Losing for Bush means saying things that the public and press believe are no longer true: that the economy is getting better for everyday americans, that Iraq is getting safer, that we are welcomed, that we've found WMD, etc. It's important that there be some "kernel of falsity" to these statements in the public's mind.

For Kerry to win, he'll have to present an acceptable alternative to Bush: someone who appears presidential, who knows what's going on and has a grasp of where we need to go from here.

Bush is in a position to be exploited on one front: 3 different ways: he is either out of touch, delusional or dishonest.  The key to any of these strategies is effectively showing the contradictions between reality with the economy, Iraq, the deficit, etc.

He doesn't read newspapers, he doesn't do nuance.  This doesn't make him dumb, it makes him willfully ignorant living in some sort of made up world.  If we can get him to seem out of touch, then we win.  For this it needs to be hammered home that he doesn't really care what the reality is.

The 2nd option is that he comes across delusional.  For this to happen we need the wedge to be Iraq.  Bush needs to say something akin to what Pete Sessions said - Iraq is a game.

The third option is the toughest.  We need to find a way to highlight that Bush doesn't mean what he says - I really don't see how this happens - since we aren't able to exploit the flip-flop angle, any Bush inconsistencies can be played as new positions not as him finally being honest.

For Kerry to win, his answers need to be shorter than Bush's and he needs to make the point that the world is complicated and we need someone who will navigate it for us.  Not a buddy to have a beer with.

Kerry:

• Is a realist. He can see things are going badly in Iraq and he's not afraid to say so.


• Has a plan to get us out of Iraq


• Can execute that plan better than anything Bush could try because the world hates Bush (the wording needs some work)


• Is competent; he would've never made the mistakes Bush made by going into Iraq with few troops and no planning for the aftermath


• Will fight terrorism using ALL the tools, not just the military, but will not hesitate for a second to use that as well if necessary.


• Is a serious guy, and we need a serious person for serious times

Bush:

• Is NOT an optimist, but is out of touch. He can't admit any mistakes, he can't see how badly things are going in Iraq,


• Has NO PLAN for fixing Iraq


• Has let Al Qaeda off the hook by going into Iraq and cut back our options with Iran and N. Korea


• Has the same problem in Iraq that his father had with the economy: he doesn't get it

To sum up: Kerry gets it, has a plan and can execute it. Bush doesn't get it, has no plan and couldn't execute it if he had one. Bush got us into this mess; Kerry will get us out.

I don't think it'll be productive to flat out call Bush a liar because his image as a "straight shooter" is so deeply ingrained and because the American people (especially those who have friends or family in Iraq) don't want to believe their president is lying to them. But the "out of touch" label might stick, and it might even undermine his credibility indirectly.

Kerry really does need some good one-liners in stock because that's all the mainstream press has the attention span to absorb. I'm sure he's working on those already. He also needs to explain very clearly his votes on Iraq because Bush will lash out at him on that. He doesn't need to be funny because people don't expect that from him (except maybe some very well-practiced self-deprecating line about being stiff or something). But he does need to be relaxed and to speak as plainly as he possibly can.

I don't know how much good it will do to dwell on who's breaking the rules of the debate. It might even backfire by reinforcing the image of Democrats as being weak, like when Edwards would ask Cheney to withdraw his comments about a possible attack after a Kerry victory. It could come off as weak. If Bush starts to break the rules, maybe Kerry should break them too.

As for Bush...(sigh)...I'd like to think that the bar has been raised at least a tiny bit for him since he's President of the United States, but I doubt it. The press expect soooo very little from him, and the American people seem to feel so comfortable with a president that gives mediocrity a bad name, that I have little hope the bar will be raised in any measurable way. The only gaffes that could really get him in trouble would be either setting his hair on fire or choking on his tie.

1. Answer questions succinctly.
2. Not contradict something he's said before (post-debate analysis will check closely)
3. Make his prime attacks on Bush's character, not just his decisions: poor judgment, lack of curiosity, living in fantasy land, dishonesty.
4. Have a memorable line - call Bush the Tinkerbell Presidency. It will attack Bush's manliness and his attention to reality.

We should use site like Center For American Progress and Donkey Rising for fact checking....

And we should use the Rockridge Institute for expressing progressive values in our frame....

Once these are settled on, we should blast them far and wide...trumpeting them over and over again and nauseum....

Let's be our own echo box for a change!!!

Kerry should be prepping himself by watching Carol Coleman's interview for RTE, where Bush got visibly annoyed with the (standard European) style of questioning. Get Bush to lose his temper, and it goes a long way towards a Kerry win.

One of the big attack lines of the BC campaign has been that Kerry has an undistinguished Senate career.  We know that his big achievements include uncovering the Iran/Contra scandal, in which GHW Bush figured prominently.

Kerry, if questioned on his Senate career, should bring out GHWB's complicity.  GWB will feel compelled to defend his paw, and we know that he doesn't come off at his best when defensive.

I also think Kerry needs to get a good humorous jab in on the question of the tactics Bush uses to go after his opponents.  A "When I am president I won't fire and smear everyone who disagrees with me" line.

Last, the real question and test for Kerry is the simple good vs evil that defines how many Americans see the world.  Bush has a great story on this being an epic struggle of good vs evil in the world.  I think Kerry should chip away at that story.  It might look something like this:

"I know Saddam Hussein was evil.  There is also no question in my mind that al qaida is evil and must be stopped.  The difference between George Bush and I is the methods we will use to fight evil.  I will defend America by asking the wealthy to give instead of placing all of the costs on the shoulders of the poor and middle class.  I will defend America by rejoining the international community and rebuilding alliances with countries who have stood by our side for generations. And I will fight al qaida by listening to my military leaders and giving them what they need to win the war on terror.

I understand that defending America is about more than getting revenge for our pain.  Our emotional responce to terrorism is powerful, but it is important not to abandon logic.  I will fight evil with passion and reason, and I will use passion and reason to convince the countries of the world to join America in her struggle.  President Bush has squandered the good will of the world because he let anger control his decisions.  It is time for a president that tempers anger with logic and reason.  Its time for a president who is both passionate and rational.  That is what will be needed to win the war against evil."

I think the question of how to respond to evil will define the first debate so I sure hope Kerry is ready with a responce that is forthright and unequivocal.

Key to information warfare is

1.  SPEED
2.  Organization
3.  Talking Points
4.  Consistency - Staying on message

We don't necessarily have the connections people like J.Carville, J.Lockheart or the Bartlett/Dowd duo, but we can write letters to the editor, and influence local media outlets.  

Reader opinions DO INFLUENCE the papers, especially if they come from NUMBERS.  Moveon guys have it, ACT guys have it, the GOPers were the first ones copy/incorporate/implement the strategy on a grand scale.
The info war is on.  Do WE have what it takes?

Here's what I think we can/should/will do for these debates:

1. SPEED - Whatever we are planning on doing on Thursday night, we need to have it done in advance.  Letter templates, easy to copy, short to the point and most importantly consistent.  Get the talking points and disseminate.
2. Organization - This should be a concentrated strike.  Any readers/bloggers from the battlegrounds and beyond have precedence, although every media market is fair game.
3.  Talking Points - Meat of the matter, here's some web resources (some from KE04 site)

     Examples:
     - Bush did not follow the rules of the debates
     - Bush was disrespectful, did not answer questions succinctly.
     - Make his prime attacks on Bush's character, not just his decisions:
     - poor judgment
     - lack of curiosity
     - living in fantasy land
     - dishonesty
     - Memorable line - call Bush the Tinkerbell/Failure Presidency

4)  Consistency - No straing off message "playing Moses" (Carville term), everybody repeats the same ideas.  We create our own echo chamber...the Beast (the media) will follow.

And REMEMBER, Their money will never surpass our voracity and hunger to win!

First he opposed the Dept. of Homeland Security, then he supported it . . . first he opposed the 9/11 Commission, then he supported it, then he drug his feet . . . etc, etc, etc.

Also, those little unscientific online polls like the ones that MSNBC does.  They're not accurate, but the moronic reports at the networks report them as being accurate.  Right after the debate, vote early and often.  What I mean is vote, clean the cookies off your computer, then go back and vote again . . . several times

How about: Bush showed himself to be unstable and unfit to lead?

A simple retort to every shrub answer that prevaricates, distorts, misleads will effectively reverberate the character theme without getting too heavy and turning folks off. It keeps Kerry presidential (his goal for the debates) but hits shrub right where he needs to be hit and it provides Kerry an effective transition to the more detailed points Kerry will need to make on the question to make the "sale" on his candidacy.

By the way, the recent Badger poll in WI that showed Bush up by double digits is pure crap. It is going to be very close here again. The key battleground area of the state: the southwest and far west. Area was represented by Steve Gunderson (repub) for a number of years before Ron Kind (dem) took over 6 (??) years ago. Area went for Clinton and Gore in the last three election cycles. Area is rural with some small cities, LaCrosse, Eau Claire that are blue collar and moderate dem.

Maybe they are already reading it. We can hope! ^_^

Hee Hee Hee!!!

We need to present a picture of Kerry that shows that he came across as:

Confident and sincere
Straight-talking
Clear about his plans
Firm in standing up to Bush and his lies

These are the sorts of qualities that will resonate, and these are the sorts of things that the talking heads will try to ascribe to Bush rather than Kerry.  

By contrast, we need to paint Bush as

Defensive and flippant
Living in a fantasy world
Having no real plans
Disrespectful

Let's all at least try to focus on something WE can do something about instead of trying to act like coaches for Kerry.  We should all start NOW in writing first drafts of letters to our local newspapers that we can polish up right after the debate and send in.

BTW, while I think this is true, it is not to be evaluated as a factual assertion.  It is to be evaluated as a choice of which narrative to use.

How could Bush lose the debate?  Bush loses if Kerry is able to do that.  Approval of the direction he has the country headed lags far behind his personal poll numbers.  If Americans feel they have a viable alternative, they'll take it.  

If it's a draw, Kerry wins.  

(See, if people are talking about how Kerry wins in the case of a draw, then the debate already is a draw-- because people aren't talking about who won or lost on substantive grounds-- and Kerry has already won.  Conversely, I think the other side will be trying to spin how a draw is a win for their boy for the same reason.)

Never wrong
Never accountable

1. Bush is not strong on terrorism.  Did everyone get collective amnesia about Anthrax attacks?  These happened after 9-11 and against our government.  Bush's administration can't protect us from terrorism.
2. Bush has surrounded himself with the most incompetant and criminal bunch.  Don't attack the president but go after Condi, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft etc.  List their statements and show how dangerously wrong they have been.  List their actions and show how they hurt our security.

First, we in the blogosphere need to hold both candidates accountable when they don't answer the question asked (just a hunch, but I put down $100 that W will duck more). This goes to the heart of W's continued presentation of a fantasy world on Iraq, the environment, education, etc. Of course it depends on good questions being asked and that is more of a risk than it should be. Still, we need to point out every time a question isn't answered.

TAP (has "the American people" entered acronym land yet?0 give W lots of slack. They like him. Kerry wins if people see W being dishonest in a way that they can't deny.

Kerry's main objecttive should be to speak in simple, declarative sentences.

Further, as pointed out somewhere above, Kerry needs to demonstrate his knowledge of specifics (although in simple, declarative sentences) and force W to show the shallowness of his knowledge. Even better if W is forced to refer to a foreign leader or locale with a name that is difficult for him to pronounce. Hit him on the military assessment that the insurgency is actually resistance. Hit him on which provinces in Iraq are not secure and demand to know why.

Finally, don't hit him on Bin Laden. Osama is actually being held in the bulkhead in Wolfowitz's back yard and ready for a pop-goes-the-weasel October surprise.

I say this because I really don't have anything else  to add, you guys pretty much hit the nails on their heads.

Here's what I had to offer:  the NY Times reports that "officials of the debate commission said they were agreeing primarily to those things Mr. Bush's aides had emphasized as especially important to him."

First, we ought to try to get this reported as another example of special treatment for the fortunate son.

Second, we ought to use it to ensure that when the other side tries to claim pro-Kerry bias, they're laughed out of the room.

Third, this really ought to increase expectations for Bush.  The guy is getting his debate by his rules.  People ought to recognize that when evaluating his performance.  Kerry, on the other hand, is walking right into the dragon's lair, and it will give anything he accomplishes in the debate added lustre.  

Other users rank the zingers, which hopefully creates a really great selection of the best net-tested comebacks.

It's media-ready -- heck, there might even be a story about "HARNESSING THE POWER OF INTERACTIVITY" or "BLOGGERS TALKING BACK."

This fits into the larger goal of amplifying Bush's mis-steps and contradictions in the media wherever possible.  I've also been submitting Letters to the Editor, which is another good way to influence the spin....