All of 'us'

[renie408]

need to be careful.

I have been hanging out here for a week or two and I get most of my news from NPR. I read other 'liberal' sites on the web and am a member of a couple of other Democratic message boards supporting various candidates.

Last night, I was flipping around on the TV and stopped to watch 'Scarborough County' on MSNBC because he was talking about the Israeli conflict. OMG!! It was like some kind of completely bizarre culture shock for me. I have so gotten into the mindset that Pee Wee Herman would be a better President that Bush that it was almost literally shocking to see someone defending him so vehemently on TV. Then I flipped over to FOX and saw just about the same thing. God, I am naive. I somehow thought that most people see what I see and what I keep reading that the people here see. This came on the heels of having dinner with my Republican family who are here for the holiday. I felt like Alice must have when she fell down the rabbit hole. They were all babbling on about those idiot Democrats and how we just don't understand anything about the economy and how clearly all the problems we are facing now are due to Clinton's ineptitude. I swear, it was...I dunno. I don't even know what it was. Bizarre. Weird. Scary.

I just know that we have GOT to not allow ourselves to become complacent about the idea of how easy Bush is going to be to defeat next year. I want to see Edwards nominated because I think he is a good man with good ideas who will be easy to promote and that he is highly electable. But I swear to you, I will vote for whichever candidate wins the nomination and I will support him in every way I can. Please, please...we must all keep our eye on the prize. Those of you who are anti-war and denounce candidates other than Kucinich and Dean based on their war vote...if one of them wins the nomination, PLEASE keep in mind the damage that either not voting or 'throwing your vote away' symbolically could do.

I am NOT writing this to subvert anyone or anything even vaguely like that. I am saying that everyday I am more convinced that Bush is a dangerous man to leave in the most important office in the world. And that getting him out of there might be harder than we all think. When the time comes, we have GOT to pull together. Scuffle now, that is what this time is about. But when the chips are down, just think about four more years of Bush.

[western mass]

1. what's scary is...

What's scary is that NPR passes for the "liberal media" in this country. I finally stopped listening during the build-up to the war, when the fact that NPR was just another stenographer for administration propaganda became too much to stomach.

You really want to be scared about how misinformed people are in this country, switch to reading the foreign press or listen to "Democracy Now (in exile)".

[renie408]

2. Thing is...

What press DO you believe?? The foreign press probably has as many biases as the press here does. I didn't think that NPR was that pro-war, in fact, it was the only place that I could listen to that wasn't constantly glorifying the whole thing.

It is creepy to think that EVERYTHING, everything you hear or read is spun through the filter of the person desiminating the information.

[western mass]

5. too true...

about all presses having their biases. The point of reading widely, I think, is to assemble a large enough range of facts and perspectives that you can form a your own, knowledgeable opinions. Reading/watching only the mainstream U.S. press gives you a perspective that's sometimes dangerously narrow--it's not an accident that THE REST OF THE WORLD doesn't think Iraqis took part in 9/11...like folks around here do.

I don't mean this to be a knock...but if the best thing you can say about NPR is that it "wasn't constantly glorifying the whole thing", then that pretty much speaks for itself. You want hard, critical analysis of Bush admin propaganda, rather than just repetition of the latest lies coming out of Cheney's mouth, look elsewhere. Even if Terry Gross does sound like a complete hottie :)

[dofus]

3. I don't think very many people here

are convinced that defeating Bush will be easy next year. We all hope fervently that his removal from office will come about. But many of us are highly skeptical that there will actually be a fair and honest election come November 2004.

Our very own Plaid Adder, in a piece back in February, said several crucial things:

"What it comes down to, really, is something very simple. We are used to living in a democracy, where politicians' livelihoods depend on their retaining popularity with their constituents. For this reason, we all assume that any sane politician cares a great deal about popular opinion. We have all, at various times, bemoaned the demeaning and short-sighted things politicians are willing to do to pander to popular opinion. Many of us, even, have come to realize that what the right has long been successful at doing is not so much changing their agenda to suit popular opinion as refashioning popular opinion so that it supports their agenda. But a politician who actually just does not give a good God damn about what anyone else—not just in this country, but in the entire world—thinks of him? We've never run across that before, because no such politician could survive the democratic process long enough to become a public figure. But that's exactly what we have in George W. Bush."

and
"We're used to the idea that our elected officials care about whether we are going to vote for them next time or not. Well, as we all point out daily, Dubya is not an elected official; neither are any of his appointed lackeys. It is time that we start not only saying that, but getting that. Dubya did not win a fair and free election in 2000. And he is certainly not acting like someone who expects to compete in a fair and free election in 2004. This rush to war, at all costs and despite overwhelming public disapproval, is merely the most extreme and terrifying manifestation of what is really the most frightening thing about Dubya: the fact that he acts, talks, raves, and governs exactly like a dictator."

You can read the entire article here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/15_serious.html

So very many of us are active in some way or another, either by supporting one of the current Democratic candidates for president, or by speaking out over and over to classmates, co-workers, relatives, anyone who will hold still and listen. What I know is that the supposedly mainstream media does not accurately reflect the country as a whole, that far more people don't trust Bush & Co than you'd thinking watching Fox or even listening to NPR.

Hang in there. Stick with DU. We represent a very wide range of political opinions. The main thing we have in common is an intense dislike of Bush and his minions, and a determination not to see Democracy's experiment fail in this country.

[tedoll78]

4. I have the distinct feeling that next year's campaign..

.. will be very tough. Tough to the point where if we win, it'll be with less than 280EVs. I think it might very well come down to one state again, but this time, I think the fight will be to pick-off two smaller states, rather than going after Florida.

Which is why we need to use legal guerilla-type tactics. Suppress GOP turnout with advertisements trumpeting how "liberal" Bush has been (AIDS funding, spending increases, gay appointees, praise for Affirmative Action ruling).

Canvass districts where Gore did well and get everyone registered and voting early via absentee ballots; if we boost turnout on our side by a mere 3 or 4% compared to the GOP's turnout, we win.

Fight tooth-and-nail to keep Bush off of the ballot in the states where his nomination falls behind the deadline. Don't roll over like we did in Alabama. This could very well deliver the state of Illinois to us with little to no effort. IL would then be a mere formality. (I forget which other states, but we need to do this.. 4 or 5EVs could be the difference.)

Have an infomercial the night after Bush's nomination speech, to dampen his bounce from the convention. (I'm worried about this). Infomercials worked for Perot to the point where he could've won the whole thing had he stayed in the race the entire time.. so we know for a fact that they work. A great thing about infomercials is that pundits don't follow and tell the viewing audience what to think about what they'd just seen.. they're left to decide for themselves - what a concept!
Also have an infomercial on the Monday night before the election as an effort to capture the ~7% who are last-minute undecideds; this could be the nudge tipping victory into our corner.

We also need an education campaign in the newspapers of the country. Newspaper ads, like billboards, are a cheap and effective way to get attention. Take out full-page ads in all major newspapers of the country each week once a week telling the public what Bush has done.. things that the regular newsmedia have all but ignored. The advertising strategy alone will generate tons of publicity, especially if we can put a clever name and spin on it.

Part of the voter education drive should be how the Bush administration reacted to the Clinton admin's efforts to warn them about Bin Laden. I just read Franken's book, and he does a damning job on this White House. Educate the masses on this, and on how sometimes the best home Defense is not Offense in an unrelated country.

Lastly, get young people voting again. Advertise and appear on MTV, and give them full-access to the campaign. Allow their correspondant(s) to travel with our candidate everywhere. Young people helped put Clinton in office. Hell, they're one reason Canada is so much more liberal than us.. young people there actually vote.

If we win, it will be very close. We need to get unothodox next year.

[renie408]

6. Infomercials and MTV..

Good ideas, both.

[tedoll78]

7. And considering..

That George Soros' Americans Coming Together will be funding turnout drives in 17 key states (with ~$75 million!)(plus whatever the unions put-up), we can divert some of our funding towards the costs of those infomercials. Presenting a well thought-out message to the electorate, without having the talking heads soil it, will pay-off really well. If polls show by Monday, Nov 1, that swing voters are worried about security, we could tailor our last infomercial's message to address that concern.. and so on.. sometimes I wonder why Gore didn't do this.

[renie408]

8. If this is stupid...

sorry, but could it have something to do with the 'equal time' thing? Would a channel have to offer equal time to the opponent?

[tedoll78]

9. Not anymore..

Not since that rule was revoked by the Reagan administration.

[renie408]

10. Duh

Sorry to be so uninformed.

[tedoll78]

11. No biggie!

I'm just pleased that someone likes the infomercial idea. It's one of my pet campaign strategies for 2004.