Hey, Dems: Run against Bush -- and toughen up -- or lose in '08 (Salon)

[swag]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/27/westen/

Drew Westen, author of "The Political Brain," evaluates the Democratic presidential candidates' ads and the party's messaging in general. Short version: More Jim Webb, less John Kerry.

. . .

Is there one thing Democrats need to be doing, or one message they need to be putting out about themselves, to win this time around?

Yes. I think the most important thing they could do is to make sure that they tie every Republican incumbent and whoever becomes the Republican nominee for president in with George Bush, because the reality is the Republicans are all going to run from George Bush as best they can in this next election. Elections are won and lost on associations, and right now, unless there's another terrorist attack on our soil in the next 18 months, the connection to George Bush is going to be a tremendous liability for any candidate ...

If the Democrats run against anyone other than Bush and the Republican Party, Bush and the Republican Congress, Bush and the Republican presidential nominee, I think they'll probably lose, because I think the Republicans are adept enough at getting out of those associations unless the Democrats start making them now.

On the flip side, are there any narratives about the Democrats that they need to work to defeat in this election cycle?

There's two narratives they need to tell. One is, they need to answer the narratives about them; and the other is, they need to tell a coherent narrative about themselves -- neither of which they've done. I think that the Democratic Congress thus far, despite having passed some legislation like a hike in the minimum wage, has largely supported the Republican narrative about who the Democrats are.

The brand that the Republicans have given the Democrats is that they're weak in the face of aggression, and the Democrats have repeatedly proven themselves to be weak in the face of aggression. The brand that the Republicans have given the Democrats is that they have no values, and the Democrats have repeatedly, on issues from abortion to gays to guns to, I mean, name your wedge issue, they have been hedging in the face of those values issues as opposed to saying what they believe. So in all of those cases they're supporting the conservative narrative as opposed to offering a counter-narrative.

. . . more

[tularetom]

1. Hmm maybe they should not say we're safer than before 9/11?

Just sayin.....

[Alcibiades]

2. Bush voters should feel cheated

Some interesting points, though I don't think ads win campaigns by themselves.

One of the most powerful psychological impulses is the urge to punish cheating. We are social, cooperative creatures, and so the urge to punish those who cheat ("defect" in game theoretic terms) is deep-seated. One of the messages whoever the nominee is should push is to ask where and when it was that the Republican nominee took his stand against Bush's cheating of the American people. This should be part of a simple push that would drive to the heart of the discontent of the people. No matter what voters wanted, even Bush voters, they certainly did not want what we have today. Evangelicals, it strikes me, have been particularly used, as have moderate "economic" conservatives. Bush has delivered for no one but the oil industry, the weapons industry, and the super-rich.

I know this guy's selling macho, but our last nominee really was macho, and he lost/had the election stolen from him. I think people really want honesty and competence in the next president.

[benEzra]

3. I think a lot more Dems should be emulating Webb. (n/t)

[wisteria]

4. Bush isn't running! We need a forward message not an backward one.

As for the Kerry reference- it is an easy excuse to pin all the blame on him so the fraud,cheating, disenfranchisement scar tactics, media complacency and even the curiously convenient bin Laden tape appearing the weekend before the election do not have to be addressed. Oh, and the old adage, "you don't change horses in mid-stream". This idea has been with up since the time of Lincoln. And, the DNC, who seemed to want to take a backseat and let Kerry do all the work.

It is backward and not at all productive to keep blaming one man for our 2004 loss and claiming all we need to do to win is be like the tough guys. Instead, we should be thanking Senator Kerry for coming as close as he did,representing our party with intelligence,courage and integrity and address the real issues that lead to our loss back then-not being tough enough wasn't one of them. Senator Kerry fought like hell to be President. Toughness is demonstrated in more ways than just wearing boots and behaving that way. Did we or do we want to really elect another Bush?