Reply #32: This is two annoyingly separate issues: primaries vs general.

[TacticalPeek]

The first three graphs regard the primaries, where positioning and message-tailoring will depend on the dynamics then in play. But some of that must merge with an approach to the general.

The "statement" is regarding the general election. It makes sense. It rationally should appeal to some. But he should take care how he puts this, obviously, in the land of the vanquished. His schtick is to talk straight, but if he goes this way, the impression he creates when so doing should be more like his aura in the ad he recently ran in Texas, and less in your face like a rally speech.

If he has any lefty Southerners on staff and ran this talk by them, I imagine he gets a "Right On!". But if he conversed with some of those staffers' more moderate relatives down home, he may pick up on reactions that indicate the value of, if not sugar-coating the pill, at least having a nice glass of water to help the swallow.

I suggest framing this around some new, good-gov pitch. The rePugs don't believe in government, they want it to fail. We believe in government by the people, and want it to work. And here's how your old guard has failed you and here are the results. And here's what we will do and how you will benefit.

This is a variation on what I think will be a great theme for Clark(if): accountability. Accountable for national security. Accountable for the economy. Accountable for national and international leadership. Blahblahblah.

My view is from Deep in Dixie. Defeat is not an option. Victory in '04.

Now I must run vote against some people.