Character issue puts Dems on the defensive

[NeoConsSuck]

Imagine a Democratic presidential candidate and his allies assailing the character of the Republican nominee in ads and speeches every day for eight months.

Having trouble? That's because Democrats generally don't have the stomach or the discipline to do it. Often they don't even effectively fight back when under attack themselves.

But with George W. Bush's second inauguration next week, Democrats are pondering their choices in a Feb. 12 election for party chairman and rethinking what might be called their character problem.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-09-dems-character_x.htm

[unpossibles]

1. ugh! I am so sick of the media....

saying the left needs to start being slimier and bigger $%#%@&@s who play the same dirty pool. There's those crazy morals displayed by the other party again...

[Fridays Child]

27. The truth about repubs is slimy enough, if only the Liberal Media™...

...would report it. But then, I suppose they'd have to go against their Moral Values™ to do such a thing.

[unpossibles]

57. True™

I think that would break their contracts though.

[Telly Savalas]

84. Cut 'em a little slack...

It's in the media's self-interest for our nation's politcal discourse to look like the Jerry Springer Show, because that boosts their ratings.

[primavera]

2. That's because they have some

It's easy for Repukes who have no character to behave like rabid dogs, much tougher when you actually have some character and inclination to behave like a civilized human being.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. The reality is we need to clean up both houses.

The Dems can't form an effective assault on the Repubs because, often, their own are guilty of the same things (though usually not as bad). It's like they're blackmailed into silence.

That's why nothing ever changes in this country.

[catnhatnh]

3. Again it's framed as a democratic flaw....

...imagine that, we have too much character. Never would the MSM say that character is something the repubs lack (along with integrity, veracity and a conscience)!

[GOPBasher]

6. LOL that's a good point!

What other "flaws" did we display this election, too much grassroots support? Complex solutions for a simple-minded electorate? What?

[The White Tree]

9. Not enough willingness to hack the voting machines

so that Democrats would win more elections.

Where the hell were those guys from the movie Sneakers anyway. Wasn't Robert Redford in that picture.B-)

[GOPBasher]

16. LOL "Democrats lack the ambition to cheat!"

How do they expect to win in the age of audit-free voting machines.

[nolabels]

32. Or to really count the votes

http://blatanttruth.org/vote.php

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything."

—Communist Tyrant and mass murderer Josef Stalin
(attributed)

http://www.votefraud.org/josef_stalin_vote_fraud_page.htm

Only one of the two democratic senators in my state contested to vote, but I still feel more than proud to be from California

[Merlin]

8. You are misunderstanding what they mean by "character"

You're thinking generosity, understanding, empathy.

They're thinking toughness, discipline, strict morality.

[tavalon]

21. But that is their framing

We need to reframe it. Concisely and definitively. It's really the only thing worthwhile that we could learn from the Rethugs.

[texanshatingbush]

22. Sam Rayburn's definition of Republicans

I am reminded of an old story about Sam Rayburn. A reporter is said to have asked him: other than the obvious, what's the REAL difference between Democrats and Republicans? Mr. Sam reflected for a moment, then responded: Republicans pour with a jigger.

And it remains true in so MANY ways --Medicare, Social Security, etc., etc.

[Mr. Sinister]

68. maybe for social services

they use that jigger (or an eye dropper) but
for pork and crony kickbacks they use a high
pressure hose. The only 'character' these
thieves possess is the ruthless pursuit of their own
self-interest.

[flaminbats]

83. both standards must be used against them..

Bush has shown no discipline on taxcuts or deficit spending..no toughness against bin Ladin or Republicans who once considered al Qaeda an ally..no morality in breaking laws which he must enforce.

Bush has shown no empathy to those who have intelligent arguments against his agenda..no understanding of the quagmire in Iraq, or how it compromises national security..no generosity to the low wage and uninsured workers who voted for him.

[OldVlad]

82. Well at least they are complimenting us

I hope this isn't a case of them saying we have too much character to attack because they are feeling sorry for us losing so much. I can stand insults, or lies, but if USA Today is saying this out of pity that is a new low.

[MarianJack]

4. Ted Rall Said it Correctly Last Year!

"It's the Ferocity, Stupid!"

We have to wake up and realize that THIS IS WAR! If we don't attack back when we're being attacked, the public has NO OTHER CHOICE but to believe the only people talking! That's why a lowlife like ** is perceived as a wonderful, loveble guy next store. The righties present that and we don't counter it!

[rodeodance]

5. "Some Democrats want killer instinct in their next nominee"

a dick cheney type? Don't know if I could stomach that!!


from you link:

Democrats "as a group are uneasy" about attacking and defending on character, says Harold Ickes, a former Clinton aide who heads the Media Fund, a political ad organization. "But they damn well better get the stomach," he adds, because "we've seen way too many of our candidates taken down on issues of character."

In the past five presidential races, the only Democrat to win was the one who avoided the draft and admitted on TV to "causing pain" in his marriage. The other three nominees were military veterans with solid marriages and public records. Yet their opponents — George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush — managed to brand them as unpatriotic (Michael Dukakis, the "card-carrying" member of the ACLU), untruthful (Al Gore, the "serial exaggerator") and unprincipled and weak (Kerry, the "flip-flopper" who couldn't be trusted to keep the nation safe). All are variations on a theme: These men have character flaws that disqualify them for the White House.

"We were caught off guard by this perennial Republican attack-dog mentality," says Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a potential 2008 presidential candidate, reflecting on 2004. "We've got to find ways to develop our own."....


Some Democrats want killer instinct in their next nominee. They also pray for a candidate and campaign with the discipline to choose a line of attack and stick to it. "You don't want your central critique to be a secret," Clanton says. "You want it to be well-known so it can be repeated" by your allies in e-mails, on talk radio and cable TV.

[leveymg]

24. If the DNC is looking to develop attack-dogs . . .

there's plenty of sharp teeth and attitude right here.

Anybody at DU want a nice, cushy job in Washington? Raise your paw.

[American Tragedy]

72. Hell yeah! Totally seriously: If they would have me, I'd go and do it now

I'd like to kick the Republicans' fucking teeth in. I've been clawing holes in the side of my sofa watching Kerry and the Democrats get wrapped up in stupid questions and totally overlooking the most compelling arguments. Bush was the most politically vulnerable man ever to run for president. They should have ruined him.

[SemperEadem]

76. paw raised

I'd love to have a job writing talking points for them.

[meti57b]

13. "It's the Ferocity, Stupid!"... that should crystallize it for everyone.

It's not the issues, ... it's the strength of good character, and that strength needs to be shoved in everyone's face.

And to emphasize what someone already said here, ... it's not whether "character" is good or bad, .... it's an issue of weak or strong.

We can't run John Kerry again. Whether we like him or not, (and I do very much think he would be an outstanding president), ... the fact is, he's damaged goods. If we run him again, we are giving ourselves a "handicap" of having to overcome his past campaign mistakes. i.e..... we would be giving republicans a headstart in the race.

Once we establish our candidate's "character", we can go on to the issues.

[MarianJack]

28. I Don't Want to Agree With You About...

...Kerry again, but I fear that I may have to.

I think that in addition to establishing our candidate's character and going to the issues, we have to be in a mode of attack,attack,attack!

There's soooo much documented truth out there I'm shocked that our leaders don't use it. I highly prize gentlemanly behavior, but there comes a time to throw the politeness out the window!

Kerry, who I thought was brilliant in the debates may have been remembering the sliming of Al Gore after the '00 debates. Our '08 nominee is going to have to realize that he/she is going to get slimed regardless of performance and use our newly found fundraising skills as a tool for a VERY aggressive and hard fought campaign that WILL be very dirty from the word GO! There must also be a wide front of Democrats who ae going o be blanketing the airways with the party message.

I, for one, as a private citizen, am NOT going to shut up because the MSM, rnc, and kkkarl tell me that I have to.

Thanks for your response,
Jack

[SemperEadem]

77. not only 'attack attack attack'...

but also being willing to starve them out of their ratholes.

We need to be able to weaken them.

We need to succeed in making them look like the hypocrits they are.

[liberal N proud]

18. If the repukes won't play clean, then the Dem's must get in the mud

slinging business.
It has always been a flaw of the Democratic candidates to try to ignore the mud being thrown at them by the Reich wing.
I am not saying that we need a dirty asshole like bush or cheney as candidates or an adviser like kkkarl Rove.
What we need to do is tell the truth about a the reupke candidate in a way that really puts it like it is.
Kerry could have smeared the shrub with truths but he tried to play nice and make the campaign about issues. Meanwhile the repukes were up to their usual dirty tricks and smearing Kerry making a war hero a unpatriotic.
Democratic candidates are always fooled into the notion that if they don't tell only nice things then they will look bad in the media.
Well guess what, they look that way anyway because the repukes are busy selling a dirty image of them to the media and people.
Wake up, start smearing the candidates with the dirty truths.

[MarianJack]

26. You're Right!

It doesn't even have to be mud-slinging. It can be, to use your words, "...smearing the candidates with the dirty truths."

[calimary]

37. But, but, but... we've gotta take the high road. Don't we?

Otherwise it means we're just like them.

Well, guess what? I WANT to be just like them. "THEM" are WINNERS.

They WIN. And you don't get to govern unless you WIN.

If you take the high road, as our party pansies seem to love doing, it leads us straight off a cliff.

[DownNotOut]

49. "If the repukes...."

If if if if if if...... What do you mean if? Its not if or when... Its right now.

What the fuck is it going to take to get us 'spineless lefties' up off our duffs and out telling the world what a bunch of crooks thieves and generally morally corrupt repugs are running this country.

Wake the fuck up now!


DownNotOut

[chomskysright]

47. GRRRR...and this is why I am reporting Senator Frist....

to the physician's licensing board in TN:

unethical behavior: he is still a physician:

http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=485
“When the 109th Congress convenes in Washington in January, Senator Bill Frist, the first practicing physician elected to the Senate since 1928, plans to file a bill that would define ‘political paranoia’ as a mental disorder, paving the way for individuals who suffer from paranoid delusions regarding voter fraud, political persecution and FBI surveillance to receive Medicare reimbursement for any psychiatric treatment they receive,” writes Hermione Slatkin, Medical Correspondent for the Swift Report. “Rick Smith, a spokesman for Senator Frist, says that the measure has a good chance of passing—something that can only help a portion of the population that is suffering significant distress.”
“If you’re still convinced that President Bush won the election because Republicans figured out a way to hack into electronic voting machines, you’ve obviously got a problem,” says Smith. “If we can figure out a way to ease your suffering by getting you into therapy and onto medication, that’s something that we hope the entire 109th Congress will support.”

[lfairban]

75. Is this serious or another Onion like parody?

I checked the links and so far, I can't tell.

[MarianJack]

79. The Sad thing is...

...I can't tell if you're joking or not!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

56. Exactly!

I never, never understood why Kerry didn't more directly assault Bush during the debates.

If he had more succintly delineated the complete incompetency of the administration - and called Bush incompetent (and everything else he is) to his face, I think two things would have happened.

A) I think that Bush would have had a COMPLETE meltdown. I think he might have actually thrown a tantrum on national television.

&

B) I think John Kerry would have shown the public that he is a fighter and was someone to be reckoned with.

Either of these instances alone would have probably put JFK over the top in the election, but both together?

I for one will be happy when Fox News starts calling Democrats and liberals "hard-asses" and "hard-liners" instead of "whiners" and "wussies."

That's the real reason we aren't winning the hearts and minds of the independent American. We aren't getting any respect - and, frankly, a lot of the time, our leaders aren't doing anything to deserve it.

[MarianJack]

80. Exactly Back At'cha!

I'd like for our leaders to watch "Patton" a few times! I'm deadly serious about that, too!

[Merlin]

7. If you are dismayed by this, you need to read George Lakoff

From an interview with George Lakoff of the RockRidge Institute, current reigning liberal scholar; a brilliant man!

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

...
Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame. If you then add the word "voter" in front of "revolt," you get a metaphorical meaning saying that the voters are the oppressed people, the governor is the oppressive ruler, that they have ousted him and this is a good thing and all things are good now. All of that comes up when you see a headline like "voter revolt" — something that most people read and never notice.

...
Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, 'Here's several million dollars, do what you need to do.' And basically, they ...set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV...
Meanwhile, ...progressive foundations and donors give their money to a variety of grassroots organizations. They say, 'We're giving you $25,000, but don't waste a penny of it. Make sure it all goes to the cause, don't use it for administration, communication, infrastructure, or career development.'

... the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. ...

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline — physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people...

Much, much more in this interview and in his books

[piece sine]

10. Lakoff's theory is one huge mess!

Brookings, the Ford Foundation, Soros, and many more leftist bastions are sprawling, well-funded bureaucracies. What we need are down-to-earth candidates with the common touch who people can easily relate to. Even with Kerry, how many at DU actually LIKED the guy, as opposed to viscerally hating Bush? Look for Evan Bayh and VA's Mark Warner and someday Sen. Obama to fill the void.

[meti57b]

15. Well, I connected to Kerry, but that's because I like nerdy and brainy,

uncommunicative, tall, thin, slightly funny- looking guys.

[American Tragedy]

69. Me too

On a personal level I found him oddly endearing; lanky, a little goofy looking, but bright and conscientious.

Bush in contrast always came off as arrogant and shallow.

[tavalon]

23. No it isn't

but neither is it the whole story. You've also come up with a piece of the puzzle. We need down to earth candidates who can easily, concisely, effectively frame Democratic values without allowing the Rethugs to frame them for us.

[Merlin]

59. Your assertion proves nothing.

The fact that there are a number of liberal foundations is irrelevant. None of them is focused solely and exclusively on honing a strategy and message to defeat the opposition, which is EXACTLY what all the right wing think tanks are focused upon.

In case you didn't notice, Ford, Brookings and Soros all have agendas involving doing good works, exactly as Lakoff says.

[Rockerdem]

65. All people like Lakoff do is confuse the issue, and distract us

He advocates spin, when frank, tough, direct, blunt talk is required instead. The last thing we need now is to use nuance in our language!!!!! Thats been killing us.

Kerry could have had his whole history and issue-set be the same, and could have won if he had attacked * in the manner of a Dean-like persona. Tough . . . no nonsense. If we go with a person like that in 08, we win easy. But if we go with a Lakoffed jackoff, we'll be back here moaning the same old refrain.

[EFerrari]

17. Dying to read Lakoff, especially now that campaigns never stop

And particularly because of this dynamic we've got going where, the Republicans politicize the CIA but if we object, they accuse us of being "political" and the MSM echo chamber says, "Dems politicize CIA".

It's just uncanny.

[Occulus]

36. Well, how in hell do we counteract THAT?

I think maybe we need to just start fingering individuals in the congressional chambers as liars. Yep, use the word.

Or begin by assuming they will lie. "We haven't heard much from the Republicans on this Bush plan yet, but given that the Republicans in Congress are known liars on any number of issues, we can expect from them a great deal of lying to the American people on this issue as well." Something like that. MAKE them tell the truth. Make them deny the lie, thus placing the idea of the lie in the minds of the public.

Combative, abusive language works. Republicans know this; they also know that it is just as effective when lying as it is when telling the truth (lying is just easier; you don't have to research or think). We need to start telling truth in the most abusive terms possible. Make Republicans cry on camera. That sort of thing.

I also think it needs to be a LOT more personal. We need to take the accusations of lies right to the front doorstep of their own homes- nay, into their homes. "If this politician is willing to lie to hundreds of millions of Americans regarding public policy, just imagine what life must be like for his own children, or his wife." I happen to know from personal and very painful experience just how harmful a lying parent really is. We can use those experiences. "Social Security is there, Rep. Whomever, not only for your own future, but for the future of your children as well. Why are you, with regards to this issue, willing to lie to your own children to support this rotten agenda?"

We should start personalizing attacks, and WHY NOT? They do it to us, in spades.

I've always tried to take the high road in life; I've always tried to not take revenge, give a second- or third- chance, etc. I'm not one to really much like "being mean". The Dems have been doing what the Republicans want in much the same way in hopes that they will get some of what they want in return. While it would be nice for the real world to work like that, it only ends up with Republicans getting what they want, period. In other words, doing the things everyone else wants you to do only gets everyone else what they want. I'm quickly losing faith in the concept of give-and-take, because most of the time the people I'm trying to work with are thinking take-take-take. The only way to fight that is to assume lies and selfishness from them from the beginning.

Those lessons we learned in preschool about sharing and working together are not valid unless both parties are willing to heed them. Since the Republicans are not willing to play by any sort of "gentlemen's rules", if you will, we must create our own set of rules, else we risk being walked on over and over again.

Is this a difficult thing we have to learn to do? You bet. this is not something I recommend lightly, nor do I do so with any real pleasure. But the fact is, we must start attacking them. Publicly. Use as much mud as we can. Personalize the whole deal. Make the one we're facing at the moment go on the defensive in that personal framework for most of the discussion. Deny them the opportunity to make their point. Attack, attack, attack.

Just make sure we're still truthful when we do so. We need to start telling the truth in ways that make it hurt the one we're facing at the time. Is it fun? No.

But it is necessary.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

54. 'Framing' = PRE-EMPTIVE JUDGEMENT. and it works. SIMPLE EXPLANATION:

We all have an emotional filter we think through as adults that we got as helpless children protected by our parents. So we look for protective DICTATOR/FUHRER-types to quell our fears.

This is the psychology of THE STRONG PROTECTIVE FATHER-image that our brains are imprinted with as children. That's what underlies the 'family values' meme the Military Industrial Complex uses to justify torture and war and spending all our money on weapons with impunity.

THE 'MORAL' PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN WE ARE LOSING TO IS:

"THE STRONG MUST PROTECT THE WEAK"

This is why a 'Dirty Harry' presidential image of a Bad Cop Who Get His Man Despite the Paper-Pushers WORKS IN THE NEO-CON'S FAVOR, NOT AGAINST IT!

(I stopped watching 'NYPD Blue' when I realized that every episode was a 'Dirty Harry' morality play where cops torture and terrorize suspects until they confess in the name of 'justice' despite an 'imperfect world' of laws, paperwork, and bleeding heart liberals. Sound familiar? I swear the CIA is still running Hollywood to indoctrinate conservatives and blame liberals. The CIA is trying to double its numbers and there are, what, THREE TV series about'em, right?)

This is why a rich muscle-man named Arnold is now governor of the world's fifth largest economy and might be president soon.
Brute strength and power has a psychological appeal hard to resist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So liberals must counter with PROPER-GANDA which warns that instead:

"THE STRONG ARE PREYING ON THE WEAK" with poverty, torture, war, etc.

This is how we got the New Deal, Civil Rights Act, OSHA, etc.
This is also why JFK, RFK, MLK, and so many others were killed.

[EFerrari]

64. This is exactly right. And previous to that,

"We defend the weak" which is tradtionally true -- civil rights, labor unions, Social Security, etc.

[AzDar]

12. Remembering John Edwards during the V.P. debate.....despite what the

MSM reported, I thought he wiped the floor with Cheney...all while wearing the most beautific smile.... THAT'S what we need.

[calimary]

40. No. He did not. cheney held up fairly well, except for some pretty stupid

errors. But Edwards let a WHOLE HELLUVA LOT of opportunities pass by. One example:

The fairly elegant exchange about cheney's daughter. Fine. But WHY - repeat - WHY did Edwards pass a made-in-heaven, handed-to-him-on-a-silver-platter opportunity to add something like: "aside from anything political or philosophical or pro-business/anti-little guy (jab, jab), we all know you are a devoted father. We all know how much love and support you provide to your daughter. And I just think it's an awful shame that you - AS THAT loving supportive father, aren't even allowed to stand in public, on the same stage, with your daughter, because your political operatives and advisors tell you you might offend somebody's morality. That your own daughter was shoved to the side and couldn't stand with her dad and EVERYBODY ELSE in her family, on that big night you had with Mr. bush, when you ALL should have shared your moment in the sun, well, Mr. cheney, I'm truly sorry about that, and I don't think you should have been treated that way, and as a father, I would not have stood for that." Cue beautiful smile.

He just completely skipped that golden opportunity to smile sweetly and stick it in and twist it. And REALLY make some people think.

AND I don't know WHO on earth stayed asleep at the switch and failed to urge both Kerry AND Edwards NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER to address bush and cheney, or refer to bush and cheney as - "the president" and "the vice president." It should ALWAYS have been MISTER bush and MISTER cheney, or george bush and dick cheney. NEVER EVER EVER EVER reinforce that "president bush" and vice president cheney" crap. EVER. I don't even do that, myself, to this day.

I mean, is this hardball or is it softball?

I love John Edwards. Don't get me wrong. But I was seriously underwhelmed by the job he did. In fact, my initial reaction, weighing everything after that debate, was to score it for cheney. And anybody here ought to know I'm the last person on earth to want to concede any advantage or points of any sort to vermin like him.

[CWebster]

14. For the sake of the country

It is the Democratic party itself, with a power structure intent on triangulation strategy, that is incapable of piercing the veil of illusion. The Democratic leadership itself seeks to destroy the figure who would rise to the moment and call it like it is. Instead they allow the Republicans to define and bully them, measuring character against the Republican model, while the criminals run roughshod over the character of America.

[Kolesar]

25. What is "triangulation "?

I have tried to figure it out from context, but I just don't get it.

[CWebster]

29. Ancient history by now

Clinton advisor, Dick Morris, devised an approach where Clinton could head off or deflect attacks from the Right by adopting a closer (centrism) position with the Republicans. Short term gain. It ultimately caused the Democrats to lose their identity by switching when they should've been fighting.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/040900-104.htm

[cmkramer]

45. Not Quite

The purpose of triangulation was to find a position that was neither completely "conservative" or completely "liberal" which would appeal to the vast majority of voters who fall somewhere in the middle. Clinton's natural instinct has always been for consensus so while Dick Morris refined the concept, he didn't create it.

[CWebster]

60. Nice sugar-coating

An image that I will never forget:

I was not in the habit of watching Clinton's press conferences, but while surfing, I happened to click on one just in time for Helen to ask a question about the violation of antitrust, mergers, deregulation and increasing monopolies. You know what Clinton did? He turned his head and ignored her and there was an awkward silence.

The moment is trapped in time and I will never forget it. So, who do you think Clinton was seeking consensus with? Corporate American vs the citizens? That was his balancing act? The Right has framed the debate and Clinton strove to triangulate off of that vision, rather than propose his own version which might challenge the foundation of the Right's view. Makes it seem like he didn't stand for anything with authenticity.

Yes, it might be slick, but is sleazy and lazy. It is little more than a tactical manuever at the expense of the Democrats' ability to challenge the Right. It simply shares the Right's message rather than proposing an alternative, so it reinforces the Right. It accepts the Right's interpretation of the center although it may be at odds with reality on a whole host of issues from healthcare to the environment to the economy. Ultimately it creates an image of Democrats as weak, indecisive lacking any confidence and unsure about what they are all about even when all of the issues are on their side.

[Kolesar]

55. sounds contrary to Wellstone activism

...where a leader takes a position, and develops it in concert with the appropriate constituency to get them motivated to vote (& work for the candidate).

[maxrandb]

19. I'll Say It. "Dems Better Get Religion"

I just "effing" hate the media.

"Imagine a Democratic presidential candidate and his allies assailing the character of the Republican nominee in ads and speeches every day for eight months."

IMHO, It's about time we had someone with the balls to assail the character of the Repuke nominee!! It's not like it would be hard to find ammunition. But this brings up another point. The point being that for too long we have shied away from embracing the values that created and framed this Party from it's inception.

Why do we shy away from it? Because we are afraid of offending someone. In other words, we alienate a majority of the people, to appease the few. This allows a guy like Rush "drug addict, three failed marriages, cyst on my ass so I can't serve" Limbaugh, to pontificate about moral and family values!?? How can that be?

How does a man who served his country in combat (and served heroically) lose the "strong on defense and patriotism" debate to a coke addled, former alcoholic, National Guard draft dodging, afraid of horses cowboy? It just does not make sense.

To those of you that are afraid of, or feel that we should not mention faith in Christianity, or God...I am not saying that we should "out religion" the religious right. Their's is a false faith. It's built on hate, intolerance, vindictiveness, and victim-hood. It's not true faith. It's lip service.

Look, whether or not you believe in God, or Christ, if people actually tried to be like Christ (which is really what Christianity is all about), this world would be a much better place. If people actually followed the teachings about caring for your fellow man throughout the Koran, the Bible, Buddhism, or whatever else "floats you boat", this world would be a better place.

I'll tell you what. If this truly were a "Christian" nation, then this man we are stuck with, would NEVER have been elected.

I'm not saying you force religious beliefs on other people, so please don't attack me on that. All I'm saying is that the values, the morals, the history, and the philosophy of the Democratic Party is more in touch with "real" faith than the other side.

I don't think we should shrink from pointing that fact out often and loudly.

[Buns_of_Fire]

35. Would you consider a position with the DNC/DLC?

Please? A "Take Names and Kick Ass" position?

Like Harry S Truman said, we don't have to give them hell -- we can just tell the truth and they'll think it's hell!

And we don't even have to lie. I mean, we don't have to continually lie about someone like boosh** being a lying, coke-addled, holier-than-thou, draft-dodging, snarky, no-talent, ignorant scum-of-the-earth momma's-boy corporatist worm who never worked a day in his life and... oh, wait a minute. That was the truth!

See how easy it is? Please report to work next Monday. Bring your notebook, a pen, and some sturdy steel-toed boots with you. :evilgrin:

[maxrandb]

52. Man. Could we use a man like Harry Truman

about now!

Or LBJ. LBJ would put your nuts in a vice to make a point. He was courageous, and he was responsible for passing the Civil Rights Act (a huge victory for real morals and values)....But NEVER FORGET! He would kick your nuts up to your throat to win.

Here's my favorite Woody Hayes story: A reporter said; "Coach Hayes, you know they say when the great scorer records your life, he won't count whether you win or lose, but how you played the game"

Woody: "Rubbish!"

[hadrons]

20. "That's because Democrats generally don't have the stomach ...."

isn't that what we say here a lot?

[Rose Siding]

30. That used to be admired as "the high road"

Now aggressive rancor is king.

Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall. -The Bard

[Massachusetts]

31. Democrats don't have the stomach to what?

To Lie, Cheat and Steal like the Robber Barron's of this administration?

As Dem's we should stick to OUR principles, and make damn sure we have the right spokes person(s) to carry the message.

:grr:

[Lorien]

39. That's not how I read it

Dem's don't have the stomach to fight back, or point out the obvious about our opponents character flaws. During the last two elections, Dems seemed to think that they would "look tough" by supporting the Iraq invasion and "standing with the president on the war on terror" (which was said often in the 2002 elections). Kerry pointed out that bin Laden got away at Tora Bora, and that was a start, but he wouldn't call the Iraq war a mistake (he could have easily used the popular repub tactic; "I was deceived")! To many of us, acting as the opposition looks stronger than appeasing the other side or adopting their views points. Dems for the most part won't come out and say the obvious truth; the neo cons have lied to us, that Bush* has "flip flopped" on countless issues,that republicans are stealing the future away from all Americans by destroying our environment and raiding our Treasury, and that we offer a better solution to all of the problems facing our county. We can all blame the media, but the fact is that the left doesn't have strong, unified messages on the issues, and has often thought that our side would remain politically viable by "playing nice" with bullies and thugs. It simply hasn't worked.

We'll look tough by pushing back when we're hit (a swiftboat vet spews venomous lies? Have Dems say in unison "we're shocked and appalled by the slander and outright lies the opposition has funded against our war hero candidate! Our candidate served his country in combat abroad, while theirs never completed his service at home!") Our positions will look worthwhile if we don't appear ashamed of them by moving rightward because we think that's where the "winning" ideas are.


Lying, cheating and stealing aren't necessary; telling the truth about the lying, cheating and stealing of the other side is, though. The truth is the greatest weapon that the Dems have, and we need our entire army to wield it.

[maxrandb]

50. We Can Stick to Principles

and still have the nuts to expose the turds on the right for the "ass pickles" that they are.

The two are not exclusive. If your opponent is a "spawn of Satan", I see nothing that breaks my principles for railing for 8 months that he is a "spawn of Satan".

[AmandaRuth]

33. Dem's better get mean and get God, or whatever it takes

because we are one maybe two elections away from a completely reformed America, a religious right neocon paradise. I sure feel sorry for our young men, cannon fodder for the cons, and our young women, second class baby machines for the American taliban. And even worse our schools and education system will be destroyed, re-set for education to maintain the status-quo.

[calimary]

34. I love this one: "Chad Clanton, part of Kerry's rapid-response team"

"Kerry's rapid-response team" - uh - hmmm... excuse me? Kerry had a rapid-response team? He did? Anybody know where they were and what they were busy "doing" all that time? Did they ever even bother to get up out of bed?

[Robbien]

38. Much less did they even think to use grassroots?

The GOP camp had operatives in every online forum promoting right wing activism.

Kerry's rapid response team wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of the liberal grassroots except to expect its automatic vote.

[calimary]

42. Pathetic, wasn' t it? I was just totally disgusted, time after time.

I remember writing to Ann Lewis of the DNC after reading an article, early-on in the campaign about how Democrats realized they had to get tough. And it quoted her as saying "we have been too nice. We have been too polite." And I was SO encouraged by that, sincerely!!! I wrote, AND called her to talk about it and to encourage her further and to tell her she was absolutely on the correct track. And it seems as though that's where it ENDED.

[creeksneakers2]

41. The Dems are finally starting to get it.

They've stood up to Bush's framing on SS and now the RWs are in mass confusion. They can't even find anybody to propose Bush's cuts.

This is a good start but it isn't enough. Bush says SS is in crisis. We need people who will say flat out, "Bush is LYING about SS being in crisis." The Republicans are calling the trust fund "worthless IOUs." We need people who will say, "The Republicans are conidering CHEATING the baby boomers out of the money they SAVED to cover their retirements."

This wouldn't be overly harsh. Its just the plain truth and trying to be too dignified to tell the truth isn't being dignified at all.

I argue with wingers all the time on the net. They use all their harsh language and threats to hide the fact that they are all a bunch of sissies. When confronted with the truth, they slither away. There is no reason to be afraid of them.

[calimary]

43. I wish to God that were true. But they aren' t starting to get it. YET.

Barbara Boxer stood up last week. Anybody stand up with her? Anybody BESIDES her show any backbone? Or did everybody just roll over, yet again, and do their best doormat imitations?

I am VERY proud of Barbara Boxer. But ONE Senator with spine does not a "starting to get it" make.

It seems the only people who DO shove it back in wingers' faces are we "little guys" out in the trenches, and in the grassroots that our party higher-ups consistently fail to harness. But I've lost count of the times I've been left screaming at my TV at yet another mealy-mouthed liberal or Democrat who lets the enemy sneak yet another point in, or another visual debating device like interruption or smiling derisively or smirking or laughing out loud. How many people have you EVER seen, debating Pat Buchanan, who actually call him on the mocking laughter he consistently and REPEATEDLY breaks into WHILE the Democrat or liberal is talking and trying to make his/her point? How many people have you seen who've actually stopped Buchanan in his guffaws and told him to shut up and called him on that conniving, calculating manipulative device? Called it what it is? Anybody EVER confront him on that when he breaks into it again and again and again and again? How many of those on "our side" even start talking louder when one of these rude thugs pulls one of those interruption debate tactics? How many of our guys keep talking, REFUSE to give ground, REFUSE to reward that shitty behavior, REFUSE to give in, and respond by talking loud enough to talk over the interruptor and drown him/her out so he/she is the one forced to back off? HOW OFTEN? In all the verbal joustings I've witnessed even just since bush came to national prominence, I' can count the times I've seen this counter-attack on the fingers of ONE HAND. Everybody is just too damned busy being nice and polite, and when somebody butts in, rudely, they just allow it. WOULD YOU LET YOUR KID BUTT IN LIKE THAT WITHOUT CHECKING THAT CRAPPY BEHAVIOR? Certainly not. WHY DO THEY?

It just infuriates me.

[Robbien]

44. If there is going to be a crisis in twenty years

it won't be Social Security, it will be the roads or schools or many other real problems.

[Sparkle]

46. You should see some of the posts by right wingers

on yahoo regarding this article. It's like they can't believe it. They claim their precious Bush was attacked everyday during the campaign.

[chomskysright]

48. ..love the nosepick pict

[DownNotOut]

51. Fighting back isnt

answering to a bunch of repug attacks. Its generating our own attacks. And for fuck sake, quit leaning on paper tiger Michael Moore to do it for us.


DownNotOut

[maxrandb]

53. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner! Thank you for saying what I wanted to say. It is not enough to respond to their attacks. If we do that, you are still allowing them to FRAME THE DEBATE!

[athenap]

58. Politically Correct confused with Honorable

That's where I'm coming down on this.

Dems are trying to be politically correct all the time...play nice, and hope for a little in return. But there are times when honor and responsibility to one's constituents override the political correctness.

Get blunt, Dems. Call a spade a spade, and a liar a liar. The political correctness has its place, but it's not in a political campaign.

In counseling, there are times when the counselor comes out with a blunt, shocking statement, and its purpose is not to hurt, but to jar the client out of the same rut of thinking that is causing a block in progress. It's time to shock the country out of its complacency by plain speaking.

[Psephos]

63. Strength and toughness do not equal viciousness and spite

I've never seen an arms race of ugliness produce results worth having, in politics or anything else, for that matter. When repugs take the low road, the best response is to show in a sober light how much damage such bullshit does to the entire country. This requires discipline. There are a fair number of repugs who can and will put larger American interests above party interests, if it can be shown they are at odds. All it would have taken last November is a few out of every hundred repugs who voted to have flipped the results around.

Sometimes the things that FEEL good aren't the things that DO good.

[VegasWolf]

61. Character issues like not going to war for Halliburton? n/t

[KansDem]

62. I'll say this till I'm blue in the face...

Bush I and II required a complacent media. You can call it "framing" your opponent, but without a media willing to do their bidding, neither Bush would have reached the White House.

In 2000, the media lied about Al Gore and never told the truth about George W. Bush. In 2004, the media spent 2-3 weeks on the Swift Boat liars and barely gave a blip to Kitty Kelley's bio on the Bush Family which quoted W's former sister-in-law about W and coke snorting at Camp David.

And look how the corporate media "covered" election fraud in both 2000 and 2004...

There is NO "Rovian genius," just a complacent, willing corporate media willing to trash non-GOP, non-Bush candidates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week...

[VegasWolf]

81. True, the media are nothing but lazy whores, but Rove did figure

that one out and exploited it.

[brentspeak]

66. The Democrats could INSTANTLY become the "party of values"

if we become -- as we should -- the party that refuses to accept any special interest money whatsoever. "The Democratic Party will not be bribed", is a possible slogan.

We could then effectively make the case to the American public that the Democrats stand with the People, while the Republicans stand with the Powers That Be.

[Bouncy Ball]

67. WE DON'T HAVE THE CHARACTER ISSUE

THEY DO. WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE FUCKING MEDIA IN OUR BACK POCKETS.

Bush paid a journalist/commentator a QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO FORWARD HIS PROPAGANDA

AND ***WE*** HAVE THE CHARACTER ISSUE??


BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT.

If the Dems want some help calling 'em on the carpet on it, I'll volunteer my services, gladly. Call me a "paid consultant." I won't even ask for much, but room and board in DC and some spending money. AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE MY ADVICE:

1. Grab balls.

2. Back away from establishment or whatever it is clouding your judgement.

3. Stop listening to right wing pundits, get a sense of YOUR OWN HEAD.

4. START RAISING BLOODY HELL.

This is not a matter of an honest difference of opinion. These people are IMMORAL, they are VICIOUS, they are TEARING THIS COUNTRY APART.

This is NO time for pansy ass shit.

[Rockerdem]

70. In short, stop playing namby-pamby defense, for chrissakes

1. Attack
2. Attack harder after being attacked.


(That will be $100,000 for my consulting services, thanks.)

[Bouncy Ball]

71. EXACTLY.

My GOD, do we have to come to DC and do it ourselves, elected Dems? Or are you going to find your guts and start doing a lot of long overdue ball-bustin up there?

Strength does not equal viciousness.

Forcefulness does not equal rudeness.

Truth-telling ALWAYS WINS IN THE END.

And if none of that works, just sit back in your leather club chair and imagine for a moment what repukes would do if a Dem president were in office who started a war based on lies, gave taxpayer money to a journalist to forward White House propaganda, condoned the use of torture, had 9/11 happen on his watch, I could go on and on and on.

I daresay that Dem wouldn't have even survived his first fucking term.

SO WHY IS THIS GANG OF CRIMINALS IN FOR TWO?

Damn.

[Rockerdem]

78. Also, no more policy wonks PLEASE

The ballsy strength that we agree on means one thing: leader and leadership. I dont want to see another person like Dukakis nominated, and Im not sure the my qualifications include a compromiser like HRC. We need a modern liberal version of a straight-talking Truman.

The tough talking elements of Dean but with the stately, composed, self-assured steadiness of a guy like Clark. Man or woman.

[JerseygirlCT]

74. That's it! I'm so very tired of watching as

our candidates fall into the defensive role time and again.

Holy cow, if we didn't have enough to go on the offensive and stay there aggressively this time, I don't know when we will.

[JerseygirlCT]

73. You got it!

[kcora]

85. Advertising and Politics

Anyone see the PBS special on how the campaign team decided they could put Bush into office, got him into being the Texas governor, then on from there. I remember reading about a study on how many times you had to say something negative about the other party before it would stick.

Isn't this just the kind of thing our forefathers worried about when they first decided to try out this thing called Democracy? And they didn't even have television back then!

The Democrats tried, half-heartedly, to duplicate the Republican tear-down tactics. People just got tired of hearing it. All the negative campaigning is an offensive move and it won't just go away if it's ignored.

It seems to me it's a lot like a man's ego - the bigger the ego appears the more vulnerable it really is. The thing is not to take the defensive, but to come back with an offensive that doesn't try to duplicate the negativity but exposes it.

The other thing the Dems need to learn is the KISS principle: KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID. Too complicated a reply and we just lose the message. (Like I probably did writing this.)