Republicans wanted Dean. Democrats tripped them up. First big chess move?

[AP]

What do you all think of this theory?

I think that it's painfully obvious that the Republicans and the media spent a good deal of time and effort this summer promoting Howard Dean. I think that there's some evidence now that the Republicans might be backtracking on that implicit endorsement, or at least hedging their bets.

What changed?

Well, I'm going to go back to a particular confusing moment for me in the campaign. By way of introduction, the Democrats can't win with the black vote. Now, I know this is a point of great contention, but I think Dean's race politics are miserable, and don't think Howard Dean circa summer '03 is capable of getting out a good message on race and getting out the black vote.

I was very confused by Jackson's and that NY Congressman's endorsement of Dean a few months ago. Jackson's endorsement was encapsulated in his retort to Sharpton that we're never going to pick a candidate who's on the same page 100% (yeah, but not on the same page on race!?). The NY congressman's endorsement was, "Dean embodies what the CBC stands for when they, for example, unanimously voted against the 87 bil Iraq budget." Uh, but Dean was (conditionally) for that.

To me, those two endorsements made me wonder what planet I was living on.

Here's my theory (today) about what might have been going on.

I really don't think most sensible Democrats want Dean running for president. They also don't want to turn Dean's passionate supporters into anti-Dem rebels by attacking him in order to get Dean out.

So what are the remaining options? Well, make lemonade out of lemons. If the problem is that the Republicans are propping up a sure loser, then embrace that loser and make him into a winner. It's political karate. Take your enemy’s strength, and rather than try to block it, turn the strength into a weakness.

The Republicans are propping up Dean? Prop up Dean yourself, rather than fight it. Take the power of the media and magnify it.

If I had my way, I would have had Jackson and every member of the CBC explain what was wrong with Dean on race. What good would that have done? The Republicans would have used the press to get Dean nominated, and black voters wouldn't show up at the polls. Dems lose. That's why I don't get paid for my political advice. My guess is that the people who do get paid for their opinions went to Jackson and some others and said, bite the bullet, endorse Dean.

So where does this leave Republicans? They're spending all their time promoting Dean, and the Democrats are saying, OK, we'll promote him too. Black politicians love him (despite his craziness on race). Unions love him (despite his Cato-ness viz big business and Wall St). And so on.

And what's the inevitable response from Republicans? Well, my guess is that they'll see the danger in promoting Dean and they'll stop. Which leaves it to Democrats to pick their own nominee. So long as all the Democrats are bad in the eyes of the press and Republicans, Democratic voters can pick the best from a level playing field.

If my theory is right, this may have been the first big, smart, effective chess move by the Democrats of this campaign. I think the second great move is to get Clark in the race, not to win it, but to weaken Bush’s message on national security. I still think Kerry or Edwards will be on the top of the ticket.

[kiahzero]

1. Interesting analysis (n/t)

[wryter2000]

2. Maybe the planet you're living on

is one where black people can think for themselves.

[AP]

3. I'm not sure what your point is.

Did I say black voters couldn't think for themselves?

By the way, it's not just the black vote, but the union vote that fits into my theory.

I'm sure there is more evidence supporting the theory.

I'll have to think some more about this.

[Touchdown]

6. This union man likes Dean.

Please tell me why I shouldn't. :shrug:

[Bombtrack]

20. because he's Bush's dream candidate

and he'll bury the pro-union party, the democrats, in minority likely for a decade

[ecstatic]

25. comments like that aid the Republicans and Bush

When you try to confuse people into not voting their heart from fear of 4 more years of Bush, you hurt the Democratic party. If he, and others like him, votes with his heart then Dean can win. But if we force all Dems to fall in line behind a lukewarm, republicanesque Dem, then the voter turnout among Dems will be low and Bush will win.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[La_Serpiente]

4. I seriously do not think

that the Republicans pumped up Dean.

Dean wasn't even on the radar screen for the national press until he busted out with all those fundraising records back in June.

[AP]

5. Mara Liasson pumped him up on March 11, 2003 on Morning Edition.

The money he made in June was due to the great media coverage NPR and others gave him in March.

[Upfront]

8. Ah,

Could be there are other reasons your not paid for polital advice. Don't quit your day job.;-)

[Gin]

9. Dean can beat bush....and they are using the anger issue to scare

folks.....hell my anger motivates me...yes I am angry..instead of sitting and stewing and getting depressed...I am doing what I can...yes I will work to remove that scourge on our democracy from my white house.

I support Dean...if he is not the choice...I will support a Democrat to oust that thug.

Anger used constructively is good.

[chimpymustgo]

11. Remember, Dean made his first headlines by attacking Kerry.

Worked so well, he attacked Edwards, then Lieberman, then Graham. Lied, had to apologize. But he got the headlines. And the headlines begat more headlines, and money started coming in.

AP - I think you offer an intriguing scenario, but I think there are many levels of gamesmanship going on here. The Rethugs are definitely in the thick of things, propping up Dean, sending him money.

But political opportunism by the Dems is also a factor: the unions wanted to play Kingmaker, and indeed, prescribed to your theory of getting behind the guy getting the media attention.

Jesse Jackson, Jr., like his father, breathes the oxygen of opportunism - no doubt Dean promised to re-install Jesse Sr. as HNIC (and AP, you know what that means).

But there are also stop-Dean forces at work, some grass-roots, some establishment: enter Clark.

The battle is joined. They'll be writing books about this one for years to come.

[Hep]

15. Prove it

I'd like to see the NExus search result of that please.

[Bombtrack]

18. his "I'd like to apologize to everyone in advance" unfunny joke was

frontpage news. It's how he started his debate process. By saying so many things he shouldn't have that he needed to say that.

Don't people have to pay for Nexus? I would if I could

[kiahzero]

58. Here's one:

"WAR IN IRAQ; Dean blasts Dem rival Kerry for 'wobbly' war stance", in the Boston Herald on March 29, 2003.

"Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean used the Iowa presidential campaign battleground to turn up the heat on rival John F. Kerry, ripping the Bay State senator for trying to have it both ways on the Iraq war.

"To this day I don't know what John Kerry's position is," Dean told a gathering of party activists in Iowa yesterday. "If you agree with the war, then say so. If you don't agree with the war, then say so. But don't try to wobble around in between."

[Scott Lee]

28. Bullshit.

If this isn't a case of pots and kettles, I don't know what is.

[Hep]

13. LOL

YEah, and in November, Mara was still calling him "The most liberal" and "McGovernite"

People all over the specrtum say all sorts of things about him.

As long as they're saying his name, I guess. He's captured the hearts in minds of more people than will admit. And not always in the best way.

[ecstatic]

7. what is this thing about blacks not liking Dean?

http://www.africanamericansfordean.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/blacksfordean
http://blacksfordean.com/

Yes, there are some things that Dean may be slightly out of touch on. But we don't have time to trip over comments such as the one about the Confederate flag because deep down, we all know what Dean really meant and the most important issues are the economy/jobs, health insurance, and the war. Dean is the first guy willing to say what he means without waiting for polls.

[billbuckhead]

12. Yeah we know what Dean really meant. Dean's an NRA stooge

Dean Quixote first brought the Confederate flag into a healthcare debate a year ago in South Carolina, but the latest and biggest flag flap came about when Dean was talking about guns. Dean has been an a**hole on the ConFlag issue for a long time, he only quit when he was called on it.

[AP]

14. It's not just the confederate flag. It's this:

(1) in 95 he said that class, not race, should be the criteria for participation in affirmative action programs;

(2) he thinks he’s the only Democrat to talk bluntly about race (suggesting that the brilliant way Democrats like Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Cuomo, Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Lieberman, etc., have talked about race wasn't the "right" way to talk about it);

(3) his blunt talk about race is actually an anecdote about anti-male gender discrimination, and how he fought to help white men get jobs in his administration;

(4) he thinks that caring about high black incarceration rates is "weepy and liberal" -- drug treatment programs can solve that problem;

(5) he says civil rights legislation has gone about as far as it can go, and the last frontier for fighting racism is to change your unconscious feelings in hiring discrimination;

(6) when asked at the Boston debate what he had to say to African Americans to show that he wasn't as insensitive to their interests as his confederative flag statement suggested, he told the black man who asked the question what he'd do for poor white southerners.

[ecstatic]

21. Those are disturbing opinions, but I'm hoping they're due to ignorance and

not racism. I wonder if Dean would be open/reasonable enough to change his views on some of these issues if confronted with enough evidence.

The problem is, none of the other candidates have been this specific in their stances about these issues. One good thing about Dean's comments is that I now have an idea of exactly where he stands. I'm going to see if I can find such detailed statements from other candidates regarding these same issues.

Thanks for the info, and I am willing to change my mind about Dean if need be.

[mzmolly]

41. Consider the source Truth....

These statements are paraphrased and taken out of context...

[mzmolly]

44. Care to post the links to back up these statements?

I've read the same information you have on Dean, and have come away with a vastly different impression, as have most people...

*which is reflected in the polls BTW*

[papau]

49. Class - not race - is a goal.. but race (the other by skin) is an obvious

problem at this time. The definition of "the other" may change, and then what is added to "class - meaning wealth" as a criteris for affirmative action programs will change; What do you read into his comment?

"he’s the only Democrat to talk bluntly about race" - referred to this time round - and he was wrong - and he corrected himself.

ever hear Bush say he was wrong and correct himself? didn't think so.

(suggesting that the brilliant way Democrats like Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Cuomo, Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Lieberman, etc., have talked about race wasn't the "right" way to talk about it);

"he fought to help white men get jobs in his administration" - bull shit - I was there in Vermont - what the hell are you talking about?

"caring about high black incarceration rates is "weepy and liberal" -- drug treatment programs can solve that problem" turns his words arounf nicely - trying for a job at Fox? - The point was to focus on the positive - a positive that is much bigger - and less expensive than prison - in drug treatment programs. Where did you get powder versus crack with do not give a damn about pointless explosion in prison population because of wrong approach to drugs?

"civil rights legislation has gone about as far as it can go" seems true if you agree legal blocks are removed, and legal pushing ahead of one group over another - as in legacy rich kids - is no longer practiced. Plus we all hire our mirror image - and we need to stop seeing ourselves as this or that tribe -"change your unconscious feelings in hiring discrimination" again seems an obvious goal.

And please check the tape of Boston and note that he did answer a prior question to the "African American" question after taking the"African American" question - and indeed I do not recall his ever answering the fellows question. But It was not a "black man needs Dean to help poor white southerners" response, it was a response to the prior question.

[AP]

52. Nope.

- the "only blunt talker": he kept repeating that line, except that he added Clinton to his previous pantheon of one. It's still a lie.

- Twice I heard him tell his anecdote about the woman in his office only hiring women. He told her to start hiring man. This is a story he tells immediately after claiming that he talks bluntly about race. His anecdote is dumb for so many reasons, not the least of which is that it isn't even about race.

I'd just be repeating myself if I answere your other three points.

[realFedUp]

10. Generalizations

Can't agree with any of them.

[brainshrub]

16. If I remember American political history:

I think the Carter campaign wanted Reagan to run against them. They figured they would be able to out-gun an actor.

I think they would have beat Reagon, if it wasn't for the Iranian hostage-crisis & the dirty tricks Bush-senior did behind the scenes to destroy Carters credibility.

[Bombtrack]

17. black politicians love him? that's not a well thought out statement

he hasn't gotten any more support from black politicians than most of the candidates.

Almost the only federal candidates to support him are those from ultra-safe democratic districts who don't really know much about winning evenly devided electorates. As well as a few people who haven't served in politics for 20 years.

Read the new polipundit post. They want repugs to divert their donations that they've been giving to Dean now to Edwards and Kerry, to stop Clark.

If you look at the Daily Kos polls it becomes clear, that only Dean can stop Clark unless something huge happens to there campaigns.

[nomaco-10]

19. Your "confusion" has lead you...

into some misguided conclusions. You and many others give the repukes way too much credit for coming up with these lame conspiracy theories about who they want as our nominee. Trust me, they're not as foresighted and sophisticated as many of you think. They are too busy trying to keep the chimp puppet in line for 04 to be concerned about who our nominee will be. Whoever it is, they'll just keep repeating the mantra "bring 'em on".
Everybody's gotta quit thinking like KKKarl Rove is some kind of mad genious that can hypnotize millions of people and engineer a republican victory via mind control.
Repeat after me; KKKarl Rove is just a fat, little, fundie weasel, he does not frighten me.

[polpilot]

23. Rove has a fool for a client. Kerry got to go at Dean and Shrub is next.

Dean '04...

[slinkerwink]

24. yes! enough of pumping of Rove---if Rove was so smart

he wouldn't do the stupid PR stunts like he's done lately---it shows that they're fucking running scared.

[polpilot]

27. Roves only frightens those less intelligent & the Dean Team is brilliant.

Dean '04...

[aquart]

33. And his stunts have been sooooooooooo successful.

Let's all land on the Lincoln with a phony turkey platter, shall we? On our way to the moon.

[nomaco-10]

34. LMAO good one aquart

[jpgray]

22. Isn't this explained by the frontrunner aura more than anything else?

When Dean was obscure, he got almost no press. As his opposition to the war galvanized his supporters and started earning him some serious cash, near competitive to the major candidates, he got serious press. After getting the serious press, he starts to lead in all the polls, so now he gets roundly attacked because he is the frontrunner. The simplest explanation usually works out the best.

[Scott Lee]

26. Anything to avoid admitting Dean's election power. Incredible.

Has anyone noticed that the antiDeans are starting to go to hilarious extremes in trying to "explain away" Howard Dean? Now we have the most far fetched conspiracy theories being floated about why he's still in the scene. I'm expecting any day now that there will be one involving the Pod People, so hang on to your chairs.

The latest in the loony-theory bin, which is at the top of this thread, is an iteration of the old one you've heard ad nauseum about how Dean is being played by the Republicans. There are several problems with such a fantasy, not the least of which is that the Republican situation today is not as confident and together as one might think. The press is starting to bleed some serious inter-party, inter-ideology criticism against their man Bush-hole. The early appearance and hyper-nasty nature of the first GOP attack ads indicate that they are worried and somewhat frightened by events such as the nagging jobless rate, deteriorating situation in Iraq, and Dean's shockingly successfull campaign which is even netting some disgruntled Republicans.

But for my vote, the most insulting and ridiculous assumption leveled by this thread topic is that "most sensible Democrats" don't want Dean running for president. See the subtext there? "If you support Dean you're not sensible" (veeeeryyy Bill O'Reilly I might add!). "Let us of the wizened elite make your choices for you, as you are clearly too stupid and irrational to make them yourself."

Keep it up, antiDeans. Elitist, supremist attitudes like that not only illustrate how out of touch you are, but they most certainly will add many more supporters to Dean's list, and money in his coffers.

[nomaco-10]

31. A great post Scott...

the original post was both a dilusional and desperate attempt to insult one of the best candidates this party could have produced to take on bush* in the next election. I usually ignore this kind of crap, but I'm getting really fed up with it.
If you like Clark, support him, if you like Kerry, go down swinging with him, but quit trying to drag my candidate with you. Dean has committed no crime that I'm aware of, except to be a damn good democrat that has a vision for our party that I happen to both admire and support.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

35. Well stated!

Great post :toast:

[slinkerwink]

38. bravo for your post!

:toast:

[mzmolly]

45. :)

:yourock:

[quaker bill]

29. I went to a Dean meetup in the south

Interestingly, there were black people there. In fact one black woman was a part of the organizing group. How can this be???

Men and women, caucasians, blacks, asians, and hispanics, professionals, and trades people, seniors, adults, and children, gays and straights, oh my! How can this be???

People sitting around having a burger and beer writing personal letters to uncomitted voters in New Hampshire and Iowa. No lattes and brioche! How can this be???

I met no angry and confused people, just folks who wear their Dean for America buttons while building a house for Habitat for Humanity. How can this be???

Surely, it is all part of some Neo-con plot to trick us into nominating the weakest candidate. That is clearly the only possible explanation. Funny, none of these folks seemed the least bit like Neo-cons to me.

May I suggest you get out from behind the monitor sometime? The sun is out and real (actual) ordinary people are joining together to enjoy each other's company and work to change the country together.

I know it sounds scary, but you never know, it might just work.

[Woodstock]

56. Once people get to know him, they just like him

It's as simple as that. People like the guy. Hopefully, that's still allowed!

[Dover]

30. So, let's get this straight. You think......

"Democrats are saying, OK, we'll promote him too. Black politicians love him (despite his craziness on race). Unions love him (despite his Cato-ness viz big business and Wall St). And so on.'

So you think Dem insiders don't like Dean because he's too far to the right of their positions?

Interesting...you seem to be saying the Dem establishment insiders haven't turned off the public of their own accord due to their Republican-lite stance, and that they are not in the pockets of big business and Wall St., despite their track record?

Why do you think Dean is so popular? The 'anger' associated with the Deanies is not only directed at Bush, but rather at an ineffectual or bought-off Dem establishment.

Last...and most unbelievable...all these groups are simply pretending to like Dean to psyche out the Republicans? Geeez...:eyes:

[AP]

54. I think Dem insiders don't like Dean because...

...he's very conservative, he doesn't have a plan that makes sense for the problems America has today, because he has a biography that's going to turn a lot of people off, and becuase he'd be the easiest for Bush to beat.

I think that labor and black voters lining up behind him with arguments that barely make sense is something the higher ups might have said to go for because it might get the Republicans to stop trying to pick the Democratic nominee.

Remember, the Dem establishment picked Clinton because he could win, and they could have picked any number of insiders with tighter connections to Wall St, who would have been incredibly milquetoasty liberals, who would have had a much harder time beating Bush (if they could beat him at all).

Also, yes, I think it's conceivable that the people who really run the Democratic Pary said, don't fight Dean, don't attack him too much on things that would hurt the party's chance to win if he gets nominated, and, even, those who have nothing to lose, endorse him publicly to show the Republicans that, if they're going to puff him, they might to pay the price.

Finally, I only said it was theory, based on a few things that don't make sense to me otherwise.

I totally accept that I might be wrong. But I still think it's worth talking about.

[chaumont58]

36. The time for worthless analysis is just about over

People can spend hours trying to figure how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but the nation is getting close to actual primaries. No more bullshit analysis, just counting votes. One can claim that the repukes did this or did that, but right soon, it will be how actual Democratic primary voters choose their candidate.

[AP]

55. The time for thinking hard is never over.

[unfrigginreal]

37. Sounds like a great plan for the DLC to take credit for Dean's success

Thanks for the theory. It's nice when the "sensible Democrats" decide to help their intellectual inferiors.

[opihimoimoi]

39. What changed is that they now see DEAN is for REAL

He has energized the Dem troops

Inspired us

Motivated us

Galvanized us

and brought us together in a cohesive bond like no other.

When the dust settles,

it will be DEAN and the rest of us Dems ready to get out the vote/

In the mean time, all the Pubs have is what little dirt they can find, seems the only way they can win, and pray for another 9/11, etc.

It has turned into a contest of PR of which America has never seen before. The Dems now are going to fight fire with fire, will call out those lies and shit the Pubs offer. Again, they don't have the truth, so all they can do is distort and go neg. They want only for themselves and the top 1%. They could give a rats ass for the working class. All they do is give us puff and bluff.

[slinkerwink]

47. you're absolutely right!!!

;-)

[Patriot_Spear]

40. False premise and Strawman arguments ALWAYS turnout the way you want...

I'm sorry, but all of these 'if the moon were made of cheese' arguments- pre-supposed conclusions based on contrived evidence tailored to the 'answer'- are exercises in mental thumb-twiddling.

When you start out with 'the republicans really want Dean', a bogus argument from the git-go, the equally false conclusion is worthless.

Nice try though.

[bpilgrim]

42. 'I really don't think most sensible Democrats want Dean' - lol

yeah, get on the bandwagon, i'm sure there's plenty of room ;->

united we stand, divided we fall

peace

[RevolutionStartsNow]

43. As soon as you said,

"I really don't think most sensible Democrats want Dean running for president", your argument fell flat.

How do you know what "most sensible Democrats" want? Apparently A LOT of Democrats, union and non-union, black, white, Latino, gay, straight, young, old, from all parts of the country -- want Dean.

You've got an argument for why they've promoted Dean, and now one for why they will stop. Glad you have all your bases covered.

[madfloridian]

46. How many for this meme to "google-bomb". A lot of posts on it today.

I was trying to find the source of the GOP loving Dean idea. I didn't but I found this.
http://seniors.forclark.com/story/2003/12/6/21412/7292

Here is what it takes to google bomb:
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzgoog1206,0,2339508.story?coll=ny-business-headlines

SNIP...."The latest Google bombing appears to have spread within a matter of weeks.

It apparently doesn't take much for Google to make the association. At least 826 pages link to the Bush bio but just 32 of those pages include the phrase "miserable failure," according to a Google search.

In previous pranks, tricksters have rigged Google to bring up spoof pages. For instance, after France refused to join the coalition forces fighting Iraq, a Google search for "French military victories" brought up a spoof page that said no documents were found and asked, "Did you mean 'french military defeats.'" END SNIP

Two of the posts were removed, but their content referred to this. I am very proud of the supporters who jumped in to try to stop this idea. Good for them.

[slinkerwink]

48. it's good that the supporters tried to stop this idea.....

we eat our own so well out of fear...

[madfloridian]

50. Yes, you are right.

Every time I see this GOP loves Dean thing, I get furious.

[ima_sinnic]

53. I was also curious as to the source of the idea that the repukes . . .

"want" Dean to be the Democratic candidate and found the following, from polipundit.com, way back on June 21, 2003:

<snip>
A Dean candidacy would be a dream come true for Republicans. Imagine a Democratic presidential candidate who's rabidly anti-war and promises to repeal all of the Bush tax cuts. Imagine such a candidate so wrapped up in a cocoon of liberal activists that he believes he can win by being more stridently liberal than any other presidential candidate. Ever.

Now imagine Southern Democratic senators having to run for re-election with such a candidate at the top of the ballot.

If you're a conservative, you're probably saving up some money to donate to the president's re-election campaign. Might I suggest donating it to Dean instead? Republican candidates, especially the president, will raise large quantities of money anyway. To them your donation will be barely a blip on the screen. The Democrats are having a much tougher time raising money. Even a small contribution to Dean will help propel his campaign along.

Don't you think that a good use of your money is to help the Democrats select as their presidential candidate a combination of Mondale and McGovern?
</snip>

what it tells me is that the repukes don't have a clue. Whoever writes polipundit (for no good reason I keep thinking it's a woman) is still going on the myth of Dean's being "rabidly anti-war" and "liberal," from 6 months ago. S/he links to this posting from one of the most recent postings as explanation for why people should donate to Dean's campaign. Whatever--if repukes contributed to his campaign thinking he was going to be the candidate of the unwashed acid-dropping free-love hippies, a la 1972, they have only their own gullibility and lack of ability to think clearly and seek out the truth for themselves to blame.

As far as Dean's being "a combination of Mondale and McGovern," this article published here on Democratic Underground back in July is about the clearest and most definitive analysis I've been able to find. Anyone who reads this and then thinks there is any comparison between the situation with Dean and that of McGovern is suffering from delusions:
Why Howard's Not George, by Mike McArdle

also see this for insights into how the Nixon dirty-tricks machine made SURE that McGovern would lose, first by eliminating Muskie (by sabotaging his campaign), then by having George Wallace shot (a failed assassination attempt--at the time Wallace, running as a 3rd-party candidate, polled at 18%, with the remaining 82% split exactly evenly between Nixon and McGovern), then by sabotaging McGovern's campaign by slinging dirt about VP candidate Eagleburger--at 1st McGovern stood by him, then asked him to step down--this made McGovern look weak and indecisive.
1972: Muskie, Wallace and McGovern

Also, btw, McGovern was nominated at a Democratic convention so contentious that "the candidate was further behind in the polls when it ended," according to McArdle.

[madfloridian]

57. Does each of these posts count toward the bomb thingy?

If so we are helping the Google bomb along.

[GreenPartyVoter]

51. The GOP analysis

has obviously led them to believe that Dean is THE candidate they fear most as far as electability. Ergo, it makes sense for them to say they WANT him on the ballot, because the perverse DLC will go against their wishes on pure reflex, so they can count on not seeing him on there.

I think it seems FAR more reasonable that the GOP would pick Al, Dennis, or Carol as the REAL candidate they fear. Al and Carol would get most of the African American vote. Carol would bring out the women. And Dennis and Al would both bring out the far left liberals. Also, being the most left means Al and Dennis would be scarier for them to see in the Oval Office.