Can any candidate win without calling Bush a liar?

[veracity]

Despite the blatant lies told in the SOTU - all the candidates are treading very lightly when criticizing Bush. Clark, for example, was so hesitant about saying what is factual - that Bush was absent from his Guard service for a full year. I don't understand the fear of saying it as it is. No Republican had any problems about calling Clinton a liar, and much worse, in public.

In the Miami Herald, this morning, Bill Cohen's editorial is titled,`The SOTU, While not quite a lie, it was clearly deceptive.' When you say things intended to deceive, you lie. Plain an simple...but direct use of the word "lie" seems to be forbidden when it comes to Bush. Do the dem candidates have to walk on tiptoe around the criminal lies that Bush has told?

The media has set the standard for protecting Bush's lies. Do the dem candidates have to be the 'nice guys' - or is the truth the way?

Flashback to a TVNL editorial: The President Who does not Lie!
http://tvnewslies.org/html/lying_redefined.html

[MoonRiver]

1. That could be rephrased to say:

Can any candidate win by telling the truth about *?? I think it's the ONLY way to win. Any candidate that enables that scum bag will completely lose the Democratic base. It would result in an abysmal loss for us.

[name not needed]

2. No.

Because Bush* IS a liar.

[NashVegas]

5. Correct

The first, most important thing we must do it make it acceptable to remark on the emperor's lack of threads.

[quaker bill]

3. Since you have to lie to avoid it.

I would say no.

[cthrumatrix]

4. people need to wake up ....this "safe mode" candidate to get in the GE

means NOTHING if they don't have issues and a backbone....how in the heck can you energize a base if your candidate doesn't have the "xxxx" to go toe-toe with the bush favored media.

electability is a broad issue...can they raise cash...do they have a broad base...do they have a record...to they stand UP for the people against the BS going on in the WH...do they have the ability...etc....

Safe in your candidacy becuase the media has not "smeared" them yet doesn't translate in auto-success in the GE.

Dean has the above and others have pieces of it..lord knows it will flying bullets come the GE.

Dean has already proven he can take it....and his supporters and message is only growing.

[emulatorloo]

7. I am not sure any of the 4 frontrunners qualify as "Safe Mode"

They are all calling out Bush and have been for a while. As have the not so front runner candidates.

Rove will smear them all - I think most sensible people realize it as do all the candidates. They are wide awake. Some even say Bring It On.

Dean is a strong candidate, as are the others.

On Edit: clarification

[Cocoa]

6. calling Bush a liar would be counterproductive

ironically, it would draw attention away from Bush's lies, which we can't afford to do.

[Terwilliger]

8. yes, but the question was...how do you shake the faith that the people...

have in El Twit Grande if you don't call him on his lies?

[JPJones]

9. Our candidates

would be liars if the DIDN'T call Bush a liar.

[kentuck]

10. They have no choice but to call Bush a "liar" about the war....

Because that is the issue that he expects to carry him back to the WH. If he isn't called on his lies about WMD, imminent threats, etc, then the Democrats would be forfeiting the issue and probably the election to Bush.

[TexasSissy]

11. Absolutely. It should be implied and hinted at. It's not

It's not politically savvy to call the Prez a "liar." Everyone knows it. A candidate can hint at it, imply it, give facts that lead listener to the obvious conclusion (as if they didn't already know it) without using that word. The word is inflammatory, and voters don't want to hear it, IMO.

The red ball is on a high shelf.
The red ball fell to the floor.
Someone spilled blue paint on the ball.
I will never let the balls fall.

(You know there's a red ball with blue paint on the floor, don't you? I don't need to explicity say that.)