Why do we look so hard for Bush's soft underbelly of scandal when the

[AP]

dorsal fin is so plainly visible?

The best reasons for voting against Bush are right in front of our face. We keep holding on to the harpoon waiting to find the underbelly. But he's right there in front of us.

Look at the economy. Look at the shrinking opportunities for Americans and their ballooning debt. Look at the end of job security. Look at the tax code. Look at how this bullshit war is being used to transfer wealth to the wealthy.

And we're arguing about whether he killed a mad woman? Even his military service is a sideshow for what we should really be focusing on.

[RobertSeattle]

1. True, but Joe Six Pack can relate to Draft Dodging, Sex, Arrests, etc

The average American can barely tell the difference between a million and a billion dollars - it's practically meaningless to them. The real scandals are too darn complicated to Joe Sixpack.

[AP]

2. Not so sure about that. It makes Dems look frivolous. Not saying that

a good scandal can't take down a government.

However, I think what has a better a track record is BEING and EMBODYING a superior set of ideas, and contrasting that to something your opponent OBVIOULSY embodies (and not some hidden scandal that doesn't really play in to your opponent's identity).

[forgethell]

3. I disagree

Joe six-pack understands the issues well enough. He just disagrees with us. He's doing OK, s why should he give a hoot about our concerns. As I see it, our concern is to show him why he should favor our issues, something which we have failed miserably at doing.

Now the question is, is that our fault, or his? Maybe it is his fault, maybe he is stupid, but does mocking him incline him to come over to our point of view? Is it a substitute for reasoned discourse, for the "facts and logic" that every one on this board is so fond of? For too many Democrats, the answer seems to be, "yes". And this is why, IMO, we keep losing elections: Presidencey (spare the vote-stealing argument, please, * is in the WH), Senate, (Hell, we turn on of them, they just went and elected themselves a new majority), House (what with redistricting, when do you suppose we'll get it back?).

Over the years, we have despaired of getting enough votes to legislate our agenda, and have turned increasingly to the courts. Now the courts are being turned against us. We will have lost our last stronghold on power, and the ability to influence government when we lose them, as we shall if we don't learn to address the concerns of Joe-6pack in a way, not that he understands, but that he agrees with.

It is OUR job to figure out how to do that. Good old Joe is under no obligation to agree with us if we have not made a convincing case.

[AP]

4. Clinton says that the problem for Democrats is that when you achieve

what you set out to do for society -- give the most people the most wealth and happiness you can possibly give them -- they lose the sense of urgency which compells them to vote D. That's why 2000 was run on this idea: the Republicans promised more of the same, but with smaller government and lower taxes, and Gore, in the final days, made inroads arguing that he'd give us more of the same, because he'll continue doing what we've been doing.

It's not totally compelling stuff.

Howver, that doesn't mean that our only alternative is to run against their scandals.

I think that approach is almost suicidal.

[cosmicdot]

5. I would think the Dem. candidate would require great integrity ...

I used the word "great", but I learned in the final years of being held hostage by corporate america ... in a 360 degree performance review, the managers will stack the deck; character assassinate you; whatever to keep themselves in power ...

the first year .... under "integrity", it was a 'yes' or 'no' choice

well, management got low marks; the grunts got high ones

the 2nd year ... under "integrity", it had been modifed to include 3 additional positions between 'yes' and 'no', as if integrity had "sometimes" or "often" .... it's not like that ... one has it or not.

We need to nominate a ticket represented by 2 people who are Great Citizens ... who defend the Public Trust ... etc.

... then, the contrast is "frat boy" ...