There's not enough enough Red Meat

[Tom Rinaldo]

It is possible, even easy to throw Red Meat to our own without splattering the undecided with excessive blood and Gore (pun intended). Righteous anger is a powerful force, and we need all of the powerful forces we can muster to not only defeat George Bush, but to take back Congress also. We can't tip toe around the importance of this election. It is not enough to say that Kerry - Edwards will do better for America, we also need to drive home the point that Bush - Cheney have done TERRIBLY for America. We don't have to descend into the gutter with the Republican attack machine to do that, but we can't rise above them in a hot air balloon either. The FACTS favor us. Secret energy task forces, Enron type lobbyists writing legislation favor us, and the gutting of the EPA favors us. The stacking of the Courts with right wing ideologues favor us. The intentional distortion of facts on Iraq favors us, and the naive assumptions about Americans being greeted with flowers. Under funding of first line defenders, the bankrupting of Social Security, rolling over for the Drug companies, the explosion of greed in America, the neglect of the Mid East, the mismanagement of North Korea, the dishonor of our veterens, and so much more, they all favor us. And what is the common denominator running through each of these greater and lesser catastrophes? The Bush Administration.

The Republicans are still fighting the wars of the early 70's with permissive liberal Democratic bogeymen as their straw men, and we let them get away with it. Our reaction? "Oh no, not us, you must be talking about someone else. We're responsible too". How much more powerful would it be for Democrats to force the focus onto the real conflicts of the 21st century, the ones Americans are grappling with right now? Why are we afraid to name names? Why can't Tom Delay and John Ashcroft be directly challenged? How can John Kerry be presented as a man of courage when the underlying message is; be careful not to say anything that the right wing might use against us? If we start out with the assumption that middle of the road Americans have to be smooth talked into buying our product, how much confidence do we have in what we offer? Confidence is the closer to any good sales ptich.

The Republicans will hit us with exactly the same attack lines regardless of what we do or do not say during this campaign. If they can't find some clip from a contemporary rally to use against us, they will recycle one from the past, and invent whatever context they need to use it against us. We can't fight back with one hand tied behind our back, and we don't have to hit below the belt to do so. We have plenty of fair targets to focus on. If Kerry and Edwards claim to have the courage and ability to protect our nation from all threats, domestic and foreign, they can start by defending our people from the special interest driven, self serving, deceptively crafted and disastrous policies of the current administration. Name names, cite instances, take prisoners, and liberate America from false patriotism. We must show the courage of our convictions, bravely, and face down our opposition, looking them, and our own people, straight in the eye. Decision making should be nuanced, but never leadership. Clarity in defense of truth is not a vice.

[doctorbombeigh]

1. There's plenty of red meat at my house, I don't need it from them.

Let them do the convention tv show in whatever style they think will work best. Disliking Bush is so rampant in this country, why gild that particular lily?

We don't have to do much work on the 'Bush Botched It' front, even Republicans know it. In fact we owe Mr. Bush a debt of thanks for his tremendous unification of the Democratic Party.

Really, our motto ought to be "Let Bush Beat Bush!"

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. If we don't keep the focus on real shortcomings of Bush's Administration

They will push the focus toward the "perceived" shortcomings of Kerry and Edwards, and then we will be playing defense. I never advocate mindless Bush bashing, slimy lies and innuendos, or coarse and disrespectful humor. We do have to guard against excesses, certainly. And we have to project a positive image, but our guys can walk and chew gum at the same time, and the public is not so feeble minded that they can't appreciate both a compelling critique and an inspirational vision.

I understand that "Let Bush Beat Bush" has advantages, and getting in the way of "Bush Beating Bush" would be a mistake. Count me among those who think that excessive caution may also bring too high a price to pay

[emulatorloo]

4. There is plenty of focus of the shortcoming of Bush Admin. . .

Carter's speech was scathing on foreign policy

Clinton's speech was blistering economic policy and divisiveness

Obama's speech too.

Even Edwards got some shots in. . .

But they are focusing on POLICY of Bush, not his PERSONALITY. and That is the way to go. . .

Here is a link so you can review the speeches if you want to.

http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=125919

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. I don't need the review. I saw them

And I liked them. Did I say we should be going after Bush personally? I don't think I did. I didn't say there was No "red meat" either. I said not enough. Carter's speech was NOT vetted, and I loved it, and yes I felt he hit the tone perfectly, it was not personal against Bush at all, agreed, but it was devastating. Clinton has a lot of pull, and I suspect he got to say pretty much whatever he wanted to, and it was a great speech. Both Obama and Edwards had numerous great moments, some of them were critical and some of them were inspirational, and both were needed and delivered, sure.

As a Clarkie, I hesitate to say anything that might quickly be dismissed as "Anti Edwards", due to some of the history on this board. I am not anti-Edwards, and I thought he gave a really good speech. OK that might not be my highest ranking, but it is genuine praise. I would have liked Edwards to be a little more pointed, a little more often, about how the Bush Administrating is harming our country and our people, but Edwards did fine. I am not complaining.

Please do not presume (which isn't saying that you do) that I see the world in Black and White. Because I think that the overall balance and tone of our message can and should be improved does not mean that I believe the message we have been giving is all wrong or completely lacking teeth.

This Convention does not have as large an audience as previous ones, and it is not generating much that is called "newsworthy". Less of the coverage that it does receive is focused on what is literally happening on the actual stage than it is on talking heads doing their spin. That spin has been relentless that Democrats are stage managing and toning down our message, even hiding our true stripes, in order to not frighten moderates. Perceptions can soon become accepted as reality if they are not addressed, and I think Democratic operatives, on camera and in print, have played into this, almost raising the question, What are we hiding?

A generalized "good glow" about optimistic Democrats will not be front and center come the Republican Convention in August.

[emulatorloo]

6. OK see your point. . .Thought you were calling for the Jerry Springer Show

with mad foaming democrats.

IMHO things will indeed heat up around labor day.

In the meantime, I am looking forward to Wesley Clark's speech tonight!

[pocket]

2. damn, I was expecting the comic Red Meat

.