Political strategy discussion - Cowards vs Heros?

[Stinky The Clown]

That crap in the House that we suffered through yesterday, that crap Rove spewed in NH specifically against Murtha and Kerry, that 'cut and run' theme that is (you better believe it) now firmly in the public sphere on Main Street.

Repubs are 'brave' and 'stalwart' and 'steady' and 'steadfast' and 'resolute'.

Dems are 'cowards' and 'wimps' and 'pussies' and 'wusses' and 'appeasers'.

With no small assist from the corporate media, these words are now very much the frame in which the midterm campaigns will be run. Rove said it straight out, as reported right here in River City: "Republicans will run on the War."

And it isn't being done based on policy or reality. It is *ALL** being done on perceptions and evocative picture words. Gary Cooper versus PeeWee Herman. Strong-jawed George vs Wind Surfing John. Never mind that one is a cowardly avioder, if not outright deserter and one is decorated combat veteran. These images that have been painted (very successfully, thus far) are, indeed, powerful.

The very name 'Nancy Pelosi' has been made into a caricature and an adjective. It angers us. Intentionally. If we get so spitting mad (as many of us are) we'll just go flat footed right straight at them. And they'll skewer us on the tips of the spears carried by their lock step marching legions.

Ann Coulter has cleared the way to attack those who have a higher reason to speak out. The Jersey Girls are now 'rich broads gleeful in the aftermath of their husbands' deaths'. It is a VERY short leap to attacking with impunity the military records and the very man embodied in the likes of Johns Murtha and Kerry.

But wait.

Johns Murtha and Kerry have not just held back and kept their powder dry. Kerry, through his surrogate (campaign manager/advisor) called Rove a 'porcine coward'. Kerry himself has been more than strong in saying himself what needs to be said. Murtha was poetic in his standing strong against real attacks by the likes of completely unmanly jerks like Louie Gomer Gohmert. And he has had so much face teevee time, it is simply amazing.

What do *you* think our broad strategy ought to be from now to November?

Do we go to the American people with high minded logic and reasoned discourse? We surely have the facts on our side. And one need only stop and listen and one (even a Republican voting one) will agree with us. And we have eloquent speakers who can frame and deliver those messages. We make our case and make it stongly but reasonably.

Or do we fight? We have far more military vets than they do. We coudl enlist them in this new fight. Promote our Fighting Dems military group. In short, we 'outbrave' and out fight them. They say something - anything - implying we're cowardly and we come on like stink on shit.

I've obviously painted both strategies in the extreme - pacifist vs pugilist. So please take my strategy posits as but examples made in the extremes.

What do *you* think we need to do?

[spindrifter]

1. Stomp the Rethugs at the polls.

That should show them how we are appeasers.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Well .... uh .... yeah ... that's kinda ... like ...... the goal

The question was: what strategy will more likely get us there.

[spindrifter]

8. #1 priority is getting the vote out.

They took us by stealing the vote. But bottom line, they were discouraging our voters and making sure their issue-oriented voters got their ballots in and counted. They identified a few issues--and we helped them out by not being in their faces about croneyism, incompetence, the war lies. They have now given us so many failures that it would be impossible not to have something that will ring the bell for just about any voter.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Thanks for clarifying. I apologize for the snark.

[AX10]

3. kick

[BillZBubb]

4. If we don't fight, we lose.

For every bullshit attack the Repugs make, we should make TWO against them. Use their own tactics on them. Game theory is very specific on this--you have to retaliate or you lose.

Our problem in the past was that we didn't fight back which simply reinforced their caricature of Dems as cowards and unmanly.

You don't win elections with high minded discourse: witness presidents Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.

[nolies32fouettes]

5. ...

http://www.progressiveu.org/194600-sleezy-republican-ploy-hurting-the-troops-more-than-murtha-and-kerry-wasting-tax-your-dollars

We have to get our messages heard!

http://www.progressiveu.org/224246-the-democratic-plans-for-the-06-election-helping-average-americans

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Good links

Thanks!

[mitchtv]

6. What would I like to see,is not what

I expect. I did like the porcine reference, but it came from a surrogate, but Cheney can tell Leahy to fuck himself on the floor of the Senate. We have a long way to go. Sadly, Dems refuse to defend themselves or us, seeking only to hang on to power. No apologies for nothing; call them anything that fits repeatledly. Words like "crooked" "coward" "Chickenhawk" "Traitors" should be the first three words out of the Dems mouths for any excuse. What will we get? Nancy Pelosi taking Impeachment off the table.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. That's not exactly what Pelosi said ......

.... or at least not what she apparantly meant. True enough, her Fat Timmy appearance, when that was said/inferred was not her best moment, but what she meant was that we would not see her push straight to impeachment. Instead, she was pushing for oversight and serious investigations/hearings. Implicit if that, and not discounted by her, was that the facts *could* lead to impeachment. Please keep in mind the meme du jour when she said that. The Repubs were screaming that any vote for a Dem in the midterms was a vote to impeach the Boy King. What she said (very inartfully) was a counter to that. Nothing more.

[mitchtv]

13. all she had to say was

" If they didn't do anything wrong, they have nothing to be afraid of..."
Funny how that works, Maybe Dick Durban can apologize or Kerry can say he meant someone else.Or they can get Donna Brazille to explain our position. ( Tho I think Kerry has come close to learning his lesson)

[Mind_your_head]

7. There are a whole bunch of people who can see through

the straw-men/stickman that 'they' have drawn...frauds, the whole lot of them!...I just hope that the ballots will be accurately counted (of that I'm not very certain.)

[Sparkly]

12. My 2 cents: "Go Negative"

Split the effort, as the GOP does. The candidates themselves, and other official representatives of the party, stay on the "high-minded" track. Allude obliquely to the negative views promoted by others, especially in a "joking" manner.

OTHER people should come out loud and mean and do to their candidates what they do to ours: marginalize them, make them cartoons, assail their credibility, etc. I've never before thought this was a good idea, but face it: they will do it to our candidates, so giving it back is necessary just to level the playing field.

Ideal for the "coward/hero" debate would be for us to have a veteran running against someone who never served at ALL. (We know Chimpy didn't fulfill his duties, but they kept throwing around the pics of him in uniform anyway.) The idea of a group of veterans taking on the stereotype is important, but of course they will counter that there are MORE veterans who vote GOP. They will surely assemble another group of "swiftliars" to assail our candidate on some ridiculous charge. We need our own group to give it back to them, harder and nastier, and show them for what they are *immediately.*

It is long overdue for our party to destroy this ridiculous "John Wayne vs. Alan Alda" thing they've established over 35 years. It's critical for winning elections, and they know it. You can hear all the echoes of Vietnam even now, even from people who weren't even born then, and they have no idea what they're even talking about!! ("Hippies," "Peaceniks," "VC," "Hanoi Jane," "spitting on troops," blah blah blah... They figure they're making some sort of point tossing in terms like that.)

So I say: Keep the candidates largely above it, but get others to establish memes -- based on TRUTH -- about their candidates, and get this stereotype behind us once and for all!

[ruggerson]

15. Do you guys write from different parts of the house

Hey Husb2Sparkly, she would like another cup of coffee. NOW!

:9

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Actually ..... we do

We both work from home and DU time is our version of a coffee break. Sparkly has an office and I have an office. We can talk if we shout, but we're not really in earshot of each other.

Sometimes, when its nice out, we'll use laptops on the deck and then we're next to each other at the table out there.

And we're each well trained to get our own damn coffee! :)

[ruggerson]

17. lol

we do the same. Except husb2ruggerson is not interested in DU, more interested in arguing about football on various sports boards.

We're also trained to get our own coffees. Or the occasional mocha down the street.

:-)

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Who would you see as possible people to fill the 'Others" role?

Would it be wise for, say, a Senator not up for relection to be the verbal grenade tosser?

Obviously, the 'others' could be any of the talking head class.

What about Michael Moore, specifically? Not for any given candidate, but more as a counter to Coulter and Limbaugh.

Obviously our Air America and other left radio types can do it, but they're *already* pretty mjuch on board for that role.

Natalie Maines and other entertainers?

What about some of our 08 hopefuls ..... Edwards, Clark, Warner, those types?

Big Dawg? (naaah ... he'd never do it.) Jimmy Carter? Retirees like Bob Graham?

Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson?

Is there a risk to anyone who would assume this role?

[ruggerson]

14. Hit em back

Reframe the entire debate.

Staying and losing our young people daily in a war that is making our nation less safe is dangerous, reckless and unpatriotic.

Use words like UnAmerican and unpatriotic and dangerous to describe Republican policies.

Use words like wise, patriotic, smart and courageous to describe getting out of Iraq. And couple leaving Iraq with the point that the funds can be redeployed to do the task the Republicans have been ignoring: securing our borders and our ports. REAL homeland security.

Refram the debate.

Cut and run? Hell no. What THEY"RE proposing is stay and bleed. A dangerous, reckless course for our country and the world.

[Auntie Bush]

28. I like that. So what should we do? "Stay and bleed" or

come home and protect our boarders or our country. I suggest these.

What should we do?:

Stay and bleed or protect our country?

Stay and bleed or protect out boarders?

Stay and bleed or stop the terrorism?

Keep on lying or tell the truth?

Stay and make more enemies or come home and protect America?

Stay and keep on killing or come home and work for peace?

Bankrupt our country or balance the budget?

WE NEED TO ASK ALL THESE QUESTIONS!

[inthebrain]

18. It's very easy to throw that back in their face

Republicans and Democrats are caught on the "merry-go-round of toughness". The idea that who is more brutal can be seen as "tough" or in the Rove example "brave". And just where has this gotten us?

Two wars in less than two years.

A countried obsessed with Jailing people.

A military industrial complex that s spiraled out of control.

We're now contemplating building a fucking wall on the border!!!!!

Mothers thrown out into a market with no jobs because of welfare reform.

A destructive war on drugs.

How much further do we need to take this. Republicans confuse "brave" with a government steeped in brutality towards others. It's up to us to put a stop to this stupidity.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. I think there's something to that 'brutality' meme .....

.... we'll get crushed is we call what's being done to 'terrorists' brutality (which, in fact, it is), but not if we call shit like domestic spying 'brutality' ... or the Schiavo crap ..... or ... or .... or ..... brutality against good citizens can certainly be used.

[ruggerson]

20. I think it's back to the old mommy/daddy dynamic

which I find sexist in its labelling, but for purposes of political debate, everyone knows what we're talking about.

In times of war, when the nation is most concerned with an intervention overseas (and most polling shows that Iraq rates a bit higher than the economy as the top priority) if we adopt anything remotely intrepretable as a "mommy meme" the Repubs will destroy us. Which is why we have to reframe OUR point view in terms of a "daddy meme" worldview. We have to forcefully convince the country that the Democrats have the stronger, better ideas for safeguarding our security and our way of life.

We have to face the reality of how politics works in 2006. Attempting to publicly deconstruct the entire "mommy/daddy" dichotomy (which is in and of itself a "mommy" endeavor) is a strategy and an undertaking doomed to failure, imho.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. I agree .... if we go anywhere *near* a position on *anything* we'll get

our clocks cleaned.

A framing contrast of 'justice' to 'brutality' would work better. But your right, this skirts pretty close to 'mommyism'.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. You posted this same thing in another of my threads

That's either spam or propaganda.

[Jed Dilligan]

25. It's ...

Spamaganda!

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jed Dilligan]

27. And suddenly

This one man represents the entire American electorate?

No, that doesn't sound like propaganda at all.

And posting the same irrelevant shit on three threads is a little bit like spam, though I daren't call it that!

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.