Change the adjective to whatever you want, but it absolutely must be scurrilous. We have to be ready to lie, deceive and slander any and every GOPer in the country. We should be doing that now with Frist, DeLay and Hastert. They are all evil, traitorous sons a bitches.

Dems are too nice and the GOPers have been using that ever since Gingrich. Unfortunately, Gingrich's tactics work and we need to adopt them in self defense. We need to treat them like scum and talk about them like scum.

Dems also need to attack the flip-flop meme. They used that against Wellstone and they will use it against the next candidate. It doesn't matter if it is truthful or accurate, the next Dem will be a flip-flopper. We should incorporate Flipper into our attacks on Bush and Frist and Hastert.

Why on earth do Dems still have the bizarre notion that we can play fair and win? Until the gutter stops working, we need to get down in it.

USA Next didn't stop because we shone light on the cockroaches. They stopped because it didn't work. They just went back to the think tank lab and are re-working the AARP attack to find an approach that works. The next one will be just as dishonest and the media will eat it up.

The reason the USANext thing bombed was because it was so implausible and over the top. The SBVets wasn't.

Social Security is our great chance as long as some shithead (Kerry?) doesn't offer a counter-proposal.

We need to take the momentum from Social Security and turn it onto GOP corruption.  Properly outlined, this can be a single thread that frames privatization as the product of GOP corruption.

We also need to get the MSM talking more about Tom DeLay and the Indian Gaming scandal.

1. the corporate mass media carried forward every perspective, every invective the GOP RWNM put out

2. the corporate mass media did not cover the real issues, how are people coping in this economy and with the Iraq war

3. the corporate mass media did not cover the widespread public dissatisfaction with Bush, it never has, dissent is not covered, if covered it is significantly downplayed

1. Stood for nothing, took all ten sides of an issue, attempted to blur the meaningful distinctions on foreign policy between himself and Bush, attempted to run both to the right and the left of Bush on Iraq: "I will run a more effective war", "I will negotiate with our allies and get them involved rather than act purely independently"

2. The successful primary season Kerry was a temporary Dean-imitation-clone, and the failed national candidate Kerry attempted to obscure real differences on policy with Bush, in particular on national defense issues  

So even though I can't participate right now, I want to encourage others to do so.  This is really important people. We have to get a whole lot more sophisticated about how this works and how to combat it.

Three factors here seem key: (1) Fragmentation, the destruction of coherent political discourse (2) Associational myths (the pre-logical nature of these is very crucial) (3) top-level demonization (this was the role that crime served as a racial code/surrogate throughout the late 70s, and in to the 90s, which was absolutely crucial to the rightwing attack on liberalism during this time).

I'll be back!

In conclusion, I don't mean for this to be an indictment against Kerry in any means.

These guys went through '88 together, they saw it first hand. Sasso sure was, and Kennedy/Kerry saw it, and all along, they said they wouldn't let Bush do to Kerry what Bush did to Dukakis. But, I bet if you looked at the downfall there in Aug of Dukakis, you'd see the same pattern.

Kerry's initial refusal to stand up for himself and his military record - only doing so when it was politically necessary - reinforced the Media's portrayal of him as a flip-flopping, weak, ineffective leader.

Am I angry with Kerry?  Your godamned right I am angry with Kerry.  The DNC was absolutely pathetic.  They refused to attack Bush because "America is tired of the politics of hate."  That didn't seem to stop the RNC from handing out purple band-aids so delegates could wear them on their face and take another shot at Kerry's war record.  Kerry lost against the most lame duck presidential candidate in recent history, in part because he refused to stand up to the Republicans, and worse, stand up for himself.  Speaking of the RNC, anyone notice that amazing giant screen TV behind those giving speeches?  That was an example of the vastly superior production values of the Republicans during this last election cycle.

To learn that Kerry had $15 million left over after the election infuriated me.  At the very least, he could have given some of that money to local democratic candidates who were in close elections.  Or perhaps use that money to - you know - get himself elected.

As for the election framing and language, "We need a fresh start" sounds more like a commercial for women's feminine products than a campaign mantra.  "W stands for wrong?"  Try, P is for abso-fucking-lutely pathetic.  Never, and I mean NEVER, let Bob Shrum or Mary Beth Cahill near a national campaign.

On a personal note, I tried many times to get the Democrats to contact me about possibly volunteering my legal services and time to help the campaign.  I never received anything other than a form response.  I sent e-mails, letters, and even called a couple of the campaign offices.  No one had the time to deal with me.  I blame the Kerry campaign for this lack of coordination, not the local campaign workers.  I know someone else who had scheduled a Kerry meetup and invited several Kerry campaign members to attend.  They agreed.  The day before the meetup, they cancelled without providing a legitimate reason.  From that point on, they did not return calls and my friend never heard from them again.  People still came to the meetup, but it was kind of dissapointing and depressing that the Kerry people had acted so unprofessionally.

My Republican friend signed up for the Bush Campaign volunteer program and someone called him within 3 days.  He received his information packet within a week, and he was spammed with follow up calls to make sure he would do his part to get W. elected.  (In case your wondering, yes he did volunteer - partly because he was sick of getting follow up calls from the Bushies.)

And now I hear of Kerry complaining to Harry Reid that we need a national noise machine like the republicans have?  Um....wtf?  He should have thought of that last year, you know, when he was running for president.  BTW, Reid has done more in 3 months with little money than Kerry did in 9 months with over 200 million dollars.

So yes, I am really angry with Kerry and his inept campaign.  To hear he is trying to position himself for a run in 2008 makes me nearly as angry with him as I am at Bush for leading out country down the path to ruin.

P.S.  I do believe the Media is especially complicit in spreading republican talking points and failing to report the truth.  But thats for another post.

There have been no further attacks in the US, and that Americans do understand.  What am I trying to say here. Well I am just thinking outloud on this issue, and it seems to me that it boils down to a choice among the following to answer the above questions of why Bush got reelcted.  Take your pick of one or several or add more:

--Bush is somehow avenging 9-11 satisfactorily for most Americans

--Iraq is not part of the 9-11 crisis, but Americans don't care; they just want to kick so middle east ass for a while.

--Unless and until another terrorist attack happens in America, Bush will likely get credit for avenging 9-11 properly.

--The Dems just have not been able to prove clearly that Iraq is a true distraction from 9-11, and that although Bush may have done a good job in Afghanistan, too many Americans are just not willing to split hairs on the difference yet between Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the ground in Missouri it was the most vicious presidential campaign in the twelve years I'd been actively participating in politics. We had continuous and pervasive low level harrassment. It was organized.

Of late I've come to the realization that many of those who supported dubya did so because the hate they had for the constituencies lining up to support Kerry overwhelmed any doubts or disappointment they had in dubya. To them dubya's grotesque failures paled in comparison to their abject hatred of those who supported Kerry, and by extension Kerry himself.

All who opposed dubya were (and still are) demonized. Look at the polling - people seriously disapprove of dubya's Social Security scam, but they'd still vote for him.

In the period leading up to the election I had too many issues conversations with die hard dubbya supporters in which their hard line interpretation of John Kerry, his platform, and life story was colored by rnc and right wingnut media spin. In almost every case when they were engaged in a calm and reasoned discussion of the issues and facts they moderated their views somewhat. The problem was, this happened much too rarely - with no help whatsoever from our incompetent media.

Either you oppose abortion, or you are a baby killer.
Either you support what we call "family values" or you don't value families.
Either you agree with the religious right, or you are a godless heathen.
Either you support our economic policies, or you are a socialist (or communist)
Either you support the war, or you hate our troops.
Either you support the President, or you hate America.

When Democrats do not get their message out, the RWNM defines the issues, and the Democrats are on the losing end EVERY TIME. Where are the liberals and even moderates who will stand up and say "These are the issues that are important and this is where we stand on them" instead of trying to fit in to the issues as defined and framed by the right?

In other words, why the fuck did we spend so much time talking about the Vietnam War and not the one currently in Iraq and around the world?
Why the fuck did we spend so much time talking about two dudes getting married when the down economy has put more strain on traditional marriage than anything?
Why the fuck do we spend so much time on the tired old abortion debate, voting on unconstitutional and ineffective bans of barbaric, gruesome, and very uncommon procedures when the best way to reduce abortion while improving women's choices is to provide healthcare for mother and child both before and after birth?

With all due respect to the ladies in here, it's time for the Democrats, and liberals in general to grow a pair.

If you think the USANext attacks on AARP did not work I think you might want to "escape for a second from the hyper politicized world we blog readers and writers live in and step out and look at the" real-world effect of those ads.  I'll bet you anything that MOST of America - especiall Red State America - now thinks AARP is a "liberal" partisan organization.  I'll even bet that a large number of AARP members have pulled their memberships.  And one thing for sure, AARP is no longer effectively lobbying Republican members of Congress.

"Blowback"?  Maybe some left-wing bloggers feel like they have effectively countered the USANext campaign, but their message is out there, and all the public heard was that AARP is "liberal."

This stuff WORKS.  It works well, and that's why they do it.  I sure haven't seen anything out there countering it.

It's a horrible, horrible, cynical strategy -- and it works in the short run.  But after the election, your unpopulars stay up and voters do not view your re-election as a mandate.  Hence, the public isn't buying Bush's Social Security scam.

I've studied and have been active in politics for almost 10 years, and I've seen this game happen over and over again.

In 2002, Gray Davis was an extremely unpopular governor of California, but he still got re-elected because he convinced voters that his Republican opponent was to the right of Attila the Hun (um, yeah, that was accurate.)  Less than a year later, voters recalled him from office.

In 1999, Willie Brown had 30% approval ratings as Mayor of San Francisco, because he was an arrogant prick who refused to acknowledge the reality that the dot-com boom had gentrified the City beyond any hope.  But he scared voters into thinking that Tom Ammiano would raise your taxes, and he managed to pull off a 60-40 victory.  One year later, the same electorate threw out most of his allies on the Board of Supervisors, and he remained a lame-duck, unpopular Mayor for the rest of his second term.

So yes, it sucks that Bush won.  And knowing how evil he is, he's acting like it was some kind of mandate.  But all he did was scare people into not voting for John Kerry.

It sucks.

Kerry was an abysmal candidate, where's the guy's political instincts? I guess running from a safe seat in Mass must have dulled them at some point.
GWB was ripe for the taking and Kerry just flat out blew it. No use blaming the media or Rove or anyone but the candidate.

Kerry ran a lukewarm campaign, seemed always to be responding to attacks, instead of setting the agenda. And having Kerry as the candidate effectively neutralized the Iraq war as an issue, think this played into Republican hands.  That was the only issue i wanted to hear the candidates discuss.
That's just me.

I'm not a Kerry hater, just don't want to see the guy running for president again.