Rove wants Dean?

[LiberalEconomist]

Maybe, just maybe the "eight of the best G.O.P. pollsters and strategists" from the NY Times op-ed are wrong. First of all, I think they're wrong to characterize Dean as an extreme liberal. I think Lieberman, Kerry, and company are wrong along with them. I think the Republican and Democratic party establishments are wrong. I think they're out of touch.

Dean's perceived extreme liberalness is based entirely on his
opposition to war with Iraq (and his opposition can easily and
briefly summarized as opposition to the RUSH to war with Iraq,
opposition to LYING to rush to war with Iraq, etc.).

From there, he's the most fiscally conservative candidate or
prospective candidate that either Democratic or Republican parties
have to offer. He's the only Democrat that is a strong supporter of
gun rights. He's a reluctant supporter--a supporter nonetheless--of
capital punishment. Given those three distinctions altogether (some
other Democratic candidates support capital punishment, but I don't
know that any are with him on all three counts), he's to the so-
called right of all the other Democratic alternatives, even perhaps including Wesley Clark.

Dean IS pro-choice and gay/lesbian friendly, which merely puts him
with all the other Democrats, including Clark, on those issues.

All in all, though, I think the DLC, Lieberman, Kerry, and other
establishment Dems, and the Republican party establishment, including
these "eight ... best G.O.P. pollsters and strategists," are being
awfully myopic, and it could cost the Democratic establishment, and
it could cost the Republican establishment.

It could cost the Democratic establishment in that: They could
cannibalize Dean out of the race, and they could wind up with a
Lieberman or Kerry or other establishment nominee, THINKING that
they've got their more palatable and ostensibly electable nominee
going up against Bush, when in fact--from a grassroots, middle-
American perspective--all they've given voters is another bland and,
more to the point, stereotypically LIBERAL candidate who will be
easier for Rove to ridicule and villify. He can say, "Look, here's a
guy who was with us on the whole Iraq thing, and even likes a lot of
our tax cuts; from there, all he has to offer that's different is his
liberalism." And Rove will promptly proceed to kick the Democrat's
ass.

It can cost the Republican establishment in that: If Dean DOES survive
the Democratic nonsense and becomes the nominee, then the Republicans
are actually facing the one guy who could carve some inroads into at
least SOME of those red states on the big electoral board, precisely
because he's a fiscal conservative AND--more importantly than
establishment pols understand--he's pro-gun-rights. I tells ya, that
resonates so much louder than professional, establishment Democrats
understand. It resonates so much louder than political pundits
understand.

Most independents I know don't necessarily hate Bush the way
Democrats do, but they're definitely NOT devotees, and they're
definifitely more objective about the course of the country than
Republicans. (And to think that we'll woo very many Republicans away
from Bush--as Lieberman and others seem to think--is simply
delusional, and not only is it delusional, they're not even close to
being the Democrats who could do it. Dean, on the other hand, IS.)
I think urban and/or left-leaning independents are just gonna go
Democratic in 2004 anyway. As for rural independents, right-leaning
independents, and some left-leaning independents who, are lefties packin' heat--they're much more inclined to go for a guy like Dean who supports gun rights (which, I'm tellin' ya, people, is HUGE
in middle America and in those red states).

On reflection, it may actually be that Rove and those "eight ... best
G.O.P. pollsters and strategists" DO INDEED understand how dangerous
Dean is, and are simply goosing the DLC and establishment Democrats
with reverse psychology. Dean is in fact NOT the guy they want.
This is really their way of saying, "GIVE us Lieberman. GIVE us
Kerry. GIVE us Edwards. PLEASE!"

Take note of how the right wing media--all corporate cable news networks--keep slamming Dean over the insignificant Trent Lott line. Take note of how they claim that someone cannot be a straight-talker and a flexible pragmatist at the same time. Hell, don't blame me if you are too much of a mental midget to see that the two things are compatible.

Ok, now for the doozy: I am a Clark guy.

[meegbear]

1. Rove can have him.

[FauxNewsBlues]

8. Please Don't Throw Rove In The Briar Patch

Rove is saying this. Enough said. Unless it is reverse psychology. He knows most democrats in the know, know that he is a pathological cretin, so maybe he genuinely wants Dean, and it is strategery. I doubt it though.

[Cha]

2. The repukes have done everything else wrong....they just have

the media in their well oiled pockets... So what do they know?

I don't think they know what they want except to keep the puppet on a string in power...so they can finish off the USA.

[Demobrat]

3. If Rove says he wants him

as far as I'm concerned that means he doesn't. Case closed.

[blm]

4. Hold Dean accountable for that perception.

When you call those who are longtime liberals like Kerry, and left-leaning moderates like Gep and Edwards, "Bushlite" that makes you sound like you are to their left.

When you say that you are there to "represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." it implies that liberals like Kerry and left-leaning moderates like Gep and Edwards are too far to the right.

So, what responsibility does Dean bear for the misrepresentations of the media and others?

[searchingforlight]

7. Kerry, Gep and Edwards may be lefties

But I think Dean was saying "Stop being afraid of disagreeing with GWB!!

Too many Dems (including the above three) have given in to the politics of the right and someone had to say it is okay to stand up to the Republicans. In fact, it might help people make an informed decision.

[indigo32]

11. exactly

eom

[blm]

12. Just because the media was saying that Dean was the ONLY one

standing up to Bush doesn't make it true. In fact, here on DU throughout 2002 the big flamefests were between Kerry and Gore supporters who were arguing which one of them were hitting Bush the hardest.

Go read Dean's MTP performance from July, 2002 where he refused to back up Kerry and Gore's criticism of Bush's military strategy in Afghanistan.

[w4rma]

14. Lieberman on Kerry:…don't need a waffler in charge of our country's future

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): “I thought that John Kerry's statement in his announcement address -- that he voted for the resolution just to threaten Saddam Hussein -- was unbelievable. It was clearly an authorization for President Bush to use force against Saddam. … I don't get it. He's been criticizing Howard Dean for lacking experience to lead America in the world today. It's true. It's not the best time to put a rookie in charge of our country's future. It hasn't been a good time to have a cowboy in charge of our future, but we also don't need a waffler in charge of our country's future.” (Glen Johnson And Anne E. Kornblut, “Democrats Rip Bush In 8-Way Debate,” The Boston Globe, 9/5/03)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/05/democrats_rip_bush_in_8_way_debate/

…
Though Kerry has insisted he's satisfied with his team, his less-than-firm denials of a shake-up have fueled rumors and created angst among his staff.

Early this month, as he formally began his campaign, Kerry told reporters he "reserved the right" to make changes and gave a mixed assessment of his staff's performance. Trying to quell talk of a staff purge, he issued a statement saying there would be "no changes."

The statement, drafted with Lehane's assistance, was meant to be the last word, but Kerry has backpedaled from it. "Those weren't precisely my words. They were the words of a press release sent out," Kerry told The Boston Globe in a story published Sunday.

Several campaign sources said Monday that Kerry signed off on the statement's language ruling out changes. It was unclear whether he saw the actual document.
…
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6778015.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=40579

I am now participating in MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) with the Kerry supporters who like to bash Dems. Every time a Kerry supportor, such as you blm, repeats this tripe, I'm going to respond with an ever growing list of Kerry problems. This is the beginning of my list. I promise that you don't want to motivate me to expand on it.

[Skwmom]

16. If waffling on issues bothers you I suggest you visit this site:

<http://www.wafflepoweredhoward.com>

[blm]

17. Instead of holding Dean responsible you

just point to me as a basher? That's your answer? What does it have to do with the original post?

If the post is about WHY Dean gets called a liberal erroneously, my post is an accurate and appropriate response.

Your answer is to pull up a quote from Lieberman about Kerry?

For your information, ALL resolutions authorizing force are intended as threats, and used for coercive purposes.

Why do you excuse Dean's bashing of the other Democrats early on, yet bristle when anyone points it out?

[oasis]

5. GOP mouthpiece, Bay Buchannan was pumping up Dean on "Inside Politics"

calling him a "real populist". BTW, the topic was about Clark's announcement.

[Wetzelbill]

6. Come November '04

any Democratic candidate who has the sand to stick it to Bush, in the media, at debates etc, and hammer home all the blunders this administration has put forth will have a helluva shot at beating him. Be it Dean, be it Kerry or whomever. Bush is susceptible, no matter what the ideologues say.

[Cha]

9. So very true!

[CMT]

10. interesting that they are so public about this

if they really wanted him would they say, "he is the easiest to beat?" that is just telling democratic voters to support someone else. I honestly think Rove looks at Dean and doesn't know what to think. One side says, "he would be easy to beat" the other side say, "but look at what he is doing--400,000 volunteers, raising tons of money on the internet from small donations, bringing in people who have not been in the process before..." I think Rove would want the more predictable than the unpredictable.

[Wetzelbill]

13. Dean is not afraid to say what's on his mind

whether he is right or wrong or it offends certain people. Dean doesn't just have supporters, he has a movement, because he visibly calls out the administration and says what people disenchanted with politics want to hear. Plus, Dean isn't much different than Bush in that he presents a cocky, confident air, which makes some people hate him and others love him. To a guy like Dean, simple words do not matter, it is more the overall image. I heard him speak in person and the guy isn't articulate in the way, say John Edwards is, but he gets you fired up and makes you want to go out and change the world. I'm a Kucinich man, but you cannot deny the appeal Howard Dean has. I'll put it to you this way, he frightens the Bushites because he can out tough talk Bush any day and he isn't afraid to say something outlandish that would make a fool out of Dubya either. So what if Dean comes off as an arrogant ass sometimes or Fox can take a 3 second clip and make him look stupid? He doesn't care and neither does most of America. Dean projects that "maverick" image better than Bush does and he's actually pretty moderate which becomes more apparent to the public every week. He scares these guys, so they try to belittle him.

[w4rma]

15. Bush team considers Dean formidable Republicans admit they underestimated…

Bush team considers Dean formidable Republicans admit they underestimated Dem candidate

By Judy Keen
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- Republican Party officials and political advisers to President Bush admit that they underestimated Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean and say they now consider him a formidable potential adversary.

Some Bush allies say he reminds them of another insurgent candidate who once bedeviled Bush: Arizona Sen. John McCain. His wins in Republican primary elections in New Hampshire and Michigan rattled Bush's 2000 campaign.

''There is something going on there, and I tell you, if we don't pay attention . . . we're making a big mistake,'' says Tom Rath, a Republican strategist and Bush adviser in New Hampshire.
…
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030908/5477666s.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=103020

[zeemike]

18. I think you are mostly right in your observations

But I think there great hope is that they will be able to get Clark to attack Dean, or vise versa, and give the media a feeding frenzy. And as the voters get disgusted and turn away the Demos will opt for a compromise candidate (the ideal one would be Lieberman because they already have the Louserman bumper stickers printed up)
You must remember that if Demos come out to vote in numbers bush is toast. So the main objective is to turn off as many as possible. That is why they are pleased to see Clark get into it, they hope he will cause a Dean/Clark conflict that they will be able to exploit.
My hope is that Clark and Dean will not fall for it.