"Scandal fatigue" -- Is that the biggest problem we face?

[Armstead]

The media -- being the souless jackels that they are -- have been feeding the public a long list of scandals du jour. Chalabi. Prisoner abuse. Joe Wilson. etc. etc. etc.

But I'm wondering if this is all just leadinbg to a great blanket of malaise that is going drag us into anothehr four years of Bush. Is the adreline rush of discovery just a quick hit, and then it's time to "move on" in the minds of those swing voters?

There is no real follow up to them in the media, and the Democrats have so far been ineffectual in helping people connect the dots, or providing a real alternative....Yes, political junkies know the difference, but will the average person care enough to want to get a fresh start?

Let's say the economy continues to do okay. Things in Iraq at least settle down to a dull roar. People become immune to all the terra alerts and things stay quiet on the homefront. Will the Buish faithful outnumber the anti-Bush diehards in November, with the swing voters going for the status quo of Bush?

Will all the revelations just seem like internal, Inside the Beltway bickering to people?

That's why we ought to be offering real alternatives, IMO. Not just a pale echo of Bushism.

We all know John Kerry would be an immensly better president than George Bush. But many voters in the middle don't see that, when Kerry basically echoes similar laissez faire policies on the economy, trade, health care, etc.

We also know that even if his stated policies on national defense are nopt really that far from Bush at the bottom line, Kerry would be much more competant, and would handle the complexities with a lot more finesse.

But do average people care? Or , worse yet, will the see Kerry as "mushy" compared to the strong stawlwart Bush?

I dunno. Maybe it just seems that way as we move into the puppy days of summer. But will our side get energized and find ways to reach people in their guts with something that will energize them?

[Loonman]

1. Screw the Republicans

During Clinton it was was one manufactured scandal after another.

This time, they are real, and Repubs should be given no quarter.

None.

[Southsideirish]

2. Good point, my head is reeling from all the crises in the Bush

administration yet most people don't seem upset at all. We had dinner with suburban relatives over the weekend and they weren't even concerned about the Iraq "war" let alone anything else.

[LynzM]

3. It's an issue

Certainly, there is so much out there that it is overwhelming, and that's without even going into things in depth. To steal a great line, "how deep the rabbit hole really goes" would scare the crap out of most people, and justly. They don't want to face the idea that the government they assume to be working for the people is, in fact, not. I think it is easier just to tune out.

But when even someone like you says "But many voters in the middle don't see that, when Kerry basically echoes similar laissez faire policies on the economy, trade, health care, etc.", I have doubts. Kerry needs more media coverage of his policy plans, etc. He has plans for health care, plans to keep jobs here and bring jobs back, etc. It's not all laissez faire, and it's harmful to keep perpetuating that idea. I think that as long as his policy speeches get more air time after he is the official nominee, he can carry it on that, not just on being ABB.

[cybildisobedience]

4. here's how it works:

When a Democrat is in office....say, Clinton....the media harps on every minor, insignificant, or fabricated "scandal." For example, where a file may be placed is more important than forged documents presented to the world community to justify an unnecessary war. Or a lie about a topic that is no one's business anyway, is more important that 100 lies about issues that have wide-ranging ramifications that will impact Americans for generations to come.
Then, when the Democrat leaves office, they say the country (meaning, them) is suffering from "scandal fatigue," which gives them cover to not pursue any of the massive, real scandals that squander billions of dollars and cost the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers/innocent civilians.
Then when a Democrat gets back into office (if we even have an election), they can say the public (meaning, them) DEMANDS accountability from the new president, and they begin the Clinton-era level of examination again.
See?

[camero]

5. Frankly I think it's by design

and they hope people will feel more powerless to affect change than they do already. A scared populace being a compliant populace.

Kerry would be a much better prez than Bush. I hope his statements are all talk to win the election and then he governs from the left.

[maggrwaggr]

6. the scandals come so fast and furious, nobody can focus on one

every day it's a new one.

Today it's Cheney and Halliburton, Enron and the California energy crisis.

Or was that yesterday?

They come so fast, it's like a storm, and it's very easy to forget the one from two weeks ago, or even last week, because there's constantly a new outrage.

It's not "fatigue" it's simply being overwhelmed.

[Armstead]

8. True, that's why it's important to tie them together

I don't know how, but somehow the threads that connect prison abuse to Joe Wilson need to be seen as more than individual little dust ups. Enron is already nostalgia, even though it is a reflection of somnething much bigger in our system.

[sandnsea]

7. Scandal Fatigue

Absolutely, that's a huge part of the problem. After what the right did during the Clinton years, most people probably think all these scandals are just political and will go away like they did with Clinton. They don't know enough about them to understand the differences, even if the media reported them. They just say D.C. is full of corruption and scandal and ignore it all.

But if people want the voters to understand there's a difference between Bush & Kerry, it would probably be alot more helpful to highlight the differences than tote the line, that the Republicans are loving this year, there's no difference. Why would all those people who aren't upset about the scandals get upset about the scandals if you keep repeating Dems & Pubs are all the same?

[Armstead]

9. They're not the same but...

attempting to blur the difference does make them seem the same to many people, including the activists and the apathetic.

The fact is DC is filled with corruption and scandal, and it ius often bi-partisan. Thus Washoington does seem irrelevasnt to most people, or only relevant in that it affects them in negative ways.


Somehow we've got to make a clean break from that -- and mean it -- as part of our message. That means getting at the root of the problem, and not assume that Bush will stumble out of office.

[sandnsea]

10. Would you know if Kerry did?

I seriously doubt it. If his record fighting corporate corruption isn't good enough for you, I doubt anything he said now would be.