David Brooks, Times's Safire-Lite, Says GOP Wants Dean vs. Bush

[BurtWorm]

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

He claims Republicans are excited about the prospect because they think Dean appeals to partisans and not swing voters.

Currently I support Dean, have given him money, defended him on DU and elsewhere. I don't trust Brooks's opinion. I wonder why, if he really wants Dean vs. Bush because he thinks it's good for Bush, he makes a point of saying it so loudly. Methinks he doth protest too much. Methinks Dean already appeals to swing voters and more than a few Republicans because he is this year's angry man, and certain disenfranchised voters get excited by angry men.

But I have to admit, I am not sure if Dean vs. Bush is ultimately the best contest for Dems, because I, myself, am not absolutely convinced Dean can win. My doubt is about Dean's service record. It may not mean as much to average voters as I fear. It may be that the Dean people are super prepared for this, and have devastating evidence about attacking Bush's own service record that could shut the Bushists up about Dean's. We'll have to see.

Brooks concludes his piece hinting that Republicans are probably most worried about Clark. I am waiting to see what effect Clark's entering the fray would have on my own support for Dean. I'm impressed that Charlie Rangel is so gung-ho for Clark.

[Ninga]

1. Well stated..

....I am an early Dean supporter, I believe in his policies, but am more concered about his delivery. I am anxious to see how this Clark thing will play out, I think he has many elements to make this race exciting.

[joeybee12]

2. Bait and Switch Again!

Those stupid Repukes are being very vocal about saying Dean is "too liberal" and "can't win." It's clear they are actually worried about him, or else they wouldn't be devoting so much time.

They're actually trying to get the Dems to buy into this so that the Dems will nominate a weak candidate.

Don't listen to Brooks and other scum!

[Nevernose]

3. The more Brooks says it

the sooner it will become "conventional wisdom." They start saying it now, and fourteen months from now, people will all be saying "Dean? Oh, he's way to liberal, isn't he?"

BTW It's already working, if the experience I've had with my friends is anything to go by.

[ima_sinnic]

4. the repukes have absolutely no clue re Dean's electability

Dean has been bringing them in from all ends of the political spectrum. The neocon repukes are under the illusion that he is simply "antiwar" but they are overlooking his platform of "fiscal responsibility," which is the crucial issue for disenchanted Republicans (see the http://atlblogs.com/republicansfordean/">Republicans for Dean blog)

Quote from that blog: "Dean adheres to Republican principles such as fiscal responsibility, limited government and national security in ways that the present administration does not."

[dsc]

5. I really don't get this service record stuff

Other than in 88, 84, and 76 the person with the best service record has lost every election since 72. In 72 McGovern was a real hero (over 30 bombing missions in WW2) while Nixon was a cook. In 76 Carter was a naval sub commander while Ford was a WW2 peon. In 80 Carter was Carter and Reagan had made war films. In 84 neither candidate served. In 88 Bush was the war hero, Dukakis served in Korea. In 92 Bush war hero, Perot served, Clinton didn't. In 96 Dole war hero (lost arm) Perot and Clinton same as 92. In 2000 Gore served in Vietnam Bush dodged his service in Texas.

Looking at this I fail to see any advantage in the war record.

[BurtWorm]

6. The advantage is in the negatives against non-servers

since serving is a sign of character. I would be more comfortable with Dean if he had been more front and center in the anti-war movement. Or if he had served. Or if he had been a conscientious objector. But I'm not thrilled about the story that's out there about Dean's getting a physical deferment then going to Aspen for a ski fest to celebrate.

[dofus]

7. Psst!

Nixon was a crook, not a cook.

[BurtWorm]

10. Didn't he cook the books?

Or was that one of his chefs? Or plumbers, as the case may be.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Sorry-

Mondale served in Korea....

[dsc]

22. oops

I didn't think he had. That makes it even more clear cut. The better war record lost 72,80,84,92,96, and 00. The better record won only in 88. 76 is a bit unknown but there the better record won too (I think.) That is a 2-6 record.

[denverbill]

8. I'm in a similar situation.

I was a very early Dean supporter, and have given more to Dean already than to any political party in my lifetime. Dean is a LOT like McCain in his plain-talking no-nonsense style, and I think he'd make an excellent President. I do think Clark MIGHT be more electable though. I don't know.

Is the Bush spin machine trying reverse psychology about Dean? Don't know, hard to say. Impossible to say, as a matter of fact. You can't trust a damned thing that comes out of this administration.

[CMT]

9. think about it

The GOP is publically saying they want Dean. Why? to make Democrats think that is who they really want so that democrats will reject Dean and nominate someone else. It is an old game. If they really wanted Dean they would not try and knock him down but build him up.

[BurtWorm]

12. Right. Or they'd shut up about him and keep their fingers crossed.

[ModerateMiddle]

17. The California example

The Davis camp made it VERY clear that they would rather run against Simon than Riordan. It wasn't a secret.

You guys could twist yourself into knots trying to figure out who the GOP wants to run against. One very real issue, though, is that Bush and Rove have planned all along to run Dubya as a "war president". They do NOT want the economy to be an issue in 2004. If the Dems run someone whose national security creds can be questions (not necessarily questionable), they can take the economy off the table, because THE debate will be who will keep Americans safe.

[jos]

11. Be careful what you wish for

I'm remember Democrats laughing and hi-fiving when Reagan was nominated in '80.

[Woodstock]

14. Brooks mission has been accomplished

He's handed you seeds of doubt about Dean, which you are scattering about to just the intended audience - the Democratic base.

These guys are diabolically devious. If they were really sure of someone, or if they were really afraid of someone, you'd be the last to know.

[Woodstock]

16. BTW, I know swing voters who are now supporting Dean

personally - and I bet a lot here do, as well. That's one of the big reasons I backed Dean - his appeal to swing voters. I was afraid someone too far left would turn them off, so I wanted a moderate who was firm on choice. I wish Dean was a little more left in some areas, but I picked him because I think he can appeal to the base plus the swing voters.

I'm not David Brooks, no. But unlike him, I'm not lying just to scam people out of more of their money, resources, health, etc.

[BurtWorm]

19. I'm currently a Dean guy. My doubts are not about anything Brooks mentions

I don't think Dean is too "left." I don't think he excludes non-partisans. In fact, quite the opposite, I think he turns on people who feel disenfranchised, which I think is his strength. And he does it in a way that is not "left," but critical of the status quo. I like that about Dean. I like it a lot.

I'm totally impressed with his organization, his use of the Web, the enthusiasm he's stirred among his supporters.

I merely worry about his lasting power.

[ModerateMiddle]

20. Frankly, at this point

they are afraid of the election, period. Regardless of who is nominated. (Well, not entirely *anyone*, but you get the picture.)

[BurtWorm]

21. True!

[ElkHunter]

15. If Dean wins the nomination...

...he can deal with not having a service record by choosing a VP who has one - like Clark. Hell, the Bush White House is filled with chickenhawks that don't have a service record. I'm not sure the Bushies will want to open that can of worms in the general election campaign.

By the way, in the current issue of the Weekly Standard there's an article by Stephen Moore on Dean. Moore, a libertarian with the Cato Institute and the Club for Growth, knows Dean and in the article writes that "Dean could be George W. Bush's worse nightmare" because Dean "has been underestimated throughout his political career. He has an uncanny knack for finding where the political capital is stored and then walking off with it."

[Gman]

18. It's not at all hard to see why the GOP wants Dean

The GOP's absolute worst nightmare is Graham/Edwards. That ticket would gut the GOP's south.

Sorry, but Dean is a Dukakis waiting to happen.

[Starpass]

23. I think the GOP worst nightmare is Clark/Edwards or a reverse

combination. That's two boys from the South, taking on the south and taking on the "weak on defense" charges that are always leveled at Dems. You can bet on anybody's ticket there will be a southern boy. The only thing Bush has is "defense" (and that's getting old with him). He could not fight a general - that was one of the reasons the GOP wanted Powell and even Dems wanted Powell back when (when they didn't know his politics). It shatters the illusion they have created for the country and puts them into a bind. What does Bush do??--criticize a general when he has to make love to the military so he has a cheering audience??? Does he want to get too harsh with a 4 star who can say: show me your war record, Mr. Bush!! They fear Clark.

[creativelcro]

24. DB has forked tongue

I've been following the guy for a long time (especially those Friday debates on the Lehrer's hr). You cannot trust what he says, or the motivation for what he says anything. He has 10 layers of hidden agendas for anything he says. Now that he got his NYT job (WFT were they thinking?) he can spin his conservative BS left and right... -CV

[Woodstock]

25. Dean could be Bush's most dangerous opponent so says

the Weekly Standard ( to my knowledge a conservative magazine):

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp