Because other than sharing afew alphabetical characters in their name, and the fac thtat they are both Demiocrats, I see only one similaritie -- If Dean gets the nomination, he'll run against the most Nixon-like candidate we've seen, well, since Nixon.

[flaminbats]

14. Then let him have it!

If winning is what he wants, Dean shall provide it. :spank:

[Skwmom]

26. Rove also wants Dean because Dean has the

same weaknesses as his boy George.

[Gore1FL]

34. Dean did not Desert

n/t

[WiseMen]

41. Dean has already done his service: he has trashed the Dem Party

[TLM]

27. WAKE UP! They WANT to run a campaign all about the military.

They want to run on war, and security, and danger, and fear and Clark & Kerry play right into that hand.

In a pissing fight over who is the better warrior protector, the guy who caught Saddam wins over the guy who lied about throwing his metals over the Whitehorse fence and the guy who was fired from his command.

The Bush crew would love to make this a contest over who is the better cowboy tough guy. Because that is the ONLY way that Bush has any hope. He has to avoid domestic issues as much as he can, and making the campaign about military cred takes all the focus of Bush's weakest areas.

That is exactly what Rove wants.

[CWebster]

31. Hold that thought!

before the dazzling shine of ribbons and medals obscure the clarifying insight.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

38. We elect a president- not an accountant

war medals have a lot more appeal than balanced budgets. You seem to think the GOP wants to make fun of Kerry for throwing away medals. The truth is he had medals to throw (or not) Bush has.... ???

[Monte Carlo]

50. This election is _already_ all about the military.

Because you're right, the military and fear is the only thing Bush has to run on. So, he's going to in any case. Rove, unfortunately, has already gotten what he wants in this area. Dean, IMHO, is fatally unprepared to meet this push by the Republicans in November.

[xchrom]

28. i don't think rove

is particularly afraid of any dem candidate.
i think belives in his abilities to handle what ever is thrown af him
and he's not going to tip his hand now -- it's way too early.
this is all way too speculative at this time.
leberals, dems, leftists have to stay focused on one thing bushco and the actual bushco record -- and communicating to dems that it's bush that needs to be front and center and not each other.

[CWebster]

29. That is all Clark is---a military man

Since when did that become the measure of the best America has to offer? A country with military types in charge is a good indication of the wrong priorities dominating relationships domestically and internationally.

[maddezmom]

30. the problem with that question is, bush* will just lie again

just like he did the first time, and he'll get away with it. I don't think rove wants any of our candidates and is working hard to dig up dirt on all of them.

[Gore1FL]

35. I guess this would be easier to swallow

If Rove & CO hadn't so "masterfully" eliminated McCain, who arguably could claim equal status to Kerry's and Clark's military record.

[candy331]

37. It's still a while until the voting

in November and who knows what may happen to Rove&others by then. The scene of this world is changing daily, just look back over 2003.

[Hep]

39. Rove and I have something in common

We both apparently want Dean. I'll bet he likes beer. That's two things.

[JVS]

42. Der Soldat ist der wichtigste Teil unserer Gesellschaft!

Nur wer den richtigen militarischen Hintergrund besitzt kann das Volk zum Siege fuehren!

[Hep]

43. Dean sucks!

This is not a dean bashing post!

Can you friggin believe it?

[JVS]

45. Well he did say that Dean might bite Rove on the butt by winning...

but the post does give those who wish to smear Dean a nice jumping point

[LuminousX]

44. Nobody but Rove knows what Rove wants

so many psychics and mindreaders here on DU... wow.

[CWebster]

46. Yeah

like they were afraid of McCain and the vet who lost his limbs in Nam.

These guys will stop at nothing and why shouldn't they--who is going to oppose them--what watchdogs? The media? The congress? Ha!

[maxanne]

48. this just cracks me up

Cynical, intelligent people who would NEVER buy anything Rove says, buy into his claim that he wants Dean to be the nominee.

[Douglas_Barber]

49. who needs a military record? Not the Pres...

Don't the elections of Clinton and Bush show that military service means little to the voters? Conservatives accused Clinton of dodging, we accuse Bush of dissertion from the National Guard. And both were elected.

Clark's military record will look great...as a VP candidate on the ticket with Dean.

[Clark4VotingRights]

53. Agreed Hippo... The reason you state, plus Dean's admitted lack of

foreign policy experience, plus his tendency to say
exactly the wrong thing, and his petulant demeanor.
Clark, by contrast, appears presidential and poised.

[bobbyboucher]

54. Yeah, right,

that's why they are attacking Dean with both barrels. Viet Nam is not on the table.