Who is robo-calling against Dean?

It's no secret that Dean has faced some nasty robo-calling and push-polling in Iowa and NH, as well as NM and elsewhere. This exerpt from an upcoming GQ article gives a glimpse of what Dean has faced over the last few weeks:

Fast forward to the days before IA: Trippi's "cell phone rings. It's his pollster, Paul Maslin, who not only has bleak news out of Iowa -- but bleak news out of New Hampshire. Trippi hangs up and stares out the window. His phone rings again. "WHAT? Aw, fuck. I hate this business. This fucking sucks. Okay, thanks." He hangs up. "They're robocalling our ones," he moans. "He has just gotten a report from the field that Dean "ones" are getting bombarded with computer-generated phone calls telling them to make sure to caucus for Dean-then giving them the wrong address." Who would do such a thing? "Kerry," Trippi snaps. "They're the only asshole snake campaign that would do it. Every frickin' day now, I'm reminded of why I got out of this in the first place."

The Dean campaign keeps fingering the Kerry camp, and it's hard to see who else might be responsible.

The calls were targeted at Dean in Iowa and NH -- the two states that were must-wins for both Dean and Kerry. Gephardt might've been behind a robo-calling effort in Iowa, but he'd have no reason to do the same in NH.

Who else, the Republicans? Problem is that by all reports, these robo calls have specifically targeted Dean's "1s" and "2s". That level of sophistication would require an extent of polling unlikely from the GOP. Only Kerry would have conducted the type of polling identifying levels of support for Dean in both Iowa and NH.

So it's all anecdotal, but the evidence suggests dirty tricks from the Kerry campaign. The thought literally makes me want to puke (some of the calls suggest Dean is not a real Christian because he's married to a Jew). None of the other candidates have faced this type of puke tactics, so there's only one guy engaging in it.

God help Kerry if real evidence emerges.

•  asdf

  God won't help Kerry for this.

  by TealVeal on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 09:53:16 PM PDT

  •  subject

    and I damn sure won't either.

    "Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth! It is wise and terrible."

    by section29 on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 09:56:49 PM PDT

    •  Very reminiscent of Bush I

      Like Bush I, Kerry probably makes sure to have the kind of people who will know to do the dirty stuff.  Its an elitist mentality that entitles him to win whatever it takes.  

      Bush I didn't tell Atwater to set up "independent" groups to run the Willie Horton ad.  He didn't have to.  Atwater knew that was what he was there to do.

      by Lois on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:31:48 AM PDT

      •  in-fighting.

        g*dd*mn.

        i can't believe the naderite like pissing and moaning by dean supporters i see here on atrios etc... as a very far left leaning minnesota wellstone (bless his sole) democrat (old enough to have helped elect him the first time) ... i would love to see a president dean. that said ... we have got to support the candidate that has a chance at beating bush (current polls give kerry the edge over bush) and has been picked by voters (who although you may not believe it ... are every bit as smart and as you are). after careful deliberation in their respective states. don't you think operatives within the right wing would be above turning deans supporters against kerry? or that at some point - dirty tricks within the kerry campaign would eventually be leaked by someone? a long time ago i learned from an old crook - the only way to keep a secret is to keep it to yourself.

        enough conspiracy theorizing that only helps elect one man: bush. get behind the dem nominee whomever he is ... or the entire world will suffer for forseeable future, and your butterfly wings flapping will have helped create that hurricane.

        first posted on pandagon

        by spk420 on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:38:43 AM PDT

        •  can't eat enough to vomit enough

          What a load of crap.  

          get behind the dem nominee whomever he is

          After carefully deliberating a Newsweek poll, what? In any event, that sentence--which isn't the word I want, but I'm tired--made me mad: "[G]et behind the dem nominee[,] WHOEVER he is," not "WHOMEVER." Why on earth would it be "whom"?

          by RedbankSA on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 05:17:53 AM PDT

          •  Don't make yourself look even stupider, please

            WHy on earth would it be "whom"?

            Whom is the object form of the defenite pronoun who.

            Nominative form is who.

            You are getting confused because it could be a sentence itself, but although it is an independent clause it is still the anteceedent of nominee. And any pronoun for nominee has to be in objective form because nominee is the object.  

            Objective
            Get behind whom?
            Get behind him?

            Nominative:
            Get behind who?
            Get behind he?

            See how little sense it makes whenever you use the nominative forms?

            Pull your head out of your ass

            by Merkwurdigliebe on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 08:45:42 AM PDT

            •  Um...

              A bit dramatic for someone who forgot to spellcheck. Moving right along...

              by swanwilliam on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:55:57 PM PDT

            •  Might want to remove your own head first

              "Nominee" is the antecedent of "whomever" in your sentence, so you described it incorrectly when you said that the word whomever "is still the anteceedent[sic] of nominee."

              One clue on that score should have been the fact that the ANTEcedent comes before the pronoun that refers to that antecedent.  Ante means before.  Get it?

              More importantly, the case of the pronoun (either nominative or objective) is NOT dependent on the case of its antecedent.  The pronoun's case depends upon the use of the pronoun in its own clause.

              Therefore, the correct way to express the above is indeed:  "Get behind the Dem nominee, whoever he is."  Whoever is a predicate nominative in the dependent clause.

              So you are the one who is confused.  Your assertion that "any pronoun for nominee has to be in objective form because nominee is the object" is just plain wrong.

              How does this sound to you?

                I will vote for the candidate whom speaks best in the debate.

              Sounds wrong, doesn't it?  Although the antecedent is candidate, and candidate is objective here, there's no way that "whom" can serve as the subject for the dependent clause.

              The correct version would read:  I will vote for the candidate who speaks best in the debate.

              Alternately, you might say:  I will vote for the candidate whom the party chooses.

              There, whom is correct, because it is the object of the clause -- "The party chooses whom?"

              So please, heed your own warnings, and don't make yourself look any stupider.

              by mattfwood on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 03:38:13 PM PDT

            •  Might want to remove your own head first

              "Nominee" is the antecedent of "whomever" in your sentence, so you described it incorrectly when you said that the word whomever "is still the anteceedent[sic] of nominee."

              One clue on that score should have been the fact that the ANTEcedent comes before the pronoun that refers to that antecedent.  Ante means before.  Get it?

              More importantly, the case of the pronoun (either nominative or objective) is NOT dependent on the case of its antecedent.  The pronoun's case depends upon the use of the pronoun in its own clause.

              Therefore, the correct way to express the above is indeed:  "Get behind the Dem nominee, whoever he is."  Whoever is a predicate nominative in the dependent clause.

              So you are the one who is confused.  Your assertion that "any pronoun for nominee has to be in objective form because nominee is the object" is just plain wrong.

              How does this sound to you?

                I will vote for the candidate whom speaks best in the debate.

              Sounds wrong, doesn't it?  Although the antecedent is candidate, and candidate is objective here, there's no way that "whom" can serve as the subject for the dependent clause.

              The correct version would read:  I will vote for the candidate who speaks best in the debate.

              Alternately, you might say:  I will vote for the candidate whom the party chooses.

              There, whom is correct, because it is the object of the clause -- "The party chooses whom?"

              So please, heed your own warnings, and don't make yourself look any stupider.

              by mattfwood on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 03:46:35 PM PDT

            •  Of course it is NOT 'whom'

              My poor benighted friend - you don't even know what a linking verb is (also known as a "copula), and you're waxing authoritatively on a grammatical matter. (And then there were the serial misspellings. Ouch!)

              The verb "to be," from which the inflected verb "is" comes, is a linking verb - NOT a transitive verb. Linking verbs NEVER have objects, therefore the objective form WHOMever is incorrect. Rather, it takes a SUBJECT compliment, in this case WHOever.

              It is for this same reason that, when answering the phone, for example, one says "This is HE" or This is SHE," NOT "This is him" or "This is her."

              Does one say "WHOM is that person?" Of course not.

              Last example...

              "I don't know WHO he is, but WHOever he is, he seems pretty ignorant"

              Get it?

              by provoter on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 10:44:02 PM PDT

            •  Of course it is NOT 'whom'

              My poor benighted friend - you don't even know what a linking verb is (also known as a "copula), and you're waxing authoritatively on a grammatical matter. (And then there were the serial misspellings. Ouch!)

              The verb "to be," from which the inflected verb "is" comes, is a linking verb - NOT a transitive verb. Linking verbs NEVER have objects, therefore the objective form WHOMever is incorrect. Rather, it takes a SUBJECT compliment, in this case WHOever.

              It is for this same reason that, when answering the phone, for example, one says "This is HE" or This is SHE," NOT "This is him" or "This is her."

              Does one say "WHOM is that person?" Of course not.

              Last example...

              "I don't know WHO he is, but WHOever he is, he seems pretty ignorant"

              Get it?

              by provoter on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 10:46:55 PM PDT

        •  Sorry

          But - and I am keeping an open mind here, because the source of these calls is still undetermined - there is no way in hell I could vote for a Democrat who would pull a stunt like this against a fellow Dem.

          I don't care who it is. Stunts like this are beyond the pale . . . unless used against the Goopers, of course.

          by Senor Biggles on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 10:00:40 AM PDT

        •  Sure, I'll vote for Kerry in the GE

          but until then I'll pull no punches.

          by Doug in SF on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:15:55 PM PDT

        •  bullsh!t

          we have got to support the candidate that has a chance at beating bush (current polls give kerry the edge over bush)

          The relentless "unelectable" smear against Dean has turned into a clear case of a self-fullfilling prophecy. It originates from the DLC and is parroted by his opponents and the media. The public has been fooled, and so now this baseless charge has come true.

          by miasmo on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 04:33:10 PM PDT

    •  Push polling in Iowa

      I WAS  a Dean 1 in Iowa. I never received such a call. You might find it hard to believe, but in Iowa the caucus locations can be found in your local  paper. I had EVERY campaign call me to see if I knew where my caucus was. Many caucuses in Iowa are at someone's house! I just don't see that many people getting confused. If you are elderly, chances are someone's campaign picked you up and took you to your caucus.
       Why Dean lost in Iowa cannot be blamed on a few phone calls.( Are you trying to tell me such a message wasn't caught on ONE person's phone mail for proof of such a practice?) He lost because many people were undecided until the very end. Hollywood stars and Al Gore don't have much sway here.
      The endorsement of John Edwards by the Des Moines Register cannot be underestimated. His campaign in Iowa was chaired by Roxanne Conlin, a very popular politition in Iowa. He won over a lot of people at the very end who went to see him after the endorsement by the state paper. His name seemed to be on everyone's lips the weekend before the caucus.
      I feel that many Iowans were very excited about the many kids that Dean brought into the party. So many people I talked to hated to caucus for someone else and let the kids down. But, in the end they wanted someone less risky.
      In my humble opinion they admired his campaign and ideas, but just didn't like him or trust him.
      There were many people at my caucus who saw all their hopes dashed by a poor showing of their candidate.But only one campaign and it's believers have handled it with class- and that is the campaign of Dick Gephardt. You win some and lose some.Think of the people who have a lot more to lose in this election than a disappointment that their man didn't win. People who need health care, civil rights, a job, an education, retirement security.

      by misskaty on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 05:11:38 PM PDT

    •  Worster Case Scenario

      God help us all if anything comes out linking Kerry to this AFTER he has the nomination.

      by zuzu on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 09:32:54 PM PDT

      •  It will.

        You know it will. Even if it isn't true, even if it was really Rove and his minions behind this... unless it can definitely be tracked to someone, right away, rumors will certainly be circulated during the general that it can be blamed on (substitute eventual Dem nominee here).

        by Canadian Reader on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 05:07:54 PM PDT

  •  What took you so long Kos

    This board has had reputable posters saying this for the last 10-14 days, and kerry's robots have been bashing and slashing anyone discussing this issue

    Kerry PUSH POLLING in NH
    http://al-rodgers.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/2004/1/26/01827/5405/section/2/Diary

    Will the Kerry Robots Bash you to?

    Few Comments

    I know many here are going to trash you for bringing this stuff up.  They are going to really go off on you.

    But people do need to see this stuff now although I think most of us are very critical of attacking our fellow DEMS. The GOP says they have a massive stack of stuff they are WAITING to throw at Kerry and I am sure this is one of them.

    I caution those who are going to hit Al ROdgers hard for bringing this stuff up to take a step back and look at what happened to Dean.  When he was the frontrunner he got everything but the kitchen sink thrown at him and many here told Dean supporters to shut up and take it.....if you can't take the heat get out the kitchen. Well I would tell those people to follow their own words and instead of bashing Mr. Rodgers instead seek to refute the charges in the best way you can.

    by Cederico on Mon Jan 26th, 2004 at 16:53:55 GMT
    
    

    by Al Rodgers on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:14:34 PM PDT

    •  Posters Testify on Kerry's Push Poll

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/26/01827/5405

      Summary at top

      Testimony at bottom

      by Al Rodgers on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:43:02 PM PDT

    •  South Carolina II ABC News Catches Dirty Kerry

      Kerry: Push Polls & Dirty Tricks?
      by RA
      Fri Jan 23rd, 2004 at 17:07:36 GMT

      Did Kerry win Iowa like Bush won his nomination against McCain?  With push polls?
      Stealth Negativity?  Recording Reveals Kerry Operative Dissing Dean in Campaign Call

      By Jake Tapper
      ABCNEWS.com

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/23/17736/6589

      by Al Rodgers on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:51:53 PM PDT

    •  Did the "robo-calls" affect the polls?

      The polls in Iowa in the last few days before the caucus showed Kerry and Edwards surging up and Dean and Gephardt falling back. This momentum clearly continued and was exacerbated by the caucus system ... if you don't have quite enough supporters to reach the 15% threshhold, you go to another candidate's group and get 0 delegates from that precinct.
      If there were widespread cases of people actually ending up at the wrong place for their caucus, this would have at least been reported somewhere by a reputable news organization. Are there some dirty tactics in elections? Sure, but if they're really significant and widespread, they're going to at least get SOME legitimate coverage.

      I'm sorry, but this robo-calling issue is just an excuse that has found an eager audience. Many people who first liked Dean were not entirely sold on him and the scrutiny of being the front-runner cost him dearly -- I know, because I went to the caucuses undecided between Dean and Edwards, and ended up going with Edwards. I just felt Dean had reversed himself and revised his positions too many times, and the GOP would eat him alive.
      

      by MeanBone on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 09:17:33 AM PDT

      •  But also.

        ...there was calling at 4am (documented, but not by Kerry, but where there's smoke there's fire), and push-polling.

        by Doug in SF on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:18:10 PM PDT

  •  Simplest Explanation is a Dean Staff Mistake

    If the main complaint is that Dean's 1's were being called with the wrong caucus address - isn't the simplest explanation that some kid in Dean's headquarters screwed up the address?

    by dbratl on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:17:52 PM PDT

    •  They didn't use robocallers

      by Asak on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:27:48 PM PDT

      •  asdf

        We had the correct addresses too.

        by TealVeal on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:44:47 PM PDT

      •  Moreover..

          That wouldn't explain the New Hampshire shenanigans...the 2:00 AM phone calls, and the attempted squelching of the Independent vote...back when that vote was heading to Dean and Clark.
        

        by Morat on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:44:54 PM PDT

      •  Read the quote

         - - He hangs up. "They're robocalling our ones," he moans. "He has just gotten a report from the field that Dean "ones" are getting bombarded with computer-generated phone calls telling them to make sure to caucus for Dean-then giving them the wrong address." Who would do such a thing? "Kerry," Trippi snaps.  - -

        Before thinking to himself, "Oh shoot, was the caucus on Walnut Street . . . or Maple street!?!"

        Always go for the simplest explanation - someone at Dean Headquarters got the address wrong.

        by dbratl on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:50:24 PM PDT

        •  Kerry is the easiest explanation

          Hey dumbass... Dean Didnt Robocall... Therefore it would require about 500 kids to fuck up thousands of Calls... Plus, We know Kerry is a fuckstick, so theres the explanation

          He just lost my general election vote

          by Matt in Wisconi on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:15:00 AM PDT

        •  Occam's Razor sliced through horseshit

          Occam's Razor says that one should assume the simplest answer that accounts for all the known facts.

          Known facts:

          • Robo-calls
          • Calling Dean 1s and 2s.
          • Giving incorrect addresses for polling/caucus places
          • Some are beginning to make slimy suggestions about Dean's faith, or his wife's.

          Could it be a blundering Dean staff?
          No.  Dean's campaign's using live callers, not robo-calls.  Erroneous addresses would work if it happened in one or two places, max -- but this is widespread, apparently, and repeating in IA and NH. And why would Dean's campaign be questioning his faith and his wife's?  

          Could it be Rove?
          Maybe--but highly unlikely.  There's no signs of the GOP closely polling Democrats to identify Dean 1s and 2s.

          Could it be Kerry?
          Entirely plausible.  Lehane's back aboard, a specialist in the lowest tactics.  Would have easy access to polling that would identify Dean's 1s and 2s.

          Occam's Razor says that it's probably Kerry.

          This sort of thing is going to be very widespread news among Dean supporters.  And Kerry better hope that it doesn't, because this is exactly the kind of thing that will persuade several hundred thousand voters that ABB doesn't apply to Kerry--that he'd simply be trading one scummy, venal prick for another.  In which case, why not vote for some third party candidate?

          Hell, it makes me feel that way now--and I was willing to vote for Kerry.

          by ogre on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:09:52 AM PDT

          •  huh?

            Lehane's back aboard, a specialist in the lowest tactics.  

            Again with blaming LeHane when something ugly is reported.  He is still working for Clark as far as I know.  And the obsession with him boggles the mind.  He isn't the anti-christ after all.

            by mikepridmore on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 03:02:08 AM PDT

            •  He's pretty close

              He doesn't get the press, but if ther eis a democratic Atwater, its Lehane.

              by kcr on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:52:47 PM PDT

            •  You're right

              I was tired, and pissed... and that was a brainfart, pure and simple.

              Whouley, not Lehane.

              Different vermin, same sewer.

              My apologies for the factual error. (I guess the association of Lehane having been with Kerry... must have been what stuck when I was cranky and fatigued)

              by ogre on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:18:36 PM PDT

    •  This kind of garbage is common

      here in Louisiana.  I'm not surprised.  Not only are people told the wrong polling spots, but the regular ones are also moved at the last minute.

      by nolalily on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:18:28 AM PDT

      •  but

        Louisiana has a long and distinguished history of poll fraud, dating all the way back to Reconstruction and then fun folks like Leander Perez. (If you don't know his story, look it up. He makes DeLay look like fucking Kris Kringle.)

        Nothing against the people or state of LA. Their politicos play for keeps down there.

        by GorgeousOrifice on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:25:34 AM PDT

    •  DBRATL

      Gotta a question....

      Why are you troll rating anyone who says that the Dean campaign didn't use recorded messages?

      In fact, why are you pushing it as a "Dean mistake" when there seems to be enough evidence (poll testimonials) as well as media investigating pointing to the opposite?

      by Demise on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:39:27 AM PDT

      •  Why This Story is Self Defeating

        First, I'm not troll rating anyone who says this is a conspiracy, and what about the Troll ratings I get for posting an alternative hypothesis?

        The reason I keep pushing the fact that it could be a mistake is because I think the whole story is sour grapes bullshit.  

        Here are a few of my main objections to the whiney, self-defeating, conspiratorial, conjectures going on this post.

        1.  This kind of speculative Bullshit is what dogged Clinton for eight years - Vince Foster's murder, his illegitimate love child, ad nausea.  The most alarming thing about it was the Left bought into the obvious Heritage Foundation story plants without any shred of evidence.  
        2.  The article mentions robo-calling with the wrong address, but on this thread that has expanded to every paranoid campaign fantasy in the book, including the stuff about Dean's Jewish wife.  The Jewish wife thing is itself, if true, which I highly doubt, pretty much excludes Kerry from a possible participant.  One, I know for a fact he would never condone that, and two even if you believe your wild "Kerry is an Slimy Sea Monster" stuff people are posting here (and you are talking about a decorated war hero who marched on Washington against Nixon before most of these posters were even born!), its just too risky to do something like that.  There is no way even the W teams (who ARE a bunch of slimy sea monsters) would do calls like that.  
        3.  If this practice was so widespread, why aren't there any tape recordings of these calls?  Didn't someone have an answering machine they could switch on.  If this practice were so widespread, there would be some evidence other than a supposed Trippi uttering in a not-yet-published article of GQ.  Without evidence, this story is a joke.  
        4. You hear this stuff, anytime a popular candidate loses.  When Brown lost in New York, we all griped about how Clinton Staffers tore down our signs.  When Dinkins lost to Giuliani, we all blew out of proportion stories about cops keeping inner city blacks from the polls (I was in Brownsville on election day 1993 - Didn't happen). Gore lost in Florida because of the purging of the voter lists (sure that didn't help, but Gore lost in Florida because starry-eyed kids voted for Nader).  I'm not saying Dean can't win the nomination, but I guarantee he has no chance if all his people sit here wallowing in this "woe-is-me, I got dirty tricked" crap.
        5.  Dean lost in Iowa because DEMOCRATS perceived that he has no chance against Bush, Before Iowa all I heard from any of my committed (over age 30 friends) was, "Is Dean actually the candidate we're going go with in this thing?  We're gonna get killed." Do you under-30's really think you have the right to tell life-long Democrats who've fought these wars their entire live's that the only reason your candidate could possibly lose is because he got dirty tricked?   Point being, there are reasons why candidates win and candidates lose.  Dean fell in Iowa sure, but Kerry also ROSE in Iowa.  No one has ever gotten dirty-tricked from all directions like Clinton did (his opponents launched a phony impeachment against him, they published books calling him a murderer, they made up stories about his wife being a lesbian), but he won because he's a good candidate. Even if all the wildest stuff on here were true, which I sincerely doubt, it wouldn't make any difference if Dean were a good enough Candidate.  Here in Georgia I don't know a single Democrat over age 30 who supports Dean, and the campaigns haven't spent one red cent here.  Unlike Northeasterners, here in Georgia, with no state government to protect us, we actually KNOW what its like to live under Republican rule, which is why we're so, committed to ending it.    
        6.  Say Dean does find a way to make pigs fly and becomes the candidate?  Are you gonna drag this whiney, the whole world is against me crap into the general election?
        7.  Democrats shouldn't make unsubstantiated charges against other Democrats in a public forum without evidence.  Give me evidence and this is a different story, but there is none, so we should drop it. This story is like when I go to Drudge and see "Dean has sex with monkey . . . Developing" In other words, it's an unsubstantiated smear.
        8.  Finally, its just plain funny to me to think about all these incredibly earnest youngsters going to the end of the earth to find a "Kerry-connection" when the answer could be as simple as a wrong address.  Even if you hate my views, you gotta admit the "Walnut Street . . . or Maple Street!?!" thought is funny.

        by dbratl on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 10:12:29 AM PDT

        •  Nice Try

          Nice Try.  But certain facts are indisputable.  First that someone was using Robocalls to send inaccurate information and smear Dean.  What is disputable is which campaign did it,  and who from the campaign knew it was going on.

          It should not be dropped, it should be investigated.  Perhaps quietly but thoroughly so that we know that everything is on the up and up and then we will have no misgivings about supporting Kerry should he become the nominee.

          by Bri on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 10:39:14 AM PDT

          •  A quiet investigation would fine

            I would support a quiet investigation.  That would be great.  Investigate, and keep it quiet unless real evidence emerges.  

            Since I don't think it happened, and if it did, I don't think it came from Kerry, he shouldn't have anything to hide in an investigation.  Is there a Kos'er out there qualified to compile hard evidence soberly and quietly?

            by dbratl on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 11:38:21 AM PDT

            •  Clurg..

              Ok, now you troll rate me simply for asking you a question.

              Let's get something straight- you rated people who were simply stating that Dean didn't use recorded phone calls with a "1", they didn't even argue it either way just pointed out that the campaign didn't use that methodology.

              That's not trolling.

              There is a difference between posting something like, "kerry's an evil putz who no doubt used these tactics" and an open discussion on what happened. What you are doing is contributing to what you are trying to argue against- divisive comments.

              The rating system is not suppose to be abused like this. If you don't agree with someone then post an opposite view don't troll rate. The system is for those who post things that are obviously disrespectful and add squat to the conversation.

              If you want to troll rate this post too feel free- I'm pretty sure it won't chink my TUS.

              by Demise on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:20:58 PM PDT

              •  What are you talking about?

                You're insane?  I am not the demon Troll rater.  The only person I gave a 1 too is the guy who called me a dumbass, and people who put one sentence comments up.

                Someone besides me must be giving them 1's.  

                Besides, who cares what your comments are rated?

                Geez.

                by dbratl on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:19:37 PM PDT

                •  One sentence comments

                  Ya, you troll rated one sentence comments that focused on the fact that Dean's campaign didn't use recorded calls- it's a valid response to your finger pointing at DFA.

                  If you don't use recorded calls, how could a Dean campaign staffer make a mistake?

                  Then, you troll rate me simply for asking what is motivating you to act in this manner.

                  Whatever. I must be insane.

                  by Demise on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 06:44:13 PM PDT

                  •  eye roll

                    by dbratl on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 07:01:19 PM PDT

        •  Excellent post

          ...thank you!

          Point #5 is especially good.  Deaniacs are failing to acknowledge that Dean simply wasn't able to "close the deal" with Iowa voters - and it's not because his #1s or #2s weren't able to find the caucuses.  Besides, his #1s should know where the caucuses are being held regardless of a last minute "reminder" phone call if they were really good #1s.  It's my understanding that Kerry's campaign did a better job at preparing their #1s and that's part of the reason they were able to do so well in the caucuses.

          by Aylene on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:49:56 PM PDT

          •  But

            That has nothing to do with whether Kerry is robo-calling or not. The evidence is there. Once again, this point may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with the accusation.

            by Doug in SF on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:23:36 PM PDT

  •  The DNC??

    Has anyone considered that it might just be the DNC pulling this shit?

    I mean, I'm not saying that Kerry doesn't have the capacity to do this.  But he doesn't need to - we already know the entire Democratic establishment is anti-Dean.   I personally think its them.

    But then again, maybe I'm just in denial because it would absolutely KILL me to vote for kerry if he's the dirtbag makign these calls.

    by conntexdem on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:56:55 PM PDT

    •  DNC

      I saw a story that said that some DNC staffers were giving anti-Dean stuff to reporters.  Is this true?  If so, I will cancel my DNC donation and stick with MoveOn.  

      The only good thing is that if it is Kerry, we can only hope he will be doing the same stuff in the general against Bush.  But what a sorry spe4ctacle for the country to go through.

      by Mimikatz on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:35:34 PM PDT

•  Oh, I don't know

  I bet Unka Karl did "the type of polling identifying levels of support for Dean in both Iowa and NH."

  Or at least had someone snatch the report for him.

  by dave on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 09:53:16 PM PDT

  •  where from?

    what a snake, if true.
    Anyhow, where'd you get this excerpt from?

    by sotoro on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 09:54:19 PM PDT

    •  where

      it's being circulated by GQs PR department. They thought they had a juicy scoop of an article, then Trippi was fired and worried the piece will be irrelevant when it finally arrives, they're trying to get some buzz out of it now.

      by kos on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:07:30 PM PDT

      •  Quick question

        Kos,

        How would a rival campaign get access to a Dean Campaign Voter ID file?  Without the voter file it would be impossible to determine who were ones for Dean on a widespread basis.  

        On the other hand, I suppose a rival campaign when IDing voters who said they were for Dean could have counted them as 1's for Dean and got the info that way.  The only problem here is that it would take a signifcant amount of time (including time taken away from positive voter ID for the participating campaign).  Its possible that a Republican outfit with too much time on their hands could have done it too.

        I can promise you that the Gephardt campaign had nothing to do with this, if true.

        by TX Dem in DC on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 03:43:21 PM PDT

  •  Why would the repubs do this?

    I bet Unka Karl did "the type of polling identifying levels of support for Dean in both Iowa and NH."

     And why would they single out Dean? How would this benefit the GOP?

    Who stood to benefit most from this expenditure of effort and funds? 'Unka Karl' is the least likely source.

    by colleen on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:14:20 PM PDT

    •  It takes a canvass, not a poll

      You can only identify who someone else's 1s and 2s (your own 5s and 4s, respectively) are by doing your own canvass.  I canvassed for Dean in NH, I never pushed a 5 for who they were supporting but a number of them volunteered it.  I imagine the canvass of the campaign that ran the robocalls pushed their 4s and 5s for who they were leaning to exactly for that kind of targeted BS.  The only campaigns in NH with that sort of comprehensive on the ground canvass that I could see were Dean and Kerry, and I doubt DFA would run attack robos at their own 1s.  (If the GOP was running its own canvass of Democrats up there we'd have come across traces of it very quickly.)

      by Dancing Larry on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:33:05 PM PDT

      •  There are many ways to do this with a call, Lar...

        If the caller identifies himself/herself as being from the Dean campaign, supporters most likely will pipe up and say, "Great!  I'm for your guy!"

        I had an 81-year-old guy who was former chairman of the Democratic Party in his county tell me that is why he never answers callers who ask him who he is supporting, regardless of which campaign they claim to be from.

        by Bob Johnson on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:42:13 PM PDT

        •  It's too bad I have called ID now...

          But silence usually works well--you let them do all the talking and you'll find out what they're up to. Or they'll hang up.

          by m on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:33:28 PM PDT

      •  Very clever anaylsis of a possibility

        Everyone expected a Dean loss in New Hampshire due to Dean's unexpected showing in Iowa.  If you remember, Dean was leading in almost every poll in the U.S. despite the piles and piles or sh*t the media had been hurling at him.  It would make sense that one of the other more devious candidates might be tempted to stop him anyway he can.  Dean might not have won Iowa, but he surely must have had more than 16% of the vote.  And then....came his cheer misinterpreted around the world.  Sheesh.  

        Watching Dean tank after Iowa was one of the saddest disappointments of my life.

        Can Dean pull this one around?

        by nolalily on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:27:08 AM PDT

      •  Smell The Burning Toast

        "God help Kerry if real evidence emerges."

        Bring it on. Because there AIN'T any evidence. In fact I believe this is just a fake story planted by desperate Dean folks so they can blame their failing campaign on anyone but themselves. Sure, I don't have any evidence of this but then neither does Dean or kos about this robo-calling!

        Think about it. Wouldn't somebody's answering machine have RECORDED one of these robo-calls so the Dean campaign could put out a big press story on it? The internet gurus (such as kos) could make an mp3 of it and run it all over the web. So far all we have is he said, she said. In fact, how do we know the Dean campaign didn't robo-call people and screw it up? That's what happens when you leave it all up to computers for doing such things as "robo-calling".

        But jeez, there's a real easy way to figure out who did it. Trace the calls. File a police report and have them investigate where the calls came from IF you're really serious about finding out WHO did it. But then again you can't smear a campaign if you do something like that and it turns out to be a hoax.

        Kerry's campaign had to deal with Clark and Dean canvassers telling people in Iowa and NH and beyond that Kerry had cancer and would die in office but you didn't see Kerry's campaign crying about it.

        KOS worked for Dean! So if you follow grade school journalistic standards on sour grapes his being a source for this smear is suspect. This desperation signals to me that Dean is toast. Burnt dried out toast.

        by The Observer on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 04:16:36 AM PDT

        •  Um,

          One WAS recorded live on camera, and robo-calls don't talk to answering machines (unless you want them to).

          by Doug in SF on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:27:33 PM PDT

    •  Unka Karl

      Who stood to benefit most from this expenditure of effort and funds?

      Unka Karl's got $200+ million to spend. A little operation like this would be a drop in the bucket. I wouldn't doubt they already have a full dossier on all the Dems, right down to Kucinich. If they didn't do the research themselves, you can bet they had operatives in all the Iowa HQs pilfering whatever they could amidst the chaos.

      Mainly, I doubt it's a Dem operation because of the "Jew" angle. That's got the Bush campaign written all over it.

      by dave on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:41:25 PM PDT

      •  Except that

        the Kerry campaign was already caught push polling in Iowa, otherwise I'd be quicker to agree with you.

        by Thumb on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:49:27 PM PDT

        •  tinfoil alert....

          What if Bush has someone in the Kerry organization working for him? This smells like it was DESIGNED to be caught fairly quickly. Take down the target, then take down the targeter.

          Two birds with one stone, anyone?

          by sagesource on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:06:31 PM PDT

          •  Nah

            That sets the stage for Edwards... I doubt Bush would want Edwards more than Dean or Kerry.

            -j

            by Jer on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:08:09 AM PDT

            •  remember W is an idiot....

              Well, this is the same guy who has ended up with Sistani rather than Saddam....

              by sagesource on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:14:16 AM PDT

          •  Try again

            Do you really think a mole could set up all this and not be spotted?

            They'd need access to the canvassing data, and the ability to set up and run the robo systems out of the Kerry campaign.  That would be quite a trick.

            Far easier to assume that it's coming from someone who has the backing and materials and the authorization... and money.

            by ogre on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:17:52 AM PDT

            •  mole

              Just go back to 2000, Gore was supposed to have a mole in the Bush camp with videos of practice debates and the story turned out it was a rogue, not planted by Gore but I always thought the real story was they were planted by Bush/Rove to make it appear Gore was responsible.

              by NebraskaDem on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:54:04 AM PDT

      •  You're not answering my questions.

        you can bet they had operatives in all the Iowa HQs pilfering whatever they could amidst the chaos

         I'm aware they have money but there's little or no benefit to them in possibly exposing themselves in this manner and spending all the money. And why single Dean out?

        I'm not too interested in allegations designed to focus attention away from the obvious, especially when there hasn't been one bit of evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, for what you suggest and it makes noo sense. One person did benefit but he isn't a republican.

        by colleen on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:40:10 PM PDT

        •  Dean was the frontrunner ...

          Kerry was in the shadows. Michael Whouley is an amazing strategist. They had people canvassing too. So, they know who is voting for who.

          by radiotony on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:41:34 PM PDT

      •  "Jew Angle"

        Maybe its my own sensitivity but the Edwards' Iwoa Caucus handbook directing their people to refer to Dean as a "Park Avenue Eltist" struck me as possible jew baiting at the time.

        by Lcohen on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:52:29 AM PDT

      •  Guano

        Gimme a break.  If you're already in the gutter, being slimy and lying to voters about where to vote, what's so unthinkable about tossing a turd around too?  Particularly if it might help not only lose Dean a few more votes but make it look like it just must have been a Republican....

        Go do some reading.  The dirtbags that do this kind of work lack most of the morals that the rest of us assume are normal features of human beings.

        by ogre on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:15:44 AM PDT

    •  Ludicrous to think its the Republicans

      eom

      by Lois on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:14:15 AM PDT

  •  I know rove is good ...

    But we give him way too much credit.

    by Mister T in AZ on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:36:25 PM PDT

    •  not really....

      Rove would have been good if he could have restrained himself from those slurs on "Jews."

      As it is, he seems to have given himself away. I don't think it's Kerry or any loyal member of his campaign (much as I dislike the guy). I think it's someone put there to destroy his campaign and Dean's at the same time.

      by sagesource on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:11:42 PM PDT

  •  snatching files...

    It is the Senate documents that were being nabbed from the mainframe by Republicans, right?

    Now, even working from the point that an election committee stays separate from Senate work staff, that does mean that the Republicans have some hackers on staff somewhere... who knows what backdoor they might have found to push away from Dean and to Kerry.
    

    by jenniebee on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:07:29 PM PDT

    •  Sorry

      I understand that the Democrats set up the system for the committee and that because of a programming error anyone could access the documents without much trouble at all.  The files were essentially there for the taking.  One person who was involved said that the Democrats were notified of the glitch that permitted unrestricted file access without a password but the Democrats did nothing to correct it.

      What the documents exposed is far more troublesome (sleazy and racist) than the lapse ethical behavior of some over-zealous staff members.

      by Mad Jayhawk on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:36:29 PM PDT

      •  Sleezy?

        I'd like to know what you mean by "sleezy", "racist" and "lapses of ethical behavior", thanks.

        by ponderer on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:30:11 AM PDT

    •  Er...

      That was an ethics violation, for sure, but no special hacking expertise was required. Apparently they just noticed by accident that because of a sysadmin's mistake they were able to log in without a password on certain new accounts that weren't theirs (and guessing a userid from the person's name is usually child's play).

      Not to say that Republicans don't have some expert hackers on their side, of course; I'm sure they do. That just wasn't an example of it.

      by Canadian Reader on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:41:20 PM PDT

•  ok now THAT

  makes me want to cry.
  And it makes me wonder about what else they might have done.
  

  by Mavin on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 09:53:29 PM PDT

•  God help Kerry if it's true...

  If Kerry really has done this, and there's plenty of fingerprints to suggest he has, then he can't count on my vote any time down the road.

  by FireBreathingDonkey on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 09:53:35 PM PDT

  •  "there's plenty of fingerprints"

    "there's plenty of fingerprints to suggest he has"

    No, there isn't.  What there is, is a hatred of the Dean supporters for John Kerry, and a bad taste in their mouths that Kerry won in Iowa.  That's why so many Dean folks are "suggesting" that this was Kerry.

    The real battle in Iowa was between Dean and Gephardt for the longest time.  Why isn't anyone suggesting this was a Gep thing?  Cuz he lost?

    Also, that "push polling" accusation is just plain dumb.  Push polling occurs when the caller claims to be conducting an objective "poll" and asks how the person would react if they knew "xyz" about candidate A.  That's not what happened.  It was an overeager campaign volunteer who was subsequently let go.

    by Kathleen in CO on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:49:21 PM PDT

    •  You're cherry picking the allegations

      
      o) The "Howard Dean is a wife-beating abortionist" phone calls
      o) The "Judith Dean is a Jew" phone calls
      o) The "Howard's wife won't support him" phone calls
      o) The "Environmental Racist" phone calls
      o) The incorrect polling location phone calls
      o) The NH 4:00AM "we're DFA" robocalls

      It's a known fact that the Kerry camp was behind the "Environmental Racist" calls, and Gephardt wasn't in NH.

      Ever hear of Occam's Razor?

      Kerry is doable. Do him.

      by justinb on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:59:57 PM PDT

      •  No

        What's Occam's Razor?

        by EB4Dean on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:24:11 AM PDT

        •  Occam's razor

          "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"

          Occam's razor

          Generally, the most simple explanation is the correct one. The more convoluted a scenario you have to cook up to explain a phenomena, the more likely you are to be incorrect.

          Applied to the "Kerry push-polling" scenario :

          The Kerry camp has already been proven to have engaged in push-poll type phone calls. They are the only campaign in this uneviable position. While they have not been proven to have engaged in all the push poll phone calls made during this campaign, it is very likely, given the existing evidence, that the calls in question were made by the Kerry campaign.

          Kerry is doable. Do him.

          by justinb on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:38:30 AM PDT

          •  Occam and tinfoil

            I've never been a fan of Occam and that annoying razor. Under his premiss I should of learned everything there is about physics by the end of last year. But I do feel it applies in certain situations, (aka non-Quantum situations) and feel that it points to the most likely situation in this whole arguement.

            Hell, I've gotten stories from Dean pricinct captains who discovered all to late that some of the volunteers out canvasing were canvassing for Kerry and claiming Gephart people were stealing Dean signs.

            by Izixs on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:52:04 AM PDT

            •  I think you don't understand what Occam's Razor is

              Way off topic, of course, but I couldn't let this stand. Occam's Razor in the sense of "the simplest explanation that fits all the data is probably correct" most certainly applies to quantum physics. First, there are no competing theories to quantum mechanics. 80 years ago there were, but they all lost out because they couldn't explain the data or weren't self-consistent. And second, the principles of quantum mechanics aren't that complicated. You're confusing this with the implications of the theory, which are exceedingly non-intuitive.

              And sort of back on topic, I've got no horse in this race, but I'll sure as hell support Kerry over Bush even if this allegation is true.

              by rebuttal on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:17:20 AM PDT

              •  BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY

                I'll sure as hell support Kerry over Bush even if this allegation is true.

                Hell, I know I will, and I'm a raving Deaniac.

                After all, if he's such a dastardly, slimy eel of a politician, isn't he the best chance we have against W?  Call me twisted, but I sincerely hope that whoever we nominate uses the most unfair, undemocratic, unethical, slimy, sneaky, sinister, and generally evil tactics agains George W. Bush because he's sure as fuck going to use them all against us.

                To paraphrase Nixon (?): he might be a bastard, but he's our bastard.

                I don't care about being the good guy.  I just want Bush out, even if we have throw our morals out the window to make that happen.  I simply do not care any more.

                by Tlacolotl on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 03:29:32 PM PDT

        •  Occam's Razor

          Occam's Razor states: Entities should not be multiplied without necessity.  link1 link2  It is a tool for deciding between competing hypotheses based on their structure.

          Basically, the least complex hypothesis that satisfies the current observations is probably right.  For instance, it's more likely that a competing campaign is responsible for these dirty tactics than that Joe Trippi was really a Repulican operative bent on sabotaging Dean's shot at the nomination.  The first hypothesis (Kerry or Gephardt did it) is simpler and more plausible.  The second would involve a lot of complex explanations - why did Dean hire Trippi?  why did Trippi switch party allegence?  how did Trippi pull the wool over everyone's eyes?  Therefore the first hypothesis is, according to Occam's Razor, more likely to be correct.

          by guinness on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:42:35 AM PDT

          •  Thanks!

            So now we know, according to Occam's Razor, that Kerry is the culprit!

            by EB4Dean on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:57:10 AM PDT

            •  Know? Not really...

              ...but as long as it fits the data, it's the front runner. The trick to using Occam's Razor is to remember that the explaination needs to fit the data. If more data appears uncovering a GOP hacker or that one of the other candidates was responsible, then Occam's Razor is just as ruthless in killing the Kerry Theory.

              But as for now, it fits when you accept that (a) Kerry's team already has a bad rep, since they got caught once, and (b) there were reports of Kerry buying phone banks in the last week before the NH primary.

              by Saint Fnordius on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 04:30:25 AM PDT

      •  the only claim that wasn't a "rumor"

        was the "environmental racist" comment.  That was the kid who was asked to leave the campaign.

        The rest of those are rumors.  Unsubstantiated.

        by Kathleen in CO on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:36:49 AM PDT

        •  wrong

          I'm sorry, you're wrong. The only one of these that either I or people I know and trust do not have personal, first-hand knowledge of, is an "incorrect polling location" call.

          You might not like it, and I sure don't, but them's the facts. I don't absolutely know who did it, but I know who did the "environmental racist" calls, and I know that was a repeated talking point in IA.

          Occam's razor, again. The preponderance of the evidence is just too much to overcome.

          Kerry is doable. Do him.

          by justinb on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:46:46 AM PDT

      •  Oh please

        Occam's razor doesn't point to Kerry.  

        by ryan b on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:32:51 AM PDT

    •  That's always the excuse...

      It was an overeager campaign volunteer who was subsequently let go.

      That's called being a fall guy.

      by ogre on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:20:13 AM PDT

  •  Me neither

    Then - to me, he's no different than Bush.  Hey, even if he isn't guilty - he's still no different than Bush.

    by nolalily on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:28:30 AM PDT

    •  Al

      Hm, that's funny, I seem to remember lots of people saying the same thing about Al Gore and Bush four years ago.  They're indistinguishable.  No difference between the two.  Vote for Nader.

      Sad to say, that was my thinking.

      How many of those who were in the same camp, then, really really wish Gore would have won?

      by Tlacolotl on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 03:39:33 PM PDT

•  I don't like Kerry

  But... Dean's campaign tools are web based from what I understand.  What if he was hacked or had a repug pose as a campaign volunteer.  It would make it pretty easy to robocall using Dean's own database.

  by Jefe Le Gran on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 09:56:57 PM PDT

  •  that's a good point

    but kerry's own people would have been able to figure out in their own canvassing work who the 1s for dean were.  Cause every time you ask for support, you not only write down whether they support you or not, but who else they support.

    This is bad.  really bad.

    by GeorgeStark on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:25:22 PM PDT

    •  asdf

      Because people actually tell opposing camps who they truly support?

      I say LaRouche if I'm asked.

      by TealVeal on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:27:35 PM PDT

      •  of course they do

        because most people don't see this as a military campaign, trying to keep their alliances secret and to keep the 'other guy' guessing. Not that I might not say something like LaRouche myself, but just by virtue of posting here I flatter myself that I'm showing a deeper interest in politics than your average bear. It wouldn't even occur to most voters that it would help their guy to keep their support of him secret from the 'other guy'.

        by cyclopatra on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:58:40 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          It's more than just seeing it as a "military campaign."  How many people actually tell the truth to telemarketers?  That's all that campaign phone calls are after all, nothing more than marketing by telephone.

          by TealVeal on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:08:39 AM PDT

  •  This is a great point...

    The security of the database is probably pretty good, but it's not difficult to imagine a new Dean volunteer (actually from another campaign) eventually getting access to it long enough to make a copy.  Assigned to do some data entry and then getting a chance to copy it, etc.

    On the other hand, it's not as though every 1 or 2 identified by the Dean campaign was called.  Many were, but it's quite possible that another campaign had canvassed them at one point and found them to be Dean 1's and 2's.  So they were targeted at a later date.  Personally I lean toward the stolen database theory...at least for the robocalls.  Push polling could be done with a less precise list to start from.

    by Jaime Schulte on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:21:55 PM PDT

    •  Uh, no..

        It's a trivial matter to lock out a database from copying. It takes minimal security setup, and the Dean IT people weren't idiots.

        It's hardly more difficult to set up user interfaces to allow volunteers access to only the data they have permission for.

      by Morat on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 11:46:30 PM PDT

•  now that Trippis a free agent

  will he accuse and show proof of this.Hes on msnbc after the debate I believe.

  by ctkeith on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 09:57:20 PM PDT

  •  Possible

    He is doing a lot of TV shows soon.

    by barr on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:45:12 PM PDT

•  ABB? If this is true, ABK.

  If evidence linking Kerry to this emerges, he will under no circumstances get my vote in November. How could anyone possibly trust someone who allows his campaign to engage in this? I'm a Deananista, but I'd happily vote for Edwards or Clark.. Kerry? I loathed him already, but if a smoking gun for this emerges, I'll vote for Nader again (go ahead and flame me.. you know I'm right)

  by seatownbuckeye on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 09:57:28 PM PDT

  •  to all you who hate ABK folk

    All of these people who criticize us for being unsure of Kerry need to really address this.

    by Mister T in AZ on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:38:58 PM PDT

    •  Proof

      Addressing this is like answering the question "When did you stop beating your wife?"  There is no proof here, so before everyone blames Kerry and swears not to vote for him, how about a little due process here?

      There are several layers to this story:  first, there's a report of a robo-caller giving Dean supporters the wrong caucus site.  I don't know much about robo-calling, but most Iowa caucus precincts had less than 100 voters.  Doesn't it seem a little inefficient to set up 1,993 different robo-calls for 100 people each (less actually, since it was just for Dean's supporters); second, we have a report that Trippi blames Kerry because of Kerry's campaign staff - that's not enough proof for me.  As has been pointed out elsewhere here, Gephardt had the same incentive to do this as Kerry (assuming this happened).

      Were there vicious calls?  I don't doubt that there were some, and that's terrible, don't get me wrong.  Did some individuals get caught up in the campaign and do things their candidate wouldn't have approved of?  Undoubtedly (remember the Dean supporters who walked into the Kerry office in Iowa?)  There's no evidence of how widespread the calls in the post above were, and as I said, no proof of responsibility.  So please don't jump to conclusions.

      by PBS on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:00:30 AM PDT

      •  interesting --- you just did it!

        Thanks!

        You explained it.  That is all I was saying.  The rumors out there that people are relying on to be anybody but kerry need to be ADDRESSED by his supporters.  That is the way to handle it -- not ot just BASH those who might believe them or are concerned.

        I thought your analysis and explanation are a good start.  Thank you.

        by Mister T in AZ on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:18:16 AM PDT

      •  You don't understand how radio works...

        You don't have to set up 1,993 different robo-calls for 100 people each.

        Robo-calls may be set up to vary what is said based on the fields in a database: and recite synthesized speech.

        So you have one db that contains the list of voters, each record containing their caucus site... which relates to a table of the sites. The call converts the text dynamically converted into something that sounds passably like like speech.

        So, this is not so implausible.

        by Malacandra on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 03:07:03 AM PDT

  •  Vote

    I'm already ABK.  If he gets the nom I'll just have to decide if I'm voting Bush, Green, or writing in Dean.  Kerry has done nothing to earn my vote, and it looks like he basically mugged Dean for Iowa and NH.

    Kerry is slime.  As president he would only be marginally better than Bush, and would allow the Republican controlled congress to drag him and this country further to the right.   After four years he would easily lose re-election to Jeb.

    I'd rather have Bush win re-election, and after 4 more years of the republicans looting the country have a major backlash and have the Dems take control of both branches of congress, with Hillary at the helm.

    by gdesignr on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:05:49 AM PDT

    •  Amen Brotha!

      by Matt in Wisconi on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:21:05 AM PDT

    •  There will be no backlash.

      Vote for Bush and doom more children to failing schools and no health care.

      Oh, and don't be surprised if we lose Roe as well.

      by ryan b on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:30:18 AM PDT

      •  If we lose Roe v. Wade, there will be a backlash.

        Since I am very ambivalent about abortion, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

        All the other evil things that a second Bush administration would do: I'm much less willing to sacrifice those.

        If only we could have lost Roe v. Wade this year...

        by Gustavo on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:07:59 PM PDT

    •  God no.

      That's my biggest fear about all this: that Kerry not only turned off Dean people but Democrats in general.

      If he wins, he had better go 180 degrees and stay positive- I don't want all of his victories now to become, as they say, four more years.

      Even if it disgusts you, please back whoever wins. You owe that to all of your fellow travelers here.

      by perianwyr on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 10:46:35 AM PDT

    •  Viva Cascadia!

      I've already decided that if Bush wins re-election, I'm joining the nascent Cascadian secession movement.  

      Thank Allah for the 2nd Amendment!

      Anyone care to join me?

      by Tlacolotl on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 04:09:42 PM PDT

•  my thoughts...

  "If Kerry really has done this, and there's plenty of fingerprints to suggest he has, then he can't count on my vote any time down the road."-FireBreathingDonkey

  This is what makes me lean toward Rove as the culprit.  Come on, it's a dream-- use one top contender to take down another, leaving only the bottom of the pile left to run against G-dub.

  Let's stay calm and not point fingers-- that only helps Karl ROve.

  by qwerty on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 09:58:23 PM PDT

  •  Damn, it could be anyone... okay, not really, but.

    The problem with that logic is that if you decide that who did it or why isn't important, you let the campaign behind it off the hook. And if you're going to get into who it might've been, you could say Kerry against Dean. Or Bush playing Kerry against Dean. Or even Dean hoping people would figure it's gotta be Bush or Kerry and scoring points either way (though it'd have to be publicized yet infrequent to avoid IA/NH-style results, so that's pretty damn unlikely, but...).

    by Christopher on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:05:24 PM PDT

  •  It was not Rove.

    Trust me I have no doubt it was Kerry, the guy hired michael whouley to do these exact things and it is despicable. Kerry is like that kid in the class who thinks he is the best at everything
    and arrogant. I do hope it comes out and Kerry goes down in flames, I dont like the guy period. You know even people down here in college station Tx, Bush Country have said to me you know I would actually vote for Dean because he is tough and balances budgets. These people would never even think about voting for Kerry. Kerry is Dukakis '04. He was Dukakis's protege what more proof do we need? I will pull the lever straight democratic whoever the candidate is, however if Kerry is the candidate our election night will not be a celebratory one. Screw Dirty Kerry.

    by Yorkman on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:07:32 PM PDT

    •  Kerry's Secret Weapon

      Yep, Micheal Crowley of The New Republic writes of Kerry's "startling rise" in Iowa and traces it to Kerry's "secret weapon", Michael Whouley.

      "- his fearsome powers are the stuff of legend, but the man himself is rarely seen... Whouley shuns attention. He avoids shows like "Hardball" and "Crossfire," and you can't find a picture of him on the Web. Whouley is so secretive that in 2000 he wouldn't even walk in front of a C-SPAN camera so his mother-in-law could see him on television."

      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/16/opinion/printable593698.shtml

      Whouley's ace as an organizer is apparently in wrapping up the finish. Pure speculation, but no better way to wrap up another candidate than by derailing their "1's" and "2's".

      Wonder how one proves this?

      by roonie on Thu Jan 29, 2004 at 10:50:10 PM PDT

    •  Ditto

      Kerry doesn't stand a chance, why doesn't anyone see this?  Dean is our best hope -- our only hope, as he's the only one that's electable.

      Why?  Kerry is not an Alpha Male, and neither are any of the other candidates except Dean.  We need someone arrogant, pushy, scrappy, and bold, not someone who puts people to sleep with his voice (relatively speaking, of course).

      The mere fact that Kerry said "if I'm elected president" in his post-NH speech the other day says it all.  We need someone who will give speeches like Dean's post-Iowa one.

      Why?  Because all the conservative anti-Bush blogs I've been frequenting suggest that the big to-do over the "Iowa Screech" is more about Democrats being wussies than about Dean being crazy.  The general impression is that Dems are simply scared to run with a too-good-to-be-true candidate, and are merely hedging there bets by backing Kerry.

      The media didn't destroy Dean by playing that clip over and over and over and over; they played it because Democrats thought it was controversial, and because everyone was talking about it and pulling out their hair.  It was the Democratic establishment and their spineless followers, not the Republicans, who were scared of Dean.  The phrase I've heard numbers of conservative pundits use is "everyone likes Dean best but they're voting for Kerry".

      Why?  It's because Democrats are afraid to say "fuck you" out loud.  They think it all the time, but politeness keeps in line, and they keep losing elections year after year after year.

      by Tlacolotl on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 04:35:59 PM PDT

      •  Dean supporters, get a grip.

        Tlacotl, "Kerry doesn't stand a chance, why doesn't anyone see this?"

        Maybe because not every person on this site is a frothing-at-the-mouth Dean supporter.

        Your "mere fact" is a complete fabrication.  Kerry saying "if" as a speech setup--he said it so that everyone would start yelling "when!".  Don't be willfully ignorant.

        As for the media running something that Democrats find "controversial" is absurd.  Where the hell have you been the last 3 years.  We Democrats don't control jack-shit in the media.

        I'm an "ABB Baby", so I'm giving money every month through E-Patriots to the party.

        So Dean whiners, take your ball and go home.  I'm too worried about Bush completely stacking our already too-conservative judiciary.

        by RasNesta on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 04:57:20 PM PDT

        •  By the way, Tlacotl, Lemmy of Motorhead is

          big Republican.

          Read this article about the execrable Vincent Gallo: http://observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8505.

          "...Mr. Gallo, 41, is a devout if unlikely member of the G.O.P., an outspoken Republican who rivals only punk rocker Mr. Ramone, Motörhead bassist and hair-meister Lemmy Kilmister, and Factory alum Paul Morrissey for the title of Least Likely Celebrity Conservative..."

          He's just another Baby Boomer "rebel" sellout like Dennis-the-penis Miller.

          by RasNesta on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 05:04:15 PM PDT

• <