Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benburch]

1. Bullhocky.

Attack, attack, attack. And never let up while he is in office.

We got into this mess by being too nice.

[JailBush]

2. Well, if ALL they're doing is attacking Bush, then, yes, take a break.

They have to have better plans before they criticize (which leaves the candidates who supported Gulf War II with their underwear down around their ankles).

But if I was campaigning against Bush, I'd put some solid solutions on my campaign website for the world to see, then start bashing Bush 24/7 for the duration of the campaign. People who are stupid enough to throw their sympathy at Bush are a lost cause anyway.

[maggrwaggr]

3. so someone tells the truth, and you call it an attack?

Just listen to what you said. Things have gotten so fucking warped in this country, that if someone comes out and tells the simple truth about something, they're called 'negative" and "angry" and "attacking"

It's really sad that it's come to this

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drfemoe]

8. I wouldn't mind if they let up on each other

when they spend so much time trying to trip each other up
.. that's what makes their legitimate calls on *u*h look impotent.

[caledesi]

33. Totally agree Magg! nt

Those are repug words: negative, angry, attack....

I don't care what they say. Keep on criticizing (there is so much ammo - have you looked at this country lately?) and then provide solutions of what you would do.

Did Karl Rove let up on McCain? No, and * won.

None of the candidates just criticize - they have all stated what their plans are. Democrats are people with ideas, rememember?

[hlthe2b]

5. Was this the consensus of those attending that high powered

lunch at Al Franken's (or has that occurred yet?) Just curious....

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Don_G]

7. You're Wrong

It's time for the Democratic candidates to take off their pink tu-tus, strap the boxing gloves on and get the country to listen to actual news for a change instead of the Faux Noise/GOP party line.

Dimbo can't hide the truth forever and this is the best chance yet to get the news out.

[HFishbine]

9. Pete

We need both. Don't forget, there is a lot of mind-blowing stuff that you and I, and even the freepers know to be true because of an intense political interest on the Internet. Not all of America has the message yet. Ultimately, I think American's will respond to the candidate who offers them the most optimism. But a winning strategy will include unraveling the invisible cloak the media has spun for Shrub. So, I say do both. Hammer the hell out of Bush and follow up with a better alternative to his failures.

[WillyBrandt]

10. I disagree--anger is fine now; there is time for positivity later

Constant attack on Bush is the way to go. It does not turn people off in the primary season; on the contrary it riles up Democrats, which is good.

When the primaries are over, there will already be an anti-Bush infrastructure, and every Democrat will be lobbing snotballs at him. At this time, the candidate can both attack Bush and remain above the fray by spending time on his positive proposals.

Moreover, since these elections are referenda on the incumbents, then it makes perfect sense to attack.

But for now the more attacks the better. The RNC didn't run that bullshit ad for nothing: the attacks on him are hurting him, corroding his support. The GOP does not abjure negativity, and stolen elections notwithstanding, they seem to do well.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillyBrandt]

21. Thanks, but there's no there there

There's nothing for them to capitalize on. They've tried. All sorts of bullshit, like Ed Gillespie calling criticism "hate speech"

Negative attacks on a lousy president are a good idea.

This is why: a lot of people feel uneasy, but can't place their unease or displeasure into words. (Think about how often you've had an emotion of yours crystallized by the words of someone else.)

When a Democrat--or whoever--attacks Bush, they've got a thought, an idea, a string of ideology to latch on to. It changes minds.

And there are a lot more people who are unhappy than disapprove of Bush. We've got a ways to go.

[John_H]

11. Recent polls seem to suggest otherwise.

notive the big drop in Chimp's approval when the dem debates began? I don't think this is a coincidence.

[grytpype]

18. Iraq had something to do with that, too.

[frank frankly]

12. I think we need both, Pete, and the direct attacks must increase

double barrel, all the way.

it takes the carrot and the stick...

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. I think "playing nice"

got us where we are today. No more. The gloves must stay on and we have to keep fighting. We need to decimate the idiot. Keep showing the sheeple how stupid he is. We have to continue the fight. THEY certainly aren't going to stop with their mudslinging. JMCPO

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maggrwaggr]

26. I respectfully disagree 10000%

I think the only thing to do is hammer hammer hammer the message

Simply the fact that people think it's "daring" to tell the truth, as Dean does, is what convinces me.

People gasp and say "oh my god I can't believe he said that". Then they think and realize "wait a minute, he's just telling the truth".

Then they get excited and send Dean money.

[caledesi]

34. We have the power! *finally* nt

[Punkingal]

16. I agee completely....

A breather from the attacks is in order, for a while at least.

[AP]

17. Totally agree. It's time for candidates to tell us...

...who they are and not what Bush is.

Bush does one thing remarkably well: he makes criticisms seem like indictments of the character of the person criticizing him.

It's like when Gore crowded him at the debate. Bush made a funny face, and it made Gore look like a fool.

So, fuck Bush. The person who beats him is going to win because they put forward a better image, and a better set of policies, and a better vision of America.

[Yupster]

40. What the heck was that anyway?

It looked like Gore walked into Bush's ear for no reason?

That was a very weird moment of the campaign.

[AP]

43. I think Gore wanted people to see that he was bigger and taller

than Bush, and he also wanted to fluster Bush while Bush was trying to answer.

Bush had spent way to much time in his life feeling confindent that his last name would get him out of anything, and way too much time fraternizing over a stiff drink, to be flustered by that move.

He really turned it around on Gore.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[caledesi]

35. OMG RL! You are bad. *and I love it*

No more pink tutus. That should be our mantra.

[Eloriel]

20. ALL of the candidates, that I know of, have a positive msg too

It's not what gets covered by the media, is it? In their stump speeches, when they appear on TV (as Dean was on Hardball last night and others have been), they talk about both.

We know from experience that it doesn't HELP to play nice with the Repugs, that praising Bush and voting with him only gives him more power. If our candidates are NOT pointing out what's wrong, some folks will never learn what's wrong. They have no other way to learn about it, literally (unless they go to the internet like we do, and most don't).

I can understand your concern at some level, but I do not honestly see a viable alternative. Too, if our candidates did what you suggest, that would also be exactly what the Repugs want. The only way out is through, IMO.

There will always be a sympathy vote for Bush among his own base. I'm not persuaded that moderates and swing voters will develop all that much sympathy for him unless they're immune to the truth anyway.

Eloriel

[JackSwift]

22. It's our job to attack Bush, not the candidates

And might I suggest that we focus on his personal cowardice in almost all situations, as well as his phenomenal laziness. These characteristics show lack honor and integrity and flat out inability to chart a course among his competing subordinates.

[Jim Sagle]

23. What a crocka chickenshit bullshit.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

25. We need both.

And our candidates are offering both. They may need to work a bit harder to get their positive messages more press, but we must attack Bush. For example, we can't let him run in and out of Iraq without pointing out how poorly he has supported the troops and vets in reality. That would be foolish.

[frustrated_lefty]

27. I respectfully disagree.

A widow of a victim from 9/11 is now pressing a court case saying Shrub lied, knew he was lying, and is partially responsible for the death of her husband. What Bush has done is sooooo criminal. They plainly, simply, need to be indicted. If it hurts us for now, so be it, the man and his administration have LIED to the world. They must answer to that claim.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

45. Why?

Poll numbers? Any specific reason you feel this way?

[Fleshdancer]

29. I think most, if not all the candidates DO have foward-looking proposals

This is what irritates me the most about the idiots posing as political journalists! They go on and on about the Democratic candidates not having any plans, but if they would get off their drunk asses and actually start researching they would know that there are wonderful, positive proposals coming out of all the top tier campaigns (probably all the campaigns actually). :grr:

It takes less than 5 minutes to open up a web browser, type the address for the campaign website, find the "issues" link, and start reading it.

But no. It's easier to say, for example, that Dean is a one issue candidate and while he attracts the angry Democrats, he needs to come up with a solution for the economy, or a solution for blah blah blah.

I use Dean as an example, but I've heard this kind of crap said about Clark and Kerry as well.

Is it laziness? Stupidity? Lack of general interest for their job?

[cliss]

30. Pete, I'm gonna respectfully

disagree with you. How was ever any bad president ousted? By nodding and agreeing to their misguided policies?

Think back to VietNam. Our country was in chaos then. People gradually became more and more angry over what was happening over there. Their voices rose in unison, demanding change. Recall the outcome of that.

My opinion is: they're not doing enough criticising. Start raising those voices. Calling all Democratic contenders: be creative in finding new things to criticize King George about. Ferret out new, unbeknownst to many, cheating and larceny.

If all the Democratic candidates start singing in unison, the noise will eventually filter down to Joe Average, who will finally pay attention.

[CWebster]

31. I think the "no attacks on Bush " route has been tried

and Bush rolled right over them as they cowered in the corner.
Let's not forget.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clark Can WIN]

32. How about if we branch out

and start hitting Cheney :-)

[caledesi]

36. I like it. The Dick, Cheney needs to be exposed. nt

[The Magistrate]

37. With All Due Respect, Sir

Unremitting and savage attack is an absolute necessity of the situation: the public must be accustomed to hearing out loud from public figures what many already wonder in their private conversations and hearts. Indeed, the whole substance of the primary campaign by Democratic candidates should be attack against the present administration: this should be what the candidates compete in, showcasing how they would attack the enemy in the general election. Any time spent disparaging a fellow Democrat, for anything, is a waste of time and news space. This is the time to attack, attack, and keep on attacking, without break or pause.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[RBHam]

47. I'm with the Magistrate

The best reason to keep the pressure on the Bush Cabal is because history proves IT WORKS!

Ask Max Cleland.

[Isome]

38. Why take a breather Pete?

And, since when is telling the truth about failed policies an attack?

There's never been a time that I can recall when the Dem candidates haven't had an alternative plan to the chaos * has created. Why should we ignore the good things our candidates are saying, the way the press ignores the awful things * does? It's not a winning strategy, it's not even a winning strategery. *s*

Just look at how they went after the Big Dog not so long ago. Their unceasing attacks (real attacks by the way, not criticism of policy or its outcome) on his character became so commonplace America accepted it. Our "attacks" are restricted to criticism of policy and criticism of his failure to tell the truth.

None of us (Democrats) went hog wild with the rape allegations against *. We talked about it, we recognized its improbability and left it alone. If the situation were reversed, you know the GOP would have had the woman (now deceased of course) on every talk show and pseudo-news program there is.

Repetition works. This is one page of their book we should shamelessly steal. But, like I always say, the beauty of it is we have truth on our side.

Come on Pete... join the party!! *big smile*

[Coldgothicwoman]

39. Uhoh...

Well...maybe I'll get flamed for this for 'low post counts'. Oh well...here goes.

I agree with PeteNYC in his base statement. I don't think we necessarily need to call off attacks against Shrubya...but there has to be some way to get our positive messages injected into the public conciousness! We DO have positive messages...and as other posters have said, they don't get reported a lot.

And maybe my perspective is just like totally off because I'm in Indiana...but every time (sweeping generalization) we come under fire where I can physically hear about it, its for the same reason. People don't want to think that they've so totally fucked up by (s)electing Shrubya that they may have to rethink. And, as another poster wrote, no...taking 5 minutes to research a campaign via web browser isn't hard. UNTIL you remember that the average person sadly doesn't care enough to bother doing it!

I can only speak from experience in my region, folks...and knowing how backwards the Corn/Bible Belt is, maybe I'm just wasting my time. But generally speaking, here...people make snap judgements. And if we spend the entire primary season bashing Shrubya, not to mention each other (which is just Rove propaganda for the few who do wait to decide before the general election!), then they will have discounted any progressive candidate out of hand. :(

We need to hit on the things Shrubya has done that we KNOW are wrong, and that we have incontrovertible proof about. But whether its on television shows, radio ads, whatever, we HAVE to get out our positive message! Rethuglitards love to talk about 'a new day for this' or a 'new day for that' in ads, and don't say a damn thing. They don't have to -- people eat that up! Look at Ah-nold!

Anyways...I guess that concludes my rant. Please don't flame me too hard, okies? :)

[sandnsea]

41. We need both

Just attacking Bush isn't going to work. And going over the top is probably going to galvanize Bush leaning people to him, instead of making them think about his policies. We need tough attacks on things people care about with strong solutions to make people understand why we're attacking in the first place. Otherwise it just sounds like politics as usual, blame the other guy mud slinging.

[Kinkistyle]

42. Take a breather? WE JUST STARTED!

Everybody has been kissing Bush's ass since two planes flew into the WTC, and look what has happened to our once great country? We should have been attacking Bush in 2001, and never stopped once. In fact, we need to attack Bush more, and never stocking til he's out on the curb of Pennsylvania Ave.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. I don't agree! I am convinced as a result of the Turkey Day photo-op

That Bush must be attacked more. I also think they have been putting forth a postive message. I also think more banana peals must be laid. Bush is all image and we have to remove his masque at every opportunity.

[DeepModem Mom]

46. Is hitting people in the head with a two-by-four our only chance?

I think your point is a valid one, PeteNYC, and would like to agree with you, but I worry that with all the money, power and press arrayed against us, if working daily to crack Bush's Teflon with the people may be our only hope. Not sure what our strategy should be --

[dusty64]

48. The need to get the truth

out about chimp and his regime is extremely important. However, I agree that up till now it seems all we hear from our candidates are attacks against each other. An agenda needs to be put forth that sharply contrasts with that of the rethugs. Its time for a plan that benefits the People and the Planet.

[CWebster]

49. People need to see

that there is nothing to fear in opposing bush loudly and vocally.

[sistersofmercy]

50. I agree with your observation and also believe the Dems should take

pause in bashing each other. Attacking policy is an excellent spring board, I'm proud Kerry has taken this lead. In addition, I believe the Cheney energy papers should be dealt with next.
Intersetingly, Dean has cited N Korea as a major threat but from what I can gather from foreign press it would seem Iran is yanking the chain of the misadministration. I want to know how and why the cleric who was in exile in Iran for about a decade was air vaced into Iraq at the beginning of the war by the US. The one who along with his nephew? was hacked to death in Najaf and reports suggest he had millions of US dollars for pay offs.
Well haven't finished my coffee for the morning so I hope this is actually coherent.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.