Republicans For Dean - NYT - David Brooks

[HazMat]

The results of the highly prestigious Poll of the Pollsters are in! I called eight of the best G.O.P. pollsters and strategists and asked them, on a not-for-attribution basis, if they thought Howard Dean would be easier to beat than the other major Democratic presidential candidates. Here, and I'm paraphrasing, are the results:

"Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!"

You would have thought I had asked them if Danny DeVito would be easier to beat in a one-on-one basketball game than Shaquille O'Neal. They all thought Dean would be easier to beat, notwithstanding his impressive rise. Some feared John Kerry, others John Edwards, because his personality wears well over time, and others even Bob Graham, because he can carry Florida, more than Dean. As their colleague Bill McInturff put it atop a memo on the Dean surge: "Happy Days Are Here Again (for Republicans)."

snip

By this line of thinking, Dean is a terrible candidate. His partisan style drives off the persuadable folks who rarely bother to vote in primaries but who do show up once every four years for general elections.

snip

Which is why so many Republicans are quietly gleeful over Dean's continued momentum. It is only the dark cloud of Wesley Clark, looming on the horizon, that keeps their happiness from being complete.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/opinion/16BROO.html

[T Roosevelt]

1. People with agendas are soooooo tiring.

[caledesi]

3. Brooks is boring as hell.

and hey Memo to Brooks: with all your f*cking money, get your teeth fixed. <bitch alert>

[NickDanger]

5. Dean is almost a lock to lose to Bush

My 'agenda' is to get Bush out of office. Clark and maybe Kerry can do that, not Dean. He's Kucinich Lite and is too progressive to be elected against this 'wartime preznit'.

[HazMat]

8. Actually, Dean isn't progressive

even though he's become the darling of the anti-war/anti-Bush left, who proclaimed himself to be from the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party".

Dean governed Vermont from the center right --he's a Rockefeller Republican.

But for the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd, Iraq is the only issue. They would probably even support a Republican if that person was vociferously against the war. I'm sure that if Chafee got into the Dem race against Kerry, the activists would support Chafee. Most of the activists this time around don't care about ideology or record -- the only thing they're looking for who is who hates Bush the most.

The problem is that exactly what makes Dean irresistable to the anti-war/anti-Bush left is what makes him unelectable. Just as the activist don't care that Dean is a centrist, the general electorate won't care either. They will view Dean as an angry, scary anti-war leftist.

[Cha]

10. That is so not what it's about! Check out the Huge anti-war Rally

Oct,25th in Washington D.C. The largest New York Union just signed on ..

"1199/SEIU Health and Hospital Workers Union, has decided to support the October 25th march in Washington. Representing 200,000 workers, the union has agreed to provide free bus transportation to its members and their families who want to come to the protest."

"The protest will also condemn the vast cuts in vital domestic social and economic programs and demand: Money for jobs, education & healthcare, not war and occupation. As the October 25-26 weekend is also the second anniversary of the passage of the so-called Patriot Act, authorizing political arrests, indefinite detentions, domestic spying, and religious and racial profiling, the demonstration will also be a call to Fight Back Against the Patriot Act."

:kick:

[Kolesar]

14. That is what keeps me up at night

The GOP and the Bush cabal will turn on the media machine for the 2004 election and use Dean's opposition to the war against him. They will note that Dean never served in the armed forces and that Bush was a "fighter jock" (gasp). I hate it, it is a lie, but that is what they are going to try to do.

[NickDanger]

15. Exactly, and that is a major reason he is unelectable in these times

eom

[papau]

2. Brooks must have the same fax that the ABCNOTE got - seems

Rove is having a dump on Dean week - and our "mainstrean media" is making the GOP happy by showing how well they obey GOP orders.

[snyttri]

13. All Dems are being dumped on; just in case. Clark and Dean were

smeared in the same George Will column. The problem is that the smear ops list for Dean is already so long:

-Social Security third rail has been crossed.
-Also, Medicare fourth rail.
-On-air contradiction on strength of NAFTA support.
-Independently called worst ever on MTP
-Possibly the first Pol Stephanapolous got to lose temper on his show?
-Apologized to Edwards, said it was only apology he had made
-Used TV show line in debate-said it was original-had to admit it was stolen (thought TV show was not on tape?)
-Had to apologize for Mid-east creativity in same debate
-In same debate said he was only candidate to talk about race w/whites
-Called a candidate second-tier
-Stump speech makes Rove "dangerous" ad w/small edits
-Makes same mistakes after 2 yrs of campaigning

In addition to the smear Dean campaign by Dems and Rove, no journalist could resist the continuing slips even a Clinton might not be able to talk his way out of.

[Cocoa]

4. Everything David Brooks says

should be taken as republican talking points.

He sounds very thoughtful and knowledgeable, but it's pure spin. He's one of the very worst, and it stinks that the NYT has hired this fraud.

[snyttri]

7. He seems about the least spin oriented of the right-wing writer/yakkers

It was good to hear him instead of Will, Safire, Carlson, Lowry, Novak, Barnes or others on the Lehrer Report, and it made sense that the Times hired the most sober and credible of the pack.

The intensity argument seems well put.

[Evanstondem]

9. He's Just More Subtle Than Other Right-Wingers

At least that's my impression from his first few columns in the NYT. Maybe he comes off better on TV.

[unfrigginreal]

6. And when did the GOP journalists become beacons of truth?

Now I ask you, these partisan hacks have only one goal, right? To get Bush elected?

Why can't you see them as liars when they print this garbage but have the ability to nail them when they talk policy?

I'd be a hell of a lot more concerned if they weren't mentioning my candidate.

[dfong63]

11. you said it

[scarface2004]

12. brooks is full of chit!!!

zippy the pinhead could kick bush's ass!!! what the fu?k are these guys smoking??!!

[Bush_has_Parvo]

16. I wish the Pugs would make up their minds!

First, Karl Rove was marching in a parade with a Dean for Prez sign. Then last week, a memo came out that showed Dean could beat the usurper in chief. Now Brooks comes out with his "cakewalk" article. Let's just do ourselves a favor and not listen to their opinions on our candidate. FYI, Clark is also anti-war and he may have huge support.

[wabeewoman]

17. The problem with all these 'experts'

is they can't see that little invisible factor that excites people who see the candidate and causes people relate to them. They don't "get it." Maybe logically it makes no sense (to them) that Dean is electable but then logic seldom is an issue in politics. And you have to remember that many of these 'experts' are just spouting the republican talking points. Also I find the idea of a happy republican to be an oxymoron.

[mistertrickster]

18. David Brooks is a right wing die hard who writes for the Wall Street J

and the Weekly Standard. He WANTS Bush to win. So when he says that Dean is the easy one to beat . . . why is he helping the Democrats beat Bush?

Republican strategists, being fucking bastards of the worst ilk--think Richard Ailes and Lee Atwater--don't tell the truth, they tell the spin.