The Warring States of NPF - Attacks on Primary Canidates? Precedent?

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)

- Dead threads (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=91)

- - Attacks on Primary Canidates? Precedent? (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=800)

Attacks on Primary Canidates? Precedent?

Hiyo people. For those of you who didn't know, I'm a Dean man, and because of this, I got this little ol' e-mail:

Quote:

Dear Kevin,

When Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean on Tuesday, he said that Democrats "don't have the luxury of fighting among ourselves to the point where we seriously damage our ability to win on behalf of the American people."

Yesterday we learned why Gore was right: the New York Times reported that George W. Bush and Karl Rove are planning to attack Dean as early as January -- just a few short weeks away. Their goal, according to the Times, is to "get a quick start on defining Dr. Dean as too far to the left for the country before [Dean] can wrap up the primaries."

We know that George Bush is raising $200 million to spread more false impressions and half-truths. And we know that we can only stop him by matching his special interest money dollar for dollar -- but it can only happen if everybody participates. No one can take our country back for us -- we all must act together -- and you can start by contributing whatever you can afford today:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/revolution

Everyone must act -- including you. Even if you can only give $10 today, today is the day to take the next step and join more than 218,000 others who have already contributed. Time is running out. Bush is already beginning his air war -- not because they're afraid of Howard Dean, but because they're afraid of you:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/revolution

Less than three weeks remain before the start of 2004. We have built the greatest grassroots campaign ever in political history. But it's going to take the full participation of each of us to achieve what we know is possible.

Thank you for all you do.

Joe Trippi
Campaign Manager
Dean for America

P.S. Read the full New York Times article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/po...ns/11REPU.html

P.P.S. The Iowa Caucuses are just 40 days away. Plan now to travel to Iowa to join Howard Dean on the front lines of your campaign -- and have the experience of a lifetime:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/volunteer04

Forward this message to a friend!

Paid for and maintained by DEAN FOR AMERICA
Contributions to Dean For America are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes

So yeah, its a bit of a funding drive mixed in there, but the point is that Bush intends to go after Dean personally, before the primaries are even settled. Personally, I think its rather tactless move, as I shouldn't think the opposition really should have any say in who runs against them. I mean, I wouldn't be against Bush making ads against the Democrats in general, but to go after Dean personally is just rude.

But then I am a Dean man. Anyway, what are your opinions on the matter?

Sky Warrior Bob
- Edit: I read the actual Times article, and a person could make the arguement that Bush attacking Dean as early as January isn't a sure thing, but merely something that has been put forward, just for the Bush team to think about. I'll put up the link, so you can make up your own minds on the matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/po...ns/11REPU.html

I actually doubt that for two reasons. One, if Bush and company did belive that they could beat Dean, why would they attack him before the primary? If anything, they should wait and see if he takes the nomination and then slam him. Two, most of the other democrats running for the nomination are doing a pretty good job of it for them.

My conclusion: fundrasing propaganda.

Actually, if you read the article, it seems to suggest that at least some on the Bush team, or at least those who help advise it, think that Dean would present the toughest challenger to Bush. That's why pre-emptive ad campaigns are suggested, to make sure that Dean doesn't win the primary.

Of course, the article itself presents these items in a speculative manner, suggesting that the Bush team hasn't made up their minds. Dean, for both means of promoting donations, as well as taking the more cynical view, has gone ahead and taken this article as fact.

Which, IMO is the best course of action, as he'll certainly need the extra cash if Bush does go this route, and if he doesn't, extra money doesn't hurt either.

Sky Warrior Bob

why does Bush need to attack dean? the other democrat candidates do it for him!

But then maybe Bush's campaign is just figuring that Dean's a sure bet for the candidacy, so they'll counter his momentum NOW, rather then waiting till later.

Dean sure does seem like the best bet at this point. But i don't suspect that the other candidates are about to roll over and die just yet. Dean's bucked the democrat establishment, and i think there's a group of people that will fight him tooth adnnail over control of the DNC.

also, Gore's endorsement of Dean apparently got Leiberman's campaign a quarter million in donations with in the next two days! It seems Leiberman got fired up about that Gore endorsement.

not that i'd put money on leiberman, mind you. just pointing that out.

we shall see, we shall see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthZeth

also, Gore's endorsement of Dean apparently got Leiberman's campaign a quarter million in donations with in the next two days! It seems Leiberman got fired up about that Gore endorsement.

Just noticed this...

Yeah, that's great and all. Of course, Dean got 600,000+ in the next two days. So, while Liberman's donations might have kicked up a notch, its nothing compared to Dean.

(Edit)
And I'm putting up an attachment I just found, that was taken on the Friday of that week.

Sky Warrior Bob

Being a third party man myself, the more bickering the major parties do and the more they damage each others' reputations, the better.

Meh. In Vermont, we have the Progressive Party, and it does very well. In fact, I'm pretty sure Berrie Sanders (,Vt's Guy in Congress), is one of 'em (althogh, on his web site only has links to Progressive sites, but only labels Bernie as an Independent).

Anyway, there's no drag through the mud free for all here, and I see no reason to drag down either the Democrats or Republicans, just so a third party can get in.

The problem, IMO with third parties, is that too many try to come out of nowhere, and just jump into top billing positions. I mean, if third parties tried for city councilmen, and even secretarial positions first, instead of jumping for the big positions, they'd have far more of a chance. It'd take career politicians, who are willing to work with less then the two big parties can offer.

Sky Warrior Bob
- Berrnie's site: http://bernie.house.gov/

The problem with third parties is that in some states they're forced to run for big elections or they're deregristered as a party. For example I know a lot of Greens don't want to run a presidental candinate but they're being forced to do so. The question is do you do a half ass job at running for a big office that will make you look bad, or give it everything you got at the cost of smaller offices?

I don't think they're forced, per say. Its just they're not eligble for certain funding if they don't put anyone up.

Sky Warrior Bob

Nice to see my fellow Dean Men speaking up. I went to his speech in Santa Barbara, and he completely blew me away. so, um...yay Dean!