Is Tim Roemer responsible for the Dean squabble?

[MGKrebs]

Perhaps only indirectly, but it sure looks DLC engineered to me. Let's look at the circumstances:

- WSJ claims to find an allegedly anonymous blog authored by a minor functionary from a failed Dean campaign in which it is stated that perfectly legal and ethical (and very minor) transactions took place. Despite the complete lack of any compelling angle, and without evidently doing the first shred of investigation or even confirmation, the WSJ prints it anyway. So it's a gossip piece.

Why would WSJ print such a non-story?
Why would they even care what Zephyr has to say?
How would they know to look for the website unless they were tipped off? Or is the WSJ keeping tabs on Zephyr?
Why didn't they check with Koz and Jerome before running the story?

First of all, the WSJ probably doesn't like Howard anyway, and wouldn't need much of an excuse to lend a hand in sinking his boat. But it makes more sense that someone who has a more immediate interest in Howard's fate was looking for a way to damage his stature (such as it is). The WSJ is just a willing accomplice.

Now let's look at the Modus Operandi.
Dean was well ahead in the polls in Iowa when suddenly, in the last week of the campaign, he was sucked into a bitter negative advertising battle, which my recollection says was not of his initiation. The DLC ends up winning.

That night, Dean makes a rally statement which, when broadcast, featured an audio component that differed from normal practices.This version, instead of the 'camera mic" version, is what get's replayed over and over. Dean's fate sealed. DLC wins.

Now, we have an internal Dean camp squabble on the eve of the DLC election instigated by an outside source. DLC is only possible winner.

Either Dean is incredibly unfortunate, or their are powerful forces opposing him.

So, I say that the DLC- who I believe deserves a seat at the table and makes valuable contributions in some areas but need to be "outed" for their tactics- engineered the negative advertising in Iowa.
I think they may or may not have had anything to do with the Dean Scream issue, but the overall tactic here is to create a scandal, because then the mainstream press pick up the story and run with it on their own. The scandal had already been created by Dean's poor finish in Iowa. The networks then just needed video/audio to accompany the crash and burn.
I say the DLC pulled some strings at the WSJ, or at least tipped someone off and made it appear to be a scandal brewing.

I assume Roemer is the DLC candidate of choice, but I think several of the candidates would be acceptable to the DLC. This is more of an 'anybody but Dean' thing.

[Eric J in MN]

1. There are other possible explanations

1) Zephyr Teachout was blogging in advance of conference for journalists, and so a Wall St. Journal journalist may have seen her piece on a website related to the conference, or linked from there.

2) Zephyr Teachout may have phoned the Wall St. Journal.

[jpgray]

2. He's not wholly unfortunate, he also made a series of lousy decisions

He was not adequately prepared for the frontrunner position--when you're in first, and someone like Gephardt needs Iowa desperately, some nasty attacks are on the way. That's the way politics works. That Dean had no effective counter to this was no one's fault but his own.

Also, your first major nationally broadcast speech is not a good time to yell and scream, no matter what the sound levels are or how many supporters are with you. Your speech is not to the crowd that is with you in this instance, it's to everyone who is watching at home, and especially to those who are waiting for you to justify their nonsensical script of your being a crazy, "angry" liberal. Dean hand delivered a validation of that script to them, and of course they ran with it. It was no media creation--the real-time thread on his speech at DU was just as shocked and horrified. It was overblown in the media, but it would be better to deny them that oppotunity entirely.

Dean got attacked by his political enemies, sure. But so does every politician. An opposing faction of the party tried everything to torpedo him? No shit. This is supposed to be something unique in politics?

The WSJ article was nonsense. It would be like saying Kerry paid off Carville and Begala to praise him on Crossfire. They were publicly acknowledged parts of his campaign, as were the two bloggers in question here.

[imenja]

3. Does Jon Stewart lick the balls of adolescent monkeys?

Did you see that bit on the Daily Show this week? Stephen Colbert cautioned you can make any charge as long as you phrase it in the form of a question, so why bother with evidence as 60 Minutes II tried to do.

Ultimately the kind of thing you ask above is unknowable, and it makes me uncomfortable. I don't like Roemer, but I see no reason to assume he's behind this. I wonder if he is even a leading candidate for the DNC chair at this point? On another thread, some DNC members noted that Dean is now the leading candidate, which I suppose could be the very motivation for what you suggest. Still, I don't like the idea of casting suspicion on anyone without evidence. I really don't think it helps the party.
The WSJ has it's own agenda. It would love to see a permanently weakened Democratic Party. They don't need Roemer or the DLC to prompt them to target Dean.

[MGKrebs]

4. And I admit to invoking Roemer's name for dramatic impact.

I didn't want to target "the DLC" in the subject line; too diffuse I guess. And for all I know, Roemer isn't even the REAL DLC candidate anyway.

And I agree that this can be bad for the Party. But so would this kind of media manipulation and lying if it's coming from within the Party.

But I would think virtually every non-obvious investigation begins with a question like this. And besides, if you can't ask a question like that on a discussion forum or a blog, where else? I know it's trashy journalism, but we ain't no journalists here. Or at least I'm not. But if real journalists want to run with it, it's not copyrighted either.

Pick one:
1. Dean is inept at media manipulation even though he had nothing to do with this story.
2. The WSJ decided to write a story about nothing, with fabricated quotes*, because they now want to be known for political gossip.
3. The right wing needs to deflect the NCLB bribe and chooses to pick on...Dean?
4. Dean has significant opponents who will resort to drastic media manipulation to prevent Dean from gaining any position of authority.

"They don't need Roemer or the DLC to prompt them to target Dean."
True. But this story is a real stretch. As if the WSJ couldn't come up with something better than a blog posting? The WSJ almost certainly had to be tipped off to look for this info.

The only part of this that doesn't fit for me is that Dean was a Governor for 11 years. Vermont survived. We know what we will get. Why would there be such strenuous opposition? It's not like he's a Socialist or something.


*http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/005807.html
"... they took her background conversation with me and made up a quote from "a Dean spokeswoman". Their fake quote had this spokeswoman apparently admitting that the bloggers were paid for promoting the campaign. "

[HereSince1628]

5. The DLC is very up front about the philosphy that winning is everything

So they have left the door open to accusations of sneaky snarky campaigning inside the party and during campaigns for public office.

And I am not at all sure it would matter if they were caught absolutely red handed (pun intended).