Bush strategist says Dean's rivals are "doing a great job for us." (NYT)

[edzontar]

I posted in this another thread but thought it deserved a place of its own.....seems that Bushco has been enjoying all the Dean-bashing we have been seeing lately..

What a surprise!!!


December 26, 2003

Bush Advisers, With Eye on Dean, Formulate '04 Plans

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

President Bush's campaign has settled on a plan to run against Howard Dean that would portray him as reckless, angry and pessimistic, while framing the 2004 election as a referendum on the direction of the nation more than on the president himself, Mr. Bush's aides say.

Some advisers to Mr. Bush, increasingly convinced that Dr. Dean will become their opponent next fall, are pushing to begin a drive to undercut him even before a Democratic nominee becomes clear. But others said the more likely plan would be to hold back until after the Democratic contest had effectively ended, probably no later than March.

As a Bush strategist put it, Dr. Dean's rivals are "doing a great job for us" with their increasingly tough attacks on him."


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/26/politics/campaigns/26REPU.html?ei=5062&en=f70dde43205be535&ex=1073019600&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

[CWebster]

1. just a reminder

to y'all aiding and abetting Bush

[MidwestMomma]

18. If having a different opinion on who our party's candidate

should be is 'aiding and abetting Bush' then our party has already lost. I thought our party was the party of dissent. I thought our party was the party that supported the Dixie Chicks...remember, we thought it was WRONG to label someone as aiding and abetting the 'enemy' just because they criticized Bush. If having a dissenting opinion is now a liability in our party, what does our party stand for?

Remember our anger during the rush to war when this admin were labeling dissenters as unpatriotic? Isn't labeling people who do not support your candidate as aiding Bush the same thing?

So the Boy King's advisors are going to use the primary attacks against our candidates. I say WHO CARES! They are going to run a dirty low-down campaign regardless. Wake up people, they already have a lock on telling their party members who the selected candidate is and who to vote for. Now they are trying to do the same thing to our party.

We need to disregard any bullshit from the Republican side of the fence regarding how we should run our primaries. And for god's sake, plesae quit repeating the Repug lie that we are defeating our own candidates.

This is not a circular firing squad. Our candidates are not eating their own. That's what THEY say.

I say we have a lively democratic process in OUR party and I'm glad for that. So...

If someone attacks your candidate, defend them. That's your job.

If someone attacks your candidate, be glad you are in THE party that encourages debate and dissent.

Like one ex-president said, we Democrats, we like to fall in love with our candidates. That's what the primaries are about. But come general election time, we have to fall in line.

And as passionately as everyone here feels about the future of our country's future, I know we will do what's right for our country.

[bearfartinthewoods]

30. well put

i'm a dem, and like a cat, i don't 'herd' well.

besides...if the story posted here the other day, about the right wing worrying about what a landslide victory for bush would mean, this could be part of the effort to keep dean as the nominee to prevent a three way race.

let me try that again....
the columnist's theory, and i can't remember who it was but i'll work on it, was that if dean doesn't get the nominee, he and his supporters would bolt, causing a three way race in which bush doesn't just win but wins in a landslide which would bring on consequences that conservatives would consider dire (think more war) as compared to what happens when bush just beats dean but the senate and house do not collapse.

[eileen_d]

35. Brava, MidwestMomma

:yourock:

[worldgonekrazy]

39. There is dissent and then there is slinging mud

Most of the attacks on Dean have been of the secondary nature. Does anyone really believe that Dean wants to kill Medicare? Does anyone really believe that he is Newt Gingrich's best buddy? Of course not.

[Zomby Woof]

44. Oh Momma!

:yourock: Thansk for raising hell and making great points.

I am sick of these ignorant assholes who insist on labelling ANY criticism of Dean as doing the bidding of the GOP.

Bullshit. I am fighting for who I believe best represents the party, and fighting against those who compromise the party's core principles.

[Upfront]

54. Primary Is Over

Dean won, lets go after B#### now. Go Dean!!!!!!!!!!!

[MidwestMomma]

55. Wow, that must have been some New Years Eve party...

Don't tell me somebody slipped me something and I voted for Dean :)

[jumptheshadow]

23. Yes, just cancel the primaries

And stifle all discussion.

Just like the Republicans.

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Opposing Dean equals supporting Bush?

That's what's being said in your post.

To say that one is "inadvertently" aiding Bush would be one thing, but to say that resistance to a Dean coronation equals helping Bush is to accuse any who oppose Dean as being ACTIVELY IN SUPPORT OF BUSH. That's hardly cricket. This is precisely the set of tactics employed--whether deliberately or merely sloppily--by those of the Dean camp that are further exacerbating the troubles.

It's a standard habit to marginalize one's opposition, but to not be careful with the allegations is tantamount to pouring gas on the flames.

Some of us sincerely feel that Dean is not the best choice. Personally, I think he can beat Junior, but it's hardly a foregone conclusion, and his repeated ability to shoot himself in the foot is troubling just from an electability standpoint. I also think that others can beat Junior, and do it more handily. Top that off with the fact that they also are more to my liking politically and by character, and I have some serious concerns. To deny or attempt to deny me and my kith from voicing our opinion by backhandedly tarring us as traitorous Bush-lovers is wearing mighty damn thin. Dean supporters aren't the only ones who care about the world and have strong ethical and moral beliefs, and the constant implicating that they are leaves a stronger and nastier aftertaste in the mouth. In fact, many of the Dean supporters have assumed the mantle of moral superiority to such a degree that they will ignore any evidence of duplicity, hypocrisy, questionable actions and anything else that's inconvenient to the proclamation of their candidate's fabulousness.

I'll give you the benefit of the exreme doubt and say that it was probably just slapdash word choice on your part, but I would request you tidy up this habit in the future. The "with us or against us" bit is far too reminiscent of the bent of those we seek to unseat, don't you think?

I'll just leave it on that mealy-mouthed note.

[Another Bill C.]

2. They wouldn't be very bright

if they didn't monitor a forum like this for future campaign material. I've seen a great deal of potential Republican campaign material here on DU -- particularly if Dean or Clark is the party's nominee.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. They also wouldn't be very bright

if they needed to monitor a forum like DU for future campaign material. Dean unfortunately provides all the material they need.

[AP]

15. Right on.

Also, I don't like the implication that Dean's the nominee so the other Dems need to lay off.

Anyway, who thinks that all these same issues won't come up later if Dean gets the nomination?

[mikehiggins]

3. What, then, should we do?

Sit on our hands and zip up our mouths?

What if we honestly think that Dean is a weak candidate unlikely to prevail in the general election? Should we not express that because the pollsters and media have already chosen our nominee?

None of those same polls show Dean winning any state by a clear majority. Many of them show him gaining a plurality but that also clearly means that a majority of the primary voters find someone else preferable to the reputed "frontrunner".

And the likely primary voters are only a percentage of the total Democratic vote, and an even smaller percentage of the total vote in the general election. So, at this point our "frontrunner" is unable to get a clear majority of a minority within a minority of voters.

That doesn't bode well, folks. It certainly doesn't provide a compelling reason to act as if criticising the "frontrunner" would play into the hands of the GOP. If that is the argument against open debate among the contenders, then we might as well eliminate the primaries entirely and let the party professionals pick the nominee outright.

[edzontar]

4. Keep it collegial, perhaps?

I know it seems insane, but Gen. Clark seems to be quite capable of making this strategy work.

[CTLawGuy]

5. no dont stay silent...

promote your own candidate! Wow, what a novel concept. Better than the lets beat Bush by taking down Dean strategy.

[Padraig18]

6. The facts of the matter:

All this 'so-and-so is more electable' is, at 10 1/2 months before the GE, just so much garbage; NONE of our candidates have anywhere near the name recognition that * does, so any poll showing anything other than 'unnamed Democrat' in a head-to-head with * are completely meaningless, and even those are next-to meaningless.

I symjpathize with the DK supporters now, and I didn't used to do so, when I hear this "Dean is not as electable as Candidate X" meme, because the fact is that at THIS point, *no one* knows that that is true.

:eyes:

[edzontar]

8. Good point....

Thanks for making it.

[Padraig18]

9. YW.

It gets overlooked around here a LOT by the 'pontificating crowd'...

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue_Roses]

22. "pipe down"

now how is that free speech? Isn't that what we are all fighting to keep?

Geeze...this just keeps getting better and better...

:eyes:

[JVS]

34. Since when does "Should" mean the same as "must"?

You are free to say whatever you want. That doesn't mean you should.

[CWebster]

10. It is obvious from the article -

that they intend to keep the focus off of Bush, because he is so polarizing. As their vulnerability, the attack by us should always be on Bush, not a whitewash of prosperity being around the corner. They don't want Democrats threatening their illusions with reminders of reality---that would be pessimistic and angry. So, they would prefer Democrats fight it out among themselves and keep the focus off Bush and his failures on every front. Dean should keep up the drumbeat against this administration, fearlessly. There is no other choice, we lose everytime we submit to their grand schemes and woven webs and let them get away with another lack of accountability. We have to contrast and compare ourselves with Bush on the environment, on international relations, on the economy and healthcare for all Americans, on education and demonstrate the glaring need for change in the Whitehouse as cause for a new tomorrow.

[KaraokeKarlton]

11. If they use that strategy they help Dean

President Bush's campaign has settled on a plan to run against Howard Dean that would portray him as reckless, angry and pessimistic, while framing the 2004 election as a referendum on the direction of the nation more than on the president himself, Mr. Bush's aides say.

Dean won't be defined by anyone, especially not the GOP. This means they plan on attacking Dean the same way his current opponents are attacking him on, and all that does is help Dean.

[Zomby Woof]

45. Dean needs all the help he can get

Since he hurts himself every time he opens his mouth and the idiot wind pours forth.

[mmonk]

12. Being played again.

[CWebster]

13. Lest anyone forget

:kick:

[killbotfactory]

16. Repubs are idiots

Dean is going to run on:
Regaining our moral leadership as a world superpower
Preventing child abuse through early intervention
Providing health care to all Americans
Putting resources back into fighting the REAL war on terror
Getting rid of our enormous deficit
Getting real education reform passed
Promoting labor, human rights, and environmental standards throughout the world
Rebuilding the sense of American community
Equal rights for all citizens

Does that sound pessimistic? Sure, if you are opposed to things like that... like Bush, for example.

And I don't care about attacks on Dean. He can withstand them, and has for a year with no signs of slowing down.

[polpilot]

37. Bang on!!!! Dean is invincible and has withstood ALL attacks because he

is The New Democratic Leader of The New Democratic Party!!

Dean '04...

[LiberalBushFan]

17. important!

For those Dean supporters who discredit right wing sources expressing relief over Howard Dean's frontrunner status by saying it's a trick to get us to secondguess them incorrectly, THIS is what you should be secondguessing. What is more revealing than a right wing article discouraging other Dems from attacking Howard Dean?

As for the National Review with the cover "Nominate this Man!", well as you've seen that simply causes Dean supporters to donate more in defiance. So of course they'll admit to their hopes! Don't think Dems are the savvy ones. Republicans are better at winning elections for reasons like this.

[edzontar]

19. Your logic is a little tortured...probably a better reading would be...

That the GOPers are trying to stimulate all kinds of in-fighting here, just to weaken WHOEVER emerges as the winner.

[janx]

46. That's it. There's evidence of it on DU every day.

But it won't work in the long run.

[Demeter]

20. WHY is it the GOP rallies around BUSH (while holding noses)

And the thought of having to do so in Democratic circles ticks off people?

The GOP wants to win so badly, they don't care what kind of moron runs, he could be brain-dead, like Reagan, annoying, like Poppy, vile like Gingrich, and criminally insane like GWB, but they go out and vote GOP anyway.

Now we have a selection of fine candidates; each has many good qualities. But right now, only one shows any grassroots support worthy of notice. Go with it, kiss the also rans goodbye, especially those who antagonize the base (Lieberman, Kerry and Gephart) and those who haven't a prayer (Braun, Kucinich, Sharpton). Get it down to a reasonable 2 or 3, and combine the best into a winner.

[rucky]

21. We'd rather be right. They'd rather win.

Those two things only go hand-in-hand in the movies.

[bearfartinthewoods]

26. bingo...

[Scott Lee]

27. Wooopsie - did you forget THIS little bit of your article?

In the link to the 22% you posted, it clearly states:

"But President Bush’s popularity remains high, and he gets an electoral boost against both an unnamed Democratic candidate, and the current Democratic frontrunner, Howard Dean, as voters look ahead to 2004. But voters want that campaign to be fought on domestic, not foreign policy issues. "

Uh oh. So much for your attempt to paint the war issus as pivotal for voters who CLEARLY want the campaign focused on domestic issues.

Darn that Howard Dean. Darn, darn, darn!

[bearfartinthewoods]

31. fine with me...let's see what the polls say about dean's tax hike.

there should be one of them out soon, doncha think?

i TRULY hope the war is not a big issue in the general. i really do not want to be screwed i just don't think rove and co are gonna let it slip off the front pages.

[frustrated_lefty]

38. I may have to save this for future reference.

As stated above:

"In the link to the 22% you posted, it clearly states:

"But President Bush’s popularity remains high, and he gets an electoral boost against both an unnamed Democratic candidate, and the current Democratic frontrunner, Howard Dean, as voters look ahead to 2004. But voters want that campaign to be fought on domestic, not foreign policy issues. "

Uh oh. So much for your attempt to paint the war issus as pivotal for voters who CLEARLY want the campaign focused on domestic issues.

Darn that Howard Dean. Darn, darn, darn!"

[worldgonekrazy]

42. What tax hike?

Oh, you mean *repealing* Bush's reckless tax cuts? That is quite different from a hike, IMO. Its nice to see fellow DUers parroting RNC memes though.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

43. Well let me see

my state's sales tax, auto tax, tax on services & real estate tax has gone up since Bush started his tax cutting give aways. Ergo, if the tax cuts for us common folk are repealed we have, in fact, gotten a tax increase, period, end of sentence.

[worldgonekrazy]

40. As if that is the only reason to like Dean

Yeah, I am sure his whole campaign is going to be "I opposed the war." He's not going to talk about corporate fraud, government handouts to corporations, record deficits, record job losses, and so forth. Just the war.

[John_H]

24. Welp, theres only one way to fix that, eh Karl?

Shut up and let Dean win.

LOL! Dean Supporters: Please keep posting this story as often as possible!

[janx]

49. There's nothing Karl can do. If this article really does outline

his plan of attack (and I doubt that it does since no Bushies* would talk about their plans), it will be nothing but failure.

[JNelson6563]

25. I find it interesting that only one of the replies so far

has entertained the idea that perhaps the more constructive, productive way to behave in a primary of building up one's candidate intead of smearing the others might be worth considering.

What I see instead is a lot of defensive stances regarding the smears. Let us be honest here, I see a lot of talk about "issues" and "honest debate" and other grown-up ideals. I see little evidence that this is what the majority of posters to this section of DU is interested in. In fact I don't see any evidence to back that claim at all.

Julie

[maddezmom]

28. you mean like your Clark can't Win thread?

:(

[JNelson6563]

51. Did you find any smears from me in that?

No smears, just concerns and questions. Considering the info I have learned but cannot yet share, it was very pleasant.

Besides, I thought it would be fun to throw a little parody out there. Funny to see the shark tank in a frenzy from that. I saw little worth commenting out the 160+ replies and certainly nothing to allay my concerns. Not much info from Clark supporters considering my tone was civil and my inquiries sincere.

Ah well. Not much of a shock.

Julie

[janx]

48. I don't either. It has become a hatefest and a haven for

freepers and disruptors.

[Renew Deal]

29. That's because Dean is

reckless, angry and pessimistic

Reckless: Confederate flag comment. Also "when I get challenged I fight back" or whatever immature comment he made.
Angry: We all know that.
Pessimistic: He is all about how terrible Bush is. He does not give me hope and I feel that people would feel unsafe with him in charge.

[Gloria]

32. What's new about this?? Happens every primary...let's see, last time

Al Gore trashed Bill Bradley, if I recall.

Look, Dean has set the tone for all this. First, he decides to push his "outsider" image by trashing the centrists, (of course, he is a centrist and an insider... has served as head of Dem governors, and was an adviser to Clinton as early as 1993 and also was part of an intergovernmental commission then, as well).

Along the way, he makes some amazing gaffes and contradictory statements.

But, no one is supposed to point this out?? Tough. Don't you think the GOP can't find all his flaws anyway??

Dean doesn't believe in handling anything with kid gloves...so why should he be afforded that luxury himself?

Can he dish it out but not take it?? If so, why not?? Sounds a lot like Bush to me in the arrogance deparment.

[janx]

47. That's unfair, I think. He didn't trash anyone as a centrist.

He lit a fire under the backsides of fellow Democrats, and he decided to run a very democratic campaign--and a very successful one, I might add. He did this by empowering and encouraging his supporters. So when he said that he represents the democratic wing of the democratic party, he MEANS it--it's not just the Wellstonian quote that matters. He absolutely means it.

[Monte Carlo]

36. Are we supposed to take this at face value?

What greater way to increase divisiveness than to tell some exactly what they want to hear?

[farmers]

41. of course they appreciate it

Anything to keep Dean in the limelight because they know that, of all the leading candidates, Dean will have the toughest time against Bush's popularity and the Bush election machine's onslaught.

[janx]

50. Good!

It is in fact very good news that they should believe such a thing.

[gulliver]

52. "Bush strategist says!!!!"

Helloooo, McFlyyy! There's an elephant in the room. When a Bush strategist says something, maybe, just maybe it ought to be taken with a grain or two of salt.

What about the possibility that the "Bush strategists" are using their "doing a great job for us" line to tar Dean's rivals. Maybe they are even doing it to help Dean in the primary. Maybe they are doing it just to foster in the Democratic party the same bitterness they have created in the country and the world.

Maybe?

[Dr Fate]

53. The same Bush who lied about WMD's???

I dont understand why any DUer would believe ANYTHING Bush says.

This Clark supporter sees Rove's media leaks for what they are- anti DEM propaganda.

(Note, I said anti-DEM, not anti-Dean... the idea is to pit DEM against DEM, Rove could care less how or who...)