David Brooks, Times's Safire-Lite, Says GOP Wants Dean vs. Bush [View All]

[BurtWorm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/opinion/16BROO.html?hp

He claims Republicans are excited about the prospect because they think Dean appeals to partisans and not swing voters.

Currently I support Dean, have given him money, defended him on DU and elsewhere. I don't trust Brooks's opinion. I wonder why, if he really wants Dean vs. Bush because he thinks it's good for Bush, he makes a point of saying it so loudly. Methinks he doth protest too much. Methinks Dean already appeals to swing voters and more than a few Republicans because he is this year's angry man, and certain disenfranchised voters get excited by angry men.

But I have to admit, I am not sure if Dean vs. Bush is ultimately the best contest for Dems, because I, myself, am not absolutely convinced Dean can win. My doubt is about Dean's service record. It may not mean as much to average voters as I fear. It may be that the Dean people are super prepared for this, and have devastating evidence about attacking Bush's own service record that could shut the Bushists up about Dean's. We'll have to see.

Brooks concludes his piece hinting that Republicans are probably most worried about Clark. I am waiting to see what effect Clark's entering the fray would have on my own support for Dean. I'm impressed that Charlie Rangel is so gung-ho for Clark.