When Dean goes negative vs. when his opponents go negative

[stickdog]

95 out of 100 times when Dean goes negative, he's accusing his opponents of being too much like Bush.

90 out of 100 times when Dean's opponents go negative, they are accusing him of not being enough like Bush.

Which of these strategies will energize the Democratic base and prevail in the fight for the nomination?

And which of these strategies can only serve to weaken ANY Democratic candidate in the general election by making the almost universally inept Bush look good in comparison to ANY Democrat?

[LiberalBushFan]

1. good point!

except it's not true.

[Jim Sagle]

4. Oh yes it is.

[WiseMen]

27. Dean's Candidacy Based On Total Denegration of the Party Leadership

Truth be told, the Party leadership welcomed the good doctor into the primary process only to find themselves the brunt and a comprehensive assault. Having successfull attacked the character, committment and legitimacy of his opponents and the Party establishment as a whole, Dean still fails to demonstate a credible candidacy for the Presidency.

Many in the though-leadership now see a weakend Party being led by a fatally flawed insurgent towards electoral disaster. The implications for the nation are more frightening than most want entertain. Thus discordant and sometimes shrill warnings raised. to be met by the vicious and dismissive rebuff of a conquering army.

Unfortunately, there is now a plethora of reasons to be critical of Dean, and most are of his own making. Many think it is sport, but the future of our country is at stake.

[TopesJunkie]

2. Negative times negative equals positive.

There you have it.

[sandnsea]

3. Don't think so

Howard supporting "slowing the growth" of Medicare.
Howard supporting sending waste to Yucca Mtn & Sierra Blanca.
Howard cutting social services in Vermont.
Howard creating tax havens in Vermont.
Howard stuffing Medicaid people into HMO's.
Howard supporting a war resolution and then pretending he was against the war from the start.
Howard saying he is the ONLY candidate against the war from the start.
Howard ranting about the Patriot Act when he wouldn't repeal it and made statements about curtailing civil rights.
Howard saying Congress has done nothing on health care when SCHIP expanded Medicaid to children in Vermont and federal Medicaid waivers is what gives Vermont its prescription drug program.

Just off the top of my head. Howard is the one who has been most like Bush, accomplished the least on his own, and is running a negative campaign based on lies.

[stickdog]

5. I didn't mean when YOU & other DU Dean opponents go negative.

I meant when Dean's primary opponents go negative.

I don't mind ANY Dem candidate bashing any other Dem candidate for not being a good enough Democrat. The few times that Dean has been truthfully bashed in this manner, I've considered the criticism calmly and carefully.

The problem is when Dean is bashed for bashing Bush. That is simply counterproductive for all Democrats, and it's been happening more and more stridently as Dean emerges as the likely nominee. This is such a classic case of a circular firing squad that you have to wonder how many Dem candidates would be more comfortable with four more years of Bush than four years of President Dean.

[sandnsea]

6. That's what they're "going negative" about

The other candidates. The list I put up.

The problem is any time Dean is confronted with his bullshit (lying about Clark) there is immediately an outcry from his supporters to either go after Bush or accusations that other supporters want 4 more years of Bush. Those lines are worn out. I told you guys Dean's strategy with the other candidates was exposed and wouldn't work against Clark. We've seen it, we reject it.

[stickdog]

8. "Dean can't compete with Bush on foreign policy."

"If Dean were President, Saddam would still be in power."

"Dean shouldn't have said anything about Bush & 9/11."

"Saddam's capture definitely makes us safer."

"Dean should leave in a lot of Bush's tax cuts."

Dean never lied about Clark. Plus, the whole thing is a giant non-issue. The above criticisms (many from Kerry) are what I'm talking about.

[sandnsea]

14. So???

You said Dean's opponents attack him for not being like Bush. The comments I posted are not attacking him for not being like Bush. They're attacking him for lying about being exactly like Bush.

As to the quotes you gave, those are simply pointing out that he's stupid to boot. Putting out an unfounded conspiracy theory that the President of the United States, no matter who he is, committed treason is stupid. Saying Saddam's capture doesn't make us safer is stupid. (safER does not mean "hooray we're safe") Saying we should raise people's taxes is stupid. The only thing in there that is more stupid than what Dean has said is Lieberman's quote.

And yes, Dean did lie about Clark.

And you may think this kind of stupidity will energize the Democratic base. I doubt it. But at best, that's 30% of the vote. That'll work.

[stickdog]

16. What's stupid is LYING to prop up Bush.

Thanks, Kerry.

[jjmalonejr]

7. Here's the deal

The majority of Americans support the war in Iraq, even if they have questions about how we got into it and how we're going to get out of it.

The majority of Americans dismiss criticisms of President Bush's handling of 9/11 and admired and approved of his job performance in the the wake of the tragedy.

The majority of Americans view the capture of Saddam Hussein as a good thing and a big victory.

As sickening as this may be to the informed DU'er, these are the facts, and there are numerous swing voters who feel this way that Democrats need to court. Dean's shoot-from-the-hip style goes against the grain of many deeply held American beliefs. His "I was right, you were all wrong" war rhetoric, his floating of 9/11 conspiracy theories and his pooh-poohing of the capture of Saddam do not help him against Bush, in fact they help Bush by repelling swing voters. Even worse, if other Democrats do not criticize him for his irresponsible statements, it strengthens Bush's hand against ALL of them.

The Democratic base is already energized in their hatred of George Bush. Howard Dean is preaching to the choir, but we need more than the choir to beat Bush. It's the swing voters, stupid.

[stickdog]

10. If the Democratic candidate up against Bush doesn't set the record

straight about Bush, how can he ever hope to defeat Bush?

Business-as-usual status-quo-placeholder politicos decide what they can and cannot say by consulting polls. Leaders lead voters to the truth.

[jjmalonejr]

13. All I'm saying is that the criticism...

...Dean is taking from his rivals is not that he isn't more like Bush. That's just nonsense.

The criticism he is taking is about him making reckless and haphazard statements on the campaign trail that damage the credibility of Democrats.

We all have our own beliefs about 9/11, but a Presidential candidate floating a conspiracy theory is not "leading people to the truth."

We all know that the war in Iraq was based on lies and a distraction from the real war on terror, but a Presidential candidate saying that "the capture of Saddam Hussein does not make us any safer" is not "leading people to the truth."

If Howard and I were hanging out over a few beers and he said these things to ME, I'd know what he was talking about. But he's running for President here, and the idea is for the good guys to win.

Dean's not my guy, but if he gets the nomination I want him to win. His chances will be a whole lot better if he keeps his foot out of his mouth.

[stickdog]

15. If nobody can even so much as *mention* LIHOP, how can Bush be

held fully accountable for stonewalling any and all investigation of 9/11?

This election is about more than just winning. It's about our Dem leaders telling the truth instead of being bullied into going along with bullshit American imperialism and constant fear-based attacks on the Bill of Rights.

Dean said what needed to be said -- namely, that indefensible secrecy quite naturally breeds untoward accusations and theories.

Bush can't spin this one against Dean and Dean knows it -- because if he tries, he just gives Dean an opening to educate the public about Bush's inexcusable stonewalling. How the hell did Bush ever get away with his continual stonewalling is not exactly because of the mentality of fear you are characterizing as prudence?

Why take such a potent bow out of our quiver simply because you are afraid that Dean's words will be spun into something different than what he actually said?

I'm voting for the candidate who is not afraid to say the boy king is naked. And if you really appreciate what's been going on in this country, you'll be joining me.

[sandnsea]

26. Like Clinton murdered Vince Foster

Yeah, we really want to go there.

90% of America does not think Bush had anything to do with 9/11. Any candidate who says it will be a laughing stock. Dean even floating the idea of the Saudi's informing Bush as a conspiracy theory that he said he didn't even believe got enough bad press from EVERYBODY. And you want him to stand up and say Bush let 9/11 happen????

Bush is not getting away with his stonewalling. It's being confronted and pushed appropriately. Not with wild accusations, but with consistent, logical pressure. Logic. Reason. Rational behavior. That's what will win the election next year.

July 2003
"The only winners from President Bush stonewalling the bipartisan 9/11 Commission are the terrorists. Until we know what went wrong, we can?t fix it. President Bush needs to show some leadership and tell John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge to quit stalling and provide the Commission with the information they need. This is about people, not politics --- policy, not partisanship."

http://www.bankofknowledge.net/2004/archives/000153.html

[arendt]

17. I heartily disagree. It is the base, not the swing voter

The swing voter is absolutely clueless.

After three years of Bush, anyone who hasn't chosen
sides is either witless, cowardly, or absolutely disinterested.

You're telling me that its the least politically aware
people that we have to cater to? And we have to
cater to their ABSOLUTELY FALLACIOUS VIEW OF
REALITY as presented by Fox News, et al?

No way, Jose.

It is about the base and expanding it. When Dems talk about
how Bush is robbing their children, shafting our troops, dishing
out pork to Cheney's old company, screwing the elderly
and soon-to-be out of a decent medical system, etc.; there is
some slight chance hey might wake up.

But they'll never wake up if we go along like sheep with
Georgie the War Hero and the war on "some" terrorists.

arendt

[KittyWampus]

9. Tax Breaks For Enron=Bush

Limiting a patient's right to sue an HMO=Bush
DeRegulating Energy=Bush
Affirmative Action Based on Class not Race=Bush


Your thesis is totally WRONG!

[stickdog]

11. Who is criticizing Dean on these issues?

Surely not your candidate.

[K-W]

12. Oversimplification to the nth degree

And both strategies could serve to hurt us in the general election.

[ozone_man]

18. Is this a trick question?

Contrasting comparisons to Bush is the ONLY way to win 2004.

Deep down, people can feel what the truth is. Exposing Bush lies and hypocrosies will energize the electorate. Simple as that.

[stickdog]

19. Kick for the night shift. (nt)

[cindyw]

20. Nice way of saying Bush-Lite or Bush defender.

name the attacks that are defending Bush. Mostly they are challenging his conservative record or his lies or in Kerry's case the need to protect the middle class. I have seen nothing that is not being enough like Bush.

[stickdog]

22. "Dean can't compete with Bush on foreign policy."

"If Dean were President, Saddam would still be in power."

"Dean shouldn't have said anything about Bush & 9/11."

"Saddam's capture definitely makes us safer."

[cindyw]

23. I'll give your the first, but that was Lieberman

SO maybe this post should compare Lieberman attacking Dean. Not really fair to tack Kerry with Lieberman's stuff.

The third one isn't even about Dean. It's an opinion.

[stickdog]

24. The third one is Kerry LYING to prop up Bush.

Any way the wind blows ...

[Bread and Circus]

21. Yadda, yadda, yadda...

Where did you get your stats?

[jmaier]

25. This post simply perpetuates

the myth that the "Democratic base" is some sacrosanct group of the heretofore disenfranchised people. If you mean very activist progressives, that is a minority of the base and surely not enough to secure a Presidency even if it can be energized sufficiently to secure a nomination.

Dennis Kucinich is the democratic base.
John Kerry is the democratic base.
Dick Gephardt is the democratic base.
John Edwards is the democratic base.
Joe Lieberman is the democratic base.
Howard Dean is the democratic base.

We need all of them and those like them to have any chance of defeating * in 2004. Fight any of them honorably in the nomination battle but enrage their supporters at the risk of marginalizing your own candidate's chances of prevailing in the battle for the big prize.

[TexasSissy]

28. I disagree.

Example: To paraphrase a Dean comment at one of the debates, "Kerry, Gephardt and Clark all voted to support the Iraq War."

Lie: Clark wasn't in Congress and did not vote at all on the resolution.

Example: To paraphrase a Kerry comment at one of the debates, "Dean doesn't have the foreign policy experience that I do, having served on several foreign intelligence committees in the Senate."


As you can see, the Dean negative comment is untruthful, not an attack because they are like Bush. As you can further see, the Kerry comment is a legitimate criticism, not an attack because Dean is not like Bush. These are typical. Dean is as negative and attack-prone as any of the others, except for Kucinich, Clark, and Braun, who don't seem to have joined the negativity wagon.