Words and a challenge from Bartcop (2004 primaries)

[wyldwolf]

It's my own damn fault

The left-wing of the Democratic Party is going all Montecore on bartcop.com but it was my mistake and I admit that. Not only did I break one of Bart's Laws, I was stupid enough to break Bart's Law #1

> Bart's Law #1
> Don't EVER tell the truth in a political campaign.
> People want to be lied to.


They don't want to hear that this next election will be about terrorist fear and military strength.

They don't want to hear that a military man has a better chance than a man the B.F.E.E. (not me) will paint as a peacenik so eager to appease Osama that he'll likely surrender America to him.

Like I keep saying - that's part of the fear campaign they're going to run and talk radio, the networks and BIG print will be their free echo chamber.

Before the defections go too far, before I have to get a job - let's debate!

Somehow, probably in the Forum or the chat room, you (deleted DU forbidden word denoting Dean supporters) get together and select one or two people to give the pro-Dean side of this debate and we'll agree this will be the most civil debate ever because we're all united in our goal to de-monkeyfy the White House and stop Bush's private oil war.

I'm not going to do my usual "You can get thirty friends to help" routine, but it's certainly fair for either side to receive private messages saying, "Don't forget about this or that."

I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but maybe a frank discussion will stop the exodus of old friends who are now calling me "a Republican who tricked them into sending money." Maybe I can better reassure people I don't hate Dean!

And we better do this quick, because right now Dean is four-way tied in Iowa...

I'll walk thru the Forum and see who might be a reasonable (deleted DU forbidden word denoting Dean supporters)debater.

http://www.bartcop.com/

[TLM]

1. What Mr. "Glass um" seems to forget, and this is a big issue...

a hell of a lot of people are sick and tired of being made to feel afraid so that they can be more easily manipulated.

Clark doesn't represent a change from this Bush tactic, but rather Clark wants to embrace Bush's fear mongering, and use it to his own advantage.

The biggest problem is that Clark helps Bush to run this campaign in the only way that bush has a chance of winning... by making it all about fear and war and terrorism and security. That's exactly the brier patch into which Rove & Co. want dems to try and throw Bush.

Folks like Bartcop seemed to have learned nothing from 2002... we don't win by trying to out-hawk the right wingers. If we take the bait, and we accept this election will only be about war and security and fear... we've already lost. Wes Clark will not win in a whose the better warrior pissing contest with Bush.

All Clark will do is drive off the greens and the left end of the dems in trying to appeal to swing voters with his militarism, and Bush will easily paint Clark as a power hungry opportunist taking advantage of a dying democratic party for his own personal glory. Bush will be the guy who caught Saddam and Clark will be the guy who got fired from his command in kosovo for almost starting a shooting war with the Russians.

Dems win on domestic issues, and the domestic side of national security. We don't win by ceding all the issues to Bush, then saying, "but we have an even better warrior father figure than Bush who can protect us all even better than Bush can."

Bart is awful fond of saying he only has 68 IQ points... so i think this quote is particularly aimed at him.

It's the economy, stupid!

[Cuban_Liberal]

3. You nailed it, TLM!

We can NOT run this campaign on Shrub's terms, because he'll win if we do.

[IndianaGreen]

6. If you let your opponent define the issues for you

you already lost election!

[Clark4VotingRights]

9. Yes! The neo-cons are experts at framing issues (orwellian newspeak)

Good ol' fashioned propaganda.
And leading by fear.

The Dems need to reframe issues and lead with hope.
Uplift...

Let's get some Dems in there that understand this psychology.
The neo-cons have a thirty year head start.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16285

"George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics and cognitive science at the University of California Berkeley, is a specialist in the technique of "framing," a communication tool that creates a "frame" for a message that defines the terms of the debate. Lakoff, like BuzzFlash, believes that the Republicans are experts at framing, while the Democrats hardly appear to understand how the technique works at all. Take almost any major political issue, and the Democrats react to how the Bush Cartel has "framed the issue," rather than forcing the GOP to respond to a Democratic "frame.""

[TLM]

7. Well we'll see how long the post is up before getting delted...

for not sufficiently fellating Clark.

[Walt Starr]

2. I stopped visiting bartcop.com weeks ago

I saw where he was going, didn't like it, so he went off my internet diet.

[lurk_no_more]

4. Sounds like a challenge to me

of course the reasons for why not will be legit! I wouldn't want to try and debate BC either, he takes no prisoners.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[Zorro]

5. The primary issue is leadership

Bush will be portrayed as a "leader" during this presidential campaign. Who on our side would be the best "leader"?

I think this is the singular quality that Clark exudes, more than the other Democratic candidates. It is difficult to argue that a four star general doesn't have leadership qualities, and is why I think Clark is Chimpy's worst nightmare candidate.

Bartcop has been in the trenches for years, and deserves to voice his opinion on who he thinks the best candidate is to run against this evil cabal.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Are Americans looking for a Caesar or for a President?

I keep hearing all this stuff about leadership, but what sort of leadership are we talking about? Leadership in a democracy is quite different from the sort of leadership one finds in nations led my military leaders. Pakistan has had a long string of military strongmen, as did South Vietnam. Italy had Mussolini, and we know who Nazi Germany had.

Israel has had a succession of Generals as Prime Ministers, national security being a big issue to voters, but most of those generals have turned out to be lousy PMs. Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak were both "miserable failures."

[andym]

11. American's are looking for American leadership

American's like their own brand of leadership. What this means basically is that we like someone who thinks that American is a great country, but could be even greater; who identifies problems and then solves them; who has integrity and thoughtfulness, and yet is as practical as a Connecticut Yankee. But mostly American's seem to identify leaders with two things: great success in some lifetime endeavor and personality. In personality types there are two kinds of leaders that appeal: the outspoken loud type, and the understated strength type. The first is more primal (bosses are stereotypically this type), but the second probably resonates more with American culture.


Your point about countries run by (former) military men does not really apply. The main reason is that the American military is so different from that of other countries in that it has a long history (post civil war) of non-partisanship and while it has played an important role in US history, it's role in maintaining the existence of the United States is underplayed in American culture. American's generally respect, but do not worship the military.

Your point about success in the military not necessarily translating into success in politics is legitimate, but generalizable. Success in any endeavor, including earlier success in politics does not necessarily translate into later political success. Jimmy Carter is the best example of someone who did very well as a Governor in Georgia and had many problems in Washington.

[stickdog]

10. The only thing we have to fear is

fear itself.