I'm also happy that this site found my musings on Professor Yoo's infamous editorial helpful. Its focus is philosophy and other weighty topics, but has some comments on current events that are priceless. For instance, we have Bush and Scott McClellan as soulless automans here. Conclusion: "The message-automaton befits a despot communicating to his subjects, or, in more contemporary terms, a behaviorist conditioning his captive subjects. It does not befit the leader of a democracy." Worth reading in full.
Some suggest that the problem with how the Kerry Campaign respond to recent attacks is that they took them seriously. In other words, they should answer them with the ridicule that they deserve, such as "Bush, campaign finance advocate?"
Or, in a similar line of attack, suggest that the attacks just show how desperate the other side is -- "is this the best you got?" A thirty year old story that the facts [and what did your guy do back then?] show to be untrue and lame attacks on trial lawyers [Yes, I admit it! I fought to get money for children terribly injured. Damn those juries of average men and women!] Hey, keep it coming!
This isn't quite in their "positive" playbook, is it? Still, many pundits and ordinary voters are responding in this fashion, and it has some merit. At some point, it is healthy to basically ridicule some of the shit the other side put out there. To refuse to let it dominate the press coverage, to blank out the real issues out there. And, a good way to do this is to ask if this is what the other side is going to use, given it is just so empty. Ask the press simply: why are you letting this go on? "Simply" might not be in Kerry's vocabulary, but sometimes things aren't too complicated.
It has to be done carefully because the sneering technique is harder than it might look. Gore basically lost a debate because he was seen as lecturing Bush like some schoolboy, even if he had every right to do so. Kerry/Edwards falls in the same trap sometimes, such as appearing to plaintively ask: why don't they focus on the issues? Or, Kerryites shocked his veteran bona fides was even questioned. The whole technique, no matter how expertly done, also is just a little bit distasteful.
Still, I think it is foolish to focus too much on Kerry not playing by Bushworld rules. The campaign had to respond in some fashion, and it is the lack of a good response that was the problem, not necessarily their taking the accusations seriously. Also, I still would emphasize it's just a bad idea to put such a large focus on his service in Vietnam. Finally, the "yes" in support of authority to go to war just played into Bush's hands. A key example of not recognizing Bushworld snares, but stupid in any political campaign.
So, yes, don't let them get you to play on their tuff. Recognize that the Bushies got this far because they know how to play the game in an especially cynically successful way. A little healthy disdain is helpful. All the same, the Kerry/Edwards campaign made some mistakes that are more complicated than that. Also, they have certain characteristics* that will hinder them from totally playing by Bushworld rules, which is probably not completely a bad thing. It also turns some people off, which probably is.
Well, no one said winning the presidency would be easy, right?
---
* Edwards is said to be too nice. He got this far by taking a positive path, and I wonder how useful it will be to change his basic strategy. And, remember, his "two Americas" and general persona has an undertone of "those other guys are rotten" -- this is a bit negative, no? Edwards can, however, cheerfully dismiss negative attacks -- he did it before -- as not worthy of respect, as downers that just avoids what matters to ordinary folks. Play to his strengths, I say.