It is about that time again - trying to explain to the Democrats how they should finally get their act together and put together a winning strategy. Of course, Daily Kos ... the premier strategists ... have gotten into the act. One has taken the path of a Digby blogger of taking the Target Bush technique:
Remember: Bush really is incompetent. And the American public sees it now.
Remember: Bush really has governed above the law. And the the American public understands that now.
Remember: Bush has bogged this nation down in an insane war. And the American public understands that now.
Remember: Bush does not have a genuine plan to deal with Iraq, nor is he capable of creating and implementing one. People are dying because he doesn't know what he's doing. And the American public understands that now.
Remember: Bush's supreme callousness and negligence led to the hiring of the incompetents in charge of FEMA during Katrina. And the American public knows it.
Remember: This is one helluva unpopular president. The American public has very good reasons for disliking him and his policies so intensely. They are all but begging you to stand up and refuse to go along with his incompetent, extremist, and unlawful behavior.
Focus on Bush. Everything else is detail.
Well, maybe I'm not the demographic you need to reach [a possible gem to remember is that candidates need to reach the swing 5-10% that voted for Bush without saying "what the hell was you thinking" too many times], but this sort of thing is why I knew Bush had to go in '04. You know, the fact he was so bad that even an imperfect candidate was better than that.
This is the path of adulthood, and all voters allegedly are that -- you go with the better option, all things considered. One might add this sort of is what even the lukewarm Lieberman hater has to face as well. The adult also does not get stuck on weenie arguments that miss the point. "Bush isn't running!" Fine, make it about Bu$hCo or Bushites or Republicons.* Bush is the putative head of the party, okay? I guess Jef was off since "the king" was not really the true cause of all their problems. The Declaration seems to have held up pretty well anyhow.
This sort of "detail" (I actually like using one of those other constructions to deal with his enablers) is important, but as noted, it is just that -- detail. The core issue is the mess we are in now. Shall we discuss in deep detail about what we will do after we get out of the hot muck while we sink deeper? FDR comes to mind. What was his main message in '32? We can do better ... we can get out of this mess. We HAVE to do better, we HAVE to get out of this mess. The detail was not as important as trust his energy and passion would lead us down a better path.
Yes, this suggests that anti-Bush is not the only path to winning. Sure enough. First off, it is quite useful to have a good candidate who runs a good campaign. Such is why comments to the diary entry focusing on Kerry while refuting the "It's Bush Stupid" meme were a bit off -- you need more than that, surely, and Kerry was in various ways a lousy candidate. Damn it that some still try to avoid the question while focusing on Ohio, the Swift Boaters, the media, etc. Want strategy? Don't go down that path again.
[The point is not that these other things mattered, it is that a winning candidate deals with what is thrown at them. The Yanks have great hitting but poor pitching: you don't whine about how tough their hitters are; you respond with hitting as well as taking advantage of the weakness. So, yes, media matters a lot. A winning candidate deals with it, including using media for his/her own purposes. The time to answer the Swift Boat Ads was in mid-summer, not October or '06. (Not kidding there). Did the press love Clinton? Oh, wait, I forgot. Clinton is a demigod that cannot be imitated even half-way. BS.]
You know, don't make Hillary Clinton the candidate, especially the current model. I find it a bit horrifying that some are basically of the opinion (for better or worse) she will be the candidate. For lack of major opposition, perhaps this is not too surprising. All the same, this sort of thing appalls me. No, that might be too strong ... this does. Her stance on the war is probably enough for me not to want her to be the candidate, especially given other negatives (e.g., too divisive -- we don't need that weight around our neck). But, if the Democrats think again they will win by spitting at the base, watch out for the wind!
Anyway, sure, a comment (as an aside, comments in the major blogs are often more interesting than the post ... this is the case in Slate as well) hits the nail on the head by saying:
"We can do better for you" ought to be the other half. Not mealy-mouthed focus-group speak, but a direct appeal to people afraid of going without health care coverage; people tired of working two jobs to go deeper in debt; people who remember what America truly stands for. Target the message of how Democrats can do better for you, and use that message to bring out the vote of those who ought to be voting for us anyway.Or ...
It is time we started voting again for the common good, for equal opportunity, for the right to privacy, for accountability in government, for respect abroad, and for hard science.
And a bit more detailed. What am I looking for? First off, yes, someone who realizes the mess BushCo (the "company" is not just economic, so I removed the $) has put us in. I want someone who is forthright about this, even if I disagree with them on certain matters (thus, Rep. Murtha is a plus). I admit to a weakness for passion, even of the tilting at a few windmills variety. Sure, mixed with realism, but passion in our basic institutions and republican values all the same.
It shouldn't be rocket science to do this. The basic message should be simple, the details can be supplied on the side, and disputed. Sure enough. But, we need a change, one that better promotes the public good. Equality. Openness. Fairness. Good and competent government. Providing for the "general welfare" (so, I disagree at least somewhat with the argument to focus on the "middle class" -- remind the richer among us that the tax dollars help us all, them too). You know, things like that. A reason to vote against those in power that amounts to less than ten words (without connecting tissue, you know), or not much more.
And, I'm just a humble blogger/voter, not a major strategist or even media voice. It is not rocket science folks. Making it such gives the other side too much credit and also implies our side is so much more messed up than we actually are. It is damn hard work with a good deal of luck mixed in, but that's a bit different. That can be accomplished, rocket science is a lot harder, surely if you are a pol sci major or something ...
So: we need a change, we can do better, these passionate/downright competent candidates can do the job, a job that involves certain basic themes, will respect dissent but be realistic about things (this is not the same as defeatism), and will get their message out there (while forcibly dealing with media that twists it). Fill in some details. What are they paying you for anyway? Sheesh.
---
* I first, perhaps a Freudian slip, wrote "Republicrats," but that is appropriate too. Maybe not in November, but overall, the Liebermans and others who fail to step up and protect the common good are worthy of our scorn too. As long as they continue, even a Democratic Majority will not be enough. I think we can aim higher than "hey, it's much better than how things are now."
Likewise, if a key core of the party sounds like Republican-lite, why vote Democrat? Sure, Bush helps as does the ultra-conservatives that dominate leadership and such, but this only takes one so far. Experience suggests the truth of this.