Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We have to destroy George Bush's public image in order to defeat him.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Screaming Lord Byron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 09:38 AM
Original message
We have to destroy George Bush's public image in order to defeat him.
Since Reagan's 1980 election, Public Image has become the key to winning elections in North America. Charisma is, unfortunately, a key arbiter in election results. Reagan's victory was due, in part, to his reputation as 'the great communicator', Clinton was able to manifest a tide of disappointment and need for change through his extraordinary charisma. This brings us to George Bush. If we are to defeat the Republicans at the next election, we must negate Bush's strong personal appeal. Time after time, whatever befalls his administration, whatever lies they are caught in, Bush is not held responsible. A large section of the electorate consider him an honest man trying to do good, and are willing to forgive his trespasses after a flash of his knowing smirk. We are adding to this when we paint Bush as a foolish idiot. He probably is a foolish idiot, but that can be used as an excuse to deflect criticism away from the man onto the administration.
We must strip away Bush's good-time guy image. This image appeals to many men on a very fundamental level. He's a guy we can imagine having a drink with (ok, I can't, you can't, but a lot of people can), he's the guy in the office who cracks risque jokes but gets away with it. This sort of personality is the ideal frontman for an otherwise faceless neo-conservative project that lacks humanity.
We must make Bush complicit with PNAC's actions. We must paint him, not as a dumb frat-boy fool who can barely string a sentence together (even though that seems to be true) but as a dangerous neo-conservative ideologue who presents a false image to the public.
We must make George Bush be seen as the liar we know he is. He is a spoilt, arrogant rich-kid who has never had to work at anything his whole life, a parasite who gets by on the achievements of others.
Bush says he likes to be 'misunderestimated'. He plays up to his goofball dimwit image because it humanizes the administration, it reassures and deflects. It dismisses the hard questions that otherwise must be asked for him. Whether or not this man is a dim-witted fool or not is immaterial, he has created for himself the ideal image to win votes. It must be brought down.

What do you guys think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. I started trashing Bush a couple days after 9/11. People should be
stomping that bastard 24/7. Screw the political correctness drones and civility freaks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
44. push his buttons
During Clinton's WH years, a group of freepers stood outside the WH every day and pounded pots and drums and hollered.

But his real vulnerability is his old man. Start hammering the old man on his crimes and you'll push W's button. When he gets mad, he says dumb things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
are_we_united_yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #44
94. Uhhhhhh "When he gets mad, he says dumb things."
Did you mean when he talks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
45. yeah...that worked so well for the pubbies as they trashed clinton
didn't it? maybe pubbies and indies will dig in their heels to protect bush and their portfolios just as people protected clinton.

nahhh....never happen....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Razormill Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
62. Why destroy and "STOMP"?
It seems to me that after detroying Bush you may find yourself covered in saliva and not to attractive to anybody....Why not simply voice your opinion?

There are thousands of strong voices right here able to post constantly all the lies and deception so obvious in this administration...Anybody can throw stones.....lets see you throw strikes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. I agree. We Dems are too nice. We have to fight "repug" style..
and that means dirty. We must win. We cannot have * as a lame-duck president. Can you imagine the damage he will do if he got 4 more years? I don't even want to think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demnan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
3. I agree
I think this guy is a mean-spirted spoiled brat and needs to be exposed as a dangerous war monger.

The question is, how do we do this without media?

I've read the bulk of the good liberal books this year that characterize Bush rather accurately however the average person doesn't read these books. They get their news and impressions from T.V. and the major newspapers and news magazines. So what do we do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
devinsgram Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. I saw through him back in 1998
when he started hitting the Sunday morning talk shows. I just can't understand how everyone else didn't? Maybe instead of going after the puppet we need to go after the puppeteers. Without them he's toast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madaboutharry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
5. I think this is exactly what the democrats need to do
You have put it exactly right. They have to get out there with unrelenting criticism and expose this punk and his cabal of jackals in the administration. They have to call him a liar and a fraud. They have to expose every fabriation, lie, and con Bush has perpetrated on the American people.

I feel a rant coming on.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. Yes!
This guy is a teflon-coated idiot and has been given a virtual free pass by the media. He makes Raygun look intelligent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
7. People weren't born hating Bill Clinton
They had to be taught to hate.

We all know this from our thoughts about race, gender and other issues.

The real lesson we need to learn is that we must demonize Bush.

Given the truth, this isn't hard to do. But too often the moderate Congressional incumbent/elites and Party Leadership will have nothing to do with it.

It's up to us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eco-Warrior Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
43. ...he just made it easy.
Why demonize Bush? Are you any better than those who hated Clinton? Why not question his policies and ideas? It was easy to attack Clinton, who revieved less of the popular vote in both elections than Bush did in 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #43
57. Policies and ideas?
Bwahahahahahaha--that really makes me laugh. This man is so stupid that he cannot string a coherent sentence together when questioned on his "policies and ideas" He is nothing more than a front man--a clown--the one who goes to the money raising events and acts like a fool. That is ALL he is good for and that is ALL he is used for. He has NO policy or ideas--he is a puppet because of his name appeal. HE is a jerk who cannot think and who is lacking in morals, ethics and everything else that requires sensitivity and intelligence. He is, indeed the worst president we have ever had who stole and election--wait, he is so bad BECAUSE he stole the election.

All that is happening to this country right now, was in the works even before the election . That is why the electiona HAD to be stolen. It was all there beforehand and Bush the adolescent ninny was the selected boy dauphine.

Sad part is that he, and his dull witted, rictus smiling wife, probably do believe he is the best thing since sliced bread. They really do think they are the American royalty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last_texas_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #43
89. No
Clinton received 49-percent of the popular vote in the 1996 election; Shrub received between 47- and 48- percent in 2000. While demonizing/attacking may not have kept Clinton from being re-elected, such action did have a significant effect on his personal approval ratings. Shrub's personal approval rating continues to remain high, and there is a good chance that if more Americans knew about Shrub personally, through exposure of his corruption, these ratings would not be so high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeachBuckeye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #43
93. I wonder....
if you could have been any more transparent than this? I think not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bedtimeforbonzo Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
58. IMHO, bad idea
Demonizing Bush is like crying wolf. It makes people tune out reasonable criticism of his policies, lumping them in with the 'bush is hitler' hyperbole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
74. and again i ask...
how badly did clinton lose his re-election bid?

oh..that's right...he was handlily re-elected despite the hatred, wasn't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Screaming Lord Byron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I'm talking about negating one of the Republican Party's best weapons.
The GOP has found character assassination very successful, as demonstrated in 2000 and 2002. They are still the party of hate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. May I refer you to
an excellent article on the subject

www.buzzflash.com/carpenter/03/12/pmc03217.html

Your idealism is admirable, however, the opposition cares not about discussing "ideas." They desire to destroy your constitutional rights. We must ensure that they know we have no desire for that to occur. Go negative early and often.

WELCOME ABOARD. Please read the article, especially the first two paragraphs. Do they describe you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. You'd vote for Genocide George?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Screaming Lord Byron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #18
34. 'Instead of calling a man stupid, why not show how smart you are?'
Edited on Mon Dec-22-03 11:24 AM by Screaming Lord Byron
But you can, it seems, call him an 'angry midget'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. Conservatives will NOT Vote for Candidates with ideas
They are programmed to hate liberals and vote AGAINST people they are told are liberals. Discussing ideas won't change them. They need to know the truth about bush and then make up THEIR MINDS. If the vast majority of lemmings knew the truth about bush, they would vote for anybody but. Go negative, early, often and loud. They have made the rules, lets play by them. They will cower at your vast knowledge and expertise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. I see
Conservatives convert moderates and independents by talking nice about liberals. Gosh, I concede. I'll start sweet talking them right away about how great george bush is, however, we need to spend a moment talking about ideas. Do you have a moment? Thanks for your time. Great to talk to you. God Bless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Eco-Warrior Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #28
40. Where do you stand on the issues?
I couldn't agree more Kobe98. I don't care what party a candidate is from as long as I agree with his positions on the issues and can believe what he says. I wouldn't vote for any of the current Democrat candidates because I don't know what they stand for other than they are against everything George Bush is for. I watch the debates and all I hear is "George Bush this", "George Bush that", or "I can do a better job than George Bush." I don't know what they stand for. They are the best nine public service addresses for Bush that the RNC could have asked for. They need to talk about what they care about, what they stand for, what they would do if they were President, and stop giving George Bush so much press.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Butterflies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #40
70. They ALWAYS talk about what they stand for
during the debates. They take some shots at Bush, but mostly they talk about where they stand on issues and what they want to do to fix problems. If you only hear Bush-bashing, you're listening very selectively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. This is a great idea
Except we already ARE beating him with ideas. A poll released just a few months ago shows that 63% of Americans hate George Bush's politics. Of course, they're still going to vote for him. They like him, not his ideas. Therefore, we must destroy him, not his ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #16
23. You are right
We don't control the Senate or the House or the White House BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GONE NEGATIVE AGAINST A BUNCH OF NEANDERTHALS. They have trashed us to an audience of rubes and dumbasses who have no respect for the constitution. We need to protect the courts. It is tantamount to protecting the constitution. Please, align yourself with a democratic candidate and ensure you vote for the democratic nominee in November. Unless of course, you care not about your constitutional rights. If so, please vote for the man who will take them away from you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. You are right again
People who vote for conservatives are rubes and dumbasses who listen to limbaugh and faux news for their "facts" and YES, that is why democrats are losing elections. You are so insightful. And, pray tell, whose agenda did the founding fathers have in mind when writing the Constitution? Gingrich's, Delay's, Lott's, Hatch's, Ashcroft's? Whose supporters were shrieking the most in Florida in December 2000? Who "won" the election?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. You refer to the minority of Americans
who voted in 2000, those who voted against Gore? Zell chose not to vacate the Southern Klavern when his fellow democrats did in the 60's. The real estate was rapidly taken over by the southern strategy republicans and they have been successful ever since sharing their "ideas" with their southern constituency.

The man who "won" the election, deserted his military unit, profited from corporate crime and lied to every american in his SOTU address. He is such a great leader, he chooses to hide his past from us. He is such a great leader he can't hand over a federal criminal on his staff. He is such a great leader he does not want us to know what he knew in August 2001. He is such a great leader he will let cheney keep his energy task force secret, for fear the truty will not set him free. Just a short list of what the rubes and dumbasses do not believe. I have an "idea", lets share the truth with the rubes and dumbasses. I served 24 years in the Navy. I know leadership. George Bush is no leader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #35
39. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #30
78. UM
the man who WON THE ELECTION was AL Gore. Bush's daddy's friends on the Supreme Court handed him the presidency, just like he has been handed everything else in his life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jshep Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #78
86. Then why are you posting on the internet instead of
fighting in a civil war?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libview Donating Member (241 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
51. I wouldn't say voters are "Rubes and Dumbasses"
I would say they are stupid idiots!!!
wow, feel better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #8
19. You miss the point ENTIRELY (re: Kobe)
Edited on Mon Dec-22-03 10:43 AM by Atman
When we take the high road, as liberals, by definition, are wont to do, we just get shat upon and stabbed in the back. We are just as predictable as the republicans, is the sad part. We KNOW they will lie and twist what we say. They do it every time. And they know we'll be liberal and attempt to take the high road. The problem is, we take the high road and they take the low road, and they get to Scotland before us.

So I am in basic agreement. Fighting back means fighting back, not blowing kisses of forgiveness and tolerance. Because THEY won't learn tolerance by our actions...they just learn that we'll put up with just about anything before we fight back, so they just keep lying and pushing.

Me? I've reached my tipping point. Fvck nice. I've started talking to the cashiers at the grocery store. I tell anyone who'll listen, and some who won't.

We are under nothing less than an attack, a take-over, by extremists elements who've burrowed their way into the system like the parasites that they are.

It is time for delousing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eco-Warrior Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #19
42. Twisting in the Wind
Can you give some examples of how Conservatives have lied about and twisted what liberals say, and when liberals have taken the high road?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Screaming Lord Byron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. The Paul Wellstone Memorial, October 29th 2002 would be a good start.
Edited on Mon Dec-22-03 12:01 PM by Screaming Lord Byron
Please educate yourself before making such statements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eco-Warrior Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Looking for Answers
I was asking a quesiton not making a statement. I'm looking for some concrete examples of lies. Please tell me how the example you use relates to my question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Screaming Lord Byron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. Well, I have my copy of 'Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them' with me
but why don't you just buy a copy and educate yourself. You'll find plenty of lies debunked within.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eco-Warrior Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. You're kidding, right?
I'm not so sure I'd take political advice from a comedian whose claim to fame was a Saturday Night Live skit where he looked in t a mirror and said "I'm good enough, I'm smart enought, and gosh darnit, people like me." Thanks but no thanks. I'll look elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeachBuckeye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #55
96. Really don't know how you lasted this long here.
If I were a mod I would have booted your condecending, transparently conservative ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Screaming Lord Byron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-03 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #96
103. He's gone. Lasted less than a day. Well done mods. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #55
97. comedian
Comedian or not his points are still valid. Although his book is entertaining, there is a clear decernment in his book between his jokes and the reasearch his staff did. The thing about Conservatives is they like to spring "facts" on people in debates that no one is prepared to answer because they are so outrageous. These "facts" are then repeated and repeated by the GOP media voice that people just start to believe it.

how bout to start with


That the media has a libereal bias.

evidence shows that there really is no bias at all.
To better illustrate this issue, its best to point out that liberals think there is left, center, and right leaning media while conservatives think there is only left leaning and center. Which sounds more legit to you? Fox News is considered by them to be "fair and balanced" it makes the mind real. The Pew charitable trust foundation did a study on election 2000 media coverage of Gore and Bush which showed suprisingly that there where left, center and right leaning stories which where distriubuted evenly with a mild advantage to negative stories about Gore.

The Paul Wellstone memorial was turned into a campaign event
This is one of those lies that gets started by a conservative columnist and repeated until it takes root. The only problem is that everyone that was there thought it was a memorial.

Bush said "The vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom end of the spectrum"
The bottom 60% got 14.7 percent of the tax cut.

liberals are tax and spend.
Bush is cutting taxes and increasing spending. The size of government has increased under Bush. Not to mention the fact that Reagan tripled the budget will cutting taxes. I guess you can call it spending if we are paying back they debt the run up.

Tax cuts help the economy by stimulating investment.
This is one of those quasi-intellectual models that must have been churned out by some conservative think tank as an excuse to give money to the rich. This translates directly into "making the rich richer helps the poor". Well research shows this model is bunk because the supply and demand model works. A bad economy lacks demand, not supply. What is needed is more direct spending, not more jobs that will put other jobs out of business.

These are just a couple of minor ones. There are also alot of off the cuff lies that liberals know are lies when they hear them but most people just let them slip by. These dont trouble me nearly as much as the important stuff like claiming "No child left behind" while cutting education funding or saying that iraq's nuclear and chemical weapons are a good reason to piss on the UN and go in ourselves.



I suggest you check out a web site called rush vs reality.
It is a prime example of conservative lies.


http://groups.msn.com/RushversusReality/yourwebpage2.ms...









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #55
102. Well, then I'm sure you'd object to Rush Limbaugh as well.
Certainly you'd find his credentials just as suspect. Everybody I know in the talk radio business (I used to be a broadcast journalist myself, some TV but mainly radio - for some 25 years or so), especially on the consultant/programmer end, refers to Rush as an "entertainer," and very funny, indeed, comedic. The failed former DJ-turned-talk-show-host is regarded as entertaining, and we're often told that when liberals/progressives get somebody on their frontlines who is entertaining and funny the way he is, they'd have a shot at the big leagues, big bucks, and big audiences, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #48
54. Eco and Kobe, let me treat you like the bush enablers you are
Prove he didn't desert his military unit.

Prove he didn't commit corporate crime at harken.

Prove he didn't lie in his state of the union message

Prove we didn't go to war so cheney could secure oil fields for his company.

Prove bush isn't hiding a federal criminal in the white house.

Prove that tony the fixer scalia did not secure the presidency in 2000 for political not judicial reasons.

Prove that r. m. scaife spent his money judiciously in the 90's because he had america's welfare in mind.

The list goes on. I choose not to play games with enablers. "Prove" what I request then go where you will be welcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. You must not pay attention to the news much
The media twists and spins for the Repukes every day. Liberals try not to go after conservatives too much, but the conservatives are so stupid sometimes, it's hard not to trash them altogether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eco-Warrior Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. I watch
Give me some examples. I ask because so may posts are filled with generalities but very few examples. The more informaiton I have, the better informed I am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Screaming Lord Byron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #42
49. The State of the Clinton Military.
George Bush lied about the state of the military under the Clinton administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eco-Warrior Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. ...was horrible
Having served in the military during the clinton administration I can tell you that we had to fight for funding, supplies, and support. You name it, we didn't get it. It's common knowledge that during his administration the active military force was cut by over 1/3. Military intelligence, civil affairs, transportation, military police, support and logistics forces were slashed to the bone. Why do you think so many guard and reserve forces are being activiated now; to make up for the short-fall in the active forces. Naval aviation was down by almost 20%. Retention rates were at an all-time low, pay had not been increased in years and benefits, such as a Thrift Savings Program like other Federal Employees have, was not offered to the military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. Retention Down!
Why? Because the civilian economy provided an avenue for those with extensive training to use their training outside the military. Pay not increased in years? Which branch were you serving in, pray tell? Should not all federal agencies have to fight for funding? You name it? New base housing, shore duty infrastructure upgrades, PAY RAISES, BAH increases; increased funding for Family support Centers. You babble on like a good little rube. Take your propaganda where it will be believed. Please tell me, as I review my LES's from the 90's,, that my "pay had not increased in years" while I was serving under the last elected President
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Eco-Warrior Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #64
72. Facts
If race wasn't an issue why did the Pentagon just level the playing filed and revoke the policy that made race a preference in promotions? Sat in on promotion boards! Wow, congratulations.

I wasn't making a comparison of the two Presidents, I was simply pointing out the political leanings of the CJCS. Why didn't he object stronger to not sending armor (M1A1s and M2s to Somolia), why didn't he object stronger to the infamous 1 year deployment to the Balkans (why aren't democrats calling for an exit strategy). I'll be the first to admit that the position was beginning to become a political rubber stamp in the late '80s. But the time the Secretary of the Army proposed berets for everyone, without any objection from the CJCS, the position was hopeless. Berets for everyone, there's a real morale booster for those of us who earned them.

I never blamed the clinton personally for the shutdown. I used it as an example of what severe cuts will do to.

Never said base closings didn't happen under a Republican President. They were proposed under Republicans and happended under Republicans. But they never happened to the degree that they did under the previous administration.

As far as pay is concerned, unless you're willing to send me your LESs, I have no way of verifying YOU. You know, we rubes are afraid of facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Eco-Warrior Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. You're Right, This is Fun
Promotions: Again I point you to the FACT that the Pentagon revoked the policy allowing race as a criteria for promotion. Whether you used it or not is beside the point. It was a written policy from the Pentagon that race was allowed to influence promotions.

Peace/Prosperity: When is the last time you watched the news? The Dow just busted 10,000, new home construction at highest level in 30 years, manufacturing sector is increasing, addition of 1/2 million jobs... I don't believe I ever cheered on nukes and military bases. I'm glad to be rid of nukes. You asked for facts, I gave them to you. If your response is to resort to name calling (a violation of the forum rules by the way), then that's on you. I was hoping for more civil discourse.

Again, not afraid of facts, love them. Please keep them coming.

I have to sign off for the day. But I very much enjoyed the back and forth. I'll be back tomorrow, I hope you will too. Until then, your favorite Rube.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #77
82. HALF A MILLION JOBS
who told you that - FAUX NEWS ?

Gee, even if it were true, only 2 and a half MILLION more to go
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Screaming Lord Byron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #53
60. The active force was not cut by over a third. That is false.
Edited on Mon Dec-22-03 12:39 PM by Screaming Lord Byron
The reduction in forces from the end of the Bush Sr regime was from 12 Divisions and 8 Reserve Divisions to 10 Divisions / 8 Reserve at the end of the Clinton era. The number of Marine Corps units remained the same. Army manpower went from 572.4k in 1993 to 482.2k in 2001. This was an extension of the 'peace dividend' begun in 1989 under Bush Sr. Under Bush Sr, army manpower dropped from 769.7k to 611.3k.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Don't start talking facts Lord Byron
Rubes can't communicate with facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eco-Warrior Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #61
65. I Love Facts...
thats why I'm asking for specific examples. HEre are some facts for you.

Virtually every dollar of Al Gores reinventing government cuts were cuts from the U.S. military. The 2000 Clinton-Gore defense budget was $300 billion below the already down-sized defense budget of 1993, which Clinton and Gore inherited. The navy was half the size it was in 1993. Americas bombers were older than the men who fly them. Over all, military spending was at its lowest level (as a percent of GNP) since before World War II.

As a result of the relentless cutting, year after year cuts, by the Clinton-Gore White House, Americas defense forces were missing 709,000 regular (active duty) service personnel and 293,000 reserve troops. They included eight standing Army divisions, 20 Air Force and Navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft and 232 strategic bombers, 13 strategic ballistic missile submarines with 3,114 nuclear warheads, 500 ICBMs, four aircraft carriers, 121 surface combat ships and submarines, plus all the support bases, shipyards and logistical assets needed to sustain such a force.

From 1945 to 1991 - years when the United States was in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, U.S. armed forces were deployed exactly 10 times. In the eight years between 1992 and 2000, U.S. forces had been deployed over 33 times by the Clinton-Gore command. The deployments were for peace keeping, humanitarian aid, nation building and other essentially non-military purposes. The cost of these deployments were underwritten by the regular military budget, depleting monies that were earmarked for maintenance, research and the development of new military technologies.

Yeah, I guess you were right. clinton did leave the military in good shape.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Screaming Lord Byron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Well, I for one am glad to be rid of the 3,114 nuclear warheads.
Edited on Mon Dec-22-03 01:08 PM by Screaming Lord Byron
I am confident any other eco-warrior would feel the same about such threats to humanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Screaming Lord Byron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #65
69. Furthermore, as we both know, the end of the Cold War changed warfare
Edited on Mon Dec-22-03 01:17 PM by Screaming Lord Byron
Instead of facing large mechanized forces across the North German Plain, we faced insurgencies and irregular / guerrilla conflicts, primarily as a result of the end of the nuclear stand-off. You failed to point out that military cuts were begun by the previous Republican Administration. This was known as the 'peace dividend', a phenomenon shared by all Western Nations. The end of the cold war gave us an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity was to reduce large forces that were only suitable for one form of warfare - large scale mechanized conflict on the northern european battlefield, to face the challenge of small scale conflict that required more agile, lighter armed forces. Cold War force levels were unnecessarily high and had to be reduced. My opinion was shared by both the Bush Sr and Clinton administrations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #65
73. Of course he left it in good shape
How do you think the shrub has succeeded with his little military excursions. And, damn, we sure do need those 3,000 plus nuclear weapons, since a madman is in the office. We need them to DEFEND ourselves against our enemies. bush has created enemies. Silly Clinton, he wanted other countries to be our friends.

AND WHAT ABOUT THAT PAY ISSUE YOU ARE AVOIDING? You asserted, now please prove.

AND WHAT ABOUT THAT RACE AS AN ISSUE IN PROMOTIONS? You asserted, now please prove.


Isn't this much more fun that just having some conservative dumbass screaming lies at us and we sheepishly accept them. You know Eco, its much more fun to insist they do what is insisted of Sophomore High School Debate students - Prove what you assert. Ain't it fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Schmendrick54 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #65
81. Facts. You use that word a lot...
I do not think it means what you think it means.

Consider your first "fact"

- Virtually every dollar of Al Gores reinventing government cuts were cuts from the U.S. military.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management website at
<http://www.opm.gov/fedddata/html/dec00fac.htm >
the following federal departments had less employees as of December 2000 compared to January 1993:

Treasury
Defense
Interior
Agriculture
Labor
Health & Human Services
Housing & Urban Development
Transportation
Energy
Veterans Affairs

The departments which grew were

State
Justice
Commerce

The total decrease in the Defense department was -292,474 persons,
a decrease of 30%. The USPS grew by 84,415 persons, which is
an increase of 10.8%. The Executive branch total, excluding
the Defense Department and the US Postal Service, Postal Rate
Commission, and 1,343 Census Enumerators changed by -134,795,
which is a decrease of 11%.

Even if you hold the increase in size of the USPS against
Clinton (which would seem unreasonable) the overall size of
the executive branch, excluding the entire Defense Department
shrunk by about 2.5% during the Clinton administration.

A 2.5% decrease over 8 years in overall size (excluding the Defense Department) sounds like real savings to me. As an exercise, perhaps you would you care to check and report back on how the Bush Administration has done at reducing spending or personnel on non-defense areas of the executive branch?

So the statement that "Virtually every dollar of Al Gores 'reinventing government' cuts were cuts from the U.S. military" is a lot closer to right-wing spin than facthood.

Regards,
Schmendrick



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #53
68. How much do you believe Bush*
increased military spending before 9/11? In his first budget after being appointed, the increase in military spending was less than 5%. The single biggest expenditure in that increase was for officer housing. All we heard from the hawks a year ago was " we can fight wars on two or three different fronts at the same time" (with Clinton's military), and when asked before attacking Iraq if they had everything they needed, the commanders responded that they did. I have been saying this from day one: "The Republicans and right-wing talk show people are pre-emptively building a shield around Bush* so that anything bad that happens can be blamed on Clinton."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #53
79. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BeachBuckeye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #42
95. How about the lying bastard Lee Atwater starting the ...
"Liberal media" myth? That is the biggest lie they have ever put forth and even Atwater (before he died) admitted that it was "my best effort against the Liberals. Not true but very effective political propaganda." How about that one? How about the "Al Gore invented the internet" bullshit? Please, tell me you are smarter than that! No, better yet, try and convince me you are not one of "them."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
11. We can only reverse his image by making him look good!
Whilst not denying that this is the right thing to do, I will be
interested to see how people intend to show him up any more blatantly
than he does himself ...

This is the chimp that can't string two sentences together without a prompt.
This is the callous bastard who laughed and mocked someone on death row.
This is the millionaire's son who committed fraud.
This is the deserter who sends the voters children out to be maimed and killed.

He is the worst US President in history.

How can you change his image without improving it?

Nihil
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #11
32. problem with that is...
Problem with that is that * has the image of being a strong, decisive, honest leader. It's the opposite of the truth, but that is his image in the media.

He is seen as a strong, rugged individual cowboy type, not the silver-spoon elitist that he really is. Heck, he is not even a true Texan - his favorite sport is baseball, not football.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
13. Start calling them "anti-American"
It's the moniker they have hung around our necks for too many years (this is not just a post 9-11 screed) and we should put it back where it belongs.

It's anti-American to start wars, to go into debt, to not take care of the neediest among us, to let the church dictate what we do. I don't use the word "neoconservative" without adding "which is basically anti-American". Plant a seed.

Un-American won't do. Anti-American is so much more negative.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Excellent Message Hamlette
And share your thoughts with his conservative supporters. Their bottom line is destruction of the constitution since it dares gives rights to all (including them, but their kinda dumb). Destroying the constitution is the ultimate ANTI-AMERICAN ACTION. They may not accept the premise, however it is important that they have it ingrained in their brain that millions of americans do believe it and will do what is necessary to ensure it does not happen. The best way to ingraine that thought into their heads is go negative, early, often and loudly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
20. he certainly gives us PLENTY of AMMO
but he got the support and in some cases outright CONTROL of the lamestream MEDIA so it is gonna be tough.

I hope we pull out all the STOPS this time around.

and if the party actually cunningly planned to have a large field in the primmary to pummel the neoCONs from all directions that they don't have time to craft a focused responce and none of the cannidates comes off looking too negative, pure genious, though i think it is just another blessing from the laws of nature.

i just hope those laws dictate some HARD BALLS being thrown in increasing velocity as the races gets more competitive as we draw closer to the end of the beginning.

ENRONOMY-911 RESPONCE-911INVESTIGATION-PNAC-WARPROFITEERING-ENERGYDOCS-AWOL-CHICKENHAWKS-RADICAL-OBL FAMILY CONNECTIONS-FOREIGNPOLICY-IRAQLIES-HALLIBURTON-PRIVATIZATIONOFEVERYTHING-SELECTION2000

i love when the dems beat on him for ANY of the ABOVE

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
25. Given the Soviet-Orwellian nature of Imperial Amerikan Media
I don't see how that is possible.

So many lies have been laundered, so many felonies glossed over, not to mention conflicts-of-interest and RICO violations.

If all of THAT couldn't make a dent in Bushevik Pravda, what could?

Short of murdering someone on Live TV, Bushevik "teflon" of the kind Raygun enjoyed but ratcheted up to Stalnist-levels, you cannot tarnish the "public image" of the Emperor.

And even if he did murder someone in cold blood on live TV, I am not 100% certain that public perception would change afetr the Party-Loyal Right-Wing Sub-Media has gotten through with squirting their "black ink" so to speak...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveBrit Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
29. Fact sheet on the rogue regime
I just saw this thread and noticed you'd like to get rid of Bush. (like most of the rest of the world really) Anyway, here's a useful fact sheet which you can copy into a word document and hand out where crowds gather - that might be a start :)

http://progressive.proboards24.com/index.cgi?board=memb...

Best wishes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-03 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #29
104. WOW...Bookmarking this rap sheet
Thanx for the compilation...hard to find all the crimes in one place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamond14 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
31. bush* beat McCain by claiming he fathered a 'colored' child
Edited on Mon Dec-22-03 11:14 AM by amen1234


out of wedlock...pappy bush won with his 'willy horton' racist claim...both played on fear and racism....and WON....

it's time to take the gloves off...we don't need to lie like the bushies ...but we do need to tell the TRUTH about shrub in glorious technicolor....and not be nice about it...the TRUTH hurts, and we should use it as much as possible...

nobody is holding bush* responsible for the failures in every single department of the government...the failure to stop 9/11, the failure to find WMD, the failure to fund hospitals, the failure to make enough FLU vaccine, the failure to fund our schools, the failure to clean up our environment (air, water, soils....the city of Atlanta is unable to repair their failing sewage system since bush* cut funds for clean water! where's the outrage ???? where is bush*'s name??), the massive homeless population, enron...the list of bush* failures goes on and on...but NOBODY adds the bush* NAME to it...nobody uses the word bush* when referring to homeless, or war, or medical needs....the word bush* must be prominently displayed, all over all the failures...

the tommy thompson 'orange alert' doesn't even mention bush* and bush* failure to improve our safety after TWO bush* wars, thousands of innocent civilians KILLED by bush*, over $100,000,000 dollars spent by bush* on WAR, over 350 American Soldiers KILLED by bush* policies, over 10,000 American soldiers permanently injured by bush* policies...and what are we left with....ORANGE terror alert....thanks to bush*'s BAD decisions and unacceptable policies...

let's start adding the bush* name to all bush* failures...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smokie Donating Member (44 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
33. Attack the ideas, not personallity
If someone LIKES bush, you go after his ideas.

His idea's are:

Empire: He wants to become a world Emperor.

Church: He wants a an altar in every government building.

War: He wages war around the world.

Government: He wants it to favor the richest.

You tell those who dislike bush the same thing.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
36. We have to confront him constantly
Send in hecklers to every public appearance he makes that we can so that we can challenge him in public in front of the media and the country. Bush has shown that he does NOT think on his feet well, if we get him off balance enough, then the media either a.) doesn't show it at all, which could be spun as him being out of touch, or b.) they show him looking REALLY stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Screaming Lord Byron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Yeah, Bush is no good outside of a set-piece pre-scripted appearance.
Edited on Mon Dec-22-03 11:34 AM by Screaming Lord Byron
Good call, KOTS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
56. Dubya has done a good job
of presenting his public image, which is abysmal and very transparent. If people would only take off their blinders, use their brains, take a serious interest and give up the state of denial....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
67. TOTAL AGREEMENT! He should be a slice of swiss cheese by the time
he has to run against Howard or Wesley or John or Dennis or whoever. WE HAVE TO SOFTEN UP THE TARGET NOW!!! WE, repeat, WE have to be the "primary challenger" he'd have if there was a Perot or a Buchanan running trying to peel away conservatives. He is running unopposed in the primaries, so he'll have nothing but green lights.

WE HAVE TO START THE DISASSEMBLY - NOW!!!

EVERYWHERE YOU GO, SPEAK THE TRUTH!

I think there are, by now, TONS of links and opinions and one-liners that have been posted, even just here on DU, for people to refer to for talking points.

I offer my slogans and buzzphrases for use, too. Ann Lewis at the DNC wants me to write up a one-sheeter for their "Guerilla Guide" for every surrogate out there to speak the Democratic/liberal/progressive/moderate truths.

Republi-CONS ( -CON-ARTISTS, -CONMEN, -CONJOBS)
SAME thing applies to Neo-CON-ARTISTS and so forth.

REPEAT "IGMFU" - you will HAVE to spell it out because nobody yet knows what "IGMFU" means. When you do, you'll get a laugh or a knowing nod of head.

"The Party of Cain" - for the Bible story about Cain and Abel - Cain's the guy who uttered that famous, cheap-ass, stingey, VERY repli-CON motto: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

"The Party of Pirates" - Halliburton. Case closed.

If they say something about Fox News, it's POX NEWS!

"THERE ARE CRIMINALS IN OUR WHITE HOUSE" - the person or persons who outed Valerie Plame - the undercover CIA agent who specialized in tracking WMDs - in what still appears very clearly to be wartime (especially to all those bush apologists who like to refer to him as the "popular wartime president." Well, then, that must mean we're still at war, doesn't it?)

Saddam's been caught. OKAY, SOooooooooooooo, then, WHY ARE WE STILL THERE GETTING OUR BUTTS SHOT OFF? AND WHY DID THE TERROR ALERT GO UP TO ORANGE? And they want us to think we're safer now?

GUYS, THIS HAS TO BE REPEATED OVER AND OVER AND OVER by us, like so many hammers driving home so many nails. REPETITION IS THE KEY!!! Remember, they don't run ads for laundry soap, Jello, and new movies, only once, do they?

REPEAT, REPEAT, and REPEAT AGAIN!

EVERYWHERE! Chatting with friends, in the checkout line, at holiday parties, while pumping gas, while picking up your kid, after church, shopping, writing letters to the editor, emailing columnists and reporters and writers whose contact info you see at the bottom of interesting articles/op-ed pieces.

We HAVE TO GET BUSY!!!!!!

And, yes, the burden IS on us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #67
80. re: Valerie Plaime: the word 'treason'
comes to mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #80
100. Darn right the word "treason" comes to mind.
From what I know and have read about all this, to do what they've done regarding her, during a time like THIS, which still appears to be wartime (led by a guy they love to refer to as the "popular wartime president"), that would indeed be TREASON.

Repeat after me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMike Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
71. Yeah! Destroy GWB's Image - That's the Ticket!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wanderingbear Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
76. That means distroying the entire republican party and the Right
all at the same time..Do you think thats possible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Screaming Lord Byron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #76
83. Whether or not it's possible, it must be attempted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wanderingbear Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. On tht I agree. It must be..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
84. force him, in public to paraphrase nixon with: "i am not a liar."
Edited on Mon Dec-22-03 02:13 PM by kodi
once he has said that in defense of himself, all those lies he has spoken can be documented, and used to undermine his public image.

i predict that if he has to make that statement in public before november 2004, he will lose in 2004.

to see how scared his minions are about having to admit such, note how vociferous his supporters are about defending his "mission accomplished," "iraq is an immenent threat," iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction," and other remarks which upon critical examination are found to be quite false.

"i am not a liar" will bring bush down, because even the most ardant bush supporter will see how much of a liar he really is if he makes that statment.

"i am not a liar." remember that phrase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBHagman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
87. I think you have something there, SLB
Those of us who are familiar with Bush's policies and style (i.e., testy, manipulative frat boy who uses humor as a weapon and a means of control) aren't duped by them, but anyone who only skims the headlines (if that) can be misled about just what sort of a man Bush is. I'm aghast whenever I read about a poll in which Bush scores high marks for integrity (Yes, it's insane).

There are a great many ways to disabuse people of the notion that Bush is just a nice guy who means well. Here are a few possibilities and suggestions:

*Point out what's actually happening in the changes to the tax code, and point out how much Bush and his supporters will personally benefit from it. Point out how little, if at all, Joe and Jane Sixpack will benefit from it.

*Point out the mania for secrecy. Get a copy of the last issue of U.S. News and World Report (the one with Jesus on the cover, if you can believe that) and check out the article on secrecy. This is U.S. News and World Report, not The Nation, doing a story on obsessive and unnecessary attachments to secrecy in the Bush administration. This will get people thinking.

*Point out that Bush was self-centered enough to say, at the end of 2001, "All in all, it's been a fabulous year for Laura and me." Yes, THAT year -- with the protesters at the Inauguration, massive job losses, thousands dead in terrorist attacks, and a war -- was "fabulous" for him. Ask people if this is how they feel about 2001.

*If a Democratic president faced the permanent loss of skilled jobs (to India and the like), a weak dollar, massive deficits, and the pending retirement of the baby boom, would the media be crowing about his good economy? No? Well, point this out. It's a ticking timb bomb, folks.

The good news is that popular culture is beginning to pick up on the idea of Bush as a liar and an idiot. Time even did a cover story on Bush-hating, and books with "Lies" in the title are filling the bookstores. Keep it going.

Good luck. The truth will set us free from this guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
88. Yes, but is has to be done within the rules for mythmaking
Mythmaking means laying the groundwork first, and it means
not losing credibility by making charges that cannot be
immediately backed up.

We need a real scandal with a real investigation or it will be nearly impossible to "paint" bush anything.

Painting works best when the paintee is unknown. When they are known it is more difficult and when you want a 180 degree change it requires groundshaking evidence. Otherwise, not only does it not work well, but it reflects negatively on the painter, who then loses credibility.


It took actual investigations/hearings to bring down Nixon.

It took a ton of work by Repulbican operatives to setup Clinton for a fall, and the irony was that the fall really only affected Gore in 2000.

OK, so what is the proper groundwork. First the theme of incompetence, second begin the questioning of *'s motivation. In this case the most powerful motivation to start with is that Bush went to Iraq because he was seeking revenge for Saddam trying to assassinate his father. First, it might be believable to a large number of apolitical people. This creates the meme of * working for his own self-interest versus the country's. It can eventually be expanded to the more powerful themes: Haliburton, if enough evidence can be had to
support it.

Btw, "evidence" is not a collection of weblinks that DUers might use to impugn candidates they don't like. Nor does guilt by association work. Evidence must come from some recognized investigative reporter, but even better from a legal/congressional investigation.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnnabelLee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #88
99. I like this part:
In this case the most powerful motivation to start with is that Bush went to Iraq because he was seeking revenge for Saddam trying to assassinate his father. First, it might be believable to a large number of apolitical people. This creates the meme of * working for his own self-interest versus the country's.

I think this is the best way to start chipping away at him. IMHO, people (lots & lots & lots of whom are ill-informed & actually believe that * is a normal person with normal intelligence) will buy that, while the "this war/occupation is about oil" mantra we've been trying to pound into their brains just seems to make their eyes glaze over because, I believe, they just may believe that now, but they don't care because they think we're entitled to Iraq's oil. The repubs have done their work well; this country is packed to the gills with selfish people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hailtothechimp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
90. Mark Crispin Miller's book (the Bush Dyslexicon) is useful for this
One part I read today called him the anti-Lincoln because he went to all the best schools and didn't seem to learn anything. Lincoln, well, we all know his story. Pitting him in such terms might work, since Lincoln is revered and bu$h.....isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
91. this is the dean reason
This is one of the main reasons i support Dean. Bush will stand around and smirk all innocently while GOP big money firms poor millions into negative dean adds. I think dean is far more likely to engage in an out and out fight with this monkey. We need someone with a tough enough edge to slam him hard every day. someone who hates him as much as me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeachBuckeye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
92. I've said all along that if we take the high road.....
we'll get our asses handed to us in the next election. These aren't "your father's Republicans" we're dealing with here. These are a new "no holds bared, brass knuckles, down in the mud" type of Repubs and they will do ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING to keep power. No, its fight fire with fire this time around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
98. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #98
101. Just let everyone know Bush is bringing the DRAFT back in 2005!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC