portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

political theory

Republicans for Dean

These sorts of articles are scary and make false assumptions, but nonetheless, they are important to read so that one can be aware of the agendas going on, the view of the corporate media, etc. Note that in here he makes this point that Americans are better educated than in the past, but he makes no mention of the increased hijacking of the media (i.e., Fox footsoldiers for the Bush adminstration), or the fact that lies are being put out on the public (i.e., Cheney on Sunday) with virtually no response from congress or the media. Regardless of how 'educated' Americans are now, so is the corporate media, whose goal is to control what the voters will do depending on how they cover it. What they want now is this - "supporting a candidate so ideologically amorphous that he can appeal to these swingers." And that's how we get things like NAFTA and the silent deaths of millions of brown people all over the world. Dean will be no different. The right wing's spin that Dean is so progressive is part of an agenda. It's a lose-lose situation - they spin him as left so independents don't want him, but in the meantime, progressives are being tricked. Dean is being outed with every passing day for his false positions and shifting loyalties. Pretty soon he won't have any progressives, much less the independents.
Republicans for Dean

The results of the highly prestigious Poll of the Pollsters are in! I called eight of the best G.O.P. pollsters and strategists and asked them, on a not-for-attribution basis, if they thought Howard Dean would be easier to beat than the other major Democratic presidential candidates. Here, and I'm paraphrasing, are the results:

"Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!"

You would have thought I had asked them if Danny DeVito would be easier to beat in a one-on-one basketball game than Shaquille O'Neal. They all thought Dean would be easier to beat, notwithstanding his impressive rise. Some feared John Kerry, others John Edwards, because his personality wears well over time, and others even Bob Graham, because he can carry Florida, more than Dean. As their colleague Bill McInturff put it atop a memo on the Dean surge: "Happy Days Are Here Again (for Republicans)."

I think the pollsters are probably right, but I'd feel a lot more confident if I could find somebody who really understood the forces that are reshaping the American electorate.

Over the past few decades, the electorate has become much better educated. In 1960, only 22 percent of voters had been to college; now more than 52 percent have. As voters become more educated, they are more likely to be ideological and support the party that embraces their ideological label. As a result, the parties have polarized. There used to be many conservatives in the Democratic Party and many liberals in the Republican Party, groups that kept their parties from drifting too far off-center.

Now, there is a Democratic liberal mountain and a Republican conservative mountain. Democrats and Republicans don't just disagree on policies — they don't see the same reality, and they rarely cross over and support individual candidates from the other side. As Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California at San Diego, has shown, split-ticket voting has declined steadily.

The question is whether this evolution changes the way we should think about elections. The strategists in the Intensity School say yes. They argue that it no longer makes sense to worry overmuch about the swing voters who supposedly exist in the political center because the electorate's polarization has hollowed out the center. The number of actual swing voters — people who actually switch back and forth between parties — is down to about 7 percent of the electorate. Moreover, the people in this 7 percent group have nothing in common with one another. It doesn't make sense to try to win their support because there is no coherent set of messages that will do it.

Instead, it's better to play to the people on your own mountain and get them so excited they show up at the polls. According to this line of reasoning, Dean, Mr. Intensity, is an ideal Democratic candidate.

The members of the Inclusiveness School disagree. They argue that there still are many truly independent voters, with estimates ranging from 10 to 33 percent of the electorate. Moreover, the Inclusiveness folks continue, true independents do have a coherent approach to politics. Anti-ideological, the true independents do not even listen to candidates who are partisan, strident and negative. They are what the pollster David Winston calls "solutionists"; they respond to upbeat candidates who can deliver concrete benefits: the Family and Medical Leave Act, more cops in their neighborhoods, tax rebate checks.

By this line of thinking, Dean is a terrible candidate. His partisan style drives off the persuadable folks who rarely bother to vote in primaries but who do show up once every four years for general elections.

The weight of the data, it seems to me, supports the Inclusiveness side. And the chief result of polarization is that the Democrats have become detached from antipolitical independent voters. George Bush makes many liberal Democrats froth at the mouth, but he does not have this effect on most independents. Democrats are behaving suicidally by not embracing what you might, even after yesterday's court decision, call the Schwarzenegger Option: supporting a candidate so ideologically amorphous that he can appeal to these swingers.

Which is why so many Republicans are quietly gleeful over Dean's continued momentum. It is only the dark cloud of Wesley Clark, looming on the horizon, that keeps their happiness from being complete.
Best Part of the Article 16.Sep.2003 12:02

The End

"only the dark cloud of Wesley Clark, looming on the horizon, keeps their happiness from being complete"

--so in this Corporate Media Spin-nario,

even Mr. Time Magazine Cover Boy Howard Dean isn't considered to be a badass?

this is all a bunch of meaningless psyops keeping mainstream sheeple indecisive and fearful.

next summer, the Democraps will have picked their 'Candidate' to run against Bu$h, along with a running mate . . . my guess is it'll be some conglomeration of Dean and Clark (?), perhaps Kerry . . .

quite note 16.Sep.2003 12:14


republicans are not conservatives. conservatives are not republicans. democrats are not liberals. liberals are not democrats.

I'm not a fan of Dean but with his picking up Gore voters, McCain voters, Perot voters, Bush Jr. voters and some new voters, he'll beat Bush Jr. by a landslide. The hubris of the republican party will contribute to their undoing. The question for the democrat establishment is: do they want to win, or do they want to remain subservient?

Dean is the Republican fav for a reason 16.Sep.2003 12:34


I will campaign for Dean should he get the nomination. Dean can win. Or more accurately, the way this administration is screwing up, Bush can lose.

Nonetheless, Dean supporters ought to take a good look at General Clark.

"It is only the dark cloud of Wesley Clark, looming on the horizon, that keeps their [the Republican strategists] happiness from being complete."

Notice how the left-wing radical "Bush must not be defeated" extremists are frothing at the mouth at the thought of a Clark candidacy. They see that their crazy dreams of having Bush leading driving this country into a ditch and into anarchy may not happen.

P.S. I'm not listing Dean's issues because I'm not trashing Democrats -- Just one thing though, Dean supporters, will you just lose the lie that it is Dean's supposedly bold ideas that turns people off. Both Kerry and Clark are more progressive, to say nothing of Kucinich. Kerry, however, is all muddled up about the war. That is why folks are excited about Clark. He's slightly to the left of Dean in his positions, equally opposed to the war, and possibly [we don't know yet] a much more effective candidate.

question for 'undecided'-- 16.Sep.2003 13:07


"driving this country into a ditch and into anarchy"

--where'd you come up with the "into anarchy" part?

that simply does not make any logical sense. Even a mass popular uprising of Americans would not be "anarchy"--no matter how you define it. and it'd probably get shut down by the military-industrial police complex anyway.

and the mass popular uprising wouldn't just occur here in the States, either. Other countries would be (are already??) forming rival alliances.

if anything, Bu$h & Co. are 'driving this country' into *autocracy* . . . (it's already a plutocracy)

of course, this is all assuming that the global economy stays upright and afloat ;-)

The Race Is On For the Un-Dean 16.Sep.2003 14:07

repost (newsweek)

The Race Is On For the Un-Dean
Democratic power brokers see Clark as best alternative


Sept. 16 — The race has turned frantic to find the un-Dean for the Democratic presidential nomination. The frenzy reached a fever pitch today in this little Piedmont town, where Sen. John Edwards relaunched his campaign while the assembled national press corps focused on the news from Arkansas, where Gen. Wesley Clark was preparing to plunge into the race tomorrow. It was quite a scene: As Edwards took the stage to offer himself as tribune of common folk, journalists worked the phones to book the first flight to Little Rock.

CLARK HAS A lot of appeal, and potential, but his main attraction to party insiders and former Clintonistas—many of whom are joining up with the general—is that they see him as the man, perhaps the only man, to block Dean's surge to the precipice of locking up the nomination. Party leaders—if there is such a thing—view Dean as a disaster waiting to happen in a race with President George W. Bush.

Even before Dean locked up the insurgent's role, and turned it into an Internet-driven anti-war money machine, Democratic wise guys had pushed Sen. John Kerry forward as a consensus favorite to challenge Bush. But Kerry's campaign has foundered, in part because of his vote in favor of the Iraq war (which most grassroots Democrats opposed) and because he has encountered the putative frontrunner's problem of trying to be all things to all voters.

Lately, some of the same people (and pundits) who were touting Kerry have abandoned him So have some of the paid advisers who once viewed him as a cinch. In the last few days, they have been touting Rep. Dick Gephardt, finding new virtues—such as a sense of humor—they didn't know he had.

Edwards may still get his shot. He drew a big crowd here today in his home town, where he is clearly loved. He has a set of policy proposals that are detailed and well-thought out, even if they aren't as liberal or as sweeping as those of some of the other candidates. He is personable almost to excess—a great one-to-one campaigner. But he too voted for the war, and seems to have too sunny a disposition to suit the tastes of Democratic activists.

In Iowa the other day, the Democratic state chairman told me to keep an eye on Edwards—that he could take off. That's why I came here to Robbins. I am watching.

But Edwards' effort to make a splash was obliterated today by the news that Clark was definitely about to enter the race. On paper, he has everything the Democrats think they need: He was against the war, but wore four stars as a general; he is a war hero, but believes in internationalism and global cooperation; he can be a cowboy like Bush, but can work with the world.

So while I am listening to what Edwards is saying here, I've got to go—I have a plane to catch.

Follow the $$ 16.Sep.2003 14:52


H. Dean doesn't control the money - Terry McAuliffe does and he was placed there by the Clintons. If Hillary decides to run - Deano is Fineto.

RE "Republicans for Dean" David Brooks is a NEO CON 16.Sep.2003 15:26

nothing he says matters

He is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard, the Rupert Murdoch Neo-Con
rag founded by William Kristol, who is a member of the PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY group. Go to their website  http://newamericancentury.org/ read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" released September 2000.

They are a bunch of facist who are now begining to see that their dream of Empire is going to fail. They are now realizing that ANYONE can beat Bush. So they are starting to attack. And it appears by the above comments they are having the desired effect.

'Nothing He Says Matters' 16.Sep.2003 15:53


I'd agree except that his face is all over public television and now the NYTImes, so yes, it does matter.

And yes, he's obviously part of the neo con corporate media fascist machine that's stolen the country and is keeping it asleep.

Is this a reason to support Dean?


This is simply knowledge, awareness of the levels of manipulation going on, awareness of the shifting agendas. Watch what they are doing, but if you use it as a reason for what YOU do, then who are you? Are you YOU, or a reaction to THEM?

I'll be voting for Kucinich in the primary (unless he's lost to a plane crash or something by then), and Green in the presidential. Clark will be worse than Dean, Dean is worse than Kucinich, etc. But nothing to the right of Kucinich is worth voting for. I'm not voting to keep Bush out. Bush, fascist monster that he is, has energized the left in ways that we haven't seen in decades. If Clark gets in it's simply more silent deaths, the same as Dean.

And thanks for the background info on this jerk - the NYTimes doesn't include that (ha ha) in his bio, although it's so predictable - if you ever have heard him speak - that it's almost laughable.

if you pay PNACs 16.Sep.2003 23:00

you get monkeys

"I'll be voting for Kucinich in the primary (unless he's lost to a plane crash or something by then), and Green in the presidential. Clark will be worse than Dean, Dean is worse than Kucinich, etc. But nothing to the right of Kucinich is worth voting for. I'm not voting to keep Bush out. Bush, fascist monster that he is, has energized the left in ways that we haven't seen in decades. If Clark gets in it's simply more silent deaths, the same as Dean."

Right on. Go, Fred!

I doubt the Republicans see Clark as a dark spectre on the horizon though... even for his stated reticence about involvement in war that M. Moore seems to think so highly of- which is probably going to be matched by a lack of reticence once he's actually in one- his buttons would probably be even easier to push with junk like the kind of Neo-Con "new Pearl Harbor" we've already been treated to, and probably without as much complicity in the adminstration. Would Clark have handled 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq any more sanely / humanely than Bush, really? If you can't haul off and declare that something is wrong with the picture, then you find someone over there to blame (and you go with your so-called "intelligence")... Dean suffers greatly from that now, seemingly taking the position that what Bush did is wrong, but what Bush has done is right... Sorry, Howie, it's way more wrong than that, and I wish your mama had taught you right from wrong a little better...

But what could make PNAC happier than a general as their Commander-in-Chief as their plans to own the Middle East roll on? Bush who they nurtured and coached, is as disposable to them as any President they've watched come and go, as are Dean, Clark, etc. I'm afraid the picture is bigger than just Bush, and the answer takes more than just beating Bush...

If I could even hold a hope that someone would really stand up to it, it would be Dennis...

Mainstream Extremists 17.Sep.2003 22:34

Dean for AmeriKKKA

"Notice how the left-wing radical "Bush must not be defeated" extremists are frothing at the mouth at the thought of a Clark candidacy. They see that their crazy dreams of having Bush leading driving this country into a ditch and into anarchy may not happen."

Notice how the Mainstream "Just do what you are told and vote Democrat" extremists spew empty propaganda phrases and ad hominem attack as a substitute for an arugment--just like their Republican doppelgangers.

The Mainstream Democratic Party loyalists have no argument why anybody should be FOR their decrepit party and candidate.

All they have are pathetic and tired scare tactics about the Bush Bogeyman and specious calls for "political realism" or demonizing their radical critics.

If you hate the radicals so much, why are you here in the first place trying desperately to convince people to support you bullshit candidates? Shouldn't you be out kissing the ass of Soccer Moms and suburban white swing voters?

Through it all these Mainstream Extremists are desperate to coverup the fact that their "democratic" American system is a fraud in which one has the "freedom" to choose between handpicked and preselected choices that are fundamentally no different.

Accepting the legitimacy of this bankrupt system and REFUSING to challenge it is the true Extremism that will lead to more death and misery committed by the American Empire, regardless of the political party in power.