On getting tough

[ginnyinWI]

Daughter #2 came home from college with a stack of Mother Jones magazines, and I was reading this article http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/11/paul_hackett.html , about Paul Hackett and his appeal. It describes how he talked back to a Repub heckler, as an example of how a Democrat can appeal to Repub voters. It gave me something to think about.

You know how tough * talked during the campaign. Didn't matter if it was all lies and surface bravado--it won the respect of that type of blue-collar voter who wants a tough leader in these uncertain times. So I suppose many of them voted for * because of it--because he was unequivocal--"strong and wrong" as Kerry said.

Do you think this is what the party needs? Or will it alienate too many in the center? What I'm beginning to think is that running to the center too much is the way the message gets muddled and weakened. People want a clear, tough stand now, post 9/11. Clinton pulled it off, but I wonder if he would have been elected running that way in '04.

I know I wanted to see Kerry hit * harder all through the campaign, not just at the end. I don't think that going negative is so bad, given these times. It really helped Kerry to win the nomination in the first place--to hit hard at *. And now, we have to realize that we need Repub voters to cross over, and that just getting out our own lefties to vote is not enough! Anyway, the far left also loves red meat when it can get it. It's been all about not alienating the center--those moderates who are so fickle--and I don't know if that is a good enough strategy anymore.

What do you think?

[karynnj]

1. I think if you read things Kerry actually said,

he did hit Bush pretty hard. I don't think that saying the same things in a ruder more direct way would have worked for the Presidential candidate. Hackett did not have to pass the criterion of being Presidential or likeable enough to be on TV all the time.

Attacking hecklers as Hackett did is tougher for Presidential candidates too - they are given more status (by virtue of being potential Presidents) than a person for Congress is. Responding in anger or rudely brings the candidate down to the level of the heckler. (Dean was hurt in Iowa when he was rude to an old heckler.) Also, I've never heard of anyone being WON OVER by this type of behavior.

The people who saw Bush as a strong leader were already with him before the primaries started. That was the status quo - Kerry had to prove several things that Bush didn't. (that he was Presidential, that he had a clear vision that could make things better, that he could protect the country etc.) Because Bush was President it wasn't a level playing field. If it was, the first debate would have determined the election.

The stronger comments should have come from Kerry's surrogates. (I also wonder if the drop in the polls in August made the surrogates less aggressive - because many may have been already looking to 2008. )

[globalvillage]

2. Depends on what you mean by negative.

As Sen Kerry pointed out in the Esquire article, you don't have to fight dirty to fight tough. Respond quickly, but hit above the belt. I think that's the right approach. That's who he is, and that's what he should project.
Re the Hackett article, I don't think MFing people on the street is a good strategy. Sounds tough and makes for a good article, but it's really not a good image for an elected official.
I think Sen Kerry learned a very valuable lesson. Now to spread that message to the rest. React quickly and hit hard. It's how we will win.

BTW, Hackett's got a lot to learn, too. Trust me on that, I won't post anything negative about Paul. I am a supporter, but he's not perfect.

[ginnyinWI]

3. both you made good points

It is different to be running for President. It is all about responding quickly but still maintaining the high road. Even running for Senate, I would imagine, is a bit different that running for the House. Those congresscritters in the House can be a rowdy bunch!

I do think Kerry needed more unity and support from his surrogates. And some were even criticising him--what was THAT all about? Sheesh. Maybe one of the things he's learned is indeed to keep hitting back, and not let managers stifle him.

[globalvillage]

4. I agree about the support.

and about not letting his advisors suppress the real JK. People need to see who he is. If they do, that can only be good for him and for us.
The other thing is to counteract the spin from Faux and other RW hate spewers. Their viewers are so brainwashed, it's scary.
Here's an example from a LTTE in today's Pitt Post-Gazette:

"I believe that a change in news source to one more balanced, such as the Fox Report and The O'Reilly Factor might save some of these determined detractors...bla...bla...bla."

How do you fight that mentality? This person thinks O'Leilly is balanced? Hell, I know when something is slanted to either the left or right. Do people like this really believe what they're saying, or are they just saying it to push their agenda?

Ooooooh. I just got roses delivered from one of my 'adopted' kids. Got to go now and enjoy the day.
Have a very, very Merry Christmas and Hanukkah all.
Love to you.
GV

[ProSense]

5. I think people who want tougher are ignoring the reality

I posted this in a GD-P thread:

Democratic leaders





Republicans' response to Bush







Karl Rove



Media relationship to Bush




Media at sign of public outrage




Let's say the Democratic leaders




Republicans' response to Bush will not change







Karl Rove



Media will continue course






Me
Awaiting 2006 showdown



The fact is Kerry hits back at Bush and the Republicans all the time, he uses strong but not offensive language. The issue continues to be media bias. Also, the people on the left who claim he isn't fighting hard enough are plain wrong. I believe they want to nitpick, have their own agendas and would love to see Kerry shoot off at the mouth, which he will never do. For someone like Kerry who really works hard to build bridges, that is just not an effective strategy, and makes even less sense in politics at the national level.

[ginnyinWI]

6. LOL--love it! n/t

[karynnj]

8. wonderful perfect explanation.

[ProSense]

11. Thanks! Those smilies do come in handy. n/t

[beachmom]

7. I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but a few things have happened

that have put me in despair. First off, I was behind reading my local newspaper, and delved through it the last few days. Locally, nobody seems to think the NSA wiretapping story was that big a deal (!!??). All the fury is against the leaker (whistleblower, is more like it). And then I went out to dinner with some of my friends, and just the stuff they talked about was either not about politics or showed how they only care about themselves, not the poor or even soldiers or the war, and NOTHING was mentioned about the fact that * had broken the law. Everybody talked about decorating their house, scrapbooking, and other insanely boring things (to me, anyway), when meanwhile, we find out spooks might have been reading our e-mails!! I went home feeling very empty inside, like all that is important to me is largely irrelevant to most people around here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there more conservatives than liberals in this country, so a Dem will never have the luxury of pandering to their base, because they MUST reach out to swing voters. The thing that bugs me is that people I know who are not "wingnuts", but who do vote, just do NOT have the same values as me. They really don't care about OTHER people not having health insurance or how poverty keeps going up or that our soldiers are dying as we sit eating our nice dinner. They don't think about it and they DON'T CARE. They have voted and will continue to vote for their own interests -- that is IMMEDIATE interests. In other words, they hear about this NSA story, and think that it's good to eavesdrop on terrorists; ONLY if they learn that someone they know or their own rights have been directly violated would they even think differently about it. They don't CARE about what's in the U.S. Constitution or what the founding fathers wanted. They just want to be free to go out and buy MORE STUFF and catch the latest reality TV show. If a Democrat speaks "tough", but doesn't directly tell a voter "what's in it for me", then we're doomed. People just don't give a shit. They really don't. THAT'S why they didn't vote for Kerry -- because he was pleading for them to think outside the usual materialistic, selfish box, and they just didn't want to. So they voted for *. I don't know how to change this mentality. Maybe someone can give me a pep talk and try to get me out of this pessimism. But after this week, I have NO faith in voters to do the right thing. They're hopelessly selfish, and if it means that the country goes down the toilet, well, that'll be their children's or grandchildren's problem, not theirs.

That's my report from red country.

[karynnj]

9. Cheer up - it's really unusual to care about politics

months before an election.

The answer to some degree is Katrina. There was a huge shift between the values of the end of the 1920s, which were every bit as materialistic and I think there was some flirting with Fascism and the late 30s was the depression. When people could see that people, just like them - living their lives, doing the right thing - could through bad luck lose everything - they saw the need for the government to have a safety net.

In today's world where TV can make a story form LA seem like next door in NJ, the fact that we need each other's help should be obvious. What bothers me is that other than in the immediate aftermath, we're seeing very little. Firespirt's comments on what is going on now in Mississippi suggest that we are missing a fair portion of the truth.

I noticed a few of the other Conrad (or Drogan) used Kerry's comment that nowhere in the New Testament does it say to not help the poor to give tax cuts to the wealthy. (he said "no religion he knows of" ). When there are people suffering you would think these values would resonate for religious people.

What GIVES me some hope is that in 2008, 911 will be more in the past and there will be no incumbent. From the Esquire article, the most interesting comment to me is that Kerry made the point of saying he kept his integrity while running. Interesting because it suggests a conscious rejection of the alternative. I would hope that deep down America shares Kerry's values. If it doesn't, it's the county's loss, if if does, he is standing there with the same values he has demonstrated his whole life.

But if his values resonate - he needs to get people to see him for who he is. This is hard, but not as hard as the task of others which is to identify the type of person who could win, project themselves as that and then to hope their past is not too big a contradiction. (The other hard thing to get past is for Bush voters to see they not only were wrong about Bush, but about Kerry - this might be a 2 step process unless they blame the media for both misconceptions.)

[ProSense]

10. I don't know beachmom, I think people are paying attention.

But the news coincided with the holidays and people are really busy, traveling, etc. I've come across a lot of letters to the editors of small papers that I don't normally see online. The RW rags and blogs are all buzzing with lengthy explanations, the MSM have all gone out of their way to print e-mails from their audiences. The WP even had an online chat with Dana Priest, this long rambling discussion on national security.

So it may not be the talk every where, and part of that is most people don't talk politics anyway, but it's all over the national news. Now if someone isn't paying attention to the network news or doesn't want to acknowledge or prefers to tune out what's happening, then that's a different thing. Consider the outrage the Ohio Patriot Act is causing in that state. People care, and probably will show it more as Election Day draws closer and they begin to pay attention again.

Also, remember Ed Schultz' comment about how he was being bombarded with e-mail.

[rox63]

12. Most people aren't political junkies like us

Most people only think about politics when it's election-time, or when policies are having a seriously negative effect on someone they care about. Unfortunately, I think this winter is going to bring those negative effects into sharp focus, as a lot more people have to make choices between heat, food and medicine.

I hear a lot more negativity about * these days than I ever have before. Admittedly, I live in a blue oasis here in MA. But across the country, the fissures on the right are getting wider and deeper. There are several camps on the right, and their alliances have always been a bit shaky. *'s newly revealed attacks on civil liberties are making a big impact on those conservatives that want the govt to just leave them the hell alone. I can't see them sticking with * much longer. In fact, there are impeachment noises starting to come from that side of the right.

The majority of this country are not theocrats. The theocrats just want us to think they are. They want to demoralize us, so that we give up and stop fighting. But we can't do that. We can't let them steal our freedom away. JK is still out there fighting for us. We have to keep fighting as well. He's still got our backs, and we need to have his.

[ginnyinWI]

20. for what it's worth

My mom tells me that Christian radio is starting to turning against *. That was my opportunity to point out what a liar he and other repubs have been since 1980, luring the Christians in with promises of social change.

People like her base their vote on whether they think the candidate is a "good person" or not, and fall for stories of * praying on his knees every morning and reading the Bible! I said I wouldn't believe it unless someone I trusted had seen it with their own eyes! :eyes: Anyway, I told her to look at what they DO, not what they SAY.

As for Kerry, she "just didn't like his personality". I'm just saying that a lot of people base their vote on so little, and are easily influenced by little things. She did not like the fact that Teresa has a lot of money, for example. :eyes: For these types of people, the fight must be about image, not issues, because issues are too hard or take too much time to understand.

[karynnj]

24. I agree with you that this "unlikeable" libel needs to be addressed

What's weird is that even as late as the convention, the convention showed a very nice person. The media worked with the Republicans to say he was in some ways not "nice'.

The silly "Inside the Bubble" for all its purported negatives showed a man who was very low key and even when his time was clearly being wasted due to problems in a very uncomfortable situation - he was keeping everybody else calm. (I loved Kerry's expression when Stephanie Cutter seemed alarmed when he spoke Italian.)

I would imagine that Alex's film, if it gets any distribution will go a long way in showing Kerry as the person he is. It also seems like Teresa is taking a more public role with these op-eds (unless she did them before but not being in MA or PA, I didn't see them.) I would not be surprised if there weren't things she is working on that they intent to try to make more visible in the next year or so. JK did say that people didn't understand the quality of work Teresa did.

As to her being too rich - her job is about using much of that money to help solve problems.

[TayTay]

13. It's the corruption that will do the Rethugs in.

The corruption is a sign of their arrogance and their belief that all the power and all the perks will last forever. They are classically drunk with power and it has led to all kinds of abuse.

This kind of thing does get into the public consciousness, but it takes time. This isn't something that everyone, all at once, agrees is an impeachable event. That never happens. Watergate was a little story for most of 1972 and had no impact on the election. It took two years for that story to build up steam and for it to register in the public mind as something awful and something that meant Nixon had to resign. Two years.

We are just at the tip of the iceberg on corruption in the Republican Party. Rove, according to our good friend Larisa, is going to be indicted soon. Jack Abramoff and his associate are about to sing like canaries in front of a grand jury about at least a dozen or so Republican Congressman who were deeply on the take and raking in the bribes. The War in Iraq was a huge pork barrel give-away to favored corporations and $8 billion dollars just disappeared over there and is not accounted for at all.

We have been through an awful lot this year. We are hemorrhaging money in the federal budget and have almost nothing to show for it, except more tax cuts for the rich. This stuff adds up, but it does so slowly. It starts with that sense of unease, that sense that things are not going well at all in the country. We have that in the polls right now. The media was touting that Bush was on a roll because he approvals had hit 42%. That is a terrible number, just terrible. And this was his high water mark. Did you see the news reports on the massive protest marches in Iraq over fraud in the election of Dec 15th? Iraq is falling apart and is about to go into civil war that is worse that what we have seen before. And we paid for this.

In the past when the corruption has been this bad and the moral decay of the leaders has been this exposed, the people have voted in a reformer in the next election. Someone who has a record of being against the corruption and someone who knows how to clean out the corruption. Someone who knows where the bodies, so to speak, are buried and is ready to clean up. If history is any guide, that day is coming. The people who will look the best going into '08 will be the candidates who have a track record of cleaning up after messes and bringing back accountability and fairness. I think that will happen again.

[beachmom]

18. Thanks, guys, for your input. A few more positive thoughts.

First, I opened yesterday's paper and there were a slew of letters condemning the NSA wiretaps and somebody even put the famous Ben Franklin quote in. Secondly, I realize I am sounding like a salesman in despair because nobody will buy my product even though I haven't even bothered to try to sell it to them!! Like BlueIris said in another thread, I need to work on my conversation skills, and first work on validating THEIR feelings before segwaying into how more people living in poverty DOES affect them (a la Barak Obama). How I understand that they are fearful of terrorists and want to keep their kids safe, but signing away our civil liberties and allowing the president to bypass the Constitution means the terrorists have already won by weakening our democracy. How the health care crisis is now hurting CORPORATIONS and costing jobs, not just affecting the uninsured.

And lastly, my New Year's Resolution for '06 is to make contact with local Democrats (I guess there has to be a couple), and help out, even if only in a small way, with the congressional election. Action will no doubt ease my melancholy; after all, this is how JK has truly flourished in '05, when he could have just gone through the motions in the Senate and sat around and felt sorry for himself. Instead he threw himself into good works and concentrated on helping others while not dwelling on the self. His year ended with him finding out that a lot of us have been listening, become inspired by him, and "blogged" for him for no pay or recognition just 'cuz. His life is proof how when it seems like you are living in the darkest hour, you should always concentrate on the coming dawn -- because it will and it must come.

[ginnyinWI]

21. The repubs had been coasting along

on their reputation as the "competent party". But the truth is that they are incompetent and do not have the right answers. It's a myth. Their policies fail. Their answers to problems don't work.
So they try to convince everyone that the Dems are even more incompetent than they are. This is our challenge--to show people in what ways Dems have had the right answers in the past and that what they propose for this country are right and will work.

[ray of light]

15. Do what the Democracy Cell Project suggests and

FOIA yourself.

Seriously, find out if you've been spied on. I think that's a first step in being able to show the scope of normal people, not terrorist, but just normal people with a different view having their constitutionally given right to privacy taken away.

[ray of light]

14. And you can never forget the media's role in smearing Kerry

that Hacket doesn't have.

Sure, there were negative commericials, but the mouthpieces weren't spending 24/7 dissing him like they did to kerry.

[karynnj]

16. Add to that that it was about 8 months later when Hackett ran

This was after Fallujah and after it became clear that the Iraq war was going to be more deadly than most people were led to believe. Even then the silly poll of who would you vote for now was already showing a positive number of Bush to Kerry switches and NO Kerry to Bush switches. (the switches to third party and to not voting are less believable and likely reflect that people aren't really accepting the premise (of if the election were now).) So, Kerry would likely have won if he ran when Hackett did.

I also wonder how many people who voted Bush are holding onto their votes because they were consequential. They need to believe Bush was right because otherwise they voted for all the pain that he has caused for no compensating reason. Once they allow themselves to see that Bush was wrong, it's likely some will (or are) clinging to the believe that something major was wrong with Kerry. Facing what we think is reality - that they voted against probably the most principled, honorable candidate for the Presidency in my lifetime who had a very reasonable agenda to vote for the most venial duos to ever head the executive branch is hard to accept.

[beachmom]

17. Fallujah and Kerry's concession

Okay, I'm hijacking this thread a little, but I was thinking about how horrible it was when Kerry lost, and then within 3 days of his concession speech, the Battle of Fallujah began. Nobody (at least whom I've read) has ever talked about how Kerry may have conceded fairly quickly, despite anomalies in Ohio, because we were at war. Fallujah was literally a no-go area, and the longer we waited to go in, the worse it was going to be. I also think that had Kerry won, he also would have allowed the battle to proceed, although maybe he could have stopped them from dropping white phosphorous on the city. The reason was there was supposed to be an election in January and you couldn't have a vote where the enemy occupied a major city. Anyway, it may simply have had to do with the troops, that Kerry chose not to fight the results of the election. It would have been an uphill battle, with the odds against him, and would have left our troops in limbo outside of Fallujah, as well as other areas in Iraq. Think about 2000, and how long that election fight went on, a luxury we may not have been able to handle in '04. Just a thought. You can't contest an election during a time of war.

[Inuca]

19. The thought crossed my mind...

... we will never know I guess, but I think it's definitely something that may have been taken into consideration. Part of being a statesman. I hated the Irak venture from the very beginning, but I fully agree that now that things are as they are, you cannot just leave and say "sorry", and many unsavory decisions may have to be taken, this may have been one of them.

[ray of light]

22. actually, I post that information all the time to the whiners.

Besides, one year later, we still don't have enough information that would have definitely changed the result Nov. 3 04.

BUT if anyone remembers, they began the lead up to Fallujah before election day. When I get a chance I'll look for clippings, but I thought the battle began the day before the election.

Could be I'm wrong here.

[beachmom]

23. Sorry, I missed your posts on this, Ray of Light!

Well, I don't know precisely when the Battle began, but certainly they had to do some prestaging before going in. And, probably, there were bombings before that, too to soften the place. There's a book about the battle (The Battle of Fallujah). If I'm at a book store, I'll check the dates and see if they mention the election. Kerry was privvy to classified info as soon as he became the nominee, so he definitely must have known what was up with Fallujah. During the campaign, he criticised * for the fact that there were "no go zones" like Fallujah, so obviously, he supported going in to take the town. Of course, all of those deaths, both American and Iraqi, were due to a series of major mistakes that led up to those 4 contractors being killed so heinously.