article from Richard Reeves, an independent conservative
journalist appeared recently in my newspaper,
the Detroit Free Press, July 11, 2003,
13A. The title of this article was: Dems:
Leadership needed; Dean, Edwards don't fit the
opined that Dean and Edwards (although no one
else even mentions Edwards as a viable candidate
now so his name must have been thrown in this
article to keep the focus off the real target:
Dean) weren't viable Democratic candidates for
President because of a lack of leadership experience
and ability, even though Dean has been very successful
so far raising money for his campaign and tapping
into the power of the internet. Reeves likened
Dean to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- his examples
of presidential failures in comparison to Reagan
and the current Bush Administrations. Need I say
more? Of these four: Carter, Clinton, Reagan,
and Bush, which ones do you think "deserved" to
have been impeached for serious crimes? If you
didn't answer the latter two, you must have forgotten
Iran-Contra and refuse to admit to yourself that
Bush lied to everyone about the reasons for the
Iraq War. Reagan also left the country in far
worse shape economically than Carter did...but
everyone felt better about it.
more than a day or two after reading Reeve's column,
I was sent another article via email that appeared
in the July 11, 2003 edition of the Weekly
Standard, a small conservative magazine owned
by Rupert Murdock. The article was written by
are a few choice quotes from the Caldwell article:
of the Clinton brains trust fears Mr Dean's
insurrection will be as vain as the primary
challenge of Pat Buchanan, the Republican, in
1992 - a sour-grapes candidacy possible only
in an undisciplined party and capable of motivating
only a rump of hotheads."
Morris, Mr Clinton's strategist in 1996, holds
that "if somebody doesn't stop Howard Dean,
he and his ideas will be permanent plagues on
the Democratic party". Mr Dean would thus resemble
George McGovern, who in 1972 pressed the cause
of reform so hard that he locked his party out
of the White House for most of a generation."
he get the nomination, Mr Dean would probably
consign his party to electoral slaughter."
article also conveniently omitted any mention
of how much more money the Republican Party has
raised and would raise compared to the Democrats
trying to shift the focus to where the money comes
from and in what amounts to make the Republican
Party "appear" to be the real mainstream party.
of these articles had a similar message: That
Dean shouldn't be the Democratic candidate for
President if the Democrats want to win in 2004.
let's look closely at this message and expose
it for what it really is: A right wing plot to
derail Dean's campaign using fear to splinter
the Democratic voters.
off, you need to ask yourself "why would
either of these staunch conservatives want to
offer their suggestions to help the Democrats
pick the best candidate to defeat Bush in 2004?"
When you realize the folly of this you then need
to ask yourself "why are they using this
scare campaign to derail Dean's campaign?"
I'll tell you why: They fear Dean more than they
do any of the other Democratic candidates because
his campaign has caught on fire and he's on a
roll. Of course they don't expect him to raise
nearly as much money as Bush will. No Democrat
would be able to do that. But they do fear that
his message will connect with lots of voters including
all of the people the Bush Administration has
left behind and will keep leaving behind. They
also know that Dean is a bright well educated
man who makes a good impression when he speaks.
Something Bush never could and still can't do
unless you call reading even simple messages from
a prepared script, speaking. The Republicans also
know that Bush is vulnerable on plenty of issues
that are important to voters that Dean can address
such as health care, the sorry state of the economy,
the lack of essential domestic spending because
of the huge tax cuts for the rich, and the never
ending wars that will only make the deficits worse.
If the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq keep going
as badly as they have so far, something everyone
should be blaming the Bush Administration for,
thus costing U.S. taxpayers a combined total of
$5 billion dollars per month, Bush will be history
in 2004 -- the same way his father was when he
lost to Bill Clinton after only one term. And
let's not forget the lies Bush told to get us
into the war in Iraq -- an issue that should have
sunk this ship a long time ago. Dean's position
against the War in Iraq make him a strong candidate
as the Bush lies for this war keep piling up and
by taking a stance against the war early on may
be the only "viable" candidate who can unite the
Dems with the Green Party to defeat Bush in 2004.
If Gore had been able to do this, Bush would be
attending Ranger games on a regular basis instead
of occupying the Oval Office.
here's my message to all Democrats, Greens, and
Independents. When you read these articles blasting
Dean and/or his campaign please consider the source.
Please also take note that the Republican strategy
is to put the weakest "viable" candidate up against
Bush in 2004. While I am not admitting yet that
Dean is the strongest Democrat to emerge, he certainly
has to be considered as one of the top two. The
Republican strategy is now geared toward scaring
Democrats and others from supporting Dean. My
guess is that you will see many articles similar
to the above making the same claims (they all
borrow from the same talking points). Ignore them
all! Don't allow these Bush supporters to make
your decisions for you. Understand that these
articles are written because Dean is the candidate
they fear the most...not the one who will "crash
and burn" on November 2, 2004. Trust me. They
don't have yours or my best interests at heart.
Recall too that in the early days of Clinton's
first campaign for President in 1992, he was considered
a long shot with little chance of winning and
at that time, not many Democrats even wanted to
run against George H. W. Bush, with his popularity
up around 89% after the Gulf War.
these Republicans know that you won't be fooled
by their scare tactics. We know their game plan.
It's just been exposed!
J. Crane, columnist for topplebush.com
July 10, 2003