I told ya'll so!!!

[jobycom]

Sorry about the contentious title.

Back in the pre-primary days a lot of debate here at DU was over whether Gore should be our candidate. There were two schools-- yes, and no. The No school claimed Gore had blown it in 2000. The Yes school claimed Gore had the experience to beat Bush. I was in the Yes school.

I'm not claiming now that Gore and not Kerry should be our nominee, but I want to point out my argument back then.

Bush and his family has one campaign strategy. Slander. Not mud-slinging, not spin. Slander. The Bush family could care less about running on issues. They've never won that way. Their entire strategy from the earliest days was to make their opponent appear unfit for office.

My point back then was that Bush would take any candidate's strength, and turn it into a twisted accusation against him or her. I threw out examples. Ralph Yarborough, Carter, Dukakis, even Republicans like Reagan and McCain in the primaries. Clinton in 1992. Clinton was a good man with high moral principles, and you've all heard otherwise, because that was the Bush family strategy. Find one thing you can prove Clinton did wrong. Okay, that was easy, now find another. It's all lies, rumors, and inuendo, but the Bushes make even Clinton's supporters believe it.

With W, it's been worse, because he has no accomplishments to stand on. He started rumors that Ann Richards was a lesbian, that she slept with Sara Weddington (Roe v Wade lawyer), that she was a drunk, that she wanted to take your guns away, and that the Branch Davidian slaughter was her fault. She laughed off these accusations, believing that her 70% approval rating meant that people would see through the empty lies of this illiterate moron transplant who had never done anything but fail in his entire life. Obviously, Texans did not deserve her confidence.

W did the same thing to Gore. There are still people who thing Gore lied, that Gore exagerated, that he may have been downright delusional. There are still people who claim Gore claimed he invented the Internet, or that he was the inspiration for Love Story. Gore was one of the most impressive people to have run for office since Tom Jefferson. He was a genius, he could master any field, he was known for a high degree of integrity even amongst his opponents. He was a southerner, and could shoot better than most people, so he could win in the South. He really did take the lead in creating the Internet. He was on the cutting edge of environmental legislation, technological legislation, and the telecommunications bill. He was behind the push to encourage manufacturers to develop hybrid technology for cars, even.

How could Bush counter such an impressive resume? If Bush claimed it wasn't true, Gore could prove it, and Bush would look weak. So Bush did one better. Bush told everyone Gore was delusional. He ridiculed him. He got his press plants to write about Gore's clothes, about his image consultants, to portray a man obsessed with his own image, and delusional about it. So when Gore started promoting his role in the Internet, Bush claimed it was just more delusional fantasy, or maybe even a lie. They worked hard to define Gore that way.

They are now doing it to Kerry.

I believed Gore could run better against Bush than anyone else because he's already seen what Bush can do, and he's had years to think up what his responses should have been. Alas, Gore has other goals than sitting around for four years waiting to run again, so it didn't happen. So Kerry stepped up to the plate.

What are they doing to Kerry? Slander. People around here kept asking what skeletons Kerry (or Dean or Edwards or Clark) had, and I kept saying it didn't matter. Bush would take a kernel of truth, turn it into a skeleton, and make it stick, probably in a way that turned Kerry's strengths against him.

See it? See how they are now doing it? Kerry didn't earn his medals, they say. Kerry is too ambitious, has no sticking point, will change his opinions based on which way the wind blows. See how it ties together? If Kerry shows off his medals, he looks ambitious, conceited. If Kerry defends himself by promoting the medals, Bush highlights Kerry's war opposition, claims he is opportunistic, like they claimed with Gore. It will get worse. They are setting up the same thing on Kerry's voting record, to make him look weak on military issues.

Kerry is smarter than I thought. Kerry, more than the other candidates, sees what Bush is doing. THAT's why he doesn't parade around in his medals. THAT's why he isn't bragging about his military actions at all. Every one of Kerry's defenses is buried in an attack on Bush. He says "THEY dare criticize my record when they can't prove Bush even fulfilled his National Gaurd duty?" Notice, Kerry hasn't bragged loud enough to be considered conceited in this answer. He hasn't put anything on their bulletin board to use against him. He has made the focus Bush, not himself. He has put Bush on the defensive with that answer.

Bush isn't dumb, either. Well, he is, but he understands meanness, and slander. He knows better than to try to defend himself, or he will wind up revealing himself. So he tries the next best thing. He gets a dozen different people to repeat his accusations. Cheney, Hughes, McClellan, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. All together, they drown out Kerry's voice, gives the media more chance to replace Kerry's words with a pro-Bush soundbite (don't forget that the media is a PR department of the Republican Party).

And Bush does things more subtle. He gets the Democrats to arguing over Kerry's strategy. If you don't think that SOME (not all) of the people criticizing Kerry even here on DU were planted by BushCo, you don't get it. Read the RNC web page, read their suggestions of how to get involved. They were doing this back in 2000, even in 1996, on forum boards (Not DU, it wasn't around yet.) They are doing it now. Again, I'm not saying that the person you are arguing with in a forum here is a Republican plant. Probably not. But they are here.

Bush gets us to fighting over what Kerry should be doing, rather than defending him. That way we don't have a thousand letters hitting the editorial pages around the country to counter Bush's voices. We don't have a unified defense of Kerry. We even have criticism of him. This not only diffuses Kerry's defense, but it also divides us, frustrates us, makes us lose heart, and makes us give in. That's all part of Rove's strategy.

I'm not saying it's our job to defend Kerry. It's Kerry's job. He's got to figure out how to unite and motivate us, or he won't win. I'm just pointing out what Bush is doing. I don't like everything Kerry has done, either, and I'm sure I'll blast away at him at times, myself. I'm only pointing out what Bush is doing, so we'll all get it, so we'll understand the strategy behind Bush. I'm in Austin, I've watched Bush a long time. I've seen his strategy, against local as well as national figures. He's slippery, and we all need to get that, because it will explain a lot of what Kerry is up to. And what he's up against. What you do with that understanding is your business.

[blm]

1. GREAT post, jobycom.

It was illustrative and constructive and aimed towards victory in November.

Exactly what DU should be about - focus on removing BushInc in November.

[Catherine Vincent]

2. Your post is long and drawn out but it's the truth.

But I don't think it's Bush, himself, that pushed on all these attacks, it's the extremists in the republican party that need Bush in the WH. If it wouldn't be for the stupid and stubborn repukes in the republican party that will vote Hitler as long as he's republican, Dubya would have been laughed off the stage a long time ago.

[jobycom]

8. LOL If I could write shorter I would!!

Everything I say or write is long and drawn out. Sigh.

I know it isn't Bush himself, that's just shorthand. And it doesn't matter much, since people vote only for Bush, but get to throw out the entire staff if Bush loses.

[Catherine Vincent]

19. It was a good and detailed post.

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have said long and drawn out.

[jobycom]

22. Thanks. And you were right

it was long and drawn out. :-)

[KoKo]

53. It still deserves a "Kick" though.

:kick:

[jobycom]

56. Cool!

Okay, that was self-serving as hell, wasn't it? Alas.

[ninkasi]

23. I enjoyed every word of it...

You spoke the truth, and sometimes it takes a lot of words to cover something so important. I will look forward to reading more of what you have to say.

[jobycom]

29. Wow, thanks!

You are my new best friend! Well, one of them!

[Canuckistanian]

25. Ah, but they mesh together so well, like a slimily lubricated machine

On the one hand, the "Bush Team" of Karl Rove, Karen Hughes and Bush himself are regarded as "The Iron Triangle". They were together during the Texas Governor days. They really did a number on then-Governor Ann Richards.
Next, you have the national GOP, with sliming machines and hidden agendas of their own. Witness the Clinton destruction.
When these two finally got together in '99 and 2000, they were unstoppable. The GOP primaries were a joke. It was pre-determined and people like McCain were tossed aside along with anyone who showed any sign of moderation. The die had been cast.
Add in the fundamentalist vote, along with the NRA and the war (and chicken) hawks, and there's your recipe for disaster.

[jobycom]

32. I think they were united from the getgo

I think Bush was run for governor as part of the plan to put a Bush back into power.

When Ann Richards first ran for governor, there was not a good candidate anywhere to oppose her. Some people talked about W back then, but he was considered an outsider, a New England prep school kid who had spent no time in Texas. His father wasn't considered Texan, either, by most texans.

So they started an effort to Texanize them. W, even though he didn't have the money, somehow bought a part of the Texas Rangers. Even the sportswriters at the time speculated he was just trying to grow roots for a future run for governor. And Bush moved to Houston and picked A&M for his library. He wasn't embraced then, but his campaign to become a Texan continued, and within a few years of leaving office, he was accepted.

I think Bush W has been part of an effort to promote candidates for president amongst that group. JEB was another part of that effort, though whether he was an alternate, or the planned successor to W, I don't know.

[Nightjock]

3. Great job.....

That was inciteful, wonderfully written and informative.
The one part I disagree with you is minor. Sure there may be Republicans here to stir things up a little. Just as I'm sure there are Dems on Repug sites.
But that is not going to affect or disrupt the presidential campaign.
It is just people with too much time on thier hands.

[jobycom]

9. Believe me, it is part of an organized campaign strategy

I've spoked to some people here and there in the past on these message forums. The Republicans organize disruptors for forum boards, from big to small, just as they have disruptors call C-Span and CNN right after debates to declare Bush the winner of the debates. Ever notice how many people call C-Span and declare that Bush won a debate or a point, and that they were Democrats until they heard that speech? Plants.

Those same strategists infiltrate boards like this, as part of their strategy. Leave no voice unopposed, is their theory. It is not just a disgruntled Republican here or there. It is a strategy.

[mediaman007]

4. Thanks for the heads up!

[KoKo]

5. Thanks jobycom, and it's why we need to be writing and phoning and

e-mailing the Media. Once a day, every one of us about the lies they are spreading. Every time a person tries to get a campaign going against the Media here, it falls off because people think it doesn't work. Those of us who have been e-mailing and writing "letters to the Editor" and contacting CNN since the selection, even feel that it isn't getting results. That's part of their plan. Discourage us, wear us down, until they defeat us.

Meanwhile the Repug machine sends out thousands of e-mails to the Media every day. They flood the local newspapers with anti-Dem statements, they phone into C-Span and CNN and spew the Repug talking points. They are so obviously getting their talking points from the same source that one would think most folks would be wise to them by now. But, no, they always seem so "normal joe and jane sixpack" that folks think they are real.

If we can do one thing here on DU it would be to keep at the Media. If we can be on DU typing out posts arguing with each other we can spare a minute or two to shoot off complaints to CNN/MSNBC/FOX and the Networks defending Kerry and our Democrats. Demanding that they stop this "Three against One" coverage of everything Bush/Cheney/Hughes and the rest of the clones spew out all day in their "features."

Just one e-mail a day from all the folks here with a specific complaint about something they saw will make a difference. It worked for the Repugs and it's still working. They are silent stealths but busy and they never give up. We shouldn't give up either.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. It was a moot point

As Mr. Gore stated that he was not interested in running. He wasn't playing the "I'll consider it if a draft movement forms" game.

[jobycom]

10. Um, yeah, like, that wasn't important to what I said?

I wasn't talking about Gore, except as an example.

[forgethell]

7. Do you really think that this,

He was a southerner, and could shoot better than most people, so he could win in the South. is the reason that those of us in the South who voted for Gore voted for him? I hope that this is a misstatement on your part?? Also, I noticed that Gore had a lot of trouble in the South. Maybe Southerners can make up there minds on whatever is important to them, not by being pandered to??

[jobycom]

11. Back off, man, I'm a southerner

Gore was being slandered in the south by BushCo, who convinced people that Gore would take away their guns if he became president. The fact that Gore was a marksman and a gun hobbyist should have countered that fear in THOSE southerners who were frightened away from Gore because of the gun issue, but Bush's slanders worked. I still meet people who claim Gore was going to take their guns, as I'm sure you do.

So no, there was no misstatement on my part. Nor upon rereading do I think I was unclear, though maybe I was.

I'm one of the biggest southern defenders on this board, and now I'm being called a southern basher. Sigh. Can't win, I guess.

[KoKo]

14. Even when you put "ya'll" in your post, folks don't read. I got it, but I

guess DU is so large now, folks just "scan by" and only see a sentence that sticks with them before they post. And, they don't remember or notice who posted.

It's very frustrating these days. :-(

[jobycom]

15. Yeah, you're right

I was trying to be silly in my "back off" post. Sorry if my initial wording was unclear.

It's much harder to have long discussions here these days, as fast as posts sink. People post a response, often just to the subject line without even reading posts or other replies, and then skip away. It's frustrating to try to have discussions here anymore.

but still fun! :-)

[Catherine Vincent]

27. That's the main reason why Gore lost Tennesee.

Because of the GOP scaring the hicks that Gore would take their guns away.

[MISSDem]

39. The hicks? Now wait a minute, the hicks vote too.

and the hicks did get convinced by Bush and Co. that they would lose their guns and the Democrates
did not convince them otherwise.

[jobycom]

41. Well

Being a former Mississippi hick, myself, I don't like the term used derogatorily, either. But in defense of the Dems on the gun issue, Bush used the underground campaign trail to spread the rumor, and that's hard to counter. Bush spread the stories through pamphlets, clubs, churches and emails in a way that was impossible to really trace back to him. So it was hard for the Democrats to respond. By bringing it up themselves, there was a risk that they would advertise a rumor that not everyone had heard. Or, they could appear paranoid. Since the media wasn't the main source of the slander, it was hard to counter it in the media, and since the Dems don't have the same network, it couldn't be countered through the network that spread it.

Democrats don't quite know how to fight that fight, partially because it requires years of groundwork, and partially because it's against the essence of Dems in the first place. We don't like lying about issues, we like to win on the issues.

I figure eventually the Republicans' lies will catch up with them, and everyone will see what they are. But other than that, I don't know how to counter much of what they do.

[Catherine Vincent]

42. That's what I meant. The hicks voted against Gore and voted

for Dumbya.

[forgethell]

34. My bad,

but I get tired of Southern bashers, too. And I have not had a good day so far.

:crazy:

[jobycom]

40. Hope it gets better

Sorry I added to the stress. I didn't mean to.

[forgethell]

51. Thanks, but it was my fault n/t

[Bandit]

12. Why do you think the South gets the rap they do and why are southerners

so Defensive? Gore did well in the South but could have and would have done much better if all the slander had not been committed as it was. I remember two years before the 2000 election a conversation between Bob Novak and another pundit I can't recall and they said they were going to have to attack Gore on his greatest strengths. Integrity was what they mentioned at the time. They admitted that virtually all of Congress considered him to be one of the most honest and sincere people in Congress and that notion had to be sullied. It was no accident they created the myth of Gore being a serial liar.

[jobycom]

18. History

to both questions. The south was atrociously wrong for much of its history. Not everyone in the south, of course. And the north has its own demons that it has yet to face. But the history of the south is filled with bad things.

So when us southerners try to defend the good things, people always remind us of the bad, and we get defensive. Also, it's worse on this board than in general, because the south votes Republican, and has people like Trent Lott, so we get bashed a lot here.

No big. Just paying our penance. Here's to all the self-righteous people who won't let us forget when we were wrong. We all did what we could do. Okay, I'll stop quoting songs now. A nickel to anyone who can get both songs, though.

[ninkasi]

24. Hey, Jobycom

I know exactly how you feel; I'm in a group that gets a lot of bad publicity...I'm a Texan. Fortunately for us, we have Molly Ivins and Jim Hightower to prove we're not all bad.

[jobycom]

26. hehehe Guess what?

I hear you. I'm from Mississippi, but I'm a Texan now! Austin-- a liberal island in the sea of insanity. I'm much better on defense than offense, subsequently.

[ninkasi]

38. Austin is great

I wish we lived in Austin, but our grown kids live in Houston. We're in the heart of enemy territory, about 40 miles NW of Bryan/College Station. It's very, very conservative around here, something I'll never get used to.

We are going to be moving back to the Houston area soon, to be nearer our children and grandchildren. We all have to stick together in this fight, and I envy your ability to write so clearly and so well.

While I don't have the talents so many DU'ers do, I try to do my part by spreading the word to friends and family, and by contributing to as many liberal causes as I can. As far as the southern bashing goes, I mostly ignore it; I raised too many kids to be too sensitive to being criticized. It enabled me to get through their teenage years fairly intact.

And by the way, it's great to have a new friend!:hi:

[forgethell]

36. Here's another thing

We weren't all of us wrong. Throughout history there have been plenty of progressive people in the South. To think otherwise is, well, bigoted. Now, they don't often get to be in control.

[1gobluedem]

13. Excellent

Many excellent points -- thank you. Especially those about getting active with the media. I work at a radio station. We are flooded with Republican faxes every time * makes any kind of national speech. The same thing when our former governer, a Republican, would speak on anything. This doesn't happen with Democrats. It's rare to get a fax from the DNC or even the state party -- much less so for the Republicans.

The same with letters to the editor. Write them, write in support of them, write refuting them. I only hope your local papers respect privacy better than mine does. I'm too well known in my town to write letters to the editor (because I'm in the media I don't want my station accused of bias) so recently a friend of mine let me sign her name to a letter in response to someone bashing Ed Schultz because '...his only viable topic is bashing President Bush.' The letter I wrote and my friend signed pointed out the hypocrisy of a conservative complaining about talk radio when the likes of Rush Limbaugh, etc. spent eight years doing nothing but bashing Clinton. The paper ran it, with her first and last name and city as required, and she got hate mail from a neocon fanatic sent to her at home. Incredible.

[jobycom]

17. Yeah

I get letters published now and then, and get hate mail because of it. I've also gotten thank yous, though. Those are more fun to read. But Republicans like to shout people down, and Dems seem to be less self-indulgent, and that hurts us in the long run.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

16. Kicking this

Because it's so true and SO important.

[KittyWampus]

20. Excellent Essay! Seems Ridicule Might Work Against Bush

Haven't seen that used yet.

Making fun of Bush hiding behind women's skirts... getting others to do his heavy lifting.

Somehow, I think ridicule might be effective...

[jobycom]

21. You know...

You're on to something there. Bush is highly defensive, and very afraid of being called names. Very childish. If we could follow him around and call him names, he might just melt down, like the Wicked Witch under a bucket of water.

(ugh, terrible analogy! Sorry.)

[sandnsea]

37. Yes, exactly

I think ridicule is the best tool also. Against the every day Pub too. We should have a ridicule thread where our best riculers pull out all the stops and then Skinner should pin it and require everybody to study it before they log in every day!

[Buns_of_Fire]

43. Being a smarmy smartass myself, I wholeheartedly concur

(I would have said "Megadittos," but... well... you know...)

As thin-skinned as boosh* is, he's the type to splurt and splutter about nice 'n' pithy jabs to his MANLY-MAN image. The nice thing is that, given Murca's legendary national three-second attention span, pithy sticks (where long, reasoned outlines of policy won't). The (political) death of a thousand cuts.

Hey, georgie -- we're not laughing with you -- we're laughing at you! :evilgrin:

(Excellent post, BTW. :thumbsup:)

[gpandas]

31. effective and easy n/t

[Cocoa]

28. excellent!

I'd never thought about the RNC operatives deliberately casting doubt on Kerry's strategy, but I believe it.

I recall Al Gore possibly paying too much attention to criticism of how his campaign was run, and I think Kerry is much much better in that regard. Just look at the way he ignored all the people second-guessing him in the primary. He knew what he was doing and he knew it.

[kskiska]

30. You're absolutely right.

I always liked Gore and it's so sad he's been deprived of his office. What's worse is how even Democrats have bought into the lie. We could nominate Jesus Christ and the cabal would tear him apart.

[jobycom]

33. Reminds me of medieval conservatives

During the 12th and 13th centuries, the Church began losing control of their religion. People like St. Francis emerged as a renegade saint, and people liked him better than they liked the priests and monks the Church sanctioned, since Francis was more like Jesus than the priests were.

So the Church sent down a letter (I can't remember for the life of me who wrote it now) instructing priests to begin focussing more on the words of Paul, because Jesus's words were too easily used for subversione, whereas Paul was more representative of Christianity.

Reminds me of current Republicans. Never let the words of your religion's god interfere with your interpretation of your religion.

[MISSDem]

35. Thanks Jobycom. I needed that because

I've been Kerry bashing in a way. Now I know better.

[Generator]

44. I love this country, this is not America, this is not America.

And BushCO creep me out so much, because it's just like 1984! I feel like I'm living in a science fiction novel.

Kerry went to war, and Chimpyfuckface chickened out, and Kerry is the one being called on his commitment and values. ARRRRRRRRRRRRG. I don't know if this nightmare will end. I almost had to take a bath after seeing the Karen Hughes interview on the Daily Show last night about how those that are pro-choice are in league with the terrorists!

PLEASE DON'T LET THEM TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY

Tell eveyone you know the DRAFT is coming if you vote Bush. Do you want to die in Iraq, or another country? Do you want your legs blown off and be a cripple the rest of your life? Okay you do, great vote Bush.

Take the fucking gloves off. This is a nightmare.

[magnoliamouth]

45. It's "y'all," not "ya'll." :-)

"Y'all" is a contraction of "you" and "all."

[jobycom]

52. Well, now that all depends

ya'll is more of a phonetic rendering, since there's no structure for contracting a pronoun with an adjective. If they relax the rules on English, maybe Y'all would work. But not under the current regime, where technically, we cannot even confirm the existence of the word.

[Cronus Protagonist]

46. What a load of complete and utter bullshit

Karl Roverer told me to say that and they'll look after me next year. They promise me a river of money or drowned in a river. /sarcasm

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Butterflies]

47. wow, that's a good read

thanks. I think you're 100% correct.

[rocktivity]

48. Absolutely

I, too, said that Kerry must pick his battles carefully and only attack Bush when it can help him. Criticizing Bush's resistance to the 9/11 commission only would have gotten him accused of "politicizing the issue" for his own selfish gain. But when his military record is criticized by a deserter, not only should Kerry stand up for himself, but take advantage of the fact that Bush has opened the door for Kerry to point out Bush's other faults!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Jane Austin]

49. If you believe, as I do, that Bush is the one

who is delusional, I think we ought to be sprinkling our comments with that suggestion and any others that point to his all too obvious emotional problems.

Wouldn't suggest it if that weren't what they do to every fine and honorable person who opposes them.

[0rganism]

50. Dead on. This would make a great editorial column...

especially with the "fair and balanced" ending. Nice touch.

[VolcanoJen]

54. Personally, I think all y'all should save up your energy...

... for early fall. This race will lose serious steam in the summer months, regardless of current events, unless a huge act of terror on domestic interests is involved.

Uh-oh...

[jobycom]

57. True enough

But his image going into the summer months will determine how much he has to do in the fall. Point well taken, though.

[Disturbed]

55. Excellent piece except

the name Bush should be subed with Rove. W isn't smart enough to figure these things out. If you send your piece in somewhere how about giving Rove the credit for the smear campaign and saying that W is the puppet that voices the crap.

[jobycom]

58. Did you hear Carville's comments on that?

On Al Franken. Carville said it doesn't matter whether it's Cheney, Rove, Rice, Powell, or whomever, the name on the ticket is Bush, and he's the one we have to lhold accountable. Otherwise, if we get everyone to hating Rove, they'll just dump Rove (meaning move him behind the scenes with Daddy), and then all of our work will be undone.

So i use Bush, knowing it is shorthand for the people behind Bush.