How Terry McAuliffe and James Carville created Howard Dean

[candy331]

Consider the source of John Fund and the WSJ before reading article, may have to hold nose to read all of it.

JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL

Unintended Consequence
How Terry McAuliffe and James Carville created Howard Dean.

Monday, January 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

A year ago Democratic leaders were convinced a key to winning the White House was to minimize internal bickering and settle early on a nominee. That candidate could then speak for a united party against President Bush. The party has gotten its wish--a jammed early primary schedule virtually guarantees the Democratic candidate will be known by early March--but party leaders now seem to be having buyer's remorse. The nominee will be either the mercurial and error-prone Howard Dean or someone who may have a hard time exciting fanatic Dean supporters.

James Carville, the razor-tongued Democratic strategist, was among many party leaders who were certain of a cure for the Democrats' blues: "We've really got to get a presidential nominee," he said in February. "And the quicker the better." Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe listened to this siren song and helped engineer a change in the party's 20-year-old rule that no state other than Iowa and New Hampshire could vote for delegates before March.

more

www.opinionjournal.com/diary

[Melinda]

1. Dupe of locked thread - Do you actually believe JOHN FUND?

Why are you using him as a credible source anyway?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=65998

[madfloridian]

2. Do you realize John Fund's history? Do you consider him reputable?

Why do you use such sources against Dean or anyone? It is breaking the rules,,,,ah, never mind was edited .....good job.

Still a dupe.

[candy331]

3. Did I not say in the first sentence to consider the source?.

I am a Dean supporter. I was not using that article to slam any Democrat. It was simply posted for information. One thing being that of the change in the primary after 20 years being attributed to McAuliffe and Carville according to Fund. I guess it is simply a matter of finding out whether it is true or not isn't it?

[Raya]

11. Same Source has boosted Dean in past like Carville

[Bombtrack]

4. I don't give a crap if fanatic Dean supporters don't get excited

there aren't as many of them as they(Dean and his staff and the supporters themselves) say there are.

And I give most of them more credit than Dean does, most of them will vote for a different nominee, who enough independants and democrats who wouldn't vote for Dean will also vote for.

[BobbyJay]

5. The people created Wes Clark

Literally, they drafted him.

[madfloridian]

6. I heard a different story on that, but I can't prove it.

So that makes it rumor, and I don't post rumor.

[DemBones DemBones]

9. You don't post rumor, but you imply

that Wesley Clark was not drafted into the campaign. IMO, if you're going to post the implication, you may as well post the rumor. As long as a rumor is clearly labeled as a rumor and you don't claim to have "secret sources" that you "can't divulge," I don't see anything wrong with repeating a rumor. Everyone else will understand that you're not claiming the rumor is fact.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to that poster who claimed he had big news about something that would happen In October that would be good for Dean?

[WiseMen]

10. I wonder why. After supporting and launching Dean.

[Melinda]

7. Without even hitting the link - the first LIE is the date -

Dean was out stumping in early 2002, I first heard of him the summer of 2002, and he won me over in october of 2002 - a full 5 months before Terry McAssuliffe supposedly created Dr. Dean.

What fucking rubbish... seeing John Fund's lies and distortions offered up for consumption on a suppose-to-be liberal progressive site for anything other than amusment is beyond the pale.

I feel dirty.

[DemBones DemBones]

8. John Fund's RW but where do you see

questionable facts here? Terry McAuliffe must be in charge of setting primary dates; that is, I believe that state parties set their own dates but if the DNC chair asks them to set primary dates before or after a certain date, I'd presume they would comply with the request. James Carville has been involved in Democratic politics for years so I can easily picture him making a suggestion to McCauliffe, and being listened to. Having an early nominee sounded like a good idea -- and I don't see Fund claiming that Carville or McAuliffe regret the change. Did I miss a sentence?

It's true, as Fund says, that Dean is prone to gaffes, from saying that Job is his favorite book of the New Testament to his false "I'm the only" claims (only candidate from a farm state; only white candidate to address racial issues in speaking to white audiences; only candidate to oppose war from the start), plus the Saddam gaffe and the Osama gaffe that Fund mentions specifically.
It's possible he could make a gaffe so serious that he'd lose because it cost him the votes of all but the true-blue Dean supporters.

And Fund is also correct to report that a number of people have spoken publicly about their concern that Dean's "mad mouth disease" could cost us the White House if he's the nominee.

Fund has NOT proven to me that there's a connection between Dean being presumed the frontrunner now and the shortened, early primary season. Why couldn't Dean have raised his campaign money and gotten his loyal followers under the conventional schedule? He's been campaigning for two years or more, getting himself known.

Fund writes:

"That meant that for all of 2003, liberal party activists were in the driver's seat when it came to deciding who would raise the most money and be anointed the front-runner in media coverage. That turned out to be Mr. Dean, who tapped into activist rage over the Bush administration's war in Iraq and lingering anger over the disputed Florida recount in 2000."

Fund is suggesting that liberal party activists got involved in Dean's campaign but liberal party activists usually do get involved in campaigns earlier than other voters. And, unless the Dean campaign is lying, thousands of non-voters, Greens, even Republicans are involved and donating money. I don't think they're lying because I think such a lie would have been exposed by now. So it's not JUST the liberal base involved with Dean.

Fund went on to say:

"But while "Bush loathing" is almost universal among Democratic partisans, it resonates with only about 20% of the electorate. Many of the people who don't approve of Mr. Bush's handling of his job are turned off by bitter attacks against him."

:shrug: I'm not so sure about this. Bush-lovers obviously hate to hear their guy criticized but there are a lot of people unhappy with George W. Bush. It's the Dem's job to criticize Bush and voters know this. The "Bush hating" meme is one the RW wants to spread but I think it really plays to their base, and probably does not hurt us.

That said, we must be careful not to appear as being only opposed to Bush rather than FOR something. Any competent politician should be able to manage that.

Personally, I don't believe that Dean is a good candidate for the nomination. I think that Dean v. Bush might well result in a landslide for Bush. Even so, I think that it will help our nominee, whoever he or she is, to be able to devote the time between March and November to selling himself / herself to the American voters.

It would be lovely to see John Fund writing about our newly-elected Democratic president's upcoming inauguration this time next year. :7

[billbuckhead]

12. Isn't John Fund a sex weirdo or something ?

A repectable paper wouldn't have him working there.