Why the flippant attitude from Repubs wrt Dean? (Pls no Dean adoration)

[4_Legs_Good]

Please, without getting into a discussion of what a wonderful person Dean is...

Everyone on the Republican side is now campaigning for Dean. EVERYONE. Rove just said "Go Dean" not long ago. On Left, Right & Center last week David Brainless Frum said very pointedly that they don't want a New Democrat to run, they want Dean.

The absolute vehemence with which they are shamelessly promoting Dean can only point to two conclusions which I can think of:

1. They really think that Dean will be decimated by Bush II
2. They're scared shitless of Dean and are trying to make a joke out of him.

Personally I think Dean is a very centrist candidate, and I can't really understand how they can consider him easy game, so I have to assume that they're really scared of him and are bluffing, but it seems like a pretty poor strategy - e.g. they're giving him a sh*tload of free publicity, so that makes me think that maybe they really could decimate him, or maybe they're hiding a smoking gun.

david

[w13rd0]

1. Dean is very clearly and vocally challenging Bush...

...and they wish to paint any dissent as "wacko", thus, Dean is a "far left liberal". Thus anyone that dissents must be a "far left liberal" too, and who wants to be a far left liberal? It's a stupid strategy, and here's to hoping it backfires on them...

[bearfartinthewoods]

2. reporting in from republican hell.....

around here, currently, every candidate is dismissed as easy pickens
except Hillary and Edwards.

[Trajan]

3. As a Democrat who HASNT yet made a choice on a nominee ....

Who LOVES free speech and the open exchange of ideas ....

I question why a fellow democrat would insist that no one openly praise a fellow Democratic party nominee ......

That is just plain silly ....

<edit: that wasnt directed to you bear ..... my bad>

[Demobrat]

4. They don't get it.

The really do think that Dean's appeal is only to what they consider far left liberals. When they finally figure it out, that what's really happening is that middle America is waking up and listening to somebody who speaks for them, hopefully it will be too late.

[On the Road]

13. Agreed -- They Have NO IDEA What They Would be Getting Into

They see "Nothereast", "gay marriage", and "anti-war" and salivate. Just like Democrats see somelike like Gary Bauer.

But remember, these are the same people who still think Gore's populist theme was a mistake. They are going to be surprised.

Personally, I think the only issue that will really hurt Dean is civil unions. That will lose a lot of otherwise decent church-gong people. Other than that, he doesn't fit the profile. The characterization won't stick once people see him give a speech.

And once he debates Bush, the difference is going to be clear.

[DoctorMyEyes]

5. Scared Shitless......or have a plan?

My first thoughts was that they were scared shitless. They figure there's a good chance he'll get the nomination, so they should start attacking and mocking early in the game.

Then I put my tin foil hat on, had a few drinks, and started wondering....

If perhaps the "upper echelon of evil" doesn't have a plan to plant or discover the so far elusive WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION....BWAAAHAAA HHHAAA at some critical junction between the primaries and the general election.

Then they could use them to try to discredit Dean for his anti-Iraq war stance, and paint the whole democratic party as a bunch of braying donkeys that have been undermining and distracting Saint George (in the name of politics, of course) when all the while he's only had the best interest of the sheeple in mind. Shame on the dems.....oh, ye of little faith.....the hawks have been vindicated....

Then I sobered up, took my hat off, and thought:

FUCK 'EM - Pedal to the Metal!!!

[AmyStrange]

15. That wouldn't work with Dean...

because Dean has believed all along there were WMDs, he just never throught there was an imminent threat. Now he is getting on George and his admin for knowingly misleading the American people which they have.

Besides, even if they do find some WMDs, in my opinion they have to find every last gram that they said Saddam had, otherwise they will could be on their way to be used on Americans in our country and that would play into Dean's hands also, because he has been saying we should spend more on homeland security here at home which George hasn't done at all (or almost hasn't done at all, or not enough anyway).



Dave (AmyStrange.com)

DU (slang/ folklore) Glossary (Dictionary): http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/
Index of WMD Articles: http://WMD.SeattleActivist.org/

Here are some excellent resources and timelines of quotes and interviews and newspaper article quotes documenting the different things Bush and Co did and said for the last two plus years concerning the war in Iraq and WMDs (and other fun things) from the Howard Dean Website---even if you're not a Dean Fan, these are still excellent resources:

The Bush Administration And WMDs: Then And Now:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=bush_wmd_summary

Niger-Uranium Timeline:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=niger_timeline

Bush and WMD: Assumptions vs. Reality:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/TikTok_-_Bush_-_Iraq_-_Side_by_Side.pdf?docID=781

The Bush Administration and WMD: What did they know and when did they know it?:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/TikTok_-_Administration_-_Iraq_Deception.pdf?docID=762

[4_Legs_Good]

20. Right, Dean was against the war, but I don't think he's anti-war

Again, the Republicans are painting him as this huge ANTI-WAR candidate, and I don't think that that's what he is. He may have been against the war, but I don't think that's the main point of his running or his main attraction to his supporters.

I think that given proof on WMDs and a link to Al Queda, he may well have agreed with the invasion, so painting him as ultra-liberal is kinda silly, and when the real dialogue in the campaign takes off, I think the American people won't see him as a radical leftist, but as a general centrist.

So why the fear or ridicule. I mean anyone who can speak in complete sentences could bury George Jr. in a debate, and Dean is far more articulate (and far more sure of who he is) than Gore ever was. So why the flippant attitude. Why not push for Lieberman or Gephardt who will play the "As close to Bush without going over" game which failed in 2002?

david

[janx]

23. Chimpy knows what he's getting himself into if Dean wins the nomination.

Don't know about the rank-and-file. But Chimpy knows.

[DoctorMyEyes]

30. Oh, I totally agree!

Dave and David - you're both right of course! I was just laying it out as I imagined the right wing spin doctors would, if they could...

I am a Dean supporter, and do realize that he's not the extreme left wing pacifist liberal the right is trying to portray him as.

[October]

6. I think it's just more macho crapola

IMHO, any Democrat who "emerges" as a voice of the people or otherwise "popular" candidate will be treated the same way by the republicans -- as though they're not afraid, in fact they even laughingly invite the competition.

Think of Bush's ridiculous "Bring 'em on" statement.

It's all B.S.

Just my thoughts.

[DagmarK]

7. the subject title in parens was a brilliant way to OPEN the dialogue

oh yes sirreeee...........

*rolling eyes*

[4_Legs_Good]

12. Sorry (kinda)

The idea was to keep the discussion ON TOPIC, of why the Republicans are treating Dean the way they are and not get OFF TOPIC onto how wonderful Dean is (he is wonderful) and how he will easily trounce George Jr.

We've had that discussion 10000000000 times here. What I want to discuss (and get some ideas on) is why the Republican establishment is treating Dean the way they are.

I like Dean, he's my #2 choice, I'll vote for him and even contribute to his campaign if he gets the nomination.

*rolls eyes*

david

[Walt Starr]

8. It's like deja vu all over again (1992)

This was the attitdue the Repukes had about Clinton. Identical.

[chimpymustgo]

10. No it is not. The BFEE warned Clinton not to run.

They said they'd destroy him, and then went about trying to do just that.

The Rethugs are giddy about possibly facing Dean. But I don't think they'll get their dream come true.

[AmyStrange]

16. They obviously...

learned their lesson and are using a different strategy.

[Pepperbelly]

9. whistling past the graeyard vs. don't throw me in the briar patch?

hard to say what is really on their minds so the only answer is to do what we think is correct and let them play the games with themselves. They always amuse themselves far more than they amuse us with their histrionics.

[Jackpine Radical]

11. I think that the only rational way to deal with this kinda stuff

is to ignore it and go about your business. You can make yourself crazy trying to figure out the labyrinthine convolutions in Rove's psychopathic thinking, and in the end you still won't know anything useful.

[IDUDOYOU]

14. Republican tactics

I think the Republicans see in Dean someone who may be really unpredictable and Dean's supporters may ruffle a few people's feathers.
People want a leader who is emotionally stable and who has followers who exhibit the same behavior.
I know I lost ALL interest in Dean as a candidate from the "cult of personality" Dean has on this board and the inevitable biting criticism Dean supporters have of anyone who even says something remotely negative about the former Vt. governor.

When other candidates get criticized here or other places, their supporters do not go ballistic.

[poskonig]

18. That's not a good reason to choose a candidate.

You should pick a person based on

1) Issues
2) Ability to win

WTF do a few supporters on DU have to do with anything?

[IDUDOYOU]

21. Dean does not have the ability to win

Just another reason why I did not pick him.
Other candidates have a better shot.
A rating from the NRA. And another.

[AmyStrange]

19. !!! Welcome to the DU !!!

but "go ballistic"?



Dave (AmyStrange.com)

DU (slang/ folklore) Glossary (Dictionary): http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/
Index of WMD Articles: http://WMD.SeattleActivist.org/

Here are some excellent resources and timelines of quotes and interviews and newspaper article quotes documenting the different things Bush and Co did and said for the last two plus years concerning the war in Iraq and WMDs (and other fun things) from the Howard Dean Website---even if you're not a Dean Fan, these are still excellent resources:

The Bush Administration And WMDs: Then And Now:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=bush_wmd_summary

Niger-Uranium Timeline:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=niger_timeline

Bush and WMD: Assumptions vs. Reality:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/TikTok_-_Bush_-_Iraq_-_Side_by_Side.pdf?docID=781

The Bush Administration and WMD: What did they know and when did they know it?:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/TikTok_-_Administration_-_Iraq_Deception.pdf?docID=762

[poskonig]

17. #1 -- The Republicans are confident against *all* the candidates.

I do not believe they are scared of *anybody* at this point. Edwards is the evil trial lawyer, Dean is McGovern, Kerry is Lurch, blah blah blah.

In anycase, the GOP is in deep if they can't turn Iraq and the economy around.

[IDUDOYOU]

22. Not really

Some they do fear
Kerry, Lieberman, Clark if he ever enters.

[janx]

24. How do you know this?

How do you know that they fear K., L., C. ??

And how did you change your mind because of people on this board in a mere 38 posts?

Might you be leaping to conclusions or making assumptions here?

[maxanne]

32. hahahahahaha

This tactic is so transparent.

The Repugs want Lieberman to be the nominee because they know that given a choice between a real repug and a DINO - folks will take the real thing. There is little difference between Lieberman and Bush, and they know it.

They hate and fear Dean because he's a wild card. He's not a DC insider. It's the old reverse psychology gambit. They're scared of him. He's smart and articulate - unlike W.

IDUDOYOU - you keep saying the same stuff about Dean on every thread you land on in your short career here. In less than 50 posts you are convinced that Dean supporters are the worst thing ever, and you repeat it endlessly. WE GET THE POINT.

[LizW]

27. I think that's it, poskonig

The strategy is to form public perception, not just of their own candidate, but of the opposition, too. They take great pride in this, and they do it in every contest. They form a perception of the opponent (never mind that it bears no relation at all to the candidate's real record or positions) and they blast this perception everywhere. This is where their ownership of the media really pays off.

How many times did you hear that Al Gore was a liar? How many times did you hear that he was an elitist who thought he was smarter than anyone else? And it didn't matter what the truth was because the media perpetuated the lies over and over and over.

The point of all this talk about Dean by the Repubs is not whether they are really scared of him or not. Whether Bush can beat a far left liberal, or a centrist liberal, or a Repub-lite is beside the point. The point of the Bush league saying this time after time is to position Dean as a left wing nut in the minds of voters. They will reinforce this idea in the minds of the people until it becomes as good as fact.

No matter which Dem candidate we support, we have to call the Repubs on this at every opportunity. We've got to KNOW OUR CANDIDATE'S RECORDS inside and out and come back with the facts each and every time. We must not get sucked into allowing Karl Rove to define who our candidate is and what he/she stands for. Because, believe me, the Dem candidate Rove designs will be a loser.

[w4rma]

36. Bingo, LizW. That is *exactly* what the Republican Leadership is doing

And, thats what they do with everyone. They don't debate issues, they just run around calling folks names.

Liberal! Liberal! Liberal! Beware, Dean is a Liberal! Beware, Kerry is a Liberal! Don't vote for him, he's too liberal!

Why is he too liberal?

I don't know, that's just what I heard.


They will try to do this with *any* candidate, no matter whom we pick, because they must, they can't win a debate on the issues.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

25. It's simple . . . they want an anti-war candidate to run against.

Why else would they want to run against Dean?

[dsc]

26. I have no idea

and neither does anyone else here. But lets assume for a minute that it is due to them thinking he is easy pickings. These people aren't the Pope. They make mistakes. Dean has confounded conventional wisdom nearly from day 1. He was a one issue candidate (civil unions or the war your pick) when the war was off limits he gained not lost support. His war stance, even if correct, would look wrong and thus be a political loser how much more right could his stance look at this point. He can't raise money 2nd in fundraising overall, 1st last quarter, and first in matchable donations. The only piece of conventional wisdom left is he can't get non gay minorities to vote for him on that time will tell. In short, Dean confounds conventional wisdom and thus we shouldn't be so concerned over this stuff.

[Eloriel]

28. One more -- he can't attrract swing voters. Let's put that one to bed too:

Republicans for Dean
This news absolutely outrages me

Independents for Dean
http://deanindependents.org/

I think Dean scares the hell outta them. Actually, Dean scares the hell out of a lot of people with his ability to tap the grassroots, something that hasn't been seen for years and years, along with his YOU HAVE THE POWER message.

An empowered people is a verrrrry dangerous thing to the Power Holders and Power Brokers. Few in Washington want The People to have ANY power whatsoever. Howard Dean is a very dangerous candidate in a lot of peoples' eyes, some of them purportedly on "our side." The whole notion about how dangerous he really is makes me want to jump up out of my chair right this minute and go hand out flyers for him.

Eloriel

[ima_sinnic]

33. yes, people of all stripes who just hate BushCo are flocking to Dean

look at what I found on jimlog 2.0:

It's not the Democrats that are ga-ga for Dean. It's the Independents. The evidence is in the New Hampshire polling data. Amongst Independents, Dean leads Kerry 26% to 15%, but among Democrats, Kerry leads Dean 31% to 16%. Democrats are getting behind Dean, but it's because he's resonating with those ticked off at the party for not standing up to Bush.

6 months before the first primary, Dean is tapping a base of support that transcends party boundaries. Even Republicans are coming to Dean events, and switching to Democrats so they can vote for him in the primary. Maybe it's all part of this grand Republican scheme, but I doubt it.

I saw that look in their eye.

Which means the hardest part for Dean will be winning the nomination - the general election is easy. So let's see that Republican money. Hell, just give us your tax cut. We're giving ours, but it's not all that much. I hear you got a lot more. Remember, there is a $2,000 cap. . . .

-------------

Eloriel, I don't understand your comment that Republicans for Dean "outrages" you. There is a very sincere Republicans for Dean blog that is totally antiBush:

"This is the site for Republicans who are interested in the campaign of former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont. Why should Republicans back a Democrat like Dean? Isn't he too far to the Left? Not really. He backs many ideals that we Republicans cherish (or used to cherish) such as fiscal responsibility. . . ."

[Room101]

44. Eloriel - funny you mention that about passing out Flyers

I'm printing them out right now. I have never been politically active before in my life, those power freaks on the thrones hate us being involved.

[lkinsale]

29. I think the Republicans see him as an opponent who will

galvanize THEIR base. Like Hillary. He would be someone the Pugs could use to generate spittle-flinging hatred that will get their base to the polls in droves and droves, particularly in swing states.

[Capn Sunshine]

31. I'll tell you what it is --HUBRIS and FEAR

in equal doses. The repubs have convinced themselves Bush won in a landslide in 2000 and don't understand the disconnect between congressional and presidential elections.

Further, they don't understand. They are trapped inside the beltway and have NO concept that Deans support ,EASILY HALF OF IT, is from folks who are energized after not voting for years, if ever. They simply don't show up on the political machine radar.

The effect this will have at the polls will have them scrambling by the time they realize it. It reminds me of the insulated inside the beltway Bush 1 re-elect team who maintained something that didn't exist: that a previously unknown governor couldn't garner enough support to beat a sitting president.

If you'll notice the Bush organization spends a LOT of time insisting people tell them what they want to hear, not what the truth is.

[Lexingtonian]

34. because he is easy to beat

The first thing is that Republican don't worry/care about getting electoral votes in most of the Blue states. They'll write off 40% of the EVs and only worry about the rest. That has been their approach throughout the past three years and it's not going to change.

They're going to win the South, including Florida, by putting in a lot of money/fervor and cranking out more conservative Christian voters. Basically, Dean can be tarred with the anti-cC brush and then none of his policy positions matter. They'll drown out the critique of Bush easily in an audience that is unable to bear much reality, that considers itself endangered by the modern world.

This election is going to be won or lost, as it usually is, in the middle 25% of electoral votes in Ohio and West Virginia, Missouri and Minnesota and Wisconsin and Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, Oregon and Montana and Colorado.

In their view, Dean is an easy target there. You could imagine that his being a centrist and 'pro-gun' and the candidate of 'angry' militant grassroots activists could play well there- but I think the Republican assessment is that it would fail.

And I think they are correct. Basically, it's easy to attack Dean as they did/do conservative Democrats in Red states- they'll out-conservative him. They'll point out that he's got the flakey liberal militant gay/feminist/conspiracy theory activist contingent going for him as his core support group, and that's not really an unfair characterization. They'll call him a flip flopper, inexperienced, a 'say anything to get elected' guy, 'another McCain'- and there is enough evidence there that this is not easy to beat back. And he's vulnerable on the patriotism/terrorism/Iraq stuff. And in the states mentioned it's going to play. And the fact that his state is tiny isn't going to help him match credentials with that other ex-governor.

Basically they're saying that Dean has deep support in the center-to-far Left and shallow but wide support in the Center, and they're going to be able to split one from the other easily due to the failure of Dean among the moderate Left. Since the Democratic leadership apparatus is positioned at moderate Left, Republicans see an additional opportunity to split Dean voters and the Party- causing collateral damage in e.g. Senate races and long term damage reuniting the Party, and handing Republicans domination on a silver platter.

That's why they prefer Dean to a New Democrat- NDs know that they can't afford to break with leadership and power and the donor base and the implications of the social class pyramid, so they won't drag the whole down, whereas Dean and his followers very naively think they can ignore the implications of the social pyramid much like Greens do. When in fact particulars of the social pyramid- distribution of rights and wealth- are the sole object of all domestic politics.

Dean has much of Gore's weakness- he didn't seem to understand the post-WW2 Culture War for what it is, the decisive argument about the United States becoming culturally post-Eurocentric- and thus loses the core of the moderate Left, the liberal intellectual-ish classes of the Coasts and a lot of big donor support. He also has something of McCain's weakness- the Civil War-to-WW2 argument about serfdom is mostly settled in the Blue States but in fact still being actively fought out in the Red States. The mistake is that it can't be won there, in the Red States, by attacking excessive corporation privileges and power from 'below'. Federal legislation is what it takes.

Oh well, that's the learning curve for the Dean movement. If they don't figure it out, they won't get far- the Republicans have their own side to these things figured out, and Kerry seems to be closer to working it out on the Democratic side.

[poskonig]

35. Your valued criticism is not specific to Dean.

For example, any candidate "can be tarred with the anti-cC brush and then none of his policy positions matter." Or "They'll point out that he's got the flakey liberal militant gay/feminist/conspiracy theory activist contingent going for him as his core support group, and that's not really an unfair characterization. They'll call him a flip flopper, inexperienced, a 'say anything to get elected' guy," blah blah blah.

The unconvincing criticisms specific to Dean, e.g. that he is somehow a proletariat revolutionary trying to topple the evil class structure, are stupid and ineffective.

[Lexingtonian]

38. So

Do you think they're shooting for the votes of the sophisticated or unbiased? These are all parts of the country drowned in conservative press and Rush Limbaugh for years and years.

No, they're going to run against him for being a stereotypical inept conservative Democrat and at the same time a stereotypical liberal fringe Democrat. That's the unique thing about Dean- they get two different shots at him when they only need for one of them to work. A target twice the size as the others.

[poskonig]

40. Turn weakness into strength.

Dean is doing extremely well when compared to other candidates among independents. In addition, being attacked as a conservative Democrat is something his campaign would welcome, though they'd like to get out of the primaries first.

The GOP strategy, aside from juicing up their base, will be to play offense, the idea being attack Dean on the security over and over and over again. If we are still losing a proud soldier a day *next* summer, Bush will be the one playing 'D' on defense even if we run Sharpton. The same applies with the economy.

[Lexingtonian]

41. As I've said

They'll run against him as both a liberal flake and an implicitly corrupt conservative Democrat. If one's not bad enough the other is, that's how it works.

And I'm not that optimistic about centrists on defense; the fascist "we just have to be tougher than we have been with the terrorist element" escalation argument has a lot of pull. As you saw with the Hussein brothers, the Bush people will continue to escalate and change the focus to blood lust/revenge/whatever. (Tom Friedman has already floated the argument that 'we all know and ought to admit Iraq's really about revenge for 9/11' and got mixed reviews.) Additionally, Dean is too overtly and unnuancedly 'pro-Israel' to be able to credibly back a serious de-escalation and real democracy policy, a difficult argument in any case by that time, without being attacked as a hypocrite.

[w4rma]

37. Rove loves you, Lexingtonian

You are one the types of folks he listens to to learn tactics for the GOP. They aren't smart, but I'll be they listen to what some Democrats say will work against folks. :P

And, IMHO, you are right that that is what they will try to do. But, their success will be on how well we fight back against these smears. And, if you think that it is only Dean that they are capable of smearing, then you are waay off. You've obviously put some time into thinking of possible smear attacks against Dean.

Spend a moment or two thinking about possible smear attacks against other candidates and you'll see that you can't write off a candidate just because you thought up some smear attacks that you think the great whirlitzer might take up and try to stick on them

[Lexingtonian]

39. He sends *great* Xmas cards!

No, they are very consistent in repeating themselves and having long memories, though no real creativity. Faced with a new candidate they always try to pigeon hole them, as "Dukakis", "Clinton", "McCain", "Gore", "Mondale"; it's always rerun time for them. But they can take two clips and splice them together. Their audience, as you know, consists of people who are nonadaptive sorts and ressentiment-prone, and need lots and lots of assurances that their now very fragile little worldview works.

I deny the charge of smearing Dean, let alone coming up with novel things for the Other Side. I point out how Republicans are going to deal with the problems in his record and approach to their Mayberry clingers as they always do. I do the math.

And I try to get a little at the great domestic transformations which are where our real stakes are, beyond all candidates, which all these political "issues" reflect. My claim is that Dean's understanding of them is clearly inadequate, as was Gore's.

Of course I believe the conservatives are on the wrong side of history and that the Culture War is won; it tipped around 1998, and the Republicans know it and ran that way in 2000. Gore's support coalition and the population at large ultimately saw him as a step behind, though, as a man of the understandings of Tennessee in 1986 more than a man who understood the nation and its direction in 2000. Dean is in the same danger, in my opinion, of being the man who sees the country in the terms of Vermont in 1992.

If/when he shows differently, if/when he demonstrates that there has been some fundamental change in the country since 1998 worth embracing and distinct from anything the Republicans have wanted, that could get him on track. But as long as the Republicans can dominated the 'cultural' side of the debate unopposed with conservatism and Dean gets stuck arguing the economics of corporations, he's putting Republicans on familiar ground in the swing states.

[w4rma]

42. I'm not following you, Lexingtonian

Dean has an "A" rating from the NRA (Folks just aren't going to be worried about him taking their guns away once he is better known)

He is a supporter of unions (another item that will play well with the blue collar hunters in the south).

He supports "fair" trade which is a good comprimise between the big buisness monguls who are exporting American jobs out of the country and small buisness owners who aren't large enough to export jobs out of the country and blue-collar workers who are even having trouble finding decent service jobs, much less the formerly well-paying manufacturing jobs.

Notice that these items are, with comprimises to the upper upper class, all targeting a the lower and middle class which the Republican Party only gives lip service to. Notice that all of these positions are going to work very well with the Demographics in the Mid West and South. That upper class focused-DLC crap doesn't play in the south and this is why Dems have been losing the south ever since the DLC got power in the party. The DLC crap has always played well in New England, though (The DLC are basically pre-1960 Republicans).

And this leads us to Deans blunt forthrightedness. That was once Bush's selling point and now Dean is stealing it away from Bush. Notice that Bush's ratings have been dropping every since Dean became an official frontrunner? Dean lead the way on going after Bush's lack of credibility, head on and the rest of the Democratic candidates are following suit and Bush's favorability is getting back down to where it should be and his electability is dropping like a stone.

[CWebster]

43. No question Dean is the one they are concerned about

He is the only one they mention.

Easy.