Dean on TIME and Newsweek

[Piper3069]

Son of a mother! Dean hit both of them and I can't wait for my co-host to get back and try to spin this one. Anybody interested in reading a bit of prophesy can link to the original reading of the tea leaves at http://www.radioconspiracy.com/marchowarddean.htm

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

1. TOTAL BULLSHIT !!

Get REAL -
I heard this Dean is outaline crap the other day-
it's Heil Bush shit

Dean is no the "Republikkkin Dream" !! NO WAY
He's their WORST nightmare !!

Class wars ?
yeah well there already IS class war
The tax cuts to the Wealthiest and unemployment for lower incomes

They HATE Dean because he is Ruining the "fake image" Chimp thinks he has !!
This is a ploy to take votes away from Dean--

Dean is going to wipe the floor with Bush
He already is
Don't believe that Bullshit Article
-it's Republikkkin Propaganda!

[liberalnurse]

2. Totally a propoganda

style article......

[Piper3069]

3. Republican Propaganda?

You're kidding, right? The Bush campaighn is salivating over the prospect at facing Dean or Kerry. It's Dukakis/Mondale all over again and they know how to win that race. The henchmen in the conservative media will do EVERYTHING to push Dean to the limelight, until they turn on him and destroy him. Or do you truly believe that AOL/TIME/Warner is biased toward the Democrats? The war is over if even the Democrats have started believing the Republican charge of "the liberal media."

[workersunite]

4. How did that happen?

How come Dean is on the front page of the Washington post this week and on the covers of Time and Newsweek next week? Prety big coincidence.

[Piper3069]

5. No coincidence at all

The media is in the hip pocket of the current administration. The Republicans WANT Dean to get the nomination because they feel he is the most beatable (Sharpton doesn't count). For Dean to lock this thing up he needs cash to compete with Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman and Gepphardt. Free publicity keeps the money train rolling Dean's way. Remember, TIME magazine picked both George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan as their "Man of the Year," just for winning an election. When Jimmy Carter was president, the Ayatollah Khomeini was given the honor while Rudy Gulianni got it after 9/11. Anybody see the pattern here?

[workersunite]

6. I don't believe that at all.

I think the media likes Dean and that is the reason. Nothing to do with *.

[workersunite]

7. Carter was on Time when he won the election in '76

They always give it to the incoming prez, that means nothing.

[Piper3069]

8. They also gave it to Clinton in 92

And no, they don't always give it to the incoming prez. Bush did not receive it in 1988. I'll clarify my earlier post, since for brevity's sake, I condensced two thoughts, implying, I suppose by omission, that Democrats never receive the cover. Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush received the "honor" for changing the direction of the country. The tone both of those years was that the two men reflected the mood of the majority of Americans, in other words, winning an election. When Clinton and Carter were given the honor, the tone was of surprise. These were outsiders, who against all odds, somehow got in the White House, despite not reflecting the views of most Americans. Don't take my word for it, read the articles and again, see if you don't see a pattern. Henry Luce, the founder of TIME said it best, "Show me a man who is objective and I'll show you a man with illusions." The same can be said of any media outlet.

[w13rd0]

9. Perhaps you'd care to share with us...

...who has the Republicans quaking in their boots? What mystery man is the man they REALLY don't want to get the nomination? One could also say that you simply aren't a Dean supporter, but recognized the way the wind was blowing and said, "Gee, nothing happens that isn't controlled by the Republicans. It obviously has nothing to do with an innovative, aggressive campaign. It must be that the Republicans really want Dean, because they're just terrified of running against Joe Lieberman."

[Piper3069]

10. No candidate has the Republicans quaking

If that answers your question. I give Dean all the credit in the world for the campaign he has run to this point. In the general election, his strengths as a campaigner would be formidable. The Republicans see the next election (mostly correctly, I feel), as a referendum on the presidency of George W. Bush. The Democratic candidate doesn't matter, if the economy is in the toilet, Bush loses against any Democrat. If not, he wins against any Democrat.

Lieberman is the toughest to for the Republicans to demonize, just as it was tough for the 92 team to do with Clinton. Lieberman does not have Clinton's strengths on the campaign trail though. He has not shown, to this point, even an ability to excite enough of the Democratic base to even look like a contender in winning the nomination.

Dean's issue strengths just do not play well in the general election. Voters generally do not care about balanced budgets. Most Americans supported the war. Raising taxes is never a good campaign strategy. Now I happen to like balanced budgets myself, and also called Dean in January to surface. That does not mean that he is not getting help.

The Republicans don't control everything, but media consolodation is moving at a brisk pace and it doesn't take a genius to see who is doing the consolidating. How many stations does Clear Channel own in your market? Count the number of conservative versus liberal talking heads on television and see what totals you come up with by your own definition of the 2 categories. Do the same for the syndicated columnists in whatever newspapers (and these days it's usually only 1 major one in most markets) in your city. Go into Barnes and Noble and see which books are given prominent displays.

Can Dean win in the general election? Sure. I sound a note of caution because there is already some writing on the wall. Clinton's campaign team was very adept at reading that writing and making adjustments. For Dean, or any other Democrat to win, the same will have to hold true.

[ProfessorPlum]

11. that's defeatist talk

Most Americans "supported" the war. Supported is the key word there. It would be so easy to show that this war was WAY more costly than it was beneficial - to beat Bush over the head with it. People just need to be told, and that is what Dean is doing.

People certainly do care about balanced budgets - talking about fiscal responsbility has gotten Republicans countless votes in the past, before their strategy was revealed so completely. Not everyone wants to leave their grandchildren impoverished under massive debts and taxes.

If you speak the truth to people like they are grown-ups, many of them respond in grown-up fashion. As Dean says, we can either have tax cuts or services, and think of all the great services we could have if we weren't giving all of our money to the rich.

These positions are only perceived as unpopular because no one has the stones to stand behind them - leadership can also be bringing people around to the rightness of your ideas. With the media the way it is now, no one else's ideas are being discussed except Chimpco's. When Dean's message gets out there he'll be able to beat Bush even with a roaring economy - and there's no way Bush will be able to come up with that anytime soon.

[Piper3069]

12. Not defeatist, realistic

I would never discourage anyone from having hope or enthusiasm, I think those things make life worth living. You hit on my key point though, when you say with the media as it is now. For Dean to get his message out, it will be in spite of the media. Media stories always favor "character" stories over substance, unless the character in question is a Republican then the media "stays above the fray." Dean can get the message out, but it will require a forum to speak directly to the voters not filtered by mdia talking heads. The internet has thus far been a great tool for Dean. The Bush campaign will slaughter Dean in the fund raising department. For every ad Dean runs, Bush will run 5. The free press is not free, which is really the point.

Somehow this has been taking to mean Dean-bashing, or Lieberman supporting, or Republican propoganda. There's a reason I posted in the Media thread. I remember crowds cheering Walter Mondale and his convicion he would win the election, only to lose 49 states. I remember working on the Clinton campaign and seeing a completely honest assessment of the situation and some sound tactical planning and a subsequent victory. The Clinton team always had a plan A, B, and C and knew how to use the media despite the fact the stories they wanted to run were "draft-dodging" and "bimbo eruptions". Anyone remember the Arsenio Hall appearance?

I can't remember who said this recently (it was a Democrat), but the quote was something to the effect of, "There are many in the Democratic Party who would rather vent than win." Nothing wrong with venting, I do it all the time. When election day rolls around though, I find I much prefer a win to 4 more years of venting.