Skip to comments.
The Dean dilemma (NOVAK)
TownHall ^
| 12/22/2004
| Robert Novak
Posted on 12/22/2003 3:05:20 AM PST by NYS_Eric
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
To: Grut
LOL
If memory serves, the ENTIRE matter, and the use of the word "treason" did not originate at FR,
but in the DNC and those who followed Wilson in his Plame game.
21
posted on
12/22/2003 4:48:15 AM PST
by
Diogenesis
(If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
To: PGalt
The American Soldier is the Person of the Year (2003) for fighting foreign enemies. The American Voter is the Person of the Year (2004) for fighting domestic enemies.
Well said. I hope your prediction comes true.
Amen.
To: Prodigal Son
Novak published her name and her occupation. This triggered a required report from the CIA to the DOJ since she works for the undercover section of the CIA. It is illegal for a federal employee to disclose the name and occupation of people who work for this branch of the CIA. It is not illegal for reporters to publish it.
The interesting thing is that she still works there (at least as of October). She is still covered by this law even though she was outed. That alone tells you the nature of her job. Analyst.
23
posted on
12/22/2003 5:07:39 AM PST
by
tbeatty
To: NYS_Eric
Hillary is out of the question at this point. The only person I see that would sit well with the Deaniacs, might be Gore. If Hillary is forced down the throats of the Deaniacs, 1/3 of the Delegates will walk out of the convention. Not likely, but the Gore endorsement of Dean might have been an establishment play to set up Gore as their candidate who might be able to gain the support of the Deaniacs. I think Gore-Dean is the only plausable alternative to a Dean-led ticket.
Note: Clark is not out of the picture yet.
To: Diogenesis
Sure, sure.
She is so in fear of being "outed" by Novak and having her identity known to the public, just sat down for a photo shoot for the cover of Vanity Fair Magazine.
She and her husband are political operatives whose main objective is to advance their candidate, John Kerry, and discredit George Bush.
Even her husband admitted that when he endorsed Kerry and admitted he had been an 'advior' to John Kerry's campaign since before this whole 'controversy' erupted.
To: Always Right
Note: Clark is not out of the picture yet. *whisper* Clark's dad was Jewish...pass it on *whisper*
26
posted on
12/22/2003 5:18:28 AM PST
by
smith288
("We're going to have the happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap danced with Danny F'n Kay")
To: Prodigal Son
Does anyone else besides Dio think Novak has committed treason? Not anyone who has actually read and understood the Constitution. Or maybe Dio knows of two witnesses to Novak ADHERING to the enemy.
To: NYS_Eric
This situation is made possible by Democratic reforms following the tumult of 1968. In 1972, at least, the party establishment fought to the bitter end attempting to block the nomination of George McGovern, because his loss of 49 states was widely anticipated. The final touch to the reforms has been added in this cycle by Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe, whose front-loading of primaries was designed to pick an early nominee.This paragraph is probably the most significant in the entire article. Dean has said he would replace McAuliffe if nominated and if Dean is nominated the less liberal Democrats may be out for McAuliffe's scalp. Thus, the Clintons could be the biggest losers because it will dawn on liberals and others that the Clintons destroyed all Democrats for their own self interest.
28
posted on
12/22/2003 5:21:36 AM PST
by
monocle
To: Always Right
Dean will be the Dukakis of 2004. Gore's endorsement was shrewd. He realizes that Dean will be the immediate power broker but will ultimately lose the election. Gore will get to choose party powerfuls like DNC chairmen when Dean get's the nomination. It's a way for Gore to move out from the shadow.
The Dems have a dilemma. It's not the presidency, though. They run the real risk of disenfranchising their voters and having them stay home on election day. It's the house and senate losses that will be the biggest story if Dean wins. If Bush continues to do well with the economy and the war on terror, there will be many Dems who will just stay home rather than vote for Dean. This is what I think Dems are really afraid of.
29
posted on
12/22/2003 5:24:39 AM PST
by
tbeatty
To: monocle
Thus, the Clintons could be the biggest losers because it will dawn on liberals and others that the Clintons destroyed all Democrats for their own self interest. Bah! I dont take Democrats to have the smarts to put 1 and 2 together...Hillary is their savior they think... McAuliffe will be sacrificed and Clintbilly will "rescue" it from the far left (remember, democrats think Clintbilly was moderate)
30
posted on
12/22/2003 5:25:02 AM PST
by
smith288
("We're going to have the happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap danced with Danny F'n Kay")
To: NYS_Eric
Even if he is upset in Iowa by Rep. Richard Gephardt, it is hard to imagine Gephardt with enough money in the bank to battle Dean down the long primary election trail. Good news.
Sen. John Kerry is seen as the only Democrat with the potential wherewithal to contest the money-heavy Dean, but Kerry's performance has been one of the year's great political disappointments.
More good news.
As the economic outlook brightens, Democrats depend on the situation in Iraq to defeat Bush. That only deepens the party's dilemma.
Still more good news, especially with Khadaffy's WMD capitulation becoming seen as a result of GWB's tough terrorist policy. We must pray for continued progress in Iraq toward victory and peace.
Joe Trippi last week said the anti-Dean ad on foreign policy "panders to the worst in voters." Actually, the Democrats and Dean are out of step on the issue they think will move the nation. That makes it even more difficult to stop Howard Dean.
With Soros willing to spend a half-billion dollars to defeat GWB, my greatest hope is that Dean will win the nomination. Then, even with Soros' money, a Dean victory is unlikely.
To: RLK
Yep! Hillary to the rescue! ick!
32
posted on
12/22/2003 5:31:54 AM PST
by
Ditter
To: NYS_Eric
but Kerry's performance has been one of the year's great political disappointments.
Ha, ha.< /nelson>
To: monocle; All
All of these posts raise such EXCELLENT points! It's good to know that freepers are on the job analyzing not only the story, but all of the background and repercussions.
PS. Anybody else think the term "Democratic savants" is an oxymoron?
34
posted on
12/22/2003 5:35:39 AM PST
by
alwaysconservative
(The only bad thing about liberal emperors wearing no clothes is their personal hygiene is so bad.)
To: Diogenesis
Novak has betrayed the USA when he OUTED a CIA operative for his mistress(master) at the DNC.Everybody knew who she was; it had been common knowledge for months.
Besides, why did the press wait six months after Novak's revelation to make big deal of it? Nobody said a word when he first made the "revelation".
35
posted on
12/22/2003 5:35:51 AM PST
by
sinkspur
(Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
To: NYS_Eric
He added that he is sure Dean can be stopped but at the cost of unacceptable carnage. Implicitly and reluctantly, therefore, he is swallowing Dean. Methinks this is BS. If the DemonRats thought for a moment they had a viable candidate for Nov. 2004, they'd do whatever was necessary to get him nominated and win back the WH.
To: Prodigal Son
Does anyone else besides Dio think Novak has committed treason? No. It's silly to even assert "treason" over a showboater who outted herself in a magazine last month.
37
posted on
12/22/2003 5:39:26 AM PST
by
sinkspur
(Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
To: monocle; Always Right
The party reformed much after the 1972 disaster, in large part to prevent a takeover of the convention by left-wing operatives. The 1972 convention was steered to McGovern by the radical monority, so protocols were changed to try to prevent that in the future.
Clinton-picked McAwful will be booted by Dean (who, I think, hates the Clintons). The Clintons, according to Rush Limbaugh, have aready planned for their loss of control of the party by arranging the diversion of funds to PACs they control, away from Dem part coffers. They can direct a campaign that will result in Dean's defeat, arranging for a Hil campaign in 2008. She cannot campaign against an incumbent Dem president in 2008 and cannot wait until 2012.
Gore wants to run too, of course, so he endorses Dean in a bid to oust the Clintons. He can emerge as the only viable candidate in 2004, or he can hibernate until 2008 and compete with Hil in 2008. In either case, he bumps the Clintons into lesser power status in the Dem party, boosting his own chances now and in 2008.
To: Always Right
I think Gore-Dean is the only plausable alternative to a Dean-led ticket.It's a fascinating possibility. Even though Gore's Dean endorsement speeches had him shouting "Quagmire!", Gore the chameleon can leave that position behind. It would work. W would still win, but it wouldn't be a shellacking. But, unfortunately for the Democratic Party, Dean is unwilling to do it.
To: NutCrackerBoy
But, unfortunately for the Democratic Party, Dean is unwilling to do it. Let us be thankful for Park Avenue brat egos.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson