From Dem Strategist: please read this as I join you on this board

[Dem_Strategist]

I'm starting a new thread to make a few things clear:

I very much appreciate the welcome on my fist thread.

I can't possibly respond to all questions because of my schedule.

Please do not be offended if you post a comment and get no response from me.

I'll be discussing things that cause some of you consternation such as the Swift Boat Veterans strategy and the Iraq response.

I will not be providing classified or private campaign information, but I will try to help you understand the thinking behind decisions.

Again, I'll do my best to be responsive, but I apologize in advance if my postings are erratic.

Thanks for everything you all do.

[Trajan]

1. We have a cause ...

Promote Democratic Party values to effect rule in the US of A ...

We need to win to rule with Democratic Party values ... and we need to promote those values to win ...

We need LOTS of things to win, and the media issue you presented was a primary point .... but not the only one ...

It's good to have you aboard sir, let's WIN this ....

[gasperc]

2. please clear yourself through the admins

otherwise many of us will be skeptical of your posts, insight is fine but none of us want to get duped either

[blondeatlast]

4. I've asked them to look into this, Rove IS having a time of it, ya know. n

[WilliamPitt]

5. Read:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x613305

[gasperc]

14. thanks Will

if Will says he's legit, then he/she legit

[Walt Starr]

15. Will Pitt's personal voucher is good enough for me

:evilgrin:

And if Will's word is good enough for me, it should be good enough for ANY DUer, too!

[papau]

30. Will Pitt says no problem -and I trust Will - Dem_Strategist is "cleared"

at least in my world!

:-)

[Birthmark]

3. One word: Credibility

Hammer it. And then repeat.

[Caution]

6. Right wing e-mail campaign

The right-wing email campaign has been hugely destructive to the Democratic Party. The Kerry campaign should start a collection of each and every one of these pieces of garbage and have a repository with rebuttals that we Democrats can cut and paste and respond with to the list of people the orginal was sent to.

The Debunker is a great idea and a great place to keep this stuff.

Examples:

Heinz outsourcing
Swift Boat crap
Social Security and the Dems
Heinz charitable foundations and donations
liberals and work ethics

There are a ton of these out there that get passed around constantly. There should be a concerted effort to debunk and to disseminate the rebuttals.

[Walt Starr]

8. I would ad that the debunking needs to go to various Urban Myth sites

Snopes comes to mind immediatley. It's very useful to have the debunking of the lies on Snopes as I can usually debunk myths within 20 seconds when I search Snopes.

[Caution]

17. Absolutely. Multi-sourced is best

The more sources to debunk the better. This stuff has been very very bad for the Democratic Party, I couldn't tell you how many times I have been sent this crap. My best friend, (an avowed Green to my dismay and consternation) sent me the one about the Democratic Party trying to destroy Social Security. I almost dropped dead. College educated guy with a degree in economic ecology, works for a non-profit world health related organization and voted Nader in 2000 and he actually bought this crap until i sent him both the snopes debunking and the Fact Check debunking.

(I'm 90% of the way in getting him to vote for Kerry though..Bush is simply terrifying to him).

[Dem_Strategist]

11. Have you seen the Rapid Response Center at the Kerry-Edwards

website? http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/

[Walt Starr]

16. Yep, but these debunkings need to make the rounds

and snopes lends credibility.

It's just a suggestion, but every time they debunk on teh rapid response site, a copy of everything should go to Snopes.

[GumboYaYa]

21. Yes. My problem with the rapid response is that it is often to

verbose. The response is not effective if it takes a paragraph to explain.

The response to the swift boat ads should have been, "These guys are liars and the ad only shows that Bush has no positive agenda to promote."

The data and info is good to have, but a simple unified response that puts the Repubs on the defensive is a must to cut through the cahttering heads.

[Caution]

25. I have but there is a problem here

This is a problem that I see repeated a lot by the Kerry campaign. This particular portion of the site is akin to a corporate site listing press releases. As it stands now this response thing is overmuch. Only those of us who are rabid will take the time to find the item, read the response and send it out. With a little effort on the campaign's part this can be made easy to use with the response to some idiot forwarding an email coming directly from the campaign itself.

Indulge me for a moment.

There should be a prominent block on the front page with something to the effect of: "Received an E-mail smear? A coworker repeated a nasty knock on Kerry? Click here for a response"

This then goes to a simple form at the top - followed by the list of items like you have now. The form should say "Enter in the smear key words", the result set should give a small portion of the possible items (no more than three), when clicked the item should contain a copy of the original smear (the email or the "story") with a short, succinct rebuttal (sound bites people, sound bites!), and a link to an email form to send the long form rebuttal to someone. A rebuttal directly from the Kerry campaign with sourced links is much more powerful than one from me!

If there are no returns on the smear search, the user should be prompted to cut and paste the smear into a form with their email address for a repid response for Kerry which will then be included in the overall database.

[papau]

32. But today the ABCNote laughed at how the gang of 500 is ignoring

the Haliburton info being provided by the campaign.

The politics of punditry are over my head!

Good luck in your efforts.

:-)

[qwlauren35]

43. Yet Another "Hidden" Website...

I am very frustrated that I have to be an insider of sorts to know where the repudiation info is on the Kerry site. I would never have known that "rapid response" means "go here to get the response to Kerry attacks".

There needs to be a clear statement on the homepage that tells people that "Rapid Response" is where to go to get the facts straight.

[quaoar]

58. I have checked the Rapid Response site

And see nothing there disputing the claim by George Bates about Kerry shooting animals and torching a village. Can't find anything on the web either, other than right-wingers crowing about it.

What is the story on this Bates guy?

[slinkerwink]

62. for an excellent example of debunkings, check this out

http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com

It's an excellent source to debunk right-wing lies such as the "300 votes for taxes" and the "1st most liberal senator" lie.

[quaoar]

64. That site

Looks like a wealth of info, but I don't see anything about the Swift Boat vets.

[Worst Username Ever]

7. I call BS.

[Walt Starr]

9. Will Pitt confirmed the identity

I was skeptical, too, until Will confirmed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=613305#613325

Will Pitt's word is good enough for me, and should be good enough for any DUer.

[Worst Username Ever]

13. Huh. I'll be damned.

[Caution]

10. Post campaign make a concerted effort to reclaim "liberal"

By making "liberal" into a dirty word, a large group of people have been disempowered. This campaign and the fact that the Democratic Party has done nothing about it has caused those who unashamedly call themselves liberal to distance themselves from the party.

[Chili]

18. Caution, I say "yes" to both your posts

..the debunking of lies and the word "liberal." The second is one of my hot buttons, and I fiercely defend being a liberal and am proud of it. And I long to hear a liberal SAY he is a liberal, and explain exactly why anyone should be proud of it.

[Walt Starr]

22. We need Liberal talking heads making the rounds

that are not part of the Kerry campaign team to relacim the word NOW

Every time a rightwinger disparages the word, come back with SS being Liberal, getting women the right to vote was liberal, civil rights were liberal, heck revolting against a king and founding our own naiton was a LIBERAL idea.

Reclaim the word outside the Kerry campaign, and that will help the Kerry campaign.

[Caution]

28. For this campaign, use women and the military

of any and all races. This doesn't seem like a big issue but it really is. I know too many people who have left the Democratic Party because it refuses to defend the word liberal, whether or not the individual politicians in the party are liberal or not. This can be done. It's easy to do.

Who uses the word liberal as a dirty word? Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and O'Reilly. These four people are so easily rebutted it is amazing. Every time one of them uses the word liberal just say something to the effect of:

"As a liberal I personally would never disparage the patriotism of Max Cleland like you did Ms. Coulter"

[Chili]

31. exactly, Walt Starr

...and also, Caution:

"As a liberal I personally would never disparage the patriotism of Max Cleland like you did Ms. Coulter"

Absolutely! And this idea that liberals are "wishy-washy" and "flip-flop" - if we embraced our own convictions with more conviction, LOL, we'd command more respect with even those who hate us the most... and certainly draw back those who've we've lost.

And the Republican leadership uses "liberal" as an epithet as well.

[flpoljunkie]

12. My unsolicited advice to the Kerry campaign. You are in desperate need of

better strategists to go on the cable shows to refute the Republican smear campaigns. Chad Clanton is excellent, yet I have seen him only once; he is sharp as a tack and he is way Southern--a great combination!

The Kerry campaign needs to swiftly confront GOP smears head on, and they do not. They should have immediately identified Robert Perry, Texan and major,major contributor to Dubya and the GOP, as the sugar daddy of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", who has provided $100,000 of their $158,000 funding!

Regarding the $87 billion Iraq supplemental vote, why did it take the Kerry campaign so long to finally say, "Why then did Bush twice threaten to veto the very same bill, if it was not to his liking?

Perhaps Kerry was unwise to try and answer Bush's question regarding his giving Bush authority to declare war. Someone needs to say that Bush abused the authority given to him by Congress when he rushed to war. Answering hypothetical questions is silly; what's done is done and Bush will now have to answer to the American people in November for his war in Iraq.

That said, I hope to see Phil Singer's excellent and rapid response repeated on the cable news shows today by Dem strategists regarding Cheney's slam on Kerry using the word "sensitive."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59544-2004Aug12?language=printer


Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said Thursday that Cheney was being disingenuous and twisting the four-term Massachusetts senator's words. Singer noted that President Bush had used the word "sensitive."

"Dick Cheney's desperate misleading attacks now have him criticizing George Bush's own words, who called for America to be 'sensitive about expressing our power and influence.' Dick Cheney doesn't understand that arrogance isn't a virtue, especially when our country is in danger. ... If Dick Cheney learned this lesson instead of spending his time distorting John Kerry's words, this country would be a safer place," Singer said.

[papau]

36. Bush says "if I don't like the question I'll restate it" -Kerry should use

same approach.

There is no reason to answe media questions that have been planted by the GOP so as to have a GOP win if he says yes - and a GOP win if he says no, and a GOP win if he say maybe.

If we respected the media and expected them to be fair - it would perhaps make sense - but the US media in 2004 is owned by the GOP - both in what they say, in what they do not say, and in story selection for any day of the week.

[jfxgillis]

19. Swiftvets Thurlow and Chenoweth also wrote reports after Bronze Star ...

.. action by Kerry.

Why have those reports not been released?

Why have the Kerry people not requested the release of those reports?

[Domitan]

20. A calm perspective from your camp would help here

Quite a number have been worrying that Kerry hasn't pulled out all stops yet against the Swift Boat Vets smear, but some of us have to realize that a long-term strategy works far better than a short-term strategy. If there's a major issue on fire and it seems that Kerry/Edwards have not been "doing enough to counteract that", it would help to ensure us that the campaign plan will work and we just have not seen it yet.

[efhmc]

23. Here's my take. Answer the negative strongly, clearly and immediately.

Continue to state the new goals for the Kerry adminstration (health care, jobs, environment, energy, foreign policy, etc.)and do this succinctly, positively and simply. An energy policy that asks us to help with the problem through self sacrifice and conservation will do much to activate and excite people. One that shows how and why we are in this mess and how and why we need to make ourselves sufficient and strong should be stated at every stop.

[funkybutt]

24. Why have the dems abandoned Louisiana?

this is my question to you. we can't get any help down here. Over a month ago, we were told that the Kerry HQs would open "in a week or so"...now they say it'll be open next week but they said that the week before and the week before that. Please don't blame me for being discouraged. Ad revenue was pulled from our state and used somewhere else. Within a few weeks of the ad pull, there was a huge swing (based on polling) in bush's favor. We were removed from the list of "battleground" states by the party as well as most 527s.

We are all still working very hard with voter registration initiatives but it's becoming more and more clear that maybe we are the only ones left who think this state is not a Lost Cause.

Also, someone really dropped the ball on the 5th district Congressman Alexander! HOW was THAT allowed to happen?

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. OK, since you are understandably busy..

I will double post something here where I figure you will see it. I also put it earlier on an ideas thread:

On the Topic of Flip Flopping

Statements somewhat along these lines might be fun to deliver to a crowd. "This Administration says it's concerned about flip flop responses to our Nations problems. I suggest that they concentrate on flipping more often, because their first response is usually a flop. They came into office saying the greatest threat to our Nation's security was missile attacks from rogue nations, despite Democrats warning that Al Quada and terrorism was the biggest threat to America. They ran around the globe trying to rustle up support to abandon the treaty that limited Star Wars deployment, while our guard against terrorists was down on 9/11. With the horses out of the barn they flipped to the Democratic position, and conceded that Terror was our greatest threat. Then Democrats in Congress called for establishing a uniform standard well paid force of U.S. Government security officers to screen passengers for airline travels, while Bush held out for a checkerboard quilt of private industry contractors to guarantee airline safety. Well that's the very approach that flopped on 9/11. Finally Bush saw the light and flipped to the Democratic position and set up uniform government screening for flights. Then there is the matter of the Department of Homeland Security, which Democrats in Congress initially proposed and which the Bush Administration initially resisted. There too this Administration finally saw the light and flipped to the Democratic position. Or how about the establishment of the 9/11 Commission to get to the bottm of what went wrong on that fateful day? Bush opposed it initally, before begrudgingly flipping to the Democratic postion to support it.

Perhaps the biggest flop of all for this Administration was their failure to successfully work through the United Nations to assemble a broad based coalition of nations to actively confront Saddam Hussein in Iraq and share fully in the cost of doing so. Now for the most part it is America's problem to solve, with costs in the hundreds of Billions for our tax payers to bear, and with hundreds of thousands of America's finest men and women rotating in and out of continued combat in Iraq. Belatedly now, George Bush turns increasingly to the very U.N. he publicly scorned for help in getting us out of this mess, and he sidles up, ten gallon hat in hand, to some of the very N.A.T.O. allies he once cuttingly dismissed as being from "old Europe". Yes, once again George Bush is flipping to the position most Democrats held all along. Time and time again George Bush and Dick Cheney's initial solutions to America's greatest problems have flopped. Isn't it time to flip control of the White House to a team who will get it right the first time?"

[Norquist Nemesis]

38. Great Response!!! You should PM Dem Strategist

with this post! *applause*

[Caution]

42. Perfect!

:yourock:
:yourock:
:yourock:
:yourock:

[rocktivity]

27. How do we know you're GOP strategist in disguise?

I mean, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for THEM to spread the rumor that Kerry's train was stopping in Lawrence, Kansas!

;)
rocknation

[Walt Starr]

33. Because Will Pitt has vouched for them

and Will Pitt's word on the matter should be all than any DUer needs!

[Skidmore]

29. You need to talk to the youth of this country now more than ever

and not be cutesy about it. They need to know that they are at serious risk of being cannon fodder in an unending war and slaves to an economy that does not value an honest days labor for an honest dollar. Get Kerry and/or Edwards on a forum on MTV and let them talk to my son and his friends. Tell them war is not a video game and that there are ramifications for reckless policy. That we as parents (and they are parents) care for their lives and futures and want to help them make a better world. Tap them for their youth and hopefullness. We want a world that isn't cynical and spiteful. We want them to be proud for the right reasons.

[GumboYaYa]

34. From my experience there are lots and lots of young people

very engaged this year. I just completed a campaign for Missouri's 3rd District Congressional Seat where we took an unknown candidate and with the vigor of hundreds of twenty something and younger volunteers, lost to the son of the former govenor by only 1,700 votes. It was all driven by the exuberance of the young people who worked on the campaign.

Also, the Washington Post has an article today discussing Kerry's strong support amoung the younger voters.

Most people have made up their minds in this race. The media watchdogs are critical to prevent distorted media reporting from flipping these already decided voters. Otherwise this race comes down to field organization and geeting out the voters on election day.

There are large numbers of young voters who are ready to get involved. Kerry needs to tap all these kids for his field work.

[Caution]

35. Have the talking heads point out the disparity in Dem vs Repub guests

Have them flat out say it.

"Why are there always two republicans for every Democrat on Hannity and Colmes?"

I know some of these people make their living off of the appearances but make a concerted effort to get Democratic people on the shows. Make it a campaign priority, even if you have to send a steady stream of one offs. What I mean by this is:

There seems to be a fear by Democratic guests that if they are too forceful they will not be invited back. Use the grassroots campaign to recruit people to go on these shows. People who are willing to go on once and only once. Prep them ahead of time so they aren't too nervous and have them say the things that might mean they don't get invited back. Create an email newsletter, this letter contains a detail of all of the known appearances by Democratic talking heads. Have the subscribers to the email list send out email, make phone calls and send out letters to the stations PRAISING those who say the things Democratic pundits are afraid to say.

And just keep sending people out to the shows. As many as possible and if you prepare them ahead of time to not see it as an income method but rather a way to spread the message we can be more effective.

The same can be done for phone in shows. Have a response team watching the shows. Put together a synopsis with talking points related to the topic, email this out to a list of oh i dunno, 40,000 DUers at a moment's notice. There is a large portion of us who will call in and spread the approved message.

[Walt Starr]

37. Start faxing taking points to every journalist out there

OOPS, sorry, Rove has the patent on that one...

:evilgrin:

[merh]

56. I looked - he doesn't own the patent! Why can't we do that too?

Why can't we get folks like the liberal Blount that was related to the senatorial candidate that GWB helped in 1972.

This guy disliked *, is considered a liberal, and recalls his behavior (and more importantly) where he was in 1972.

These guys should be asked if they are interested in campaigning for Kerry.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. Nice tag line on your signature, Paine is perfect context n/t

[phiddle]

40. Suggestion

Have teams of Rapid Responders at the ready in NY and Washington. The moment that, say, CNN announces an interview with (for instance) John O'Neill, publicly request that a Kerry responder be included in the interview. Nothing causes rats to scurry like the light.

[phiddle]

41. Suggestion

Have teams of Rapid Responders at the ready in NY and Washington. The moment that, say, CNN announces an interview with (for instance) John O'Neill, publicly request that a Kerry responder be included in the interview. Nothing causes rats to scurry like the light.
We have to FIGHT for a fair shake from the broadcast media.

[marlakay]

44. How can we post ideas if they are watching?

I think its great you want to help us but I understand you can't say a whole lot because the repubs check the boards too. Whats happening in their boards? I don't go at all but I am curious of how they talk about Bush. How can they possibly support his stupid stunts?

[Walt Starr]

47. We have the advantage of inundation

If they're watching, there will be at least 10 ideas for every one that ends up being further vetted.

They have to prepare for all of the possibilities, while the Democratic Party concentrates only on those fully vetted ideas.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. Not all good ideas involve the element of surprise

Surprise is always a strategic asset, but for example, if someone digs up some juicy dirt against the Bush/Cheney and posts it here at DU, yeah sure the Republicans get a chance to start damage control, but, after all, it help starts the damage in the first place.

There are some areas where the Democratic roots have traditionally been less organized and savvy than the Republican astro turf. Sharing ideas regarding them isn't giving away anything, it is helping us catch up.

I know what you mean though. Sometimes I have gone to great lengths to try to find a private channel to pass on an idea through. Problem is, they have to be quietly researched, going through people chains usually. Once they are freely available on a site like these they often become unusable.

[blondeatlast]

45. Forgive me my skepticism; the Admins have cleared you and

that's good enough for me.

I think you will be a valuable dose of political reality to this board; as a longtime Dem and campaign volunteer, I know that politics isn't nearly as simple as it seems to be.

Welcome. :toast:

[mike_c]

46. comment from an anti-war democrat....

I would have preferred to PM to you this rather than posting it here because DU has lately become rather hostile toward anti-war democrats who find Kerry's IWR vote and subsequent statements problematic. Unfortunately, your account cannot yet receive personal messages, so I'll post my comment.

I believe-- and I speak for myself only-- that Kerry is doing a great deal of damage to the Democratic Party by not repudiating his IWR vote and by refusing to take a strong anti-war stance with regard to Iraq. MANY of us here on DU marched and struggled against the invasion in 2002 and 2003, and for many of us it continues to be the most defining issue for the left wing of the party. I feel betrayed by Senator Kerry.

I'm a lifelong Democrat. I'm 50 years old and have voted democratic for 30 years. In 2000 I voted for Al Gore despite the rightward drift of the Democratic Party and in spite of my perception that the Green Party better represented my political beliefs and interests. I have stood with this party because I have believed it to be the best opposition to the right wing politics of the Republicans, and more recently the outright fascism of the neocons.

I cannot do it in 2004. John Kerry is far from a perfect candidate from this proud liberal's perspective, but let's be clear: neither I nor most left-wing dems that I know expect perfection. However, there are thresholds that-- once crossed-- make a presidential candidate untenable no matter what their party affiliation. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is one such threshold for many on the left. Nor do we stand alone-- much of the rest of the world agrees.

As I write this, U.S. Marines are desecrating the holy city of Najef, risking the Shrine of Ali and murdering hundreds of innocent civilians in yet another effort to crush the occupied population of Iraq. John Kerry has accepted this war-- despite every single rationale for it having been debunked-- and so that blood is being shed in his name along with George W. Bush's. He shares responsibility for the desecration of Najef, indeed, he seems to accept it willingly if his refusal to condemn the war is evidence of his beliefs. I cannot follow his example. I cannot lend my name to the murderous-- and utterly pointless-- enterprise in Iraq. In short, I cannot vote for John Kerry. Again, I speak only for myself, but I know my comments reflect the concerns of many on the left.

I'm telling you this because in this more than any election in recent history, the defining issues for the left have never been clearer. Ignoring those issues-- or taking the politically rightmost side of them-- has never been more dangerous for the Democratic Party. You might not hear this often on DU these days (although you would have heard it loud and clear in 2002 and 2003), but I believe there are many like me who, having been lifelong fervent democrats, now find themselves rejected by the party they've supported for so long. If you do indeed have the candidate's ear, I urge you to ask that he remember this.

[Bush was AWOL]

50. I beg people like yourself to vote for Kerry

and get Bush out of office and then worry about what he says or does. Please, will Kerry invade Iran? Well, we don't know, but Bush will. Please help get Bush out of office.

[Old and In the Way]

52. Why do you persist on distorting Kerry's IWR vote?

Bush ran as a moderate in 2000. He's governed as a RW radical. I'll go on Kerry's long record of supporting progressive causes and cut him some slack on doing whatever it takes to get elected. That is the point, yes? To get elected.

Unless you are privvy to a crystal ball, you really don't have any idea how Kerry will deal with Iraq. (Nor does Kerry, because Bush controls the US policy up to 1/05.)

You remind me of Freepers who can only point to Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky as the sole basis of what was wrong with his administration. At least they were basing their flawed perception on what happened...not on misrepresenting what Kerry's vote addressed.

BTW, I thought I recall a post of yours that you voted for Nader in 2000....am I mistaken about that?

[mike_c]

53. you are indeed mistaken about my 2000 vote....

in light of subsequent events within the Democratic Party, I have expressed regret on occasion for not having voted my conscience in 2000 (that doesn't have anything to do with Nader, BTW-- but rather with the unabashedly liberal GP platform). And your response is a perfect example of why I would have preferred to PM my comments to Dem_Strategist. I'm tired of trying to counter the new hostility toward anti-war dems here. You were here during 2002 and 2003-- surely you remember the outrage and disbelief over the IWR vote.

I'm not going to use this forum to debate this any longer-- my message was intended to express my concerns to someone who has intimated that she/he has the candidate's-- or at least the campaign's-- ear.

[AP]

48. Oh, man. Just when I had resolved to spend less time at DU...

...now I feel like I need to spend more.

;)

[Old and In the Way]

49. Welcome aboard Dem_Strategist!

You got 35,000 or so ready soldiers reporting for duty!

I'll be looking forward to your posts and insights on the Kerry camaipn strategies over the next few months.

[Walt Starr]

54. I have an idea about how to attack the media bias

Shut out Fox News. Totally shut them out. Nobody from the Kerry Campaign should answer a single question out of the mouth of a Fox News reporter. Nobody from the Kerry campaign should appear on another Fox News show. Give exclusive interviews to everybody BUT Fox news.

They'll complain. O'Reilly will call Kerry a coward. It'll be nothing new, but it draws attantion to them. Once they start griping, then the Kerry campaign can state something like this:

"We have watched as Fox News has become nothing more than the mouthpiece of the current administration. Giving interviews to Fox News would be like one of our soldiers waking unarmed into a hive of Al-Queda terrorists in Iraq. It would just plain be a stupid move on our part to play the game this administration has set up, just as it would be a stupid move on our military;'s part to play the game the terrorists have set up.

And we will remind the rest of the media, we've been watching you, too, and we're not liking what we've been seeing. More and more of you are demonstrating the laziness that can come with simply taking the faxes the adminsitration sends and reading them verbatim. Then somehow justifying this weird behavior as being 'The News'. We won't stand for it. We will give interviews to objective, thorough journalists. We will not allow ourselves to become fodder for propoganda directed against us."

[Joanne98]

55. I agree. All the dems do is sit there and get beat up anyway.

Plus you will NEVER change the minds of faux news viewers. It's a waste of resources.

[lunarboy13]

57. I agree...

I can't stand Fox News, although I must admit I do peek in from time to time just to see what the other side is reporting. They are as fair and balanced as an all white jury in Alabama in the 1950s.

[LimpingLib]

59. How about standing up for the poor and middle class?

Wouldnt that render the media moot?

Honestly, this isnt rocket science.

Anyway,tell us about Kerrys tax policys and who would benefit the most from them? Based on incriments of $15,000 ($30,000 vs $45,000 vs $60,000 income earners and etc.)how much would each income group benefit from kerrys tax policy changes?Is it based on who you expect to turn out to the polls or based on helping those who need help?

What was the campaigns deep wisdom in their proposed policys?

[MallRat]

60. Ad I'd like to see: "I'm a Republican, and I'm voting for John Kerry."

We saw a little of this on the Jumbotron at the convention, but I'd love to see this taken the next step: 30-second ads filled with testimonials by Republican voters in swing states who are voting for John Kerry.

Keep it positive, optimistic, forward-looking... there's a bunch of uneasy Bush 2000 voters who are sitting on the fence. An ad campaign like this could push them squarely into the Kerry-Edwards column.

-MR

[rumguy]

61. Deal with the $87 billion vote

And deal with it in a way that is clear and forceful - frame it as a vote for principle.

Also point out that Bush threatened to veto the bill if it wasn't to his liking - this was brought up yesterday on CNN and Blitzer acted like he'd forgetten.

[creeksneakers2]

63. The silver bullets to get Bush

The Kerry campaign has too many issues it brings up for just a day or two. Kerry needs to choose some good attacks and keep repeating them. Those that demand a response from Bush are the most effective.

Somehow the press got to define this election as a contest for who will be the best commander in chief based on who has the guts to start a war. Defining the issue this way presumes that war is the way to fight terrorism. Reminding the public about Kerry's Vietnam service just reinforces the idea that war is the answer.

The neutral issue is: What are we going to do about terrorism in the next four years? Kerry should frame the issue this way.

Kerry should say law enforcement, intelligence, international cooperation, special military operations, and as a last resort, war are the solutions. But, most importantly, Kerry should say that all this demands a commander in chief who is involved the major decisions that are made at the White House level. Bush has been escaping responsibility for too long by pretending he didn't know what was going on.

Silver Bullet?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Back in March, MSNBC ran a story about how the NSC discarded three military plans to take Ansar al-Islam, and possibly Zarqawi, out of action before the war. Did Bush know this was going on? If not, that shows he's out of the loop on a major decision. If Bush did know what was going on, he turned down a chance to take out a terrorist threat. All Bush has is his reputation for fighting terrorism, and this would undermine it. The MSNBC story says that the White House chose not to attack Ansar al-Islam because it's case for war would be undermined. If this is true, then it proves everything Bush has said about Iraq being part of the war on terror was a lie. Bush chose war in Iraq INSTEAD of fighting terror. I'm not sure this MSNBC story is true, but it has two named sources. Kerry could launch this by asking over and over: Were there plans?


Silver Bullet?

Did Bush know Colin Powell fought for days against a request to tell the WMD lies to the U.N.? The State Department raised 36 objections. Powell had a duty to let Bush know there were big problems with the intelligence. Wasn't Powell loyal enough to let Bush know about the problems? Did Bush let Powell hang out to dry with the blame? If Bush didn't know he was out of the loop on a major matter. If Powell did tell Bush, then Bush wasn't in charge enough to look into the 36 objections. That would also mean Bush lied about the WMD. If Bush tries to hide behind secrecy, Kerry should just keep asking over and over what Bush knew.

There were numerous reports in the media before the war about incorrect WMD intelligence. Did Bush see any of these? If he did, he should have asked for a review of the intelligence. If Bush didn't, its more proof he was out of the loop.

Bush is in the box now because he either has to say war is the solution to terrorism, or admit he was wrong to choose war as the solution. I tried to find out how many terrorists have been caught in Iraq. I can't find a reliable number but out of a google search I could only find three that were named. One was retired. Two were Ansar al-Islam, which Bush chose not to take out before the war. Paul Bremer once reported 19 SUSPECTED terrorists were caught, but I never saw any follow up on this report.

In constrast, I tried to find out how many terrorists were caught all together. A USA Today report said we've caught 2,000 in 95 countries. Many of these were probably from Afghanistan, but it would be interesting to see just how many have been caught elsewhere. So far, two terrorists that had White House meetings have been indicted. We've caught almost as many that have been in the White House as we have in Iraq. It could also be noted that Bill Clinton's missile attack on Afghanistan took out 19 Al Queda. That's more than Bush has caught in Iraq.

So, if Bush wants to defend the war option, let him defend the results. If Bush chooses the intelligence, law enforcement, and war as a last resort option, ask Bush to explain why he went to Iraq. Also ask Bush if he feels that the intelligence and law enforcement options require somebody who has a basic knowledge and involvement in what is going on directly around him.

*Note* If the GOP attacks back by saying Kerry should have known some of these things and done something, say that Kerry had no way to know for certain that Iraq didn't have WMD, and continued inspections were the best way to find out.

[David Zephyr]

65. Welcome to the DU.

Glad you joined us here and I know you are sound because if William Pitt says you are, then you are.

Personally, I've been very worried about Kerry going before the VFW and the "swiftjerks" trying to embarrass him there. I hope our side is prepared for their crap.

[Kilroy003]

66. Welcome to DU Ms. Cahi... - uh, er,

I mean Dem Strategist.

When do we get past all this funny talk and second guessing and get to the meat of the matter?

How may we be of service?

First things first. Who whall we barrage with DU discourse?

[Jack Rabbit]

67. Welcome to DU, Dem_Strategist

I will be following your posts very carefully in an effort to learn.

[bushwakker]

68. The budget defecit is a great issue - why is it being ignored?

I thought Dean used it very well in the primaries. These guys have turned a $236 billion surplus into $400 billion of red ink and they're supposed to be the fiscally responsible ones?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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