[Lerkfish]

this new york times story requires registration.. so here it the content.

Bush's Advisers Focus on Dean as Likely Opponent Next Year


By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

Published: December 11, 2003



ASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — President Bush's political advisers are now all but certain that Howard Dean will be the Democratic presidential nominee and they are planning a campaign that takes account of what they see as Dr. Dean's strengths and weaknesses, Republicans with ties to the White House said.

"We're ready to go," said a senior Republican official involved in the Bush campaign. "The broad thematics and the whole approach to him, those things have been well thought out. As for the tactical stuff, it's still out there. The timing is a big decision."

For months, members of Mr. Bush's political team said that the nine-person Democratic field was too jumbled to predict the outcome of the primaries, and they cautioned that the situation was fluid. But with Dr. Dean, in their view, pulling away from his Democratic rivals by all indicators — the polls, fund-raising and endorsements — Republicans said he was forcing the Bush campaign to begin making decisions about how and when to engage him.

A day after Al Gore endorsed Dr. Dean, giving the former Vermont governor his strongest claim yet to the role of front-runner for the nomination, Democrats as well as Republicans scrambled on Wednesday to assess and adapt to the changing political landscape. Dr. Dean's Democratic rivals sharpened their attacks on him, even as Republicans — perhaps motivated as much by a desire to guard against complacency in their ranks as by any newfound respect for Dr. Dean's electoral strength — talked of their plans for a tough general election faceoff against him.

One Republican who speaks regularly to White House officials said there was serious thought about pursuing the earliest and most aggressive of the plans under consideration: putting Mr. Bush into full campaign mode soon after he delivers the State of the Union address in late January. In that way, the Republican said, Mr. Bush could get a quick start on defining Dr. Dean as too far to the left for the country before the former Vermont governor can wrap up the primaries and begin trying to move himself toward the political center.

Other Republicans who are kept apprised of the Bush campaign's thinking said that the issue of timing continued to be hotly debated among Mr. Bush's advisers and that the president had not decided how quickly he wants to drop his strategy of remaining publicly detached from partisan warfare.

Throughout the year, many Republicans have been longing for a Bush-Dean matchup, saying Dr. Dean's opposition to the war with Iraq, his call for rolling back Mr. Bush's tax cuts and his support for civil unions between gay people would open the door to a Republican landslide in November.

Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's senior adviser and political strategist, was reported by The Washington Post this summer to have exhorted the crowd at his neighborhood Fourth of July parade to cheer for marchers wearing Dean T-shirts and carrying Dean signs. People close to Mr. Bush, who prides himself on his personal and political discipline, describe Dr. Dean as a sloppy candidate who gets himself in trouble too often by shooting from the hip and who is slow to clean up messes.

Still, Dr. Dean's ability to energize Democrats and potentially attract new voters, while raising large sums of money without the benefit of an established national reputation, has generated some concern within the Bush campaign, where much of the early betting had been on Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri as the most likely nominee. The campaign continues to warn against overconfidence among its supporters by stressing that the 2004 race could be as close as the one in 2000.

"They do not underestimate Dean, because Dean is able to stir the energy in the Democratic party grass roots," said Deal W. Hudson, the editor of Crisis Magazine and an influential religious conservative who is in regular contact with the White House. "That makes him potentially the most formidable of the Democratic nominees."

[vmpaul]

That's nice. I'm glad they have something to keep them busy. It's not like they have a war on or anything.

[Millennium]

Dean is the perfect person for them to focus on. He's got Gore's support (which immediately gives him a Clinton connection), he's got a good pseudo-grassroots movement going, and he's the furthest left of all the current Democrat candidates.

Frankly, with Gore's support, this election (assuming Dean wins the Democrat nomination, which he probably will now) terrifies me. Dean is in many ways the polar opposite of Bush, and that is Not A Good Thing by any stretch of the imagination; as a President he'd be nearly as bad as Dubya, albeit for entirely different reasons.

The end result is that this coming election will be oversimplified, overpolarized, and black-and-white on a scale we haven't seen in decades. And either way, the American people lose, whether they're mired in the shadow of a puppet or sacrificed to an impossible dream.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Millennium:
And either way, the American people lose, whether they're mired in the shadow of a puppet or sacrificed to an impossible dream.

That brought a tear to my eye. I have no idea what it means, but it's very poetic.

[chris v]

S'pose they'll try to do to him what they did to McCain in S.C.? Does Dean have any dark-skinned adopted daughters that they can reference along with a nice innuendo?

What skeletons does Dean have, really?

And what if he enlists Clark as a running mate? How will Rove play that?

CV

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by chris v:


What skeletons does Dean have, really?

And what if he enlists Clark as a running mate? How will Rove play that?

CV

We're sure to find out.

I imagine we'll hear that clip of Clark praising Bush many, many times if he's the Veep candidate.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The end result is that this coming election will be oversimplified, overpolarized, and black-and-white on a scale we haven't seen in decades. And either way, the American people lose, whether they're mired in the shadow of a puppet or sacrificed to an impossible dream.

Yeah. It'll be great.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by Millennium:
as a President he'd be nearly as bad as Dubya, albeit for entirely different reasons.

And those reasons are..................

[Demonhood]

Originally posted by Millennium:
... and he's the furthest left of all the current Democrat candidates.

um, what?

[thunderous_funker]

"People close to Mr. Bush, who prides himself on his personal and political discipline, describe Dr. Dean as a sloppy candidate who gets himself in trouble too often by shooting from the hip and who is slow to clean up messes."

Holy Irony, Batman!!

the Democratic strategy for getting completely destroyed by Bush:

1. Run a really nasty primary process and do everything to undermine and marginalize the front-runner. Not only will it result in a lame-duck nominee, but it will be sure to splinter the all the undecideds and independents outside the core of party faithful.

2. Continue to make "anti-war" a major issue. Iraq has already been invaded and the regime already overthrown. Running an "anti-war" campaign has nothing to do with issues in 2004.

3. Continue the fallacy of thinking you have to agree with the GOP in order to be "centrist". There is nothing moderate or remotely centrist about privatizing medicare, pre-emptive war, new nukes, extending the WTO, undermining labor and environmental standards and shyting on every institution of meaningful international solidarity.

The Dean strategy to avoid being mislabeled a "lefty":

1. Every time the war on Iraq comes up, start your comments with "rushing in against the advice of our allies has led to the very problems we must now face. Whether we should or shouldn't have is no longer the issue. Now we must fix what is broken. We broke, now its our problem to fix it. We are no longer in a position to debate what might have been. Here's how we succeed in Iraq......."

2. Every time tax cuts comes up as an issue, start your comments with "We can insure every child in America or we can cut taxes for 1% of the population. But we can't do both. We can rebuild our crumbling infastructure or we can make sure the nation's wealthiest investors don't pay taxes on dividends. But we can't do both. We can invest in job training for our out of work manufacturing workers or we can cut capital gains for a tiny minority of the nation's wealthiest families. But we can't do both......"

3. Every time national security and terrorism come up, start your comments with "the only way to increase international security and peace is to work towards helping a strong middle class to emerge from the most troubled regions of the world. A strong middle class will do more to democratize governments, marginalize radicals and undermine international terror organizations than all the bombs the US could ever hope to afford. That means fair and open trade that raises labor and enviromental standards. It also means strong international cooperation and diplomacy because we can't do it alone......"

4. Every time wedge issues (like same sex marriage, "under god", the 10 commandments, gun control, etc) come up start your comments with "As president, I don't believe it is my job to dictate social conscience or values to Americans. I will work to represent their interests and their collective will towards protecting those values that we all share. I don't make the laws of the land, the congress does. I trust the American people to make their attitudes known to their legislators about how they would like to determine those issues. In fact, I consider most of them to be a none of the federal governments business. It would become my business if and when the Congress passed a law regarding such an issue. And as president, my job is present the will of the people, not my own personal views."

[Spliffdaddy]

Do all that and you'll sound like a liberal that's trying not to sound like a liberal.

Avoid taking a stand on abortion, gay rights, or any other 'social issues'? That'll work (Colin Powell) until you're forced to choose a side. Then you'll lose support from both sides.

Right now Dean is trying to make Democrats happy. That's easy, just denounce Dubya, condemn 'the wealthy', and increase spending on entitlement programs.

It's the wrong way to win a Presidential election, however.

[davesimondotcom]

t_f, sounds good, but I don't think that Dean being called a lefty is a "mislabel."

As far as your points for what they should say - sound good. Really, it does. But it won't get anyone elected.

[thunderous_funker]

Maybe we should start with why everyone seems to think Dean is too lefty?

For the life of me I can't figure this one out. McCain is left of Bush, does that make him a lefty? Powell is left of Bush. Gingrich is criticizing the occupation.

Just what is it that makes Dean a lefty?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Just what is it that makes Dean a lefty?

Just what, exactly, makes him a moderate. Let's start with that.

Compare him to, say, Joe Lieberman...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Just what, exactly, makes him a moderate. Let's start with that.

Compare him to, say, Joe Lieberman...

None of this matters anyway. It's all a matter of how the candidate is perceived, not what they think of their position, (or their supporters think). Once that perception is set, it is very hard to change, and the more a candidate tries to run from it, the more wishy-washy and fake they seem (Exhibit A: Al Gore).

Dean seems to have some conviction. That means he has to run on the left.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Do all that and you'll sound like a liberal that's trying not to sound like a liberal.

Avoid taking a stand on abortion, gay rights, or any other 'social issues'? That'll work (Colin Powell) until you're forced to choose a side. Then you'll lose support from both sides.

Right now Dean is trying to make Democrats happy. That's easy, just denounce Dubya, condemn 'the wealthy', and increase spending on entitlement programs.

It's the wrong way to win a Presidential election, however.

I think Americans will respond to an honest campaign about real issues. I think they're tired of politics as usual. Especially wedge issues.

Of course, he could o as Bush did. Run as an anti-interventionist, anti-spending, tax cuts from the massive surplus moderate. Turns out he's none of those things.

The suspicion seems to be that Dean has some radical private agenda for America. I don't think he does. Nothing about this guy indicates otherwise. All along he has clearly spoken out that he is not an ideological politician and his political record proves it. That's why he's so hard to categorize. He's gone left, right and center on issues.

His critics say that means he's wishy-washy. I'd say that means he's doing his job right. He is basing decisions on facts on the ground rather than some over-arching ideology. He does what he considers best within the framework of a given situation. Not only that, but he's willing to change his mind when presented with persuasive evidence.

How's that for refreshing?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Dean seems to have some conviction.

I'll give him that, in spades.

I admire it in anyone who has it. Bush is another. And I hate it when Bush gets wishy-washy (Campaign Finance Reform, for example.)

[BRussell]

Are these statements by Dean?

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
2. Every time tax cuts comes up as an issue, start your comments with "We can insure every child in America or we can cut taxes for 1% of the population. But we can't do both. We can rebuild our crumbling infastructure or we can make sure the nation's wealthiest investors don't pay taxes on dividends. But we can't do both. We can invest in job training for our out of work manufacturing workers or we can cut capital gains for a tiny minority of the nation's wealthiest families. But we can't do both......"

Fine, but that's not what Dean wants to do. He wants to raise taxes on EVERYONE. That's political death. What most of his opponents in the primary want to do is raise it back up on the top 1%.

4. Every time wedge issues (like same sex marriage, "under god", the 10 commandments, gun control, etc) come up start your comments with "As president, I don't believe it is my job to dictate social conscience or values to Americans. I will work to represent their interests and their collective will towards protecting those values that we all share. I don't make the laws of the land, the congress does. I trust the American people to make their attitudes known to their legislators about how they would like to determine those issues. In fact, I consider most of them to be a none of the federal governments business. It would become my business if and when the Congress passed a law regarding such an issue. And as president, my job is present the will of the people, not my own personal views."

The federalism stuff is fine. The rest of that is bullocks. "I don't make the laws of the land, the congress does?" Please. And that business about representing the will of the people and not his own personal views is even worse. Does that mean he's going to take a poll, or have a plebiscite, or what? And here's a shocker - people disagree on many issues. So whose views is he going to implement? Free-traders or fair-traders? Pro-gun-control or anti-gun-control? Pro-life or pro-choice? On and on. Sorry, but you have to say what you believe on relevant issues.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The federalism stuff is fine. The rest of that is bullocks. "I don't make the laws of the land, the congress does?" Please. And that business about representing the will of the people and not his own personal views is even worse. Does that mean he's going to take a poll, or have a plebiscite, or what? And here's a shocker - people disagree on many issues. So whose views is he going to implement? Free-traders or fair-traders? Pro-gun-control or anti-gun-control? Pro-life or pro-choice? On and on. Sorry, but you have to say what you believe on relevant issues.

And there-in lies the deadly trap of wedge politics. All we do is argue over meaningless hypotheticals instead of actual policy.

Why should a president take a stand on legislation that doesn't exist?

What do we mean by "gun control"? Are we talking about legislation that would ban assault rifles? Armor piercing bullets? Require background checks? Gun show loopholes? Rights of felons and mentally ill to own guns? Or take everyone's gun away and station federal police in their homes without notice?

When we begin policy debate, the question isn't whether or not we believe in our Constitutional right to bear arms, we're talking about what exactly that right is, how far it extends, and how to balance it with the responsibilities of providing for the general welfare.

And when opinions are devided on such subjective matters, which do you want? A tyranny of the majority or a tyranny of the minority? When is a president doing what's right in the face of overwhelming opposition? When is a president simply going along with popular opinion?

Dean believes in the constitutional right to bear arms. He has no stated intention of ammending the constitution to change that. From where I sit, that is about the only a priori concept on the issue he needs to be qualified.

Bush is supposedly "free trade" but that didn't stop him from signing the biggest Farm subsidy bill in memory or imposing steel tarriffs. Does that make him "anti-free trade"?

These rubber stamp generalizations are utterly useless. Let's talk specifics. Unless the issue is very very specific, I don't see why we need a presidential candidate who's already made up his mind.

[BRussell]

I didn't intend for anything I said to suggest that I didn't want Dean to be specific. I just want him to admit that the president does play a role in legislation and that a president does, as an individual, have to take stands on issues rather than merely representing the "will of the people." What crap that is. Especially for a candidate who is supposedly a straight talker.

If he says "X is a state issue and should remain a state issue," that's OK. But there is plenty of federal legislation that does exist and is in play on all these issues, and a candidate should say where he is on that legislation.

Furthermore, even if there isn't specific federal legislation, I think it's important for a candidate to convey basic values. I'd like to hear a candidate's guiding principles on issues like gun control and abortion and trade and on and on, even if they are divisive issues. I certainly can understand the desire for a politician who want to be popular to avoid divisive issues, but too bad.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I certainly can understand the desire for a politician who want to be popular to avoid divisive issues, but too bad.

So which is it? Tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority?

I'm not talking about taking the path of least resistance. I'm talking about the steady and insistant expansion of the role of the executive branch in dictating national policy. Its become the contest to insert the guy with your private agenda.

I don't want a president who is trying to implement some private agenda--no matter how popular or unpopular.

I want a president who understands his role as spelled out in the Constitution. The only time his vote on legislation matters is after it is passed by the Congress. And if it is a divisive and controversial issue, I expect the president to weigh all the arguments, raise the level of discourse and take the course of action which best serves the nation as a whole. Not his party. Not his family. Not his business partners. Not even his God.

Everyone pisses and moans about how politicized judicial appointments have become. Everyone trying to stack the deck to serve their private agenda. People decry this process and say that judges should be trusted to uphold the law of the land and it shouldn't matter what their private opinions are.

Well? Why is it ok for us to constantly want some ideologue as president? Not only is it unseemly, but its impractical since the president is, within the Constitutional bounds of his job, the least important when it comes to establishing the law of the land.

I want a president who is as utilitarian about divisive issues as possible, not as principled as possible.

[thunderous_funker]

I often tend to shoot from the hip on topics without trying to fit my thoughts on a specific question into a broader conetext. That sometimes puts me into a paradox or contradictions.

After reading this all again, I realize I'm approaching a critique of The Great Person Theory of leadership. I think this surfaces in American politics with all the talk of "character". When we are overwhelmed by complications, we irrationally fall back on the notion that our president, as a Great Person of Character, will lead us in the inherently right diretion because of their inherent and ineffable Quality.

"Its all very complicated, but I trust the President. He's a good man."

And when rationalization and debate breaks down, we defer to Character by saying to ourselves, "well, after all he is the President."

I was thinking about this when I came across an article on exactly this topic from The Nation. The Character Myth hosted on commondreams.org.

I think wedge politics are simply a means by which politicians create a Character Myth, a personna they can hide behind. Allegiances within the electorate will then be drawn along those mythical lines so even when a politician goes against his own rhetoric or stated "values", his supporters will defend him on the grounds that they identify with his Personna.

How often do we hear criticism dismissed as "conspiracy theory" or such because "they just wouldn't do that" or "they aren't like that" or "I don't believe that".

So when Clinton screws over single mothers with his welfare "reform", Democrats defend him on principle rather than on specifics of the issue because he is, after all, sympathetic to the poor by definition. When Bush increases non-military discrentionary spending by astronomical amounts, he gets a pass from those who believe more in the Personna of a "small government Republican" more than the reality of man all too willing to expand government and spend ludicrous amounts of other people's money.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The Dean strategy to avoid being mislabeled a "lefty":

Those "opinions" are all based upon lies or exaggerations. Some of those misdirections are obvious to folks who have a little knowledge, and should stick out like an ant in a bag of rice. So the candidate should LIE to keep himself from sounding like a Lefty. Smart move.

[Lerkfish]

the reason I wanted to post this story, was it goes in line with comments I made in another thread, how incumbents have an advantage in the primary process. This story is even a FURTHER advantage in that BEFORE the primaries are even held, Bush and Rove intend to start attacking who they consider will be the frontrunner.
Obviously, this allows the incumbent to get a jump start on campaigning against the opponent, while the opponent still has to slug it out with his own party hopefuls.

I really don't think there's anything that can be done about it realistically, but I felt like pointing out the strategic advantage of the automatic foregone conclusion of an incumbent as the nominee.

Also, considering Bush will have the largest warchest in history, I imagine we'll become very inundated with negative attack ads EVEN EARLIER than usual...oh joy, oh bliss!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
Those "opinions" are all based upon lies or exaggerations. Some of those misdirections are obvious to folks who have a little knowledge, and should stick out like an ant in a bag of rice. So the candidate should LIE to keep himself from sounding like a Lefty. Smart move.

Its long been established that your concept of "Lefty" is radically different that most Americans.

40 million Americans without health insurance don't consider a serious reform to health insurance as "lefty". They consider it common sense that should be quite persuasive to anyone who isn't on the board of directors of an Insurance company.

A balanced budget is not "to the left" of the American public.

Nor are discussions of how trade agreements affect wages, safety and environmental issues. I seem to remember a lot of flak on NAFTA coming from very conservative Americans.

The simple truth is that Dean's platform is unabashedly populist. Just like Dubya's "stop being the world's cop and give back the surplus" campaign in 2000.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So which is it? Tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority?

I don't know what this means.

In any case, we should admit why this is a tough problem for liberals - it's because whenever there's a hot-button social issue, conservatives seem to always find themselves on the lowest-common-denominator, knee-jerk side of it, regardless of the merits.

Punish criminals? You betcha.
The 10 commandments? What are you against God or something?
The flag? You guessed it.
Gay marriage? Don't make me laugh.

And on and on. Liberals will always lose on these issues, because they almost always take the less popular, more nuancy side.

Then, Republicans define "values" as only those hot-button issues that they demagogue. Bullshit. Liberals vote on values too. I vote on values - I don't particularly want to hear a list of legislation and a "yes" or "no" next to each. I want to hear a vision, a philosophy, and a set of principles.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
conservatives seem to always find themselves on the lowest-common-denominator, knee-jerk side of it, regardless of the merits. . .


The flag? You guessed it.

Clark backs a ban on flag burning

Candidate who praises dissent also defends proposed amendment

By Joanna Weiss, Globe Staff, 11/12/2003

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Retired Army General Wesley K. Clark, who has repeatedly decried the Bush administration for discouraging dissent, said yesterday he would support a constitutional amendment that outlawed desecration of the American flag.

Boston Globe 11/12/03

Nuanced.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I don't know what this means.

In any case, we should admit why this is a tough problem for liberals - it's because whenever there's a hot-button social issue, conservatives seem to always find themselves on the lowest-common-denominator, knee-jerk side of it, regardless of the merits.

Punish criminals? You betcha.
The 10 commandments? What are you against God or something?
The flag? You guessed it.
Gay marriage? Don't make me laugh.

And on and on. Liberals will always lose on these issues, because they almost always take the less popular, more nuancy side.

Then, Republicans define "values" as only those hot-button issues that they demagogue. Bullshit. Liberals vote on values too. I vote on values - I don't particularly want to hear a list of legislation and a "yes" or "no" next to each. I want to hear a vision, a philosophy, and a set of principles.

So what stated principles are going to convince you that a candidate is going to choose rightly in a complex and controversial situation?

Honesty? Integrity? Patriotism? That government should be by, of, and for the people?

To my mind, this is the Character myth. The Great Person theory. No personality trait is going to dictate that a candidate will choose more rightly than another on a tough issue except maybe intelligence.

When I ask which tyranny you'd prefer, I'm pointing out that when you criticize me for suggesting a president should be ultimately concerned about the will of the poeple, he's basically picking between them.

Should a president go against the majority when he feels its "right"?

If extended national discourse on a troubling issue results in a 50-50 divide, which choice is "right"? Does 60-40 make it better or worse?

In the end, I'm hoping for a man who is driven more by utilitarianism that will drive him engage the nation in meaningful discourse on our most troubling choices rather than have some a priori notions based on some over-arching ideology that renders the remaining vestiges of our democracy even more meaningless.

Policy should be determined on facts, not on ideology or principles.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
(snipped good post for brevity)
Policy should be determined on facts, not on ideology or principles.

I think this is an interesting point.
But I'm not entirely sure I'd agree with it completely: I mean, machiavelli's advice was brutally utilitarian.
A principle of fairness or equality would not necessarily be considered utilitarian. But arguably, a leader who held to principles of fairness would be a GOOD thing.

I think I would change your saying, if I were saying it, to:

Policy should be based on principles, but influenced by facts.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Policy should be based on principles, but influenced by facts.

Candidates need to be held accountable for what they say when campaigning. Unfortunately, they are allowed to lie, and hide behind the first ammendment. How can we know their policy, if they are all lying with their 'facts'?

[cpt kangarooski]

SimeyTheLimey--

Nuanced.

Liberal?

akcrab--

Candidates need to be held accountable for what they say when campaigning.

They are held accountable. If people are upset that they lied, or whatever, they don't have to vote for him the next time.

Anything more basically means that someone else -- the person who is deciding what is and isn't a lie -- holds the real power in government. I'd rather have what we've got.