In Election 2008, do we play it nice or do we play it mean?

[mtnsnake]

Whatever theme we are going to choose, a nice one or a mean one, it will have a significant bearing on what type of persona our nominee will need to have, so it's not too early to be thinking about this.

In 2004 the Democratic Convention was held first. Considering Bush's dismal record, we could easily have attacked him and been negative all over him, but instead we played it clean and focused on what we could do, not how bad they had been. Our entire campaign pretty much followed suit.

The Republican Convention followed. Did they return the favor by being nice to us? No, it was quite the opposite. They were fucking vicious. They even handed out a pair of flip-flops to every person in attendance. Thousands of demented looking assholes were on the floor, all holding flip-flops in their hands, jumping up and down evangelical-style, eyeballs seemingly ready to burst, saliva dripping down their chins as they chanted, & wildly clapping their flip-flops in unison as every successive speaker stood on the podium ridiculing us. The picture remains in my mind's eye to this day. That's what being nice got us.

So, in 2008 do we play it nice again? Do we stick to showing the positive sides of Democrats, as opposed to attacking the negative side of Republicans? Do we limit our TV commercials to showing the productive changes that Democrats can make? Do we take the high road again?

Or do we come out swinging, right from the opening bell of the convention and right through the entire campaign, negative attack ads included when necessary, until the last person is out of the voting booth?

I say we come down on them hard and don't let up until the last booth is closed on the West Coast. We learned our lesson about what happens when you're nice to Republicans. Enough is enough. Next time, it's time for us to get down and dirty. You can't win a fight if only one side is fighting.

[SteppingRazor]

1. I think that totaly depends on who wins the primaries.

The candidates should define the tone.

[mtnsnake]

16. To a certain extent, only

Bush was the Republican candidate and he watched from the sidelines as the negative attack ads rolled by, one after the other blistering us, and as all the numerous other factions of his side carried out the negative stuff. It's not JUST the candidate although that's an important aspect for sure.

Let's face it, though. Any candidate running in today's world of politics can put on two different faces. They can be nice if they want and they can be tough if they want. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be in there. Most of these people have the ability to go it both ways when necessary.

[Tellurian]

36. Actually, I think we need a unification

of our presidential candidates behind the scenes, for Openers.

This is a critical time in history, thinking small is not an option for us. The always hidden Republican Dream Machine is being dismantled exponentially piece by piece in all areas of government. The events taking place now (Libbey Trial) are just the tip of the iceberg.

Our presidential candidates have to be at the helm of this huge undertaking to beat these fascists once and for all at their own game. We cannot succeed if our candidates are fighting each other focusing on themselves looking for ways of tripping up their rivals to weaken or to eliminate them. They have to work together as a 'Team for America' besides running their own campaigns until election time draws near. Their mission is to focus on the Republican dirty tricks agenda for defense and at the same time running an extreme offensive agenda destroying any chance of a Republican succession to the WH for years to come. Towards the end of the campaign, they can split off as they choose to promote themselves for the final rundown but always united in mind and spirit that the enemy is NOT within their own ranks. The enemy resides in the WH and that is where the object of their mission must remain.

Where could we assemble a better leadership team for this mission than the 4 major candidates out front right now?
The reason I am suggesting this as a beginning is because this task is so huge, the unknowns are vastly unknown, the pitfalls limitless. The risk of failure to destroy this neocon agenda once and for all is all too real. We must not underestimate the enemy of the people. We must not fail. The timing is right for total destruction of the PNAC Manifesto.

I have my druthers, this 'Perfect Storm of the People' combined with the alignment of these four candidates will come together again in our lifetime. We only have one bite at this apple.

[saltpoint]

2. Maybe it's best to have a "war room" at the ready, 24-7, in case

the swiftboating flares up.

I more than expect it to. Let's wait for them to fire first then smash them to bits in response, not for sport, but on the merits of the incontrovertible argument. We did that to Jim Talent in Missouri, we can do it nationally.

I'd have a cadre of the most acid-witted gut-fightin' SOBs we can round up and tell them we want plenty of at-the-ready ammo in case the fur starts to fly.

But the public face of the party must be directed toward the needs of voters. I'm not for initiating the swiftboating from our side. Let's put the sturdiest defensive line we can muster up against their expected running game and throw them for a loss every play.

We're better than they are. Let's prove it.

[w13rd0]

5. In Case???

As if there is ANY question whatsoever. They will use EVERY means at their disposal to maintain power and regain power.

[saltpoint]

7. Specifically, "in the event," "in case." I called for a war room against this

contingency.

It worked pretty well for Bill Clinton, who after all isn't that bad of a politician. He's pretty crafty, like him or not.

[mtnsnake]

9. No maybes about it. We need to be prepared in advance this time

for any possibility out there.

Let's wait for them to fire first then smash them to bits in response.

I like the "smash" part of that, but we need to be the ones to set that tone. It's just too hard to open the campaign by being nice and then turn nasty afterwards. Republicans have proven historically that they don't play it nice.

[saltpoint]

10. I don't think we should be the first-slingers.

Did I not make it clear in the post that I thought our response should be at-the-ready?

[mtnsnake]

13. Here's why I disagree

and yes you made it clear that you thought our response should be "at-the-ready". That's why I pasted the part of your post that I did in my response.

Anyway, why I disagree that we should let them attack first. If we do that, then what happens if they don't attack? Do we just play it nice as always as a favor to them being nice to us? I don't think so. The Republicans DESERVE to get attacked for their failed policies, and we need to bring it to them right from the opening bell of the convention. We need to set the tone, not them. Waiting and hesitating can only cost us.

[saltpoint]

15. I've added to my initial response to cite the instance of Claire McCaskill

versus Jim Talent in Missouri.

Talent is tailored perfectly to be a Missouri public official but we whipped him in part on the stem cell issue, which we aggressively pursued. I'm thankful that McCaskill felt the way I did on that one, even though I'm not even a Missourian.

I'm for that. First, well before the other side even has its convention. MoveOut.org is already running ads against McCain's support of the surge.

I'm for that, too.

On all the issues, let's let 'em have it, but let's not lie about them the way they lie about us. The truth by itself should be enough to defeat them, if we're aggressive enough.

[Bluzmann57]

3. The repubs went nasty in '06

And that is in part, what cost them. There was a repub here in Iowa's First District who ran for Congress and virtually had nothing positive to say either about his opponent or his proposals, as he had none. People here were really turned off by the extreme negativity. Therefore, I think the Dems should do good things, and run on their records.

[goodhue]

4. play it true

[Strawman]

6. Well, the plain truth isn't a nice thing for them

We just have to tell it. Turn the election into a referendum on the past eight years of Republican control of the executive branch. That's the way it should be.

[napi21]

8. I'm all for nasty! Even though the Dems won in Nov. they're STILL

being TOO DAMN NICE now that they're in the majority! Nice has been used for a long time now, and it just doesn't work! I would THINKthe Dem candidates would have realized that by now!

[mtnsnake]

11. Amen! You nailed it. nt

[PresidentObama]

12. Both.

We explain to the American people the damage the Bush Administration and it's rubber stamp Congress (before January) have done. We made this about them, and the mistakes they've made. We assure the American people we won't head in that direction, and will be the party of real change.

The Democrats can have a positive message of hope and change while also slamming and going on the attack of the GOP and the mistakes they've made. So I say we come out swinging at the Republicans, while 'passing out roses' to the American people and letting them know real change is coming in the form of a new Democratic President backed by a Democratic majority in Congress.

The convention specifically should be about painting this picture of what the GOP has done, and then turning around and showing what we will do. We can't run and win based on what they've done in damage, we have to assure the American people we'll do better. And we will, but my point remains!!

[mtnsnake]

18. Yes, it'll take a combination to win. Also showing our positive side goes without saying

We can do both, but I'm convinced we need to be the attackers this time, right from the start.

Of course there will be plenty of time in between to show our positive side, too.

[PresidentObama]

21. The Republicans are bloody and broken.

We just need to give them the death blow, one stiff punch in the face. No doubt we can't let them get away with anything in 2008, and we have to make the debate ours. We can't let them rule the debate, and get the upperhand. If they start to prop themselves up, we need to knock them down again.

Something tells me the GOP is going to be even more dirty in 2008 because otherwise they have no chance.

[trogdor]

23. Compare and contrast.

If I were the nominee, I'd get me a series of ads comparing me to my opponent. One issue per ad, simple and to the point. "Idiot GOPer supports X, but I support Y." Oh yeah, and I do the talking in all my ads. If they have to come to Podunk Junior High's gymnasium to film me talking, then so be it.

[OHdem10]

14. If the Democrats on the Hill continue

to stay out of sight, while Lott has been on every TV
making it sound as if the Republicans just pulled
a "coup" which leaves the impression that Democrats
are inneffective, forget 2008.
We had better be trying to get some Senatorsin the
Senate.

The Republicans are showing in spades how to be an
opposition party.

Our Senators whined(I am sorry, bu tehy did whine).
When we are in the minority, the Republicans have
the bullypulpit. Okay, we put you in the majority
you have the bully pulpit--use it or lose it.

[zulchzulu]

17. Good cop bad cop...

The first thing you learn is that you don't trust the Republicans to run a fair, clean campaign. The second thing you learn is that the mainstream media will generally side with the Republicans. The third thing you learn is to attack first and ask questions later.

Otherwise, we lose.

[mtnsnake]

20. I really think it's as simple as that

Thank you for that post!

[pampango]

19. Daniel Gilbert, in Stumbling on Happiness, has an interesting

take on this.

http://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/gilbert/blog/200607.html

"“He hit me first” provides an acceptable rationale for doing that which is otherwise forbidden. Both civil and religious law provide long lists of behaviors that are illegal or immoral — unless they are responses in kind, in which case they are perfectly fine."

"...our language even has special words — like “retaliation” and “retribution” and “revenge” — whose common prefix is meant to remind us that a punch thrown second is legally and morally different than a punch thrown first. That’s why participants in every one of the globe’s intractable conflicts — from Ireland to the Middle East — offer the even-numberedness of their punches as grounds for exculpation."

This all make sense and is fairly obvious, but he adds that makes this more intriguing is that "research shows that while people think of their own actions as the consequences of what came before, they think of other people’s actions as the causes of what came later." People act in response to what others have done, but our brains do not equally perceive how the other person perceives, and will respond to, our action. Each side perceives itself as morally superior because it is just responding or retaliating to something the other side has done.

[meldroc]

22. Gloves must come off, otherwise we'll get clobbered.

Sorry. I know it's nice to think that maybe if we ran a cleaner campaign, that the Republicans will be a little more civilized. They won't. The GOP will do absolutely anything and everything to obtain and hold power, and don't care who gets hurt in the process. So we have to not only take the gloves off, but be swinging with brass knuckles.

Swiftboat them before they swiftboat us, as far as I'm concerned. You know they won't hold back, why should we? It's not like they don't give us ammuntion...

[EVDebs]

24. Not enough $ for war in Iraq to continue and keep SS/Medicare

Play it straight you foolish Dems ! Get out in front of these wastrel R's and show these 'inconvenient truths'

Cost of war in Iraq (could go $1 TRILLION to $2 TRILLION), currently at $364 billion
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

How Bushco is paying for war right now with 'globalization tax' a.k.a. capital repatriations of around $317 billion

ASA Scorecard on Capital Repatriation, shows $217 billion repatriated with $100 billion to come
http://www.americanshareholders.com/blog/2006/03/bna-tax-report-on-repatriation.php

...and at the same time Corporations aren't paying their fair share of taxes domestically while cutting pensions and healthcare

""Corporate income taxes in fiscal 2003 accounted for 7.4% of all federal tax receipts, down from a post-war peak of 32% in 1952. With one exception (1983), last year’s percentage is the lowest recorded since data was first published in 1934. Even so, tax breaks for corporations (and their investors, particularly large ones) were a major part of the Administration’s 2002 and 2003 initiatives. If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning.""

Warren Buffett Urges higher corporate taxes
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0306-01.htm

BTW, this directly contradicts the ASA report (page 6) data. Maybe Buffett telling the truth while corporate lying continues led him to speak out, huh ? In any event...Hit them with these facts and let the public in on the secret M$M, hmmmm ?

[sandnsea]

25. Exit Polls showed Kerry attacked unfairly

more than Bush did. We had plenty of attack ads by 501c's. We need a media assault team and it has to be grassroots and highly organized, like they have. There's a difference between being mean and telling the truth, that's the difference we didn't clarify in 2004. The only reason we didn't have confusion in 2006 is because the media decided to report the truth of Katrina and Iraq.

[gravity]

40. The problem is Kerry didn't do anything to defend himself

If the dems would have attacked a republican's military record, every republican in the nation would say "Look how the democrats disrespect the men and women in the military. Can we trust the democrats to protect America from terr."

Kerry just ignored his attacks.

[Tellurian]

41. I didn't know any Republicans had military records..

The people surrounding Kerry are living in a vacuum.
When he should fight, they tell him to be silent.

When he should be attacking Bush, they tell him, play nice.
They never have a problem putting the dis in functional.

[BoneDaddy]

26. WE do both

because a one step approach NEVER works. We need to finesse at times, and strike hard at the core at other times.

[PhilipShore]

27. Nice...

and liberal

[leftofthedial]

28. the repukes are full-on fascists.

the ONLY way to fight fascists is to fight as mean, as dirty and as hard as you can and to keep doing it even after the bell has rung and the referee pulls you off the bloody corpse of your utterly defeated foe.

[Arugula Latte]

29. We need to pummel them to a pulp at every opportunity. nt

[Golden Raisin]

30. Dems taking the high road means nothing

except weakness to the Republicans. They have and will continue to clobber us, fight dirty (Florida/Ohio), swiftboat our candidates, etc. Sadly, virtue is NOT its own reward.

[Tellurian]

42. K&R

kicken "R"

:kick:

[saberjet22]

31. In Election 2008, do we play it nice or do we play it mean?

Mean, all the way. Don't even let the dishonest bastards tread water.

[HuffleClaw]

32. i can't see the dems doing anything else but what they've always done

they sure haven't shown any indication of such a sea chang as yet. or anything approaching a united front on ANY issue.

[JNelson6563]

33. No more Mr. Nice Guy

Our party's theme for 08 should be Alice Cooper's rendition of it. heh

[jen4clark]

34. One of the many things

I love about General Clark, is he knows how to put the radical regressives in their place without ever being mean. It's an art, truly, that I wish I had. I don't know how he does it, but he never raises his voice, never name calls, but shuts them up, and in some cases even has them agree with him. I don't watch FOX News, but the videos of his segments are always posted at CCN, and it's a thing of beauty watching him up against O'Leily, Hannity and their ilk.

[citizen snips]

35. Playing it nice did not work the last time.

[Tellurian]

38. No, we play smarter!

'nice' does not enter into the equation.

[jakem]

37. is truth mean?

if it is, mean all the way. but with a smile.

[gravity]

39. We just need to have a clear and consistant message

That goes for the neagtive and positive ads. Our problem comes from being too wishy washy.

[NoPasaran]

43. I want a blood bath

The repubs need to be horsewhipped within an inch of their lives. And then whipped a couple of inches further.

One thing that makes it easier for me to accept Hillary Clinton as our possible nominee is the thought that having already been subjected to the Right Wing Propoganda Machine she may very well be the candidate most prepared to endure it and return fire blow for blow.

[Tellurian]

44. An intelligent observation..

She's married to the man that beat them single handedly with one hand tied behind his back..

Since Bush, the atmosphere has corrupted itself at least 10X what it was in the 90's.
I may be a bit too conservative with my estimate.

[pampango]

45. Most of the republicans I know are decent people. Not all but

most. A larger percentage of the democrats I know are decent people, but not all of them.

Most of the people in this part of Ohio are republican, because that's "the way it has always been". Many voted for democrats for Senate and Governor in the last election, but still consider themselves to be republicans. They can be won over to our side, at least for electoral purposes, but the idea of being "horsewhipped within an inch of their lives. And then whipped a couple of inches further" is probably not the best way to do it.

[NoPasaran]

46. I live in Texas

And I believe in doing unto them what they have done unto us, plus interest.

[pampango]

47. Hah, the Texas version of the golden rule.

Man that's a tough place. Never realized I had it so good in Ohio.

Sounds like you are a believer in the "even-numbered" puncher theory. (see post #19)

[NoPasaran]

48. I think of it

As the "You can't compromise with rattlesnakes" rule.