Dean CAN fight back against the Lil'Dictator on the military issue-

[Beaker]

All Howard has to do is start telling the "plain truth" about the "champagne division" of the Texas Air National Guard, and how * and other "fortunate sons" got in ahead of others already on the list before them...Dare Bush to prove that he wasn't AWOL.

However- I'd much prefer that Bush have to face Wesley Clark.

[jpgpenn]

1. I dont think so

2 lil rich boys having words does nothing for me, as i'm sure is the case for alot of other folks. Dean lacks any experience in that area. How in the world is he going to win a southern state?

[jmaier]

2. It will be hard

Like the Bush decisions or not, he has been a decisive if misguided CinC -- outside of a core percentage in the Democratic & Green parties, I think Bush will get a by on youthful "military" history. The Bush referendum in on the years 2000 to 2004.

In every situation, the Republicans are assumed to be strong on national security, the Democrats weak. I truly believe that the Dems only chance is to run a candidate that could smash that illusion. Dean will not defeat Bush on national security, foreign policy, Iraq, etc. no matter how poorly this admin performs. He's going to have to beat Bush on the domestic agenda.

[ferg]

3. Dean's already been attacking Bush's weakness

By saying, truthfully, that Bush has weakened the US by casting away our allies and by abandoning our moral leadership.

A big military is nice, but it's far better to have allies.

[jmaier]

4. Not the issue

Of course Dean is going to attack Bush on these issues and well he should. The point to me is how credible is the messenger NOT the message. I'm saying that Dean is going to have the traditional Democratic problem being perceived as a national security champion REGARDLESS of what he says. That is going to be the electoral problem. Don't think about 35% base votes, think about the next 16%.

[ferg]

6. Framing the debate is the issue

If you concede the framing of the debate, you've already lost.

The true, honest, non-campaign-rhetoric fact is that the US is weaker because of Bush. It has nothing to do with pure military strength. It's because of losing allies and moral purpose.

If you ignore that, and allow Rove to push the Rambo "invade and destroy everything" as "defense", then the Democrats lose. Period.

The messenger doesn't matter. Look at freaking Cleland.

[Ksec]

5. No Dean doesnt have a leg to stand on in the military issue

Exactly why we need Clark. This will be the defining moment for Dems who are trying to shake the weak on military misnomer. So what do we do? No,inate a guy who bucked Military and opposed the war...Cmon Im against the war also but its a bad political move when you have this anti war over your head that you KNOW theyre going to exploit for all its worth.

[Scott Lee]

7. Excuse me? 7 out of 10 Americans believe the war was a bad idea

and that it hasnt made them safer from terrorism. Your scenario would only work if there was a wide margin of public support for the Iraq campaign.

Another miscalculation by Rove. He thought this Iraq thing would be long in the bag and sewn up by now.

[jmaier]

8. So

Close to 7 out of 10 Americans probably agree with many traditional Democratic positions -- that doesn't mean that they'll vote for the Democratic candidate.

Be realistic -- only hard core activistis vote a SINGLE issue. The rest of the electorate makes decisions for a wide range of issues including "he sounds sincere", "i'm mad at the incumbent", etc. National issue poll after poll shows Dems are perceived weak on national security. For pete's sake, even Max Cleland got hammered on this by another draft evader -- Chambliss. Gov Dean is NOT going to be an easy sell on this issue even for many who are against the war NOW -- not in spring 2002.

[Octafish]

9. Good idea. Rove already has the counter.

It's the media, DU Friend Beaker. And they're a fully owned division of the BFEE.

Remember when the news consortium decided to count the Florida overvotes — after the election was safely decided by Rehnquist and the rest of the traitors? The facts show Gore won.

Not letting the truth get in the way of what the corporate bosses wanted, the news media reported Bush would have won, anyway. A disconnect? No. The media do the bidding of the BFEE.

For Dean, every American that doesn't know about him now will know he's a draft dodger by November 2004. While that label does not mean much in his supporter's view, to the average American, draft dodging says a lot a person's character, especially when the same media will talk about Bush, the hero of Baghdad.

PS: If Dean's the nominee, good luck! Until then, we can do better.

[killbotfactory]

10. Bush sucks when it comes to national security, foreign policy, and..

Military strength.

And we are not going to convince people of that by pretending he is.

Bush invaded a country which was no immediate threat to us, fucked up the diplomacy, and had no exit strategy because he only prepared for the best case scenario's. Now our troops are stretched to the limits, the defecit continues to skyrocket (pulling resources away from homeland security, among others), and nearly the entire civilized world is against us. He did this while pulling resources AWAY from the war against Al Qaeda, and making 100's of thousands of our soldiers the target of any radical terrorist wannabe who can pick up an AK47, make a pipebomb, or put rockets on a donkey cart.

Bush has been a disaster for our national security.

That's all Dean needs to point out.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Actually...

...I do think he can go toe to toe with the crackhead in chief on the military issue, as well as many other issues. I am still undecided who I support for the nomination.

Don

[mmonk]

12. It may be harder for Dean than Clark on that issue

but by no means an impossibility. Too much pushed Bush and patriotism could backfire on Bush. Dean's problem is that no democrat has won the election that wasn't southern since John Kennedy.