Is it INEFFECTIVE (was "counterproductive") to call Bush a "Liar"?

[bunkerbuster1]

Bush is lazy, willfully ignorant, a sadist, a lousy father, a crap businessman, a phony Christian, and he'll surely go down in history as one of the worst if not the worst President ever.

However, I will give him this much--he is smart enough to have his subordinates tell the outright whoppers. I'm reminded of that as we hear things like Cheney's ridiculous predictions about the likelihood of a quick, easy invasion of Iraq, uttered in March 2003, when he surely knew otherwise.

I can't help but wonder if we're falling into a trap when we call the man a liar. I remember that John Kerry deliberately stopped short of calling him that when asked about it during the Presidential debates.

I don't think Kerry did that out of any sense of decorum; I think it had a lot more to do with acknowledging that Bush always provides himself with sufficient plausible deniability (to borrow a phrase heard often during the Iran-Contra days) so's to make his misleading statements something other than flat-out lies.

I'm sure some will flame me, and some will patiently explain that Bush has lied, lies today, and continues to lie.

But in my book, he's always got a back-door workaround explanation for his type of whopper. And we'll probably never win over many folks to our side by using that particular term.

(Been wanting to write this for awhile.)

**********
ON EDIT: I was never worried about losing voters through an impolite usage; but rather, losing arguments to people who could be swayed. Thus the change from "Counterproductive" to "Ineffective", in the subject header above.

[rhett o rick]

1. No but it is redundant. nt

[ewagner]

2. My opinion

I don't think we've called him a liar because of exactly what you said...he appears to always have a "back door" to his lies....just like he blamed the lack of WMDs and Al Queda connection lies on "faulty intelligence."

Our problem is that we haven't closed the rhetorical back door so that we can call him a liar....

We aren't mean enough or vicious enough to build a trap for him to jump into.

[FloridaPat]

3. Everything that comes out of * mouth is a lie. Same with the underlings.

Until the last election, I would watch * speeches and count the lies. Since the election I can't even stand him long enough to do that. If he has a choice between a lie and the truth and it doesn't matter to anyone which way he will go, he goes for the lie. This is a man who you have to watch what he does, because he won't tell you the truth. I think he is physically incable of it. And all liars have a back-door workaround. It's part of the process

[Karenina]

9. Yup!

[sui generis]

4. we're not out to "win folks over" with every statement

we're out to reinforce our base. When we stop short of calling a lie a lie based upon senatorial decorum, we alienate the very people who are angry about the lies.

It's not "mischaracterization". It's not "misinformation". It's not "dishonesty". It's a lie.

Why is it important to use the "lie" word? For the same reason that Kansas cooking can use a dash of hot sauce every now and then.

If we're going to lose potential converts because we called Bush a liar, then we're going to lose them for some silliness along the way anyway, and we'll have given up our chance to call Bush a liar.

[ClassWarrior]

12. So you'd rather call him** a bad man instead of a criminal??

This isn't a matter of the base wanting one thing and the electorate needing another. This is a matter of "lie" being almost as weak a description as "misinformation" or "dishonesty." See post 10. Use the right, damning words, and we can shore up our base WHILE turning the heads of the electorate.

NGU.

[sui generis]

15. there is no one strategy that is going to work

please don't put words in my mouth. Mocking your fellow DU'ers is uncalled for.

I would go much worse than "criminal", but the first "jab" has to be to get them reeling and off balance before you sweep them off their feet with a love tap from hell.

[ClassWarrior]

18. "Naughty" isn't going to get anyone reeling.

Apart from what you perceive as "mocking," did you get anything out of what I said?? It's not "either-or." Language matters. If we use the right words, we can fire up the base AND change the minds of others.

NGU.

[sui generis]

22. I remember you.

I didn't say anything about "naughty". Those were your insipid words. I repeat, stop putting words in my mouth. I got what you said. Now you're being snide.

I think we agree if you can stop posturing for a moment.

[endarkenment]

5. Bush & Co. deliberately lied us into war

The DSM minutes provide all the evidence needed. He has told outright whoppers and he lies continually when he associates our invasion of Iraq with 9-11.

Liars always have excuses. Their excuses are lies.

Our leaders have followed your advice to a tee: nobody of consequence publicly observes that our emperor has no clothes. Where has it gotten us? Where has the cowardice and nuance and waffling of the Democratic Leadership taken us?

[bunkerbuster1]

7. Phony, cowardly, incompetent, all good names.

I'm just arguing that "Liar" is a term that's defined pretty narrowly; whenever I've seen it used in any open forum, there's always a lot of fairly successful ass-coverage going on, on the other side.

Phony, cowardly, and incompetent? Not so much.

And I've yet to hear any of the pink-tutu Democratic "leadership" crowd use those terms; they should.

[leesa]

6. I fully disagree. I believe it was a big mistake for Kerry to "stop

short" Bush's lies are easily documented. We need to say it louder and more frequently.

[calimary]

21. You BETCHA. It's Just Another Lie. We have to pin the word "LIAR"

on him as though we were pinning the tail on the donkey.

Pulling punches is NOT allowed. It's long past time to call this what it is. He's a LIAR. A shameless, unapologetic, conniving, manipulative, cheating, thieving, repeat-offender LIAR. It has to be epoxied onto him permanently. It must be the thing you unconsciously think about, without even trying, when the name "bush" comes up. It has to become synonymous with LYING, LIAR, LIES, and MORE LIES. If the bad guys can tar and feather Clinton for lying about cheating on his wife, WE can do that to bush for lying about pushing us into an unnecessary war.

Repeat:

Would you want YOUR kid to DIE for a LIE?

Repeat:

bush lied. And people died.

And then, start repeating this:

Impeachment IS an option.

and...

Impeachment IS possible.

Because if we do that enough, it will evolve into...

Impeachment IS INEVITABLE.

[mark11727]

8. The buck, as always, stops at the Big Desk...

...whether * told the lie, or one of his minions, it's all the same, and we're all paying for it.

[ClassWarrior]

10. It's not counterproductive - it's just not terribly effective.

Read "Don't Think of an Elephant." We're pretty forgiving about lies. After all, we all lie to one degree or another - little white lies, etc. And we expect our Presidents to lie under certain circumstances - over national security concerns, for instance.

According to the book, a more productive accusation would be, "BUSH** BETRAYED THE TRUST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE." It's a lot harder for people to forgive a pResident for betraying their trust.

NGU.

[bunkerbuster1]

11. Excellent point.

The message header, which I won't edit, probably should read "Is it Ineffective to call Bush a Liar."

ON EDIT: changed my mind; I will edit! Thanks again.

[Mass]

14. Very good point.

[Totally Committed]

13. We need to say... repeatedly...

over and over ad nauseum.

It's the only way the sheeple "hear" anything. The Republicans know that, and we should take that neo-con tactic and run with it.

TC

[gratuitous]

16. Yes, it's ineffective and counterproductive to comment at all on Bush

Don't ever point out a mistake, an exaggeration, a shading of the truth, or an outright lie. Everybody loves our popular, wartime president, and every good-hearted, red-blooded true American would love to sit down and have a beer and watch a ballgame with "Dubya," as he likes to be called.

Say nothing bad about Bush, point out none of his failings, because otherwise people might start to question their comfortable presumptions and prejudices so carefully wrought by the mighty Republican Wurlitzer, and wouldn't you feel just awful if they'd spent all that time and money on public relations and propaganda for nothing?

[undeterred]

17. I've begun to think of Bush as a really great actor

maybe one of the best. I think one should judge someone by what they do and set aside what they say- then see if the two match up. In Bush's case there is a huge gap between the person he claims to be and the person he actually is. Nevertheless a lot of people watch him speak and fall right in to the trap.

He's a highly skilled actor.

[auburngrad82]

19. Frame it as a value, ie Honesty.

Honesty is a moral value that the GOP seems to neglect. Bush and his administration are on record as having lied more than 200 times about Iraq and the Downing Street Memos show that they knowingly falsified information that led to the deaths of more than 1700 American soldiers and more than 100,000 Iraqis.

Bush should be held accountable for his lack of morals.

[ScamUSA.Com]

20. Im comfortable calling bush a lying sack of shit

because its true