Flame me but I don't TOTALLY disagree with the DLC re: bush bashing.

[vi5]

O.K. hear me out on this. I do think that if we get tagged with doing nothing but bashing bush at every turn it will backfire. Just like it did for the repubs with Clinton. The partisan bashing fires up the bases, and people like you and I who are political junkies love every minute of it. But the average joe middle of the road swing voter hates the stuff. Absolutely hates it.

Does this mean that I think dems shouldn't criticize bush? Hell no. But I still think it can and probably will backfire if not handled right. Like any weapon, the attacks can be useful and helpful if used correctly but if weilded without constraint or control will backfire.

Part (o.k. most) of the problem is the media. If a dem candidate or politician says 4 things, and 3 of them are constructive ideas for important things for this country and 1 of them is a bush criticism, which do you think the media is going to report. Some of the best press we've gotten was during the time when the candidates all rolled out their healthcare plans. The reason for this was because each of them focused on what they would do and their ideas and how this would benefit the country. There was no bush bashing included in these proposals so there was nothing for the rnc media to report other than the ideas.

The bottom line is that I think constructive, positive ideas should always be a 3 to 1 ratio to bush attacks and that they (the attacks) always, ALWAYS should be kept separate from their ideas and proposals.

Just my thoughts on this. As much as I dislike the DLC, I think it's a mistake to completely ignore out of hand some of the things they have to say on this subject simply out of spite. Like any other democratic interest group they are going to please some people and piss others off. But in the end I think to dismiss them as completely trying to sabotoge the party and doing the opposite of some of the things they say simply out of spite is only going to cost us in the end, just as doing everything THEY say and adopting a complete repub lite strategy will also cost us in the end.

Flame away.

[Walt Starr]

1. No flam from me

After the crap that is the message put out by the DLC, as far as I'm concerned they don't want me in the party any more.

Fuck 'em.

[blondeatlast]

6. Of course they don't. You and I represent what the DLC fears

most: traditional Democratic values.

I agree, fudge 'em as well.

[placton]

2. I must disagree

Yeah, the average Joe SAYS he hates the nasty stuff, but it's not true. If it were, then we would have huge Dem majorities everywhere. The fact is, they love this stuff.

In one sense, you are correct. The GOP flame wars do drive Joe away from the news (like that's all that tuff), so he doesn't know what's really happening.

But when elections come, he wants the red meat.

Finally, the "shush about Bush" approach failed miserably in 2002 - and did poorly in 2000.

We must:
-appeal to our base: the left, unions, minorities, etc
-shout just as loud as the GOPites, even if it means "unfairly" taking advantage (sorry, Bill Clinton) of what "might not be" errors or evil on their parts.

[revcarol]

3. Agree with some of your points,disagree with others...

but what I would like to emphasize is:

WHEN YOU BASH, BASH THE WHOLE REPUBLICAN PARTY!! Bush could not devastate the nation and the world nearly as much if he did not have those republican ENABLERS!!
AND WORK TO ELECT A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSPERSON IN YOUR AREA!! (Don't just focus on the Presidency.)

[vi5]

7. Great point......I agree with that 100%....

And I think that is the solution. Continue to bash repubs and their ideas and tag everything that goes wrong (economy, healthcare, corruption) as being republican.

I think its when the attacks get personal that it becomes problematic and dangerous.

[diplomats]

33. I think that's the point the DLC is trying to make

They said Bush haters don't make up a majority, and they're right; many people like Bush as a person BUT THEY DO NOT LIKE HIS POLICIES. That's where his soft spot is. His record is really bad; even the DLC says that. That's something we can all agree on.

[Monte Carlo]

4. The key difference is substance.

There is a canyon seperating mindless Bush-bashing and informed criticism of a man lacking the maturity of the office. Candidates like Kerry have attacked Bush, but his attacks have been simple, effective, and weighty. We need to focus on substantive criticism, not hollow bashing. But what the DLC seems to want is passive cheerleading.

[vi5]

8. You are right......

Unfortunately it seems to be the mindless bush bashing that gets the press. And I think that is where we need to be careful.

[CWebster]

13. It doesn't matter, vI5, they will always frame it as

"mindless Bush bashing" in the same way they characterize Dean as being a "unelectable fringe Leftist". Their strategy is to repeat, repeat, repeat, and put out the all-points to repeat, repeat, repeat. The DLC does nothing but aid and abet their party line. Who needs enemies?

[Brotherjohn]

21. I don't know about that. The uranium issue's not mindless Bush-bashing.

Nor is the re-evaluation of much of the evidence Bush presented for war which has come about due to the "16 words".

This issue has received more press than any other form of criticism against Bush so far in his term. And it is hardly "mindless Bush-bashing". It is an extremely well-documented story of exaggerration and deception coming from the Executive Branch. On top of that, it is the White House that has said most of the things that come back to bite them, as their repeatedly changing stories consistently turn out to have holes in them. They are hanging themselves.

Most on the progressive (non-DLC) left have always and continue to criticize Bush on substantive issues where there is evidence to back up the criticism. People were simply not as open to hearing it as much before. As Krugman wrote today, perhaps after 9-11, people just wanted to believe the best about their president. But the ongoing occupation of Iraq, the growing list of American soldier fatalities, the lack of any WMDs, and the economic situation at home have all changed that.

We cannot ignore Bush's record. He is going to run on it, and paint it with his spin. We have to reverse that spin and tell it like it is. Criticizing him at EVERY turn on his record is NOT "mindless Bush-bashing". It's telling it like it is. While, yes of course, the Democrats need to propose alternative policies, Bush policies have generally been SO EXTREME that it is enough to simply say, in many cases, "we will not do that" (scale back the Patriot Act, rebuild ties with our allies, reverse some tax cuts, try to get the budget back on sound footing). Simply pick up where Clinton/Gore left off. Their two terms were orders of magnitude improvements over what Bush has done on every issue and on every front. It is simply a case of needing to repair the damage. And the damage Bush has done becomes more and more apparent every day. We cannot ignore this, and he is now vulnerable on nearly EVERY issue (including security).

Clinton won because he challenged Bush I on everything that was said. Gore lost because he was wishy-washy and refused to run on the stellar Clinton/Gore record (well, I know he won, but...), and refused to "bit back" against the endless criticism coming from the right (and the media). The Democrats will not win in 2004 by being wishy-washy. The Democrats WILL NOT win in 2004 by moving to the center!

[CWebster]

5. Look , it isn't as if the charges leveled against Bush

aren't legitimate. It is essential that they be aired. We deserve the truth. The middle of the road swing voter deserves it as well.

[qb]

10. I agree - there is NO COMPARISON

between the legitimate Democratic criticism of Bush and the Republican free-for-all smear fest against the Clintons.

[punpirate]

15. People do not like dirty campaigns...

... and it does wear them out, and for some, burn them out.

That said, exercising the voice a bit by saying what Bush has done is not a dirty campaign. Bush, like everyone else, ought to be running on his record, not his image, and Bush's record is downright terrible.

The DLC conceives of talking about Bush's record as "bashing." It's not.

This is bashing: Bush is low-life lying pond scum. My sister is the ugliest human being on earth, and I forbid her to date people like Bush for fear she'd be corrupted. Shave Bush's head and you're gonna find a "666" tattoo underneath those patrician locks. Bush walks like he does because his tail is coiled up next to his asshole.

That's bashing. Saying Bush has presided over a failing economy and more jobs lost than any other president since Hoover is not bashing. Saying Bush lied us into a completely unnecessary war which is killing or wounding several of our soldiers daily is not bashing.

Saying that Bush will leave office the most despised President in history is not bashing. It's the truth based on his performance.

Cheers.

[CWebster]

18. right--People like when their candidates fight back

and fight for the interests of the country-when they should--and not define that direct and truthful confrontation as "dirty".

[JNelson6563]

9. let's just talk facts

there is no need for personal bashing.

We can point at the deficit and then post this everywhere:

http://www.costofwar.com/

This should outrage people.

Julie

[Best_man23]

11. I'm Tired of Wishy-Washy Responses From Democrats

Howard Dean and Bob Graham have scored major points with me (and I think many others) for their no-nonsense responses to the GOP and Bushido cabal.

I'm tired of no-guts Democrats (Daschle, Gephardt, Liberman, DLC, etc.,) simply laying there and taking it from the Right without responding. I'm tired of Democrats being routinely beat up like they're red-headed stepchildren.

I say its time for the Democrats to apply the Malone/Untouchables philosopy, which is simply: they take an eye, you take their damn head.

Edit: Added Liberman's name to the list of no-guts Dems.

[revcarol]

27. Please add Kucinich to your truth-teller list!!

Telling it like it is BEFORE the campaign even got started.

[diamond14]

12. bush* is self-destructing all by himself...his latest is allowing

the Saudi prince to meet with him (on very short notice), keeping his whole 9/11 scandal on top of the news everywhere....

[Armstead]

14. Yes but....

I agree that "Bush bashing" has to be handled carefully, and shouldn;t merely be mean-spirited attacks. Also that we must have positive alternatives as the main message.

But the problem I have with the DLC is that they do not propose any real alternatives. It's just variations on Corporate Conservatism and ststus quo elitist policies that benefit the Oligarchy and the members of the Beltway Bubble.

The DLC agrees in the negative about deficits, outrageous tax cuts, and similarly "safe" issues.

But it doesn't attack the core of right-wing Republican conservatism. The DLC supports Free Trade Feudalism, they avoid Universal health Care, they support the PNAC agenda and Iraq War and privitization of public services, lack of corporate oversight aor reform and many other issues.

As a result they only offer stale gruel as an alternatuve to Republican Fresh gruel. THAT's the problem I have with the DLC.

[papau]

22. AP on Dean : a "visceral hatred" of Bush not shared by Nation per DLC

To fight the "Just War - Saddam evil and now gone" - may be spitting into the wind. Process sucked -had impeachable lies - may be better sale - noting that had we known no immenient threat, we could have gone with inspectors and saved lifes. Key is to not say we did a bad thing!

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGARF4AYPID.html

Centrist Democrats Worry About Dean's Candidacy
By David B. Caruso Associated Press Writer

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean's upstart campaign has excited the party's liberal activists, but centrists ...(think) that Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq makes him too liberal for middle America,....is exploiting a "visceral hatred" of George W. Bush among those on the far left which the nation does not share. <snip>


...the harshness of the sniping between Dean's camp and the New Democrats has surprised and upset a few party faithful, and that was evident at the convention. Washington state Rep. Laura Ruderman rose during one question-and-answer session Monday to beg for an end to hostilities. "... it's the kind of eating each other alive that drove Jim Jeffords out of the Republican Party," ....It was a sentiment echoed moments later by Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who acknowledged that the Democratic candidates had engaged in some "name-calling" and suggested that they stop criticizing each other.<snip>

"People like his courage. They like the fact that he's been speaking out," said Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm. But, she added, "I think there are those who would say that it would be very difficult for someone who opposed the war to get elected in my state today."
New Hampshire state Rep. Peter Sullivan said ...Dean has made a splash in college towns and border communities that have attracted young, liberal voters transplanted from other states. But in blue-collar cities such as Manchester, "it's like he's not even there," said Sullivan, who wore a Joe Lieberman button. This, he said, despite Dean's reputation in Vermont as a fiscal conservative who supported the death penalty and rights of gun owners. "I think it's going to be tough for him to move past the 18 to 19 percent he's got right now, even though, when you take away his opposition to the war, he's probably as much a New Democrat as anyone here."

[kmla]

16. The big difference is...

That all of the crap that is in the headlines now is not "Bush-bashing". If that were the case, we would still be talking about the Chinese spy plane debacle, the Japanese fishermen that lost their lives because some wannabe-Navyboy Enron execs wanted to pilot a sub, or the fact that he sat around for 20 minutes reading a book at a school photo op while the WTC was burning. THAT would be Bush-bashing.

This is Bush-POLICY-bashing. President Happicrack has no freakin' clue as to what he is doing, either domestically (i.e. unemployment, federal deficit), or internationally (North Korea, Afghanistan fires rekindling, and the Iraq quagmire). Not to point this out would be stupid and irresponsible.

:hurts:

P.S. I'm saddened that Evan Bayh is my senator. I used to respect him. He sure as hell isn't his father, thats for sure.

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. Watch what you say and watch what you do

Head down and lips closed, try not to run afoul of the regime.

[0007]

19. Sorry!!

I don't see it that way and I believe the dems have been rather quiet.

In fact it appears that most dems are sleeping with junior.

[noonwitch]

20. I'm not going to flame you

The dems in office, or running for president, should stick to the issues and refrain from personal attacks. They should speak out against policies that are wrong, but refrain from attacking the policy maker.

However, we the citizens, can say whatever we want, make jokes about president dumb-ass, whatever. I would hate to see websites like this, MWO or Bartcop suddenly start being nice to Bush.

[JCMach1]

23. This is the same consulting (polling) crap they rolled out in 2002!!!

I was running, I SAW THE POLLS. The consultants basically told us NOT to touch Bush, or bash his brother...

That is a recipe for defeat. If you are not willing to stand up and fight, you run the risk of looking weak. If we follow the DLC sign, we lose just like we did in 2002.

[Booberdawg]

24. I agree

Overplaying the bush bashing can and will backfire. Better to attach the "issues", the "administration". Attack the "phoney noo-ku-lur evidence", the "quagmire", the "no plan for occupation or peace", the "forgot to mention this would take 10 years", the "condi/cheney lies", the "911 report lies", the "Irag is not really related to 911 lies", the "tax breaks are not really helping" lies, the "leave no millionaire behind" lies.

And I beleive there is still more drip, drip, drip to be revealed over the next few months, and as we have seen, they are buffoons at damage control when they get caught up in their own hubris.

I'm not saying roll over and play dead - just saying that it isn't wise to simply dismiss everything the DLC says out of hand either. The Bush bashing, if overdone, will turn away the average undecided Joe who might otherwise be swayed in our direction.

[Q]

26. It's telling that you call it 'Bush Bashing'....

...and that in and of itself plays right into the hands of the neocons. They've WON when even WE call it 'bashing'.

- It's not 'bashing' to expect and demand honest government.

[Booberdawg]

29. Bush bashing

I was responding to the original post. It was referred to as "bush bashing" That's what it was about. They cautioned against "bush bashing" My response was appropriate and in context.

[HFishbine]

25. Optimism

It's not enough to point out the monsterous failings of the Bush administration. That merely sets the table. The next mandatory step is to give America an antidote. Set the table with the truth, then let American's decide between Bush's feast of mendacity, fear mongering, and incompetence, or a nurishing democratic offering of peace, hope and optimism.

[loyalsister]

28. I agree

People don't like to hear negative pessemistic stuff endlessly.
People respond to things that make them "feel good." They don't like to be mad or afraid. If it has the slightest appearance of partisanship, they resent it and write it off as a self interest media manipulation. When something throws their comfort level off it is not something they want to hear. If it's something of so little import that they may even make jokes about (BJ in the oval office), it doesn't bother them. They'll eat up whatever they can use to get a better punchline.
When it involves something as serious as going to war over misinformation people don't want to be reminded. It turns their stomach. It makes them uncomfortable. I have a Brazilian psychiatrist friend who pointed out that Americans have a sense of entitlement regarding their comfort index. Americans freak out if they feel the slightest bit unhappy. If the news is the catalyst and they know who is pushing it, they're going to be turned off and turn to the people who say they will "protect them" or some other such garbage.

[bpilgrim]

30. they call it bashing, we call it telling the truth

large differnce, imo.

peace

[Terwilliger]

31. fine...get someone to do that

None of the current candidates (with the exception of Kucinich) could articulate a strong enough message to swing the people you seem to want to appaeal to over to the Democrats.

[stickdog]

32. Please.

Bush has been given a free ride by the media AND the Democrats since 9/11 while he has:

1) fucked the Constitution,

2) fucked the middle class,

3) fucked the environment,

4) gotten a lot of innocent people killed over his lies,

5) given the rest of the world the middle finger, and

6) handed half the federal treasury to the top 2% of the richest individuals and corporations.

Meanwhile, 72% of Americans think Saddam was giving al Qaeda WMDs.

IF YOU DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BASH BUSH, YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION!

[ieoeja]

34. Ignore This Reply

[ieoeja]

35. Okay, I'll flame you.

You big hunky man, you.


Disclaimer: the author of this message does not wish to imply anything about vi5's sexual orientation, that all gay males act in a stereotypical manner, that all or even most men who behave in such a manner possess a specific sexual orientation, or to pass value judgements suggesting proper behaviour for male humans be they gay, straight or other.