Anthony's Five Point Plan for Victory in 2008, it all starts now.

[requiem99]

I'll keep this short and simple, and please keep in mind that the person writing this is a Buddhist, NOT a Christian, and finds the faceless "conservative Christian values" situation, wherein they proclaim their compassion and Christianity while judging and hating everyone not in line with their point of view, deplorable. Here we go:

** Five point plan to regain control of our country **

First, as many have already said in the last 12 hours, our current course of "Republican lite" candidates simply cannot continue. We can't pander to the right and go moderate, hoping to swing red southern states with us. We need a candidate, as mentioned in an article today by Arianna Huffington, which embodies the "idealism, boldness and generosity of spirit that marked the presidencies of FDR and JFK and the short-lived presidential campaign of Bobby Kennedy." Without these things we are doomed to suffer as an "also ran", because nobody does right wing pandering like the Republicans. We must offer the alternative, a serious left wing candidate who stands for traditional Democratic values for governance, society, and policy.

Second, our candidate must be able to speak about complex issues in a very simple, easy to understand 'everyman' way, and he must exude honesty and integrity. We must pump our passion for fiscal discipline, because in the years trailing the Bush Disaster, we are going to need every bit of it to simply survive as a nation. The Republicans have traditionally owned this area, but after Bush they won’t even be able to spell ‘cost-effective’, much less personify it. It’s ours to run with now.

Third, his perceived moral character, simply from the way he speaks and acts, must make any attempted smear against him a joke, because now that extensive false smearing has worked in one campaign, you can bet it will be used in every single one the Republicans run for decades. After all, they smell blood now.

Fourth, and this here is the big one, every time an issue is talked about, we must also be able to frame our candidate's positions in a way that matters in a moral context that every person, from Bible belt conservatives to Bleeding Heart California liberals, can understand and relate to, whether he is a Christian or not. Everything in the next few elections is going to be about morality, as America has just proven (fraud or no fraud) that the perception of morals are the biggest issue in a Presidential election, no matter if the man has the worst job performance record in a century or longer and completely lies about everything. For example: On civil unions and gay marriage, when asked on his position, our candidate should say in a very clear way that he is "against them personally," whether he actually is or not, and "that while traditional American values-" (this is a meme we need to pimp nonstop as being ours, we need to OWN IT) "-dictate that this is an immoral choice, we can't be good Christians or Americans and disallow these people their rights as American citizens, which include traditional marriage rights such as visiting their partner in the hospital and passing on property to their survivor. Now, I believe marriage is a Christian institution and as such should be limited to one man and one woman, however I will introduce a new plan that gives the traditional marriage legal rights and financial obligations that accompany such a relationship to homosexuals. Our decency demands we allow them to practice what they believe, even if we don't believe it. That is what America and being American is all about."

Last, and one you probably didn’t see coming, I am recommending we run Wesley Clark for president in 2008, and this is coming from someone who solidly supported Kerry in the primary, as I didn't realize how the perception of morality would define the election. There is no room for argument here folks; we need to do it for the future of our country. John Edwards is damaged goods; he can't run and expect to win against these people, now that he has stood with "a Massachusetts liberal" against God W Bush. Wes is from the south, speaks in clear and simple terms, has superior intelligence yet doesn't come off condescending, has military experience, and most of all, can do the above framing of morality within democracy that I have described. If we don't start laying the groundwork for a Wesley Clark '08 RIGHT NOW, we may never have another chance, if we even have one now.

I love Kerry, and I think he would have made an amazing President, but now more than ever America needs a uniter, not a divider, and while we will grow more divided in the next 4 years, I believe with the southern born Wesley Clark and the above game plan for restoring traditional idealism and democratic values within a moral context we can truly bring back sanity, fiscal discipline, and the host of social programs our country desperately needs, to say nothing of curbing the civil rights trampling that has blossomed under George W Bush. We can win with a progressive candidate, but context and framework is everything. Our inroads with AAR and blogs are helping, and the continued push for more media will help further, but we really need big media gains during the next 4 years if we’re to have any hope of winning 2008 against a McCain/ Schwarzenegger ticket, or, God forbid, a Jeb Bush/Zell Miller bi-partisan ticket. Ugh, I need a shower.

In any case, we need to look ahead, first to 2006 senate race, and then to 2008 general elections, but the groundwork needs to start right away. We need to identify all the problems we had with this race and be ready to correct them in 2008. The things I mentioned are the major things, but I know you all can think of a host of other things.

Lets get it done and stop the slide, if we still have a chance and the permanent fix isn't already in.

[Syrinx]

1. I think you pretty much have it nailed

Are you a professional strategist?

[requiem99]

3. No, but after this election, I think they need me as much as I need them.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

38. LOFL. And vice versa too.

More or less.

[requiem99]

39. Did that sound right? Its late and Bush's smug grin is keeping me up.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

40. It sounds fine. Don't let that sap's mug keep ya up.

[Sara Beverley]

46. You have beat me to at least three of my proposed strategies.

The most important thing I would add is that we need to find a way to work discretely, stealthly, and effectively. Most of the Bible=belt folks have been misinformed, frightened, and just plain lied to and brain-washed. A daily dose of Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh is hard to overcome, especially when you can't force people to listen to anything else because that would make the "sinners,"

But you are right about speaking in simple terms.

Here is an example of how I am thinking about framing the abortion issue message:

Picture our candidate or a supporter of our candidate in an ad or on a flyer saying

"You don't like abortions? Don't have one. I don't like them either.
But I sure as hell don't want someone telling me that my daughter, sister, mother, or wife who might lose her life delivering a child developing in an unnatural way outside her womb can't have her life saved because somebody else said she shouldn't have the operation necessary to save her life. If you believe that your (wife, mother, sister, daughter) should be able to get the medical procedure that she needs to save her life, vote for _______________ because (he/she) believes that too."

Haven't really refined the message completely, but this the direction I'm talking about. But I love your starting points and agree with them. If it means having to write the speeches for our candidates in those states, we should do it. Remember, we don't have to win over ALL the red states, just 3-5. And abortion is not the only issue we need to frame but it is one of those "moral issues" that supposedly persuaded so many red state voters to vote for Bush.

[tedoll78]

2. I strongly agree.

A draft movement needs to begin NOW.

Clark can certainly win the Kerry States. He can then win Iowa and New Mexico. He can carry his home state if he spends some time there building-up his public image and reminding them of his Arkansas roots. And he can keep New Hampshire. That'd be 270EVs right there.

[MaraJade]

4. One good thing is that Schwarzenegger

CAN'T run. He's not a natural born citizen, which is a constitutional requirement.

I thank goodness for that. He'd make a terrible president.

[requiem99]

6. There's this thing about Republicans owning the senate and house now

And one specific senator pushing legislation amending the constitution to allow good old Ahnuld to run. It might even pass, now that we've been crippled.

[regnaD kciN]

23. Not likely...

It would require a constitutional amendment, which not only has to pass Congress by a supermajority, but then has to pass the legislatures of a supermajority of states (3/4, I think). There are enough Democratic-controlled state legislatures that will block it, knowing that its only purpose is to allow Der GropenFuhrer to run for President.

[Danger Duck]

55. I heard a rumor....

that Arnie and Mi. Gov. Granholm are working to get around that somehow. I love Jennifer, but Arnold ,making a run for it makes me nervous. A Republican that could carry California is bad news. How long do steroid abusers usually live, anyway?

[msgadget]

5. I like it

but his patriotic service was made controversial already and would have to be countered. How did he do in the South during the primaries?

Is he the only one we've got? Is there a plain spoken Southern governor somewhere who goes to church, is happily married and never had a whiff of scandal? Forget a senator, their voting record will kill 'em...

[requiem99]

8. No, we can't run any more senators for a while.

Former Generals and Govs, thats all we can afford to run while we re-establish our dominance in the next couple decades. Fortunately, Bush's war(s) will likely make a few heroes out of Democratic generals, and we can use this to our advantage in the teens and early 20s.

[Syrinx]

11. Clark won the Oklahoma primary

It's not the south, but it's really more "southern" than the south. By the time the southern primaries were held, Kerry had it sown up... I know Kerry won Alabama.

[phylny]

41. Mark Warner

Democratic Governor of Virginia.

[rockymountaindem]

7. How can we stand up for our values by paying lip service to the other side

That part about having a candidate who says what the people want to hear but actually believes in something else won't do it. How will we know that a "moderate" candidate is really a liberal? If the other side finds out that blows our whole cover. That's a paradox right there. But I'm with you on Wesley Clark. I just hope he has the spirit to run again.

[requiem99]

9. That's where you are wrong, and here is why.

We won't be saying what other people want to hear, we will be framing our message within a context they can understand, while not alienating our base. That is what Bush does right now, with "Spread Freedom and Democracy" actually meaning "Declare war on anyone we think might aid terrorism" - If he were to actually spell out what his doctrine does, it would be a disaster, but he doesn't, he frames it. We must, too.

[Tweed]

10. How do we keep Clark in the media?

[requiem99]

14. Good question, one I cannot answer. Some other strategist maybe?

[tedoll78]

25. the real key..

is to keep Clark's profile up in Arkansas. At least, that's what I think.

He has pretty decent name recognition so far. If he were to spend the next two or three years in Arkansas building-up his home roots and public image, his chances of flipping the state would dramatically jump. Carrying Arkansas is a huge part of his strategic appeal. If he can carry Arkansas, then all he needs are New Hampshire and the Gore states. And I certainly think he can bring Iowa and New Mexico back into our fold.

[requiem99]

31. Don't write off the ability of a southern born military hero.

I feel with a well run campaign that uses the context of morality within democracy we could sweep the country like Reagan did in 1980. It would require hard, hard work, to make sure the message isn't obscured by punditry and sound bites, but we could do it.

The question is: Are you all up to it?

[Wombatzu]

12. more than half the country just voted for a turnip

people aren't looking for morality; they are looking for simple and brutal.

i think it's time to start thinking of ways to subvert the current political process instead of beginning the packaging of 2008.

emigrate to blue states. think local; act local.

[LibertyorDeath]

13. Good points but these are our enemies

Diebold

ES&S

Sequoia Voting systems

http://blackboxvoting.com/

The rest is for naught if we do not defeat this corruption of the Vote.

[rockydem]

15. I think you make some good points

Think Obamo could play a role in 2008 - or is that too soon?

I take you don't think Hillary could do it - sometimes I think she could - the whole two-for-one thing again. Remeber, Prez. Clinton picked up seats in 1998.

[requiem99]

18. Obama could be VP, it would be perfect timing.

We can't run him for pres for obvious reasons, as despite what some will tell you, there is no possible way a black person or a woman will be elected to that office in the next 2 decades, minimum, but Obama on the ticket would bring in the progressive of the party, without question.

With a Clark/Obama ticket we would be very, very difficult to defeat, as we would have extremely widespread support from both sides of the fence.

[msgadget]

21. WAY to soon

for Obama. Imo, a Hillary run would further energize the right and they're fired up enough.

[requiem99]

22. Hillary in 2008 if you want to destroy the Democratic party forever.

I like Hillary, but she'll NEVER get elected as long as they frame the 'morality', 'values', and 'everyman' aspects of the debate. Plus, she's a woman, and like it or not, sexism still reigns supreme in 21st century America.

[phylny]

42. I agree with you.

I love Hillary, she's one of my senators, but she'll never, ever be elected. I could only hope to be proven wrong, but I don't think I am.

I was at a Halloween party before the election, and a neighbor of mine (we're new here) turned to me and said, "Can you believe they want to run that bitch Hillary in 2008?"

I mean, this was a guy I thought was really nice. Blew me away.

Hillary just won't win. We have to think less about the ideal candidate, unfortunately, and more about who will win the next election. I suspect we'll have help from another disasterous four years, when even the Kool-aid drinking dolts will see that they've been lied to.

[Hamlette]

16. uhhhhh

JFKennedy was not a leftie. He'd be to the right of clinton, truth be known. Bobby was more liberal. FDR was a man of his times.

We need shorter answers. Yours on gay marriage plays here, not in rural America. They might hear: It's government's job to protect people, not judge them.

I was a Clarkie from the get go. He pulled in a very diverse group in the early days. Zen Buddists who had NEVER voted were at all the meetings. For a retired General? Go figure.

[requiem99]

19. Controlling the spin is still not as important as the basic message.

Despite what some say, even with an unfriendly media it is most certainly possible to win in this country. Kerry almost won this year and the media was postively CRUEL to him. My response on gay marriage might have been a tiny bit too wordy (thinking in soundbites is hard for people deeply involved with the issues) but the basic message remains difficult to corrupt.

[msgadget]

24. It's been said before,

we don't have a catch phrase, no equivalent to 'family values', for example. We didn't have a plain, simple, appealing, solid platform to stick to like glue and pound out relentlessly. That really works for them. They've got smaller government, ownership society, compassionate conservative, etc. And, the more I get mad about it, I think we need a marketing team. Aren't they the best packaged product you've seen in the last 5 years?

[requiem99]

27. The Republican box is beautiful but contains feces that taste like cake.

Our product is delicious but the box is ugly. We need to change that.

[msgadget]

29. Ewww, but yes

we do need much better packaging along with a stronger product. And, we need to have the courage to sell it unflinchingly.

[requiem99]

30. I apologize for the rather disgusting metaphor, but it was necessary.

[msgadget]

32. No problem

I actually thought it was brilliant (plus, I have kids...boys).

[rockydem]

17. Also we need to frame economic issues in moral ways

As was said in the following thread by Judy "You can't fight ideology with 'I have a plan.'"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2589081&mesg_id=2589081&page=

[reeree]

20. Some excellent points

I think the key issue is really getting somebody that "the people" connect with, another Bill Clinton, to momentarily wax nostalgic. I heard so many "I just don't like John Kerry!"s this year I could puke. But if people are going to vote for their likes and dislikes instead of their own best interest, well we'll have to runa candidate who can meet that requirement. The Democratic Party used to be the party of the people, and the GOP was in the pocket of Big Business. Well, nothing has changed except people's perceptions. The Repugs have successfully taken over the media and now the Democratic Party is painted as elitist and out of touch. This is why minorities and women are defecting in such surprising numbers. We have to pull them back, we have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the GOP does not care for the "little man". We need a prominent media outlet! We have to take over CNN or start our own channel!

[phylny]

44. I've thought about one small difference between Kerry and Clinton

and as dumb as it may sound, conjure up their voices in your mind and "listen" to the difference.

One thing that always bugged me about Kerry was the way his voice sounded on the campaign trail. Pardon me for being dumb if I am coming across that way :), but I'm a speech-language pathologist, and one of the things that I realize is that your TONE of voice (your prosody) carries a message. Kerry sounded like he was a really smart elitist. I don't THINK he was an elitist, but to folks in Indiana and Virginia (places that I've lived in) that's how he probably came off.

Think about Clinton's voice - much more "normal" tone, slight twang (I think Bush might have had LESSONS to learn how to talk "southern"), nice and quiet, friendly, to the point. Just as smart, but more like "common" folks.

It's just one of the very many small things we need to consider. Tone of voice, body language are important. I want a president who is smarter than me, but obviously there are people in this country who want the guy next door.

[Eloriel]

26. Wesley Clark?

When you've described Howard Dean to a T? :shrug:

Oh, btw, your Third won't work. They make stuff up if they can't find things. They will ALWAYS have something to smear us with. Always.

[requiem99]

28. Howard Dean had almost none of these qualities in clear evidence.

If he had them at all, they were buried, requiring people to watch him for at least 30 minutes at a time to notice. We don't have 30 minutes to hook the majority of this nation's voters. We need to hook them in 30 seconds, or we won't win.

And my 3rd WILL work if our candidate has clear and powerful moral qualities in evidence. Look at Bush: He's a drunken frat boy who ran from vietnam, snorted coke for the majority of his early adult life, and failed at every business he ever was involved in, yet he is still seen by the majority of americans as having better morals than a man who went to fight for his country and pushed for reforms that would benefit the people who voted against him.

I, too, have heard "I just don't like Kerry" far more times than I can count in this election. Kerry's problem was twofold: His positions were not clear, and the media was brutally against him. It wasn't that he had no positions, it was that he had no positions he could sum up in a few words. Wordiness was really his death.

[Hatalles]

33. The B/C team has beaten up war-heroes TWICE now.

We were going places with Dean. Dean/Obama is the way to go. No more of this moderate, inching to the right BS. Don't give the Republicans an inch!

[requiem99]

34. We weren't prepared for their brutal and unamerican attack machine.

We are now. We won't let 2004 happen to us again. Letting Bush define Kerry was his biggest mistake. The fact he was even close at the end speaks volumes about half the nation's hatred of Bush.

[Hatalles]

35. No, we should have ANNIHALATED Bush.

How does one have SO MANY failures in office and STILL win re-election? You can't spin the popular-vote -- we live in a nation of idiots, plain and simple. And don't give me that talk of how we weren't able to mobolize everyone -- there's just as many brainwashed Bushies sitting at home, away from the polls.

We need CHANGE, we need REDIRECTION, we need ENERGY. The same passive centrist BS is not working -- bring on Dean, bring on Obama, bring on Kucinich -- fight PNAC tooth and nail!

[requiem99]

36. Did you not read my post? Re-read it and then read yours again. NT

[Abelman]

37. What has been said before

-Howard Dean should be involved heavily with the party at a national level, possibly as chair.

-Obama needs a little more time to enchant the rest of the country.

The Democratic Party needs to get back to grassroots. The party started (some argue) with Andrew Jackson. A man who spoke the very core of rural America. A man who was stubborn and steadfast in views, and who loved freedom. A man of his times. He was also a general.

Some may not be in the mood for romanticism or poetic, but how fitting would it be for another General to be the man who helps put the party back on track?

I supported Clark in the primaries, and I'm supporting him now. I'm going to be secondarily working on getting him elected until '06, until then I will be working to promote a grassroots movement which involves people running at local levels, and that includes many people here. The best thing you can do for the party and for the country is to not be content with voting, rallying, and donating, but to go the extra mile to establish a higher standard of leadership in this country. We need to make sure people understand that "good enough" is NOT good enough.

[Danger Duck]

43. You've almost got it

Point four shows how far off base we are as a party, even though your post was one of the most logical that I've seen at this "yes-man" sight in a while.

You don't lie to the people about what you believe, you tell them what you believe, and you tell them why. Bush explains his system of beliefs, and that gives him credibility with the people. You still want a candidate to imitate the Republicans by being about "morals". It's not the particular morals that matters, but how the candidate developed those beliefs.

look at Clinton. Amoral by even Larry Flynt's standards, he got two terms, because he engaged the people. He told them about growing up in the south, having a step parent, and the campaign stunts weren't pale imitations of conservatives, hunting, tank driving, but playing a sax and shit like that.

I feel that even in this election, if Kerry had addressed another key issue, one that is still valid, he could have carried the vote. The issue, NAFTA.

Neither party addressed this, the reason we are losing manufacturing jobs. Use it in 2008.

Oh well. Terrible candidate, terrible convention, terrible campaign. Why is everyone so surprised around here? And does anyone here believe that Wes Clark was a saboteur? Take out his votes in the primary, where would Dean be?

[One Taste]

45. Dean was done after Iowa..

Clark didn't even campaign there.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

49. "The issue, NAFTA."

Genius! LOFL.

[Danger Duck]

51. Hey

great response. Why is it that neither one discussed NAFTA, and where is it you think our manufacturing jobs are going? YSF!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

52. You cannot be serious in thinking that NAFTA was THE ISSUE

which would have turned the election around.
Tell me you are not serious.
Don't make me come down there, Danger Duck.

[Danger Duck]

53. Yeah, I do. Come on down....

the price is right.

NAFTA is the giant sucking sound. And apparently, a war is a country which didn't attack us, didn't intend on hurting us, and lacked the capability to do so, resulting in the deaths of over a thousand US soldiers and 10,000 Iraq citizens, wasn't the proper issue.

I think that if a candidate addressed the real reason jobs were leaving, and speaking as a former UAW attorney, it is NAFTA, this would have reached more people. Especially in Ohio.

[Danger Duck]

54. link here

<http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/>


January 1, 2004 marks the tenth anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement’s implementation. NAFTA promoters - including many of the world’s largest corporations - promised it would create hundreds of thousands of new high-wage U.S. jobs, raise living standards in the U.S., Mexico and Canada, improve environmental conditions and transform Mexico from a poor developing country into a booming new market for U.S. exports. NAFTA opponents - including labor, environmental, consumer and religious groups - argued that NAFTA would launch a race-to-the-bottom in wages, destroy hundreds of thousands of good U.S. jobs, undermine democratic control of domestic policy-making and threaten health, environmental and food safety standards.

[Sara Beverley]

47. Attention!! We also need to think of ways to work out of the sight of

the oppostion. They were very effective in keeping the light off of their massive efforts and worked quietly behind the scences with phone banks, targeted radio, and handed out tons of church information. We need to be thinking of ways to reach their targeted groups.

Another HUGE think we need to market is the information on who in Congress (Dems or Repubs) have done the most for them over the years from social security to the GI bill of rights. Concise simple and truthful statements. You know, once you ask the people whose only source of medical care help is Medicare if they would rather not have Medicare, it makes them think differently.

[pstokely]

48. don't wait unti 2006

let's start planning the steps for 2006

[requiem99]

50. Little kick.