CT paper stacks deck against Dean.

[stickdog]

from: http://www.ctnow.com/news/nationworld/hc-dean0710.artjul10,0,6861919.story?coll=hc-big-headlines-breaking

History Haunts Dean's Quest
Other Early Stars Faded Fast

July 10, 2003
By DAVID LIGHTMAN, Washington Bureau Chief

WASHINGTON -- It's the recurring dilemma of the underdog, and this time it's Howard Dean's turn to figure out how to fix it. Like so many before him, Dean has become the unknown presidential candidate who suddenly picks up a sheen, who overnight becomes the hope for the disenchanted.

Such candidates almost never last.

"It's like being on the cover of Sports Illustrated," said Susan MacManus, professor of political science at the University of South Florida. More often than not, she said, the star of the week quickly fades, or can't stand up to the new scrutiny.


Who is Susan MacManus? Well, she was on Jeb Bush's transistion team:

http://131.247.46.2/199811/19981118/news/19981118-news2.html


continuing further down in the article:

That's going to be particularly tough because polls show that by ratios of 2-to-1, people approve of how Bush is handling national security. While Dean's criticisms of Bush's policy works with the 30 percent who dislike the White House methods, "taking on the president on national security is a flawed strategy," said Democratic consultant Alan Quinlan.


Who is Alan Quinlan?

Lieberman's pollster:

http://www.greenbergresearch.com/campaigns_us/clients.html

[CMT]

1. sure it is not often that the insurgents beat the insiders but

it does happen...Jimmy Carter in '76...George McGovern in '72...Wendell Wilkie in '40. I think we're due one again.

[DifferentStrokes]

11. Don't forget George W. Bush

I mean, seriously, had anybody ever heard much about that twit before he decided to run for President? He didn't exactly win the election either.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. W was the "selected" nominee long before anyone else

He was selected long before he was "sElected".

[GiovanniC]

16. As Sad As This Is...

I remember in the run-up to the election, SOOOOO many people that that George W. Bush = George H.W. Bush. In other words, a lot of people that I knew at the time believed that candidate Bush was the guy who was president from 89-93 and VP from 81-89.

In general, people are ridiculously stupid. People just vote for the guy they've heard of the most. Here's a fun experiment... go up to random people on the street, and ask for the name of the Vice President... or the Secretary of State. Seriously. You'll be surprised (unless you're cynical, like me).

[ibegurpard]

2. Nice catch, Stickdog!

:toast:

[meegbear]

3. Do you expect EVERY dean article to be positive?

Rejoin the food chain. Every candidate gets slapped around.

[RogueTrooper]

12. No, of course we do not

but it does not mean that we are going to let the negative ones stand.

[T Roosevelt]

4. This calls for a LTTE

I'm headed to class right now, but hope to work on one later. Something that points out exactly who these people are, and what the agenda is...

[thom1102]

15. I already sent one

nt

[DinahMoeHum]

5. Screw their "history". The attitude among the Dean camp is. . .

(as I see it) is: Be "pioneers" NOT "historians"

:kick::kick::kick:

[thom1102]

6. There's also a poll on whether Dean

will be the nominee. He's losing. Let's defreep the poll!!

[HFishbine]

7. Two Words

Two words why an insurgency campaign is different now than it ever was:


"The Internet."

[RevolutionStartsNow]

8. Good job, Stickdog

There's always more than meets the eye...

[Bandit]

9. I say let it all hang out ~ If Dean can't pass muster so be it.

I for one am tired of being hoodwinked. I want all the information to be known about the man I vote for. We'll never know everything about Bush* but people don't want to know. I do. Bush is God when it comes to keeping America safe. Paleaseeee!!! This should be attacked head on. Even if our candidate loses at least more will be known. Attack like a real Democrat and not some simpering fool that says we can't beat Bush* on those issues so why bother. People like this Alan Quinlan make me sick. What a whimp. He defines the Democratic Party as the Whimp Party and sounds proud of it. Fuck him and the Bush* he rode in on.

[Adamocrat]

10. My Point...

As I often point out to those leaning toward Bush, if he's SO good at National Security, why did the biggest failure ever happen on his watch? If he's so on the ball, why was he on vacation just days before September 11, 2001? Sorry, but he's a failure in my eyes.

-A

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. My point too.

and it's a legitimate point. W is a security FAILURE. It seems it's far too obvious for anyone to see.

[thom1102]

17. I wrote a letter to the editor about this...

and they printed it word for word. Not only that, they gave it a quarter of the page with a big picture of Dean!

http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-letterbox0712.artjul12.story:

A Hatchet Job On Howard Dean
July 12, 2003


Although David Lightman makes some interesting points in the article on Howard Dean that are important and should be discussed, some of his sources are suspect.

His failure to reveal a blatant conflict of interest of two of his sources brings his objectivity and his motives for writing the piece, which is clearly dismissive of former Vermont Gov. Dean's chances to become president, into question.

Susan MacManus, professor of political science at the University of South Florida, was also in charge of Gov. Jeb Bush's transitional team, and Alan Quinlan, whom Lightman describes as a "Democratic consultant," is Sen. Joseph Lieberman's pollster.

Lightman's critique of Dean fails to mention the obstacles Dean has already overcome, as well as his successes. The glaring distinction between Dean and the losers that Lightman compares him to (Buchanan, McCain and McGovern) is that Dean, while garnering the support of the progressives on the left, is a centrist on policy. The others were ideologues from the fringe.

Dean's outsider status comes from his prominence in a small, rural state and his heretofore relative obscurity, rather than his stance on the issues. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt's health care plan is much further left than Dean's.

Finally, Lightman tries to add an air of enlightened judgment in the last sentence by having an assistant professor of political science state the obvious, ominously described as a sobering notion: When referring to the losers, it was noted that "none of them became president."

If Lightman really needed to have an assistant professor of political science bring that little nugget to his attention, then he has no business on a political beat.

[Rose Siding]

18. That is so good

thom, that is a hell of a letter. :loveya:

[thom1102]

20. Thanks!

:+

[Classical_Liberal]

19. A Lieberman pollster, should know something about underdogs

:evilgrin:

[Eloriel]

21. This is such hokum

Bush is extraordinarily WEAK on national security -- they've made an absolute disaster out of Afghanistan and Iraq (heigtening the threat of terrorism), failed to find bin Laden and Saddam, and have done very little more at home than what they'd done BEFORE 9-11 for security, which is nothing, except create a huge new bureaucracy whose main contribution to "homeland" security has been color codes, plastic and duct tape.

And let's not forget -- to win the Iraq war (with no viable post-war Iraq plan in place at all), they bribed and bought off the Republican Guard. So much for our "brilliant" war strategy.

That's all our candidates have to say: WHAT national security? It's a joke!

Of course, if people want to buy the RNC and DLC spin on the subject, they're free to. It just flies in the face of Reality, though.

Eloriel

[union_maid]

22. Clinton? Carter?

I could be way out in left field here. I wasn't paying nearly as close attention, but were either of them the man that most people expected to win the nomination at this point in their primary runs?

[Eloriel]

23. Definitely not

But you see, we're looking to bash Dean and make him look "unelectable."

:evilgrin:

Eloriel