Democrats should attack Republicans first - then Bush and the White House

[kentuck]

This is a time to put the Republican Party on the defensive. Yes, we continue to tell the truth about Bush and the White House but the most pressing need in our country right now is to get rid of these criminal Republicans in Congress and the Senate. We need to frame the debate against the Republican Party in general - not just George W Bush.

They have been asleep at the wheel and have been nothing but a rubberstamp for the White House. They have put Party loyalty about the interests of the people and our country. They have offered no oversight as crime after crime, scandal after scandal, has gone on right under their noses. They cannot be gone soon enough.

[MarianJack]

1. Ted Rall Put it Beautifully a Few Months Ago, kentuck.

He wrote an article saying that the republins had to make a choice and make it very soon.

America or bush?

It absolutely amazes me how they consistently pick bush, and I think you're absolutely right to say we need to hold the party accountable.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. I disagree

Attacking Republicans in general is a bad idea. Bush is NOT a traditional conservative Republican. That is the wedge.

[kentuck]

4. So the Republicans maintain control of House and Senate....?

But we get rid of Bush? He's leaving anyway, isn't he?

[Dongfang Hong]

8. We gain nothing

by turning people against a man who leaves in 2008 regardless of the nation's opinion of him.

We gain everything by winning and holding the Congress in 2006, 2008, and beyond.

How exactly may we gain anything by avoiding a confrontation with Republicans?

[InsultComicDog]

3. I think so

Being a year where Congressional seats are up for grabs, but not the Presidency, that should be the plan of attack.

Some of the incumbents are starting to separate themselves a little bit from the White House in an effort to appear more independent.

But if we can nail the GOP as the party of corruption that it is, then they will have to do more than that.

[kentuck]

5. Yes. It is up to the Democrats to nail them.

They cannot sit back and wait for the press to do it or naively beleive that the people see the truth. The people have to be told the truth.

[Dongfang Hong]

11. The people cannot distinguish between

true attacks and lies. We call them on something, they counterattack, we counter their counter, they counter that, and soon the issue is so confused nobody understands what's going on. See: DSM, WMD, Yellowcakegate, Plamegate, SBV, Tax Cuts, Soc. Sec., and basically every single time we've attacked them. We need to provide a positive alternative as well as an attack.

[kentuck]

13. It's difficult to be positive when you're getting hit in the face with mud

Ask John Kerry.

[Dongfang Hong]

16. He didn't defend himself or fight back.

There's a place for mudslinging, but it can't be your only strategy. He tried to play positive and ignored Republican attacks on him. That's stupid. But concentrating on mudslinging will only drive people away from the polls. We need to be able to change the subject once an issue becomes too muddy.

[kentuck]

18. I will agree we should have a positive agenda.

But it is worthless if we permit the Repubs to define the agenda. I think your points are all commendable but lacking in some reality in todays politics.

[Jayhawk Lib]

6. Agreed. They are jaded....nt

This is definitely time to attack the Republicans. We have got to have a majority in the house and that is the election that is coming up later this year.

[Dongfang Hong]

7. Obviously, I think, and it's frustrating

how quick DU is to pin things on Mr. Bush. I am well aware the man has a long history of personal defects and brazen mismanagement of our nation. Unfortunately for us, his term expires in 2008 and Laura is the only person who has to deal with him after that. And once we hit 2008, if Mr. Bush is as unpopular as I believe he will be, there will at the same time be nothing preventing the Republicans from completely reinventing themselves. I see as a possibility them claiming the War on Terror is largely won, allowing a "return to conservative principles" led by Mr. McCain. And if Democrats have spent the last eight years concentrating on attacking one man, the disastrous reign of Mr. Bush will be no political advantage to us.

Instead, I think, it would be prudent to concentrate on the Republican establishment. I personally dislike the term "Culture of Corruption" (I prefer "Ring of Corruption," as a ring is easier to envision breaking up than a 'culture' is) but it's a decent attack line. Unfortunately, Democratic hands are only marginally cleaner than Republican hands are, and getting into a mudslinging war will only lower voter turnout, giving them an advantage--their base, after all, is larger than our own, and the last thing we want is a pure war of bases. Rather, we should concentrate on the condition of the middle-class American. Mention how the Republicans have failed them, but mention in the same breath exactly how Democrats will make things better.

Merely "not being Republican" is not going to convince anyone who was not already planning on voting for us. And Mr. Kerry's failed bid should teach us that just as a mudslinging contest only results in both parties equally dirty-looking, "giving them enough rope to hang themselves" over and over again only results in their feet touching the ground--letting them embarass themselves is one thing, but standing idly as they recover the debate is suicidal.

Democrats need to offer an alternative to Republicans first and explain the crimes of Republicans second--and mention Mr. Bush's crimes only in service of this.

[kentuck]

9. You're assuming the Repubs will be standing around in clean white shirts

They will be throwing mud. They always do.

[Dongfang Hong]

10. Did you actually read my post?

Unfortunately, Democratic hands are only marginally cleaner than Republican hands are, and getting into a mudslinging war will only lower voter turnout, giving them an advantage--their base, after all, is larger than our own, and the last thing we want is a pure war of bases.

[kentuck]

12. Yes, and I disagree with that comment...

"Democratic hands are only marginally cleaner than Republican hands are..."

Where have you been? This Administration is more corrupt than the Nixon White House. We cannot accept the "they are equally corrupt" argument. Sorry.

Furthermore, Republs will throw all the mud they can get their hands on. Who thinks they are going to run on their record? Democrats need to tell the truth on 'em and hard, in my opinion.

[Dongfang Hong]

15. Our corruption levels are both equally "attackable."

We've accepted Abramoff money too. Not to the same extent, but the truth matters very little in politics. They will throw mud. We will throw mud too. But we need to have more than mud to ensure a victory. Their base is larger than ours is, and therefore we can only lose a mudslinging war.

Edit: Were you aware the no-2 Abramoff whore was both a Democrat and a Kennedy?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/12/GR2005121200286.html

[kentuck]

17. "Their base is larger than ours is..."

I'm not sure that is correct. I think the bases are fairly even. Bush got a lot of Democratic and Independent votes last time around, mostly because he had a lot of mud and anti-gay Amendments on ballots in 12 states.

[Dongfang Hong]

19. According to Pew,

36% of Americans self-identify as conservative and 19% self-identify as liberal. We're more appealing to moderates, but mudslinging drives moderates away.

[populistdriven]

14. Republicans & Their Media are a "Cult of Victimhood"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x38578

We need a nominee in 08 that embraces this message

I wholeheartedly support the disgust expressed in this thread towards the RW media. We need a candidate with the guts to stand up and speak to this truth.