Bush Camp Cautiously Favors Dean

[PSU84]

The Los Angeles Times December 12, 2003

Bush Camp Cautiously Favors Dean

By Edwin Chen and Maura Reynolds, Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Howard Dean's continuing momentum in the Democratic presidential race is forcing President Bush's political strategists into a tough balancing act: nourishing their hope of a Bush-Dean race while guarding against overconfidence. "No matter who the Democratic nominee is, any competent Democrat starts out with 46% or 47% of the vote," Charles Black, a veteran Republican strategist, quoted Karl Rove, the president's chief political advisor, as telling him.

But that cautionary mantra contrasts sharply with the public glee with which many on the political right view the prospects of Bush-Dean contest. "Please nominate this man," says the current cover of the conservative magazine National Review, under an unattractive picture of an angry Dean, fists clenched in mid-rant. Many Republicans subscribe to the theory that Dean would be Bush's dream opponent. Their reasoning: Dean, largely untested in the national crucible, opposes the Iraq war, wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts and, as governor of Vermont, signed legislation allowing civil unions between gays. They believe he is so far to the left that he will leave the vast center of the American electorate ripe for Bush's plucking.

<snip>
Republicans eager for a Bush-Dean campaign point to polls showing the president faring better against Dean than against any other major Democratic candidate. For instance, in a recent Time/CNN poll, Bush beat Dean 52% to 40% among registered voters nationwide, while Bush's theoretical vote dropped to 49% to 42% against either Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts or retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bush12dec12,1,5014118.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[CMT]

1. the democrats all wanted Reagan too in 1980

In January, 1980 President Carter had a 20-plus point lead over Reagan and in November, 1980 Reagan beat Carter by ten-points.

In 1992, The Bushies all wanted the scandal plauged small-state governor Bill Clinton to be the nominee and at one time in '92 Clinton was running third behind Bush and Perot.

[David__77]

5. We should not forget the Reagan analogy.

Certainly the effect on a poll-conscious White House could be to pull them "to the center." This is a derivative gain from a Dean candidacy. The Washington punditocracy will be pulled in a certain direction.

[democrat in Tallahassee]

2. then why would they admit this? if it is true wouldn't they want to

keep this info under their hats so we would nominate someone else? Idon't believe a goddam word that comes out of their mouths.

[girl gone mad]

4. Because..

They are supremely arrogant. Let's hope that will be their downfall.

[theivoryqueen]

3. I just saw this on latimes.com - was scratching head wondering

what it all means...

[realFedUp]

6. while running negative ads against him...

This administration says one thing and does another.
I'm sure Dr. Dean will welcome any votes...Dem or Republican.

Nutty strategy...but bring it on!

[bushisanidiot]

7. Rove Is Playing Games. They're Clearly Scared Sh*tless of Dr. Dean

they know the dimwit can't win against Dean or any other strong democratic he wins the primaries with a strong majority. They know AWOL is a lame duck "president" so they are going to start cramming through a bunch of ultra-conservative sh*t before they get their asses booted out.

[bemildred]

9. That's part of it.

The icing on the cake would be if somebody challenges Bush.

[tsipple]

8. OK, One Simple Question...

Imagine for a nanosecond that you were Karl Rove (ick!). There emerges a Democratic frontrunner. Here are your choices of what to say:

1. Say nothing.

No, can't do that, because you're Karl Rove, and keeping quiet is just not in your nature.

2. Say that Bush is really scared and frightened, because he'll lose to the Democratic frontrunner.

Yeah, right.

3. Say the Bush is eager to take on the frontrunner.

Duh!

So, when you think about it (for a nanosecond) in that context, what else are the Republicans going to say? There's nothing else they would say, about any Democrat.