Should Democrats attack Bush* or simply wait for him to be voted out?

[Q]

- There seems to be two distinct schools of thought on this issue within the Democratic party. One 'side' wants to wait and see if Bush* implodes on his own. The other side wants him investigated and prosecuted for his misdeeds and criminal acts...right now.

- But the problem with 'waiting' is that the American public is likely to perceive the lack of active opposition against Bush* as a sign that he's doing a good job. The perception that he's doing a good job could also give him the upper hand in the next election...as an incumbent and 'popular wartime president'.

- Another obvious problem with holding back on attacking Bush* and his policies is that Democrats would have little or no ground to oppose him on these issues if he pulls off a 'win' in 2004. It would be extremely difficult to oppose any policy Democrats supported or voted for in Bush's first term.

- How do you see it? Should the Democratic party confront the Bush* administration on their blatant corruption, war profiteering and malfeasance? Or should they wait and hope there's a free and fair election in 2004 and he's voted out of office?

[sangh0]

1. More propoganda

Some people think there's only two choices for us - Either we agree with Q, or we want the Dems to STFU. Either you're with Q, or you're against him.

There seems to be two distinct schools of thought on this issue within the Democratic party. One 'side' wants to wait and see if Bush* implodes on his own. The other side wants him investigated and prosecuted for his misdeeds and criminal acts...right now

[Q]

2. Jesus...it's propAganda!

- I asked a sincere question. Can you answer it? Or will you persist in the singular purpose of disrupting?

[sangh0]

10. Not a sincere question. It's a false dichotomy

Asking "Should Democrats attack Bush* or simply wait for him to be voted out?" is like asking "Are you with us, or against us?"

It's not a sincere question. It's an attempt to limit the debate by misportraying it as a choice between one of two options. A truly sincere question would reflect the fact that there are more than two choices.

[ulysses]

20. so...

what are the other options? Does "wait around until things like Enron die of neglect" count as a separate option?

[sangh0]

33. Another option

some Dems criticize Bush* for his Iraq lies, while others criticize Bush* for his tax cut lies, while others criticize his radical domestic policies, while others keep quiet.

You see, it's not simply a matter of "whine about war or STFU". There are a million possibilities, and the only purpose served by implying that there are only two possibilities is to limit our options.

[sangh0]

36. Another option from "How Wars Are Won" by Bevin Alexander

Strike at enemy weakness

"Avoid the enemy's strength entirely by refusing to fight pitched battles, a method that has run alongside conventional war from the earliest days of human conflict. Brilliantly applied by Moa Zedong to defeat the Chinese Nationalists"

I would also add that this tactic has been criticial to the success of non-violent movements like MLK's CIvil Right Movement, and Gandhi's efforts to escape British colonialism.

[sangh0]

38. Q, if you sincerely want to fight oppression

then I strongly urge you to read about those who have already done so and with success. Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, Otpor, The "People Power" movement (Philipines), Solidarity (Poland), etc

[sangha]

50. I guess Q doesn't want to fight oppression

Q gets SO upset when I disagree with him, but when he challenges me to offer alternatives, and I do, Q disappears.

I imagine Q realizes that he can't refute the tactics and the successes of such great men like MLK Jr and Mahatma Gandhi, so he pretends it never happened.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

sangh0......always tugging on Q's pigtails...makes me think you're smitten

;)

[sangh0]

34. I'm busted

My knees get all wobbly whenever Q gets that whiney tone.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

3. attack...for fear of the sheeple precieving that he's doing a good job

because the media whores are giving him a free ride and we cannot depend on them to show the truth of his incompetence

[Q]

7. Thank God for ElsewheresDaughter!

- That's obviously my position. If our main goal is to DEFEAT Bush* in the 2004 election...we can't afford to give the impression that he's doing a good job. The plain truth is that he's doing a horrible job..but the American media won't report it. It's a sad thing to say...but one must look to the foreign press for information about what's really going on in DC and Bush's* war zones.

- Others are free to disagree. But we MUST win the next election or the whole world will suffer. I say we give Bush* hell.

[BloodyWilliam]

4. ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!

I don't see why we should play any nicer than those fuckers played when Clinton was in the white house, and Clinton's crimes, even the violence that happened on his watch, are nowhere near as eggregious or corrupt as those of the current administration.

I'm tired of playing nice. I might not be able to help pitying Rush Limbaugh (although that's got to be more galling than being attacked. Liberals everywhere feel sorry for him. :evilgrin:), I might not be able to help actually considering what they say before I tell them to fuck off, but I and I think our entire party and philosophy should stop playing nice.

Burn them. Make Nixon look like a fucking SAINT compared to them. Because they deserve it. If this is what we know, imagine all the stuff that's fallen through even our cracks.

[sangha]

49. Those words sound familiar

I think I read them in a book titled "Famous Last Words"

Sun Tzu's book was much better.

[Rowdyboy]

5. To what end?

The Rethugs control both houses of congress. We can't even get amendments added to bills because we don't have a majority anywhere. What would you suggest they do and who do you expect to listen to them? The media? ROTFLMAO. Yeah.

[BloodyWilliam]

9. If it bleeds, it leads.

We can't just present our case to the media, we have to polish it. Let's make the massive flesh wound that is the Bush administration look tasty, bloody, and gaping.

It's a matter of walking the extremely fine line between meek cowtowing to the administration and paranoid-ly accusing the adminstration of killing Nixon. But yeah, we need to make this simple, pretty, and bloody.

And we can start by killing that complete fucking LIE that Plame was no big secret. She was a fucking NOC, a deep cover intelligence agent who worked abroad on WMD. There's a reason Novak had to call the CIA for confirmation. I'm tired of hearing spin that this didn't damage security.

[sangh0]

11. Good answer!

Maybe you can explain that to Q in a way he can understand.

[Q]

31. But the 'spin' seems to be working...

...much to the chagrin of those who care about 'national security'.

- Why is the spin successful? The Bushies use something called the 'Reagan Memory Hole'. They simply dismiss it. Don't talk about...and let it fall down the memory hole with the help of the corporate media.

- This should STILL be front page news. Democrats and Republicans alike should DEMAND investigations and hearings. "This isn't just a 'sin'...it's a felony."

[Q]

13. To show the world that we STAND for something?

- What Bush* is doing is wrong...for America and the world. Isn't it enough just to stand on principles and uphold the values of the Democratic party?

- Making Bush* accountable for his lies and war crimes has nothing to do with being in the minority. It's our right and duty to speak out against those who are breaking the laws of the land and...frankly put...pissing on our Constitution and international law.

[caledesi]

6. Attack his policies and practices and show how they have failed.

[BloodyWilliam]

12. I think that's still too complex. We need to make this simple.

When were millions of jobs lost?

UNDER BUSH!

When did California get screwed in energy and money?

UNDER BUSH!

When did 9/11 happen?

UNDER BUSH!

When did hundreds of our men get killed in Iraq?

UNDER BUSH!

When did the economy pop?

UNDER BUSH.

No more spin from them. We need to keep this message simple and harsh.

/BITTERJADEDBASTARD.

[Q]

21. You're right...we have a tendency of making the argument...

...too complex.

- I believe 'we' made a mistake when we didn't follow Kennedy's lead in characterizing Bush's war as a FRAUD.

- The war IS a fraud and BushCo* should be held accountable.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. I'm convinced that one reason for the 2002 debacle

was that too many Dems were falling all over one another trying to "support the president*" (Not to mention the fact that no Dem should ever call him "the president." Like Janeane Garofalo, they should refer to him as "Mr. Bush.") Once again, as during Reagan's terms, they believed the propaganda about Bushboy enjoying strong support from the American people.

And if Bushboy did enjoy strong support, whose fault was that? The media certainly played a huge part, but if the Dems weren't going back to their home districts and telling all their local media and every constituent they met what a disaster Bush was, then they share some of the blame.

Anyway, if the Democrats, the allegedly opposition party, seemed unable to criticize the Resident of the White House, why would the average voter, the kind that barely wakes up to vote, have found any reason to vote against Republicans?

We need to keep the heat on the Busheviks and not let the Republicans intimidate or guilt-trip us. If I won the lottery, I'd fund assertiveness training for the Dem members of the House and Senate.

[Malva Zebrina]

8. We should not enable

criminal conduct and lies coming from a president who got there by questionable means in the first place. Everything about him is a farce--this, for the sake of the children, for the sake of humanity and for the sake of the reputation of this country as a beacon, should NOT be allowed to stand without challenge. Allowing Bush to ride this fantasy land propaganda and to practically force it on the people through his corporate owned media buddies--allowing bullying such as he is known for and allowing the destruction of this country by an idiot man with a pea brain, should never go unchallenged.

[MasonJar]

14. Implode on his own?

How can we expect him to implode on his own unless we hammer him with his own lies? The press will not assist in his implosion. They cover his posterior with vigor. We are responsible to future generations to save the environment from this loser and to help ensure our grandchildren do not pay for his atrocities.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

18. masonjar correct the media will protect him from implosion

[ElementaryPenguin]

15. Attack the shit out of him - at ALL times! Just as the Repukes did G Davis

No question about it! No room for subtlety when we're battling Repuke talk radio and Repuke cable news networks!!!!!!!

[mmonk]

16. Attack

silence will lead us nowhere. The press is absent and there is little debate. Expose and attack is our only chance.

[sweetheart]

19. why waste a torpedo on a sinking ship

bush will lose because he has screwed his own party... and in a sense, it is not a wise use of ammunition, except to point out the fact of the sinking and why. Sure, waste a few bullets to show popular support for the torpedo.

The problem with putting yourself in to over-media-exposure is that there the rule of karma and attention span. What overexposes naturally must become less exposed... people get tired of assholes, body bags and being alarmed in to a constant state of terror and fear by the american government of terrorists... they will bring about their own demise through sheer exhaustion.

Like a surfer, wait for the set. clark is lined up perfectly for the next set in this regard, as increasinly the bush-body-bag presidency comes under the light after the primary, there will be nothing to do in GOP land but mopping up tears.

I think the answer to your question is BOTH.

[ulysses]

22. the ship may not be, in fact, sinking.

We can get more torpedoes.

Attack. Attack every day, and attack hard.

[sweetheart]

24. well, it its not sinking

don't use torpedo's... use nukes. I agree. Attack with all means all the time, as certianly that is what they have been doing in reverse.

It is the will of the universe that bush be destroyed and forgotten as his carbon atoms are recycled... let that be accelerated. ;-)

[ulysses]

28. LOL!

It is the will of the universe that bush be destroyed and forgotten as his carbon atoms are recycled

I think it's good to remember the stupid times, but still. :D

[Q]

23. I think you may be 'underestimating'...

...Bush* voters. They frankly don't care what Bush* does....they'll vote for him because he's not a Democrat.

- Bush* has lied to the American people...about many things. He has also committed treason and is a war criminal. It's not an option that we expose the truth on these issues. It's our duty in a Democracy.

[papau]

25. Sure is true the Media does not care what Bush does - so the only

way to break through is by being "news" - and calm comment equates to same-old, same-old in our right wing media, unless it is Bush talking, in which case a new photo makes a new story.

Dean like "in your face" to Bush is the only way to get past the media right wing bias.

[sweetheart]

26. both, attack attack

but don't be seen as the attacker. Let the appearance be that he is falling on his own foibles... slipping on the banana skin he himself dropped. akido has no attacker, just someone goes down.

[seasat]

27. I'd say attack but always offer alternatives.

The media always picks up on the attacks but never the alternative policy offered by liberals. Each time you issue an attack, immediately offer a solution. That way they can't whine we're too negative.

[Q]

29. Shouldn't we also do a 'follow up'?

- That is...when someone makes a valid criticism against Bush*...the PARTY needs to back that person up and keep it in the news.

- So many times we've seen Democrats score points against Bush*...only to see the story drop out of sight in the press because the discussion isn't kept alive by other Democrats.

[seasat]

40. I agree with that.

I think that as Democrats, we tend to be more forgiving and let issues slip into the past. We make a criticism and then drop it. Repukes constantly repeat critisms about Clinton (myths and lies for the most part). We need to drill it and support those that do.

Tom Daschle would occasionally break out of the mold and attack Shrub but would be left whistling in the wind by the rest of the Democrats. That let the Shrubbites demonize him. If the rest of the Senators had stood behind him he could have been more effective. I agree with you about follow up and support.

[bobthedrummer]

30. Attack and finish him off once and for all

the worst pResident ever. Counter-coup.

[Q]

32. No more opinions on this?

- This could be very important in relationship to the 2004 election. Democrats need to be concerned about how they're perceived by the voters.

[Sideways]

39. Oh Gawd Don't believe This "Voter" Hooey

Falling for how the voters see this shit? Who said the voters feel this way? The media in their very intense short cycle Arnold dance? The media in every conflict with a DEM? Please the 'voters' are not turned off by THIS the fucking media is and they are here 24/7 to tell you just that.

ATTACK ATTACK AND ATTACK.

Last time I checked Americans might be as stupid as a dirt taco but they LOVE a fight. Stop believing the media tripe. Americans are not tired of a fight they are tired of a loser.

Take the fight back from these asssholes and make it OURS. Then go and kick some fucking ass.

Anyone here ever dealt with a bully? 'Nuff said. Turn the fucking tables on these punk ass Repugs.

Put their lies in a vise grip and turn the fucking screws. Tight and hard.

Trust me I've been dealing with a narrcissistic fuck in my own life and making him squeal/hurt NOT because he wants to BUT because it is his only option and is the only thing that works.

FUCKING FIGHT. FIGHT. FIGHT.

[Q]

47. I meant that the voters must 'perceive' Dems as fighting...

...for their rights and AGAINST those who oppress them.

- And it could well be that's why less than half the 'population' votes. Republicans have dominated politics WHILE attacking and smearing Democrats. This is a time for strong leadership.

[Cheesehead]

35. We need to use all of the weapons at our disposal - ASAP

Even though wounded, Whistle Ass and his minions still add to the cumulative damage to society with every day in power. He must pay for his malfeasance.

[LuCifer]

37. ALL the Democrats have to do is TELL THE TRUTH about Dumbya!!!

THAT IS ALL! Plain and simple. No if's, and's, and certainly no BUTTS!

BE RELENTLESS!!!

Alien Sex Fiend said it best: "ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!"

Lu Cifer

[Cocoa]

41. they should block Bush's EPA nomination

like Clinton, Lieberman, Edwards, Kerry and Lautenberg are doing. Please contact these Senators, everyone, let them know you know about and support this fight, if you agree with what they're doing. I agree with it, it's a good opportunity to put focus on Bush's terrible environmental policies.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68&ncid=68&e=2&u=/nyt/20031015/ts_nyt/epanominationadvancesbutsenatorsvowtoughvoteahead

<snip>

But a quick Senate vote is by no means certain. Senators Clinton and Lieberman are among several Democrats who have vowed to block a full Senate vote on Mr. Leavitt's confirmation until the Bush administration provides more specifics on its environmental policies. Other Democratic senators who have said they will block the nomination are John Edwards of North Carolina, John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts and Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey.

In addition, Senator Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat and member of the environment committee, who endorsed Mr. Leavitt today, was said to be considering whether to join in holding up the vote of the full Senate.

more...

[PurityOfEssence]

42. Bash Bush; Michael Moore blew a golden opportunity on Dobbs last night

Lou said: "George Bush is a nice guy..." to start off a statement that led to a question. Moore should have torpedoed that. At the very least, he should have pointed out how so many of his actions were so mean.

This is the tack pundits and politicians should take: either say that he's a big ol' meanie, or point out specifics of his cruel policies and hypothesize that he's just clueless. Maybe he just doesn't know what overtime's like for a non-union hourly employee who makes more than $22.5K a year. Maybe the office shouldn't be held by someone who doesn't.

He's not "nice"; he's a dick. The candidates might shy away from that, but there should be battalions of proxies out there chorusing about that, so when the candidates are called upon to comment on their statements, they can just say, like Edwards did, that evaluation of his evil is beyond them, but that the actions are pretty damning.

Moore has nothing to lose. He's irretrievably hated by the right.

[VOX]

44. Exactly. Mike should have said, "He may appear like a nice guy, but..."

"would a nice guy do (insert damning items that oppose and conflict with *'s "nice-guy" image)."

Chance lost.

:kick:

[VOX]

43. All attack, all the time!

Sorry to go there, but there's no more "let's-be-saintly-and-not-like-them" wiggle-room. Time is running out for America.

* should be confronted at every wrong turn, which is every day. Staying on the offensive at least keeps the right wing counter-spinning, and can hamper the varnished versions of their message-machine.

IMO, it doesn't even feel like a choice -- it feels more like ideological warfare, and to sit passively is not only counter-productive, it is corrosive.

[poskonig]

45. Always attack.

The each attack gets negative info on Bush to 'x' amount of voters. Everyone counts.

Of course, they have to be good attacks. Nevertheless, allowing Bush to frame the debate is a recipe for losing.

[Q]

46. More opinions...

...the better.

[Terwilliger]

48. You know what I think

and you know I think they're weak and docile

Impeachment should STILL be called for after the "16 words" All the Dems want to do is wait and HOPE Bush shoots himself. Talk about a fucking gamble!!

[gate of the sun]

51. speak the truth

and let that voice be heard. It's not just an "opinion" that GW is well fill in the blank......but let the truth be heard.....people know the truth when they hear it on some level....well maybe that's hopeful thinking..

to say nothing on the other hand is like being complicit.