The question about just who the GOP fears most ....MUST READ

[FrenchieCat]

This is the questions that many DUers have been debating over the last few weeks....the original push poll article was recently posted....here's a follow-up ....

PUSH UP BY Jonathan Chait - the New Republic, October 27 Issue.

Yesterday, PoliticsNH.com reported that "push-polling" has been used to sway New Hampshire voters away from Wesley Clark and toward Howard Dean. Push-polling is a disreputable practice by which callers, posing as pollsters, ask leading questions with slanted information. The purpose is not to measure public opinion but to influence it.

Dean's campaign denies having anything to do with these push-polls. I believe their denial. Push-polling isn't Dean's style. The question, then, is: Who is doing the push-polling? My leading suspect--and let me confess at the outset that this pure, unsubstantiated speculation--is somebody connected with the Republican Party.

Meddling in the other party's primary is nothing new. Last year, California Governor Gray Davis ran ads attacking moderate Republican candidate Richard Riordan, helping to ensure that he would face the more conservative (and more easily-defeated) Bill Simon instead. In 1972, GOP operatives acting at the behest of Richard Nixon planted fake letters and performed other dirty tricks to sabotage Ed Muskie, hoping (quite reasonably, in hindsight) that George McGovern would make a weaker general election foe. Unless they step into outright illegality, there's no reason Republicans shouldn't try to influence the Democratic primary. If I were in Karl Rove's shoes I sure would.
---------------------
President Bush's reelection campaign, as Newsweek reported last month, will "accuse Democratic opponents of being too wimpy by nature to handle the bad guys."
--------------------

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

MUCH MUCH MORE IN THE ARTICLE.....DON'T WANT TO INFRINGE ON COPYRIGHT LAWS....

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=bjq57awwJ36hUmhMuLKmgm%3D%3D

[Bombtrack]

1. COMPLETELY AGREE

Republicans want Dean nominated only less than they want Sharpton nominated, and it doesn't take much research to find out who has a better shot at the nomination.

I don't doubt for a second that Dean's campaign has been hugely lifted up by the GOP network, and just by grassroots republicans thinjing independantly. I've only seen 2 news articles about republican activists actually admitting to sending him money, but it doesn't take much to figure out that they represent many more.

Not to mention similar admittances on the Right Wing blogospere

[woofless]

2. "this is only a theory"

Yeaah........and so is Evolution

[RandomKoolzip]

3. I'm a Deaner, but I just don't know what to think....

Today's USA Today carried a front-page story on the guy, and he came off as pretty arrogant. Said he was "insufferably right" on the predictions he makes. Really made my forehead ripple and my eyebrows arch. I mean, I still think he's a great candidate, and I agree with so much that he says, but his style is starting to get on my nerves. However, I don't completely buy Clark's recent conversion to Democratic ideals, and his coziness with the Pentagon and all that implies. EVeryone keeps saying that Bush et al. are scared of Clark. SHit, I just DO NOT KNOW anymore. I'm genuinely confused here. Oh, well, whoever I support, it'll be ABB until I hear something that'll sway me to either shore......

[Bombtrack]

4. Clark's coziness with the pentagon?

It you've paid real attention, he has many more enemies than friends in the pentagon hierarchy.

Who is a better judge of his interests, you or the dozens of prominent democrats who've endorsed him, ranging from moderate to very liberal. These guys know the ropes, and it's very difficult to believe that some double-agent type could dupe them. Reagan used to be a democrat, Clark used to be an independant who chose Reagan over a perceivedly failed Carter, and a (moderate)Nixon over a socialist McGovern

As far as Dean goes, I don't know how any non-knee-jerk, non-liberal red-meat chewing, free-thinker could ever stand the guy.

He is arrogant, it's a trait he picked up in prep-school. He believes it's his job to manipulate the easily manipulated if it serves his purpouses

[FrenchieCat]

8. Coziness with the pentagon?????

The guy got fired, for goodness sakes, for standing up against the Pentagon.

In addition, Clark's non-partisanship/bi-partisanship was usual and routine in military circles...especially for those who spend a great deal of their time overseas.

You don't seem to want to connect those commen sense dots......but you've got all of the "oh no, this guy is a plant" dots connected just so.

I am suspecting that you didn't even bother to read the article posted......as your comment is pretty much off topic. Are you just collecting post points???

if not post points, then you are actually buying into exactly what the GOP is attempting to do that is laid out in the very article that started the thread.

Amazing! I AM STARTING TO believe that the ROVE guy IS A GENIUS. Or at least, he knows us well!

[RandomKoolzip]

18. Wow, relax.

Calm down. In order to acheive the rank Clark has attained, then at some point, yes, one must lie down with the Pentagon. Yes, I know he was fired from the Pentagon, but at one time he must have been privy to information and I'm sure he's still got some bedfellows we don't know about. Are we sure that there's still no connection? I don't know! I've seen some things that I really genuinely like about Clark. HOWEVER (sigh) like I've just had to repeat, I AM IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING UP MY MIND about this, was merely sharing my state of mind with everybody here, and I think a personal attack like the one you just laid on me is somewhat inappropriate. I'm sorry if I offended you.

By the way, I've benn collecting post points for a few months, Frenchie. But you seemed to have seen through my disguise. I'm a freeper! HA! I'm waiting till I hit 1000+, so then my disruptor/freeper viewpoints will hold water with the oldtimers, and I get kicked off so that I can go cry to my REAL buddies over at FR.

The above is sarcasm^^^^^

[RandomKoolzip]

9. The guy's a four-star General who was a Republican most of his life...

Listen, I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'll support Clark if he gets the nomination, I'm just saying that there's a few things about the guy which make me uneasy (my conspiracy theory-damaged mind tells me that someone with Clark's connections shouldn't be trusted, but I don't know, maybe he's okay, I JUST DON'T KNOW right now.), just like there a few things with Dean which make me uneasy, and I'm supporting him right now. Like I said, I'm confused. I'm just an average voter, man. I don't profess to be the ultimate jugde of a presidential candidate's mettle, I'm just in the process of retaining and anylizing information.

As I said, it's ABB all the way with me.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Hello, Can you hear me??????

random to earth....hello, is anybody there.

So Clinton decided to plant a Republican to do what???? Exactly???? To let Bush have another 4 years .....so he can destroy the planet...then Clinton can move his wife in in 2008, maybe????

So you've bought into the GOP generated "Hillary's Stalking Horse" theory.....You must subcribe to "There is a conspiracy theory under my blanket and 2 under my bed" mantra...... or you have been so badly damaged by the Clinton Wars and the 2000 Election, until a small deserted Island is probably your only hope.

Shit, Clinton would prefer to have his wife nominated has a Supreme Court Justice, if you ask me.

[RandomKoolzip]

22. Well, frankly, yes. LIke I said, I just don't know who to believe.

As to not being on earth right now, you're correct on that one too! Actually I think I need to lie down....

Seriously, thank you for replying, I needed a dose of reality. However, no, I don't buy the Hillary theory. I just want to collect and process any and all information I can about the candidates before I vote. And I'm being hit with cognitive dissonace from all angles. I'm beginning to feel snookered by Dean. Or is it that I'm buying into the media's message? I don't trust Clark. Or have I simply bought the Republican line? The more I read about the both of them, the more confused I get.

It's 1:18 AM where I am right now. Anyone else get a little foggy at this hour? A little too open to suggestion, maybe? I know, I;m letting my paranoia creep in...

[Bombtrack]

15. He was an independant

like I said in 1980, he chose a charasmatic outsider over a president who had not performed stellarly to put it mildly.

In 72, he chose the VERY moderate, pre-watergate Nixon, over basically a socialist.

That doesn't make him a republican.

If you've seen things like his townhall meetings or some of his interviews, it's clear he's a liberal, forward thinking, compassionate guy.

I have a really good reason to not like him, his campaign(probably Fabiani) completley screwed over my candidate, and that thouroughly pissed me off.

But I'm not going to let that cloud my judgement

[FrenchieCat]

10. Sorry BombTrack....not you.....

Actually, I misread your original post....sorry...

As you can see, it's easy for me to go off!:nuke:

[Julien Sorel]

5. Thank you for thinking, whatever you choose to do.

Every candidate has warts; we simply have to pick the ones we can live with best. For me, beating Bush is job 1; integrity is a close second on the list. Good luck with your choice.

[Bombtrack]

7. electability is an afterthought for the Dean movement

a couple of minutes arguing with any of them makes it clear the war and there obsession with being/thinking/wanting to be right about it is what matters most.

[pruner]

13. people who live in glass houses (read: Edwards supporters)…

shouldn't throw stones at Dean's "electability".

[Bombtrack]

17. why don't you elaborate

Edwards is now and has always been the most broadly appealing, electable candidate, with room for arguability for Clark if things in Iraq get alot worse.

You're statement doesn't make any sense. I don't know if you're insinuating the baseless "he's doing great in a primary so he'll do great in a general" argument.

Any way you didn't make a clear point

[pruner]

20. says you

not a signle poll supports yours "theory"

my point was that nobody even discusses Edwards' electability because it's not even an issue… the chances of his winning the nomination seem about as likely as Kucinich getting it (as things now stand… which can certainly change).

[Bombtrack]

28. what theory would that be

Edwards is winning South Carolina by a wide margin(by at least 6 points by most polls, up to 15 in others) and he's the only one in double digits in most of those polls there.

He's statistically tied for 3rd in NH, running against 3 new englanders, the 2 leaders being long-time pols from nieghboring states.

And he's up from 2 points to double digits in Iowa from the beginning of summer.

He was in a close second place in the only Oklahoma poll I've seen(a month and a half ago). He's gotten many more endorsments than almost any candidate in the other Feb 3 primaries, AZ and NM, rivaling only Kerry and surpassing Leiberman in that area.

According to Julian Epstien he's the only candidate who's gotten signifigant ground support and endorsements in both Virginia and Tennessee(who've got primaries the week after Feb 3)

So where exactly does Kucinich compare to Edwards in his chances.

and what theory of mine is unproven

[Rooktoven]

66. One thing I _haven't_ seen is an poll pitting

Edwards against Bush. Methinks some in the media don't want to consider that one...

[janekat]

80. Not really an Edwards supporter - BUT I take him over Dean in electability

in the general. I used to think that Edwards didn't have a chance at all because he just wasn't ready - but he has vastly improved over the last few months. He just isn't catching on in the dem primaries because he's a little too conservative.

He has now moved up to a tie for #3 in my list of candidates.

[Julien Sorel]

16. I don't even think it's the war any longer.

So many of them have bought into the Dean campaign, in lots of cases literally bought into it with their donations, as well as emotionally, that they look at it as a belonging, something they invested into. It has to pay off for a lot of those people now, or they will feel like suckers. People who are in that mindset have lost objectivity, and the ability to make decisions based on reason. They can, and will, invent some pretty powerful rationalizations to justify staying on the path they are on -- it's an unfortunate drawback of human nature.

[unfrigginreal]

31. Thank God we have Clarkies to save us from ourselves

They never fail to point out why they know, much better than we do, the reasons that we support our candidate. If it wasn't for his Stars, his establishment support or the mainstream media pushing his candidacy, I bet most of us would have abandoned Dean a long time ago since he has little else going for him.

[Julien Sorel]

33. Actually, he has nothing going for him except the fanaticism of

folks like yourself. It's carried him a fair ways, but, as the original post, which you and your fellow devotees are desperately trying to deflect attention from demonstrates, it isn't likely to carry him far against Bush -- which is the actual point of all this electioneering, if you can keep that in mind.

Kind of funny -- no one is even trying to argue with the premise of the original article. I wonder why that is.

[unfrigginreal]

36. Jonathan Chait, Wes Clark supporter, has been spewing anti-Dean venom...

in his magazine from the beginning. And you wonder why Dean supporters don't argue with the premise of an opinion piece based on unsubstantiated speculation?

Your constant condemnation of Dean supporters as fanatics speaks volumes about you. Has anyone ever been able to disagree with you philosophically without being branded?

[Julien Sorel]

37. It's an

opinion piece supported by evidence and arguments. There's a big difference between that and 'Captain Sushine's' claim that 'the only thing Republicans fear is money.' (and where did he go, anyway? Yet another hit-and-run job).

Your constant condemnation of Dean supporters as fantics speaks volumes about you.

I should certainly hope so.

Has anyone ever been able to disagree with you philosophically without being branded?

Ad-hominem much? It depends on the disagreement, and the types of arguments they make. Since the typical Deanite makes 'arguments' like yours or 'Captain Sunshine's,' they tend to 'brand' themselves; if you don't like being 'branded,' don't work overtime to earn it.

By the way, I tore 'Captain Sunshine's' unsupported opinion down in less than a sentence; no one has even tried to go after Chait's piece. Arguments with no support are easy to tear apart -- why don't you shed your brand for a moment and do it?

[unfrigginreal]

39. Point out ONE fact supported by evidence in the piece and...

then we'll have something to argue. A hit piece listing perceptions and hearsay based on unsubstantiated speculation hardly fits the description of evidence.

BTW, some folks don't have to work as hard as others to achieve that "brand themselves" thing. Pompousness comes naturally to many.

[Julien Sorel]

41. LOL

Pompousness is a much better flaw than than gullibility and a weak mind. ;-)
And in the future, I prefer being referred to as 'arrogant' as pomposity implies a lightness that most folks who know me would say isn't there. However, brand -- suit, I mean -- yourself.

Now, to play along:

Argument: the Republicans prefer Dean as a candidate to Clark.

Supporting facts: The Republican National Committee aggressively promoted criticism of Clark by General Hugh Shelton. And the Drudge Report unveiled a story of Clark's 2001 praise for members of the Bush administration just before the last Democratic debate--in time for the information to be used in a question to Clark, but too late for him to prepare for it.

This should be at an end, of course, but you're going to have to twist around to try to save your ego, so knock yourself out, to use what I suspect will be a sadly apropos cliche.

[AP]

43. Throw in the NPR report yesterday, that followed the script of the push...

...poll, and the push poll itself is a fact -- althouth the precise identity of the party funding it isn't known.

[unfrigginreal]

46. Whatever floats your boat...

if you and those who know you consider you arrogant, then who am I to argue?

And I agree this is at an end. I'm sure my rebuttal will seem as empty to you as your argument does to me. Anyway, here goes.

Your Argument:the Republicans prefer Dean as a candidate to Clark.

Your supporting facts:1) The Republican National Committee aggressively promoted criticism of Clark by General Hugh Shelton.

Please point to the evidence that this was promoted by the RNC. And do you think it's anymore damaging than the argument that the RNC has promoted that Dean is a left-wing fanatic...an argument that you seem to have bought into hook, line and sinker?

2)And the Drudge Report unveiled a story of Clark's 2001 praise for members of the Bush administration just before the last Democratic debate--in time for the information to be used in a question to Clark, but too late for him to prepare for it.

Wow, Drudge went after your guy? He went after my guy too!

drudgereport.com/flash.htm

Dean: 'We Don't Know' If Iraqi People Are Better Off Without Saddam
Thu Apr 24 2003 10:09:22 ET


Asked if the Iraqi people are better off now than they were under
Saddam, Dean said, "We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet,
Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity.
We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear
governance. We have a major city without clear governance."

END

As it stands now, there are more of us gullible fanatics than there are of you arrogants. May the best team win. Good Luck to you!

[Julien Sorel]

47. Utterly off the mark.

You stated that the article was, and I quote: A hit piece listing perceptions and hearsay based on unsubstantiated speculation hardly fits the description of evidence, and that was why the Deanites weren't bothering to argue against it. Now you slopped this thing together and ran off. That ain't a rebuttal, son. You should have started on this road at the beginning, instead of the route you chose of trying to impeach Chait and calling it a 'hit piece' not worthy of the attention of the Deanites. It would have been a tougher job, but there was much less likelyhood of embarrassing yourself.


if you and those who know you consider you arrogant, then who am I to argue?

An excellent question. ;-)

[FrenchieCat]

48. Maybe a reasoned opinion piece that seems to make sense?

One that is backed up with the facts as we have witnessed them occuring in the press and the likes, i.e., Dean's electibility is a question here and elsewhere....and the reason Clark has risen so sharply in the polls is because of the attractiveness to many Democrats of his electibility.

Where did the New Hampshire poll come from, and why?http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/september/10_8pp.shtml
Dean says it was not his campaign. I believe that the man is honorable and would not to lie if asked. So who does it leave? The Republicans perhaps; as stated in the "opinion" piece. So deducing rationally the facts presented, so far the article appears "spot" on.

Now why and who put out the stories circulated that Clark was involved in Waco and is Hillary's stalking Horse?? Are those rumors true? Nope, small threads of tiny wispy barely facts sewn together to scare who? Waco only scares the extreme gun/anti-gov types....and Hillary scares the shit out of the dittohead Right.....so those stories are for GOP consumption....they don't want defectors.

The other stories :.....the Repug Dinner...where the paid speech that Clark gave had the last sentence lopped off after "we need them there".....cut off was "We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe." leaked by none other than Drudge...and carried thru faithfully by the Corporate media.

The Kosovo issue where Ralston and Cohen attempt to diss the General's credibility....the following quote however illustrates that Cohen, in 2000, had a different opinion of Clark at the time: "In Gen. Wes Clark," Cohen told the audience, "America found a scholar, a soldier and a statesman -- a scholar who understands the forces of history on our time, a soldier of unquestioned courage ...Cohen praised Clark and the command for their part in NATO Operation Allied Force. He announced that he has proposed the creation of a Kosovo campaign medal. "No one should ever doubt either your service or your success," he said. "Faced with an adversary who manufactured a vicious, humanitarian nightmare, you responded with compassion and speed to relieve human suffering."
http://www.dod.gov/news/May2000/n05032000_20005033.html
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/interviews/clark.html

Please note that Cohen and Ralston both have financial stakes http://www.cohengroup.net on who is elected...and Clark, who actually hates their guts, but will never say it, is not who they want in the WH!

Also note the avalanche of negative Press coverage in reference to Clark since he entered the race. He waffled they said...but if you examine his testimony to congress in September of 2002 http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
and what he actual told congresswoman swett about the resolution
http://www4.fosters.com/election_2002/oct/09/us_2cong_1009a.asp you find that he is nuanced but consistent.....again, the press didn't care about that, and ran with the half truths. This week, Clark released 200 pages of evaluation from his military service (all the way to the point where there is no more) and most of the corporate media did what? http://www.clark04.com/records/
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/politics/campaigns/16CLAR.html?pagewanted=1
Did they bask in the glow of all of the outstanding reports he earned as a genuine hero who was shot 4 times in Vietnam (compared to Jessica Lynch)? Hell no....the corporate media, in all of its glory, dissed him by dragging back out the statements made by Cohen and Ralston.

Further note, the positive coverage Dean has been getting at the exact same time....losta money raised....frontrunner status.....Grassroot movement doing fantastic.....

So sure, maybe the cause and effect theory can always be questioned, and as you say this is an opinion piece......the only problem is that it's bottomline makes a hell of a lot of sense than anything you could offer, barring if you altogether ignored the facts presented.

[AP]

38. Being able to see what B.B. sees has nothing to do with being a Clark fan.

It has to do with NOT being the sort of Dean enthusiast described in that post.

I think Dean has brought in a lot of people who are enthusiastic and aren't thinking historically. There is no good reason for abandoning a historical perspective. Jonathan Chait isn't citing facts which weren't predictable and obvious months ago.

[JNelson6563]

64. no kidding

and to see them whine that Dean is "arrogant". ROFL!!!!

I see projection isn't just a repub affliction.

Julie

[janekat]

81. Classic case of Cognitive Dissonance

http://www.latimes.com
As long as we support someone, we must incrementally increase our approval in the face of criticism.

As complaints grow louder, people either abandon (the candidate) or their faith in him rises to a level greater than the sum of the condemnation.

In short, opposition can be the catalyst to harden, although not necessarily deepen, one's base of support. And remember, there's no
small number of fence-sitters willing to side with a winner against all comers no matter what the party affiliation.

(Cognitive Dissonance is a) method people use to bring order to their lives....

Our world is rigidly linear and presupposes that public policy is a rational process. But not everything in life is rational, politics included.

As the British master of aphorism Charles Colton wrote nearly two centuries ago: "Logic is a large drawer, containing some useful
instruments, and many more that are superfluous."

With cognitive dissonance in mind, we can theorize why corporate and Wall Street scandals have not become a gripping crisis in American politics. Many people, it appears, resist evidence that free-market fair reward. To acknowledge it could call into question one's very purpose in society. It cannot be!

As Cooper put it: "The greater the magnitude, the more people don't want to deal with it."

Biographer and presidential historian Robert Dallek, who trained in psychoanalysis, believes that Bush has been "very adept" at making use of the public's desire to avoid dissonant emotions and support its president after an attack on the country. "His reductionist approach to the world divides things good and bad, and he has put himself on the side of the angels," Dallek told me.

.....Supporters can abandon their disbelief at any time.

[pruner]

12. the "insufferably right" thing was a joke…

which is why it was reported that he chuckled after saying it.

[pocoloco]

6. Don't know about the repugs

but I have sure been sleeping more soundly since Clark threw his hat in!

[rasputin1952]

11. This is an interesting aspect, and something I've thought about...

in the past.

While the article states it is not illegal, and is really political hardball, I see a typically unethical position by the RW. There is no doubt in my mind that they will do WHATEVER to ensure a bush re-election.

I, for one, don't think bush is re-electable, (but I have had to eat so much crow from the last election, the Audobon Society has a wanted poster out on me), that I am not going to predict anything.

These guys are desperate. The mainstream media has burped and is beginning to awaken; if that comes about they know they are sunk. But, I put little faith into the media, their silence is deafening.
Anyway, the GOP is desperate, they know that any one can beat bush if the proper sequence of events unfolds. The stronger the Dem candidate, the worse it looks for them. IMHO, Clark fits the bill at this point. He is squeaky clean, and there is a huge chasm between the intelligence of he and bush. Bush will get crushed almost immediately.

Beware of the GOP, these guys know they cannot win in a fair election with bush in the drivers seat. They are perfectly capable of anything that will give them an edge, to include messing with ballot totals, and judicial challenges. With the new voting machines coming on line, and the lack of a traceable ballot, who knows what's going to come about.

In the mean time, as long as we are not divisive amongst ourselves when the Dem candidate is nominated, regardless of who that candidate is, we will prevail

:kick:

[AP]

40. The media has NOT reawakened. Did you see what they did in California?

It's impossible that they were whoring it up big time in CA while doing their job nationally. They are going to be right there for Bush when he needs them. One thing about letting the media keep criticism of Iraq on the front burner now is that (1) it might result in the nomination of an anti-war Dem, and (2) it's bad for Tony Blair.

[Capn Sunshine]

19. well, no matter what happens

we all know the republican machine fears one thing only:

MONEY.

Who's got more of it than anyone? And who knows how to get more? Do the fear factor math.

It ain't the ex-general the common folks are throwing their dough at.

But Clark will make an excellent VP .

[Julien Sorel]

21. Great post!

Unfortunately, you simply tried to replace a well-thought out and reasoned piece of analysis with your own totally unsupported opinion (prove for example, that 'Republicans fear money more than anything'). But I'm sure a few people will think yours was a great post, so I thought I would say that.

[pruner]

24. LMAO!

Unfortunately, you simply tried to prevent a Deaniac's totally unsupported opinion from replacing the totally unsupported opinion of a Clarkie as the focus of this thread

I'm sure many people will laugh at your post, as did I.

:)

[CoffeePlease1947]

30. Actually, you just proved Billy Correct that you are unable to tell the

difference between an unsupported opinion with no facts and that of one that does have facts to support it.

Mike

[Julien Sorel]

32. What are you talking about?

The TNR piece was 'totally unsupported,' and written by a 'Clarkie?' May I suggest you laugh less and read more?

[RandomKoolzip]

25. Actually, Republicans LOVE money more than anything else...

I get what yer sayin'. I think a Dean/Clark ticket might be good, or maybe a Clark/Dean ticket. Who the fuck knows? Shit, i;m getting out of here and going to the lounge.

[Capn Sunshine]

27. Yes, they love money all right

as long as someone else doesn't control it.

I forgot , we need to hire a rocket scientist for all the fans of ex military candidates; somehow when your campaign doesn't have any money the thought of going up against 200 million dollars gets outside the orbit pretty fast, eh laddies?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

51. Kerry has 20 million bucks

so wtf are you talking about?

[FrenchieCat]

26. Ironic.....that you should respond as such...

as the article points out, and the paragraph you must have missed says:

Indeed, if you look closely, there's a distinct pattern. When Republicans express their views extemporaneously, such as when they're overheard at a campaign or called up off the record, they inevitably say they prefer to run against Dean. When they express their views in a premeditated way, they insist Dean has them trembling in their boots. My conclusion? Republicans are making a deliberate effort to head-fake Democrats. Their plan is to make Democrats think they fear Dean--or at least muddy the waters about their true preferences--so that Dean's electability doesn't become an even larger political liability for him.

[Capn Sunshine]

29. No , I just have to point out the obvious to many Clark fans constantly

I do appreciate your POV, but this thread got hijacked into a Clark Rah rah awhile back there.

[JackSwift]

23. Of course it's a BFEE operation

If they don't disclose it on the Federal Election Commission filing forms as a campaign expenditure, its a felony.

[MrPrax]

34. So the GOP would be comfortable ...

with Clark?

That seems to be the 'endgame' on this theory, if correct...of course

Push Dean in order to motivate Clark supporters and drum out the field?

But since Bush would lose to either...one wonders why anyone would can about GOP tactics in the first place.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Nope, you missed the boat, again.

Let me break it down: It's like a double agent thing....the Repugs say publicly not much about Dean's electibility factors, but privately they want to run against Dean....privately, they don't want to see Clark get the nomination....so publicly, they are throwing as much "Democrats won't like that" type of dirt at Clark, hence the push polling, the Shelton remarks, the Republican Dinner. The Hillary stalking horse and the Waco smears are more for their own side's consumption, cause they have to keep them in line too.....wouldn't want any defectors, which is another of their worry.

[Guaranteed]

50. Repugs don't say much against Dean?

You've seen Tucker Carlson wearing his Dean badge, right?
If the Republicans want to run so badly against Dean, then why are we hearing about it? And we DO hear it all the time.
Even if the Republicans want to run against Dean, that's just their mistake. They don't know what they're up against....they can't even imagine how badly Dean is going to tear Bush apart.

[AP]

42. I'd like to start a pool to guess the day when a critical mass of Dean...

...supporters are going to accept the fact that the GOP/media wants their candidate to win the nomination, and is inentionally trying to sabotage Clark, and ignoring Edwards, and portraying Kerry as being nasty and obsessed about Dean, and doesn't care either way abut Gephardt.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

53. Dean's supporters are an "uncritical mass"

so good luck with that.

[not systems]

60. Right after...

they accept that Dean is a "libertarian" and the other two or three
lies that have been dragged around by desperate Edwards supporters here.

I have heard 3-5 fawning reports about Edwards on radio and TV.

"I was born a coal miners daughter." ect.

When it comes to Dean there is always that dismissive air of
fear in the beltway crowds reporting.

Dismissing him as the one the GOP wants but at the same time
afraid because their horse can't even get out of the starting
gate outside of Washington fund raising circles.

[AP]

62. Dean's quote at the Cato Institute. Mind you, his words, not mine.

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

If a critical mass of Dean supporters can't read that for what it is...

By the way, the Cato Institute is inside the beltway.

(What does all this have to do with Edwards, by the way? Oh, I get it. You think the answer to any question about Dean lies in smearing the opposition. Where'd you learn that strategy?)

[not systems]

63. "ignoring Edwards"

I guess your pure motives of bashing Dean day in day
out and appealing to poor ignored "Edwards" and
sabotaged "Clark" was so highbrow a tactic to be
beyond "smearing the opposition".

You don't like Dean, good for you, but if you think
all Dean supports are "fooled" or "can't read" because
a neo-con rag writes a little ammo piece for your Dean
hunting gun.

Then Dean backers don't roll over and beg forgiveness
because you have shown them the light AKA "The Weekly Standard".

I have no sympathy for your anti-Dean crusade.

What next blame me for attacking the source not the story?

[Bombtrack]

65. The New Republic isn't a neo-con rag

it's the best news magazine there is regarfing foriegn policy and politics.

If you want to use Neo, it's neo-liberal. Although most non hard-lefters would consider it left-leaning politically with a realist foriegn policy.

This isn't the first time there has been pro-dean, anti-dean-opposition push polling. It was done in Iowa months ago.

[not systems]

74. Try again, I said the "The Weekly Standard" was a neo-con rag...

care to dispute that.

The right honorable AP was smeering Dean by sighting
an article from "The Weekly Standard" but I suppose
you would join in the Dean is a "libertarian" chant
just the same.

[Bombtrack]

79. dean is no libertarian

he did bow down to corporate interests in Vermont and he likes to present himself as pro-NRA but that's about as far as it goes.

He oversaw an untra-centralization of education to Montpelier and his presidential platform calls for a big tax hike.

Dean isn't getting John Stossels endorsement anytime soon

[AP]

67. What's the point of this post?

I have some very firm opinions about politics, and I'm stating my beliefs.

Among my firm opinions are that Dean will have the hardest time winning a general election against Bush, that Edwards would make the best president, and that Clark currently poses the biggest threat to Bush. I also see a bunch of things happening which work into a pretty coherent theory that Repulbicans have the same exact perception of the situation. Oh, and I think that Dean is running an atrocious campaign unless his strategy is to win the primary and lose the general election.

So, what, you want me to shut up? I think I'm entitled to describe the world as I see it just as all the true believiers for any of the candidates are entitled to state the world as they see it.

Where those theories of the world clash, I don't see why we all can't argue polititely in a way that has substance and value. I've been more than willing to do that when the opportunity comes up. Unfortunately, the debate devolves into BS 98% of the time (ie, arguments about "personality", like you all know the candidates personally, or just pure spin, which actually reveals more about what you think the candidate's weakness is rather than strenght).

One of the big reasons this happens is because people here run out of facts, logic and historical context pretty quickly, but rather than admit it, or go out and read a book to learn something, we all hold on to our emotional attachments to the candidtaes and resort to BS'ing instead. And the BS deserves to be called as BS. There's no get out of jail free card if you're going to bs.

[not systems]

69. What's the point of this post?

You posted:

"I'd like to start a pool to guess the day when a critical mass of Dean supporters are going to accept the fact that the GOP/media wants their
candidate to win the nomination..."

I'm sure this appears to you to be of "substance and value", not "just pure spin" and not a "resort to BS'ing".

Please "BS deserves to be called as BS" and that is exactly what I was doing.

Your statments about Dean supporters was pure BS.

Rather than expect you to "admit it" or "shut up"
I am "entitled to describe the world as I see it".

You are an anti-Dean hatchet man on thread after thread
and I consider many of your points to be BS.

[AP]

73. What's the wrong with that?

I'm using, I don't know, satire I guess to state what I think is a fact. This isn't about Dean supporters so much as it is about the media and Bush.

Like I said above, I think there's a lot of incontrovertible evidence, and history, and logic that the truth is that the media is trying to help bush by helping Dean. What I'm implying is that at some point I hope that the Dean supporters move on from trying to spin that it isn't happening to acknowledging what is happening in front of their own eyes, and figure out a better way to deal with it.

Like I've said twice before now. If Dean's strategy is to win the primary and lose the general election, you all are dealing with this the right way. If your strategy is to win the general election, pretending that this isn't happening and not changing anything in terms of campaign strategy is not going to help you achieve that.

I happen to think that that is a substantial comment that builds on a lot of history and observation and common sense and maybe a tiny bit of cleverness, but, by no means do you have to be clever in the least to see what is plain as day.

If you want to dismiss this as spin and prefer to characterize me as a hatchet man full of BS, I think you do so at your peril (presuming that there's any connection between the way you think and the fate of the Dean campaign).

[not systems]

75. It is or should be a free country...

and you are entitled to your views about Dean and
the media. I disagree and have not been impressed
by the case for sneaky republicans pushing Dean.

I often agree with stuff you post but you should
admit you are letting you anti-Dean opinions drive
your fact checking.

I'm supporting Dean and hope you will if he win
the primaries. I don't think Dean intends to lose.
The ground work he is putting in place will pay
off next fall with victory over Bush.

[AP]

76. Are you uncomfortable because you agree with everything else I post...

...other than when I post about Dean?

Do you think that maybe that's why you get upset about me posting about Dean.

Trust me, I have no vested interests in anything I post about. I'm applying the same experiences and paradigms and facts when I look at Dean that I apply when I'm talking about race, taxes, foreign policy, the media, Bush, etc.

If you want to think that this is the one thing I'm wrong about, so be it. I certainly don't claim to be 100% right, or even 30% right. Nonetheless, you should know that what comes first is not that I'm anti-Dean. I'm pro- alot of other stuff that makes me unimpressed with Dean, and just like I don't censor myself when I talk about the other stuff, I don't censor myself with Dean. It's all part of the same big political philosophy, and I never got any problems on the other stuff unless it was from someone who had a clear ideological bias (like the scientist who wrote the paper on Round-Up, but happens not to be opposed to GMO, or the person who disagrees with me on NPR, but spends time in other threads trying to promote NBC, or the person who disagreed with me about Venezuela, and then admitted he worked for an energy company in Houston), so I'm not sure why there's such an intense resistance on this issue.

As an aside, I noticed that at one time I used to get a ton of resistance on issues that related to race from people who happened to be staunch gun rights advocates (which sort of puts the thesis in Bowling for Columbind in perspective).

[not systems]

78. Nope.

I get upset about your Dean posting because you imply
that it requires ignorance and blindness to support Dean.

I consider myself neither. When time after time you
put the worst spin on Dean resorting to what appears
to me to be pointless sniping I get "uncomfortable".

I know you like Edwards and Clark which makes the Dean
sniping seem transparent and self serving.

I doubt I agree with everything you post but some
of it for sure.

Anyway lets call this a wrap as soon as you get in the
last word.

[izzie]

44. It does not sound like Dean

Bush did it on McCain in SC. I would go for the GOP doing it. They have always liked that stuff where as we just have dead people vote, Sorry to put that in.

[AP]

45. I don't think anybody believes Dean did it.

But, honestly, it'd probably be better if he was the one who did it. Because if the Republicans did it, everyone's gonna have to have a long think about what the Republicans might now that they don't know aobut how campaigns are run and won.

[FrenchieCat]

49. And Bush is doing it again,

and there is a definite pattern. It cracked me up to here that Karl Rove was at a Dean Rally, shouting "GO Dean"...is that right, or is that a myth?

[AP]

52. It was a neighborhood fourth of july party in DC, in Rove's neighborhood

When the Dean paraders marched by, people didn't clap, so Rove got all excited and tried to get the crowd to cheer -- he said to the person he was with, that that's the guy they wanted. A lawyer standing nearby who heard this reported it to the press.

[polpilot]

54. More campaign horseshit. Anybody who thinks the repubs have a plan

have been asleep for the past 12 months. Adrift and confused, the repubs are floundering.

Howard hits 'em harder than anybody and 'dazed & confused' is their condition.

Dean '04..The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.

[poskonig]

55. I'm convinced. Clark is God.

The assumption of the theory is that Clark is best candidate in the race, and all of the others are "weaker." While the many Republicans would prefer to run against Dean, this doesn't translate into success as the summer campaign rolls out.

Fear, even if it is Republican fear, is no substitute for thinking.

In addition, since the Clark campaign has talked their guy up so much with stuff like "help is on the way" and "the Republicans fear him most," when people actually see Clark on television, for instance, they are underwhelmed. In constrast, Dean is usually dismissed as angry, small potatoes, too liberal, et cetera, and usually comes off as none of these during debate settings, tv appearances (king or leno perhaps) and therefore benefits from lowered expectations.

[Julien Sorel]

56. And your evidence for this statement is?

In addition, since the Clark campaign has talked their guy up so much with stuff like "help is on the way" and "the Republicans fear him most," when people actually see Clark on television, for instance, they are underwhelmed.

[poskonig]

57. Clark's polling numbers in NH, Iowa, and SC

after about four weeks of free media coverage. In addition, the Clark campaign and their supporters insist their candidate is the "frontrunner." I hypothesize this creates a "Gore" effect. In the 2000 election, Gore was generally talked up and Bush was talked down, which created a situation where if Bush didn't completely crash and burn, he looked better to people. A similar phenomenon just happened in the California recall, and I believe this is also working in Dean's favor.

[Julien Sorel]

58. You have to be kidding me?

Those are the states the other candidates have been campaigning in for years in some cases; Clark actually polls well in them given the circumstances of his late entry, and polls extremely well nationwide, but this is somehow evidence that Clark's TV appearances are 'underwhelming?' It's Deanite fantasy reasoning at work.

[poskonig]

59. Fine, Clark is "overwhelming" and doing great

in NH, Iowa, and South Carolina. Whatever you want to believe. Meanwhile, other campaigns spew conspiracy theories about how Dean is doing well because of the corporate media not giving candidate 'x' airtime, puffing Dean so Bush can knock him down, et cetera.

[Julien Sorel]

61. And the quick retreat into straw man.

So much for 'underwhelming.' Next mewling Deanite?

[poskonig]

70. That was sarcasm, not an argument.

:beer:

[Julien Sorel]

71. No, it was an attempt at

argument through ridicule, using a caricature of my positions. It was cowardly, dishonest, and absolutely par for the course.

[poskonig]

72. Lighten up.

Go smoke some weed or something. :smoke:

[Julien Sorel]

77. I would say, 'after you,'

but given the quality of your posting, it's a little late for that.

[artr2]

68. Ya'all just don't get it

The big money types really don't care who wins as long as when they say jump - he jumps. I know why Nader said there is no difference between the parties. Look how may dems in the senate kisses bush's ass today & voted for the 87b. How may of you were apposed to this? They are all just corporate whores - sucking the big money tit. You can scream clark this ..gebheart that... It's all just mental masturbation. You have no say in what happens in this country. I enjoy all these threads because no matter who gets elected (my man excluded) -- you lose. It's that simple.