After this election is over, Roveian lessons to be learned...

[SeekingTruth]

We Dems must learn some lessons from this election...

the first lesson is that nothing is off limits - nothing. Nothing is sacred, nothing is out of reach and nothing is off limits.

Next, attack a candidate's strengths. Every time I hear some reporter or pundit talk about Bush's resolve or "knows where he stands" I want to puke. Bush has been sold as a man of integrity, resolve and "knows where he stands". This man is a plain liar, who Dems have been too polite not to call him on. Rove has shown that if you attack and weaken a candidate's strengths in any way you can (see John McCain - fathering black babies, leaving POW's behind, gave wife a STD, et cetera), other things will fall into place. Take Kerry's Vietnam experience - yes, hindsight is 20/20 and maybe he should not have focused on it so much during the Dem Conv, but look at how successful Rove has been at throwing up so much shit about Kerry' Vietnam service, that it really hasn't been the huge asset it could have been. (To be fair to the Kerry campaign - I think that most would have thought Kerry's boatmates, the Navy documentation and holes in the stories of the Swiftboaters would have been enough to keep this story from growing like it did).

Lastly for now, there is nothing more dangerous than cornered, white male conservative politicians. These people will do ANYTHING to succeed, especially in the present times. These people are sensing that their reign is ending and they need to protect it and their future for as long as they can.

[SharonAnn]

1. You're absolutely right! What they say are their strengths can be

looked at carefully and shown that they are really weaknesses.

[WMliberal]

2. there should be a corollary to "nothing is off limits"

call it the mary cheney rule: Make stuff off limits for your opponent. Resort to name calling immediately in this case, especially when it exposes flaws in your own arguments.

[Julien Sorel]

3. The Dems have tried.

Bush being AWOL, Cheney and Halliburton, pointing out Bush's inconsistencies and so on. These attempts haven't really caught on for a few reasons. First, Bush is the incumbent, so people feel they "know" him. He went through the 2000 campaign, and was vetted there. He's been in office four years. Kerry was a relative unknown, which meant there was an opportunity for the Republicans to try to define him.

Second, the Democrats lack a counter to the "echo chamber," the conservative network of cable TV/hate radio that amplifies right wing spin. I stopped watching TV about 12 years ago, and recently began reading transcripts of some of these cable shows. They are simply hideous and overt in their bias, and that comes across loud and clear even without the benefit of vocal tone, inflection, and body language. Democrats lack a counter to the echo chamber, and the "mainstream media" often lack the brains and character to resist joining in on the spin party.

Finally, and this is something unique to this year, I hope, the anger of a segment of Democrats made it difficult on all the candidates. During the primaries, the activists demanded someone who would vomit a split pea soup of rage at Bush, and anyone who didn't was labeled a "pink tu tu Democrat," an "appeaser" and all sorts of nonsense. If you notice Bush's campaign, it's all been about trying to define Kerry's character, to create a negative image of him with the media (as they did so successfully with Gore), whereas the Democratic activists simply wanted to yell at Bush. It was puerile and counterproductive, as trying to frame your opponent takes patience and maneuvering and at least the trappings of tact, but it's kind of hard to scream at someone and be patient and deft at the same time. But the activists wanted their red meat, and to hell with the consequences to the actual job of winning the election. Kerry is still suffering for some of the things he had to do to shut up some of those shit throwing monkeys.


When the Democrats can keep the foolish sectors of the base in check, when the Democrats are able to go about the task of defining the character of their opponent, you might see things turn out a little differently next time around. The media are still a huge problem, and I'm not sure how to deal with that, but a segment of the base of the party has become a problem, rather than the source of power it should be, and those people need to be on board for a thoughtful attempt at running a character smearing campaign to work.

[shraby]

5. It's not about being as down and dirty as

the republicans have been..I'd have reservations myself about a democratic candidate who did that. It's all about the media and the treatment of the campaigns.

If fair and balanced can be brought back and the media conglomerates broken up down and dirty won't be able to do its damage as it did this time.

[Julien Sorel]

6. I'm not sure we have the same definition of

"down and dirty."


It is not in the country's best interests to manipulate the media the way the Republicans did during the 1999-2000 campaign or this one. But it works; moreover, to judge from the numbers of media people who were congratulating Bush/Cheney for the "audacity" of their rank dishonesty, the media actually like it and approve of it. If the Democrats are going to compete, the Democrats have to be able to bend the media using whatever means necessary -- it's that simple, until the media themselves get sick of being used like cheap whores and start standing up for themselves.

[bklyncowgirl]

15. I take exception to the use of the words "shit throwing monkeys" ...

to describe Democrats, myself included, who wanted to party to stand up to Bush and his cronies and not cower in fear. It quite frankly ruins for me what was otherwise an excellent analysis.

Are you suggesting that we should have just sat by and watch disaester after disaester unfold and not challenge Bush on the Iraq war? Or that the primary candidates who took a strong line against the misadministration--made a mistake by failing to defend or ignore the indefensible?

Had we done it the way that you would appear to like to have happened, our candidate (Joe Lieberman?) would have been 20 points down in the polls and we would be moaning and groaning about how our party has no guts and a whole hell of alot of us would be planning to cast votes for Ralph Nader.

Aside from this little bit of puke spewing you laid out some solid issues that the Democrats need to attend to.

Just lay off the name calling.

[Lexingtonian]

4. no, no, no

Show me where Rove ever won a campaign in a post-1994 Democratic district or state.

Karl Rove's "genius" is only that he knows the biases and hypocrisies of the resentful and uneducated and hopeless in places and subsocieties that are conservative white Americans and culturally similar people, e.g. immigree Cubans (who were the almost-white, conservative, colonial, overclass in Cuba). He's basically been able to increase their turnout and prove to them that the Republican Party is their kind of people better than any other Republican consultant. When he runs short on them he's as good as the next guy- 'get your bags, these people have too much of a clue to vote our way, we've got to move deeper into the sticks'.

The story about SBVfT is that the young men of that generation are now the old men of this one- and they're from an America that was far more white (80-85%) than it is now (65%) and far more full of the Messianism of their settler forebearers that made the massacre of Natives (whether in North America or Vietnam) a very tolerable state of affairs. Rmember that that group of people, particularly John O'Neill, doesn't think Americans committed crimes in Vietnam. The logic they dare not speak out loud? They were White Americans, aka The Chosen People That Only Kills Evil Beings. White Americans are Innocent before God by default.

What Rove does is keep an Old Establishment- elderly, white, male, mostly British descent- pigging out at the trough of the national wealth. The methods- people fight far more viciously for privileges they aren't worthy of than for rights or for dignity. Vanity demands an absolute defense and never has a rationale itself worth defending.

[secular_warrior]

16. You've nailed it - about Rove, the GOP and SBVfT

Some folks on the left think it's all about economics, that the corporations are controlling us to hate each other, that hate is some byproduct of corporatism.

I disagree. Hate is the seed of all right wing ideology, including corporatism, racism, nationalism, fundamentalism, imperialism, etc. It is impossible to separate one from the other. They are all based upon "superiority complex", i.e. hatred of anything different.

People like Rove play off of hate more than they create it. Rove is more of a harvester than a planter. He sees what is going on and is tapping into it. The Old Establishment is in full blown reaction mode, and will do anything to protect the American WASP hegemony. The rural poor white folk aren't voting against their interests when they vote Republican. They aren't duped, as so many on the left like to think. The white corporate establishment are their brothers in arms in a much larger struggle. The poor white folk are willing to sacrafice their economic well being and even their lives to the cause.

[Still_Notafraid]

7. I agree

in fighting by attacking the strengths of your opponent,but i disagree with mudslinging if its not true,mudslinging does nothing but turn people off to politics,these people say things like both candidates lie all politicians are crooked and its just not the case.

the sad thing is thats what the republican mission is,they want a voting public that is full of apathy that is how they get in office again and again.they fool people into thinking that all politicians are crooks.

If we all practiced eye for an eye we would all be blind-I do not recall who said this but it rings true.

[KharmaTrain]

8. It's Gonna Be Harder Not Easier If We Win

Hopefully this election has exhausted the punditry enough that we get a couple weeks of quiet...and maybe a little longer as they form a circular firing squad and thin out their herd, but they will be back and determined to make a Kerry administration look bad and hamstring it as much as possible. This will especially be the case if the GOOP retains the House.

Their reign isn't ending, just their direct access to the levers of power are, they will find stealth ways to either maintain it or prevent Kerry and others from using it.

Also, who knows what mess we'll find. Just because Kerry wins doesn't mean the economy turns around or oil prices drop...and there'll be a lot of people in our own tent who will feel they deserve to be heard or worked harder or have suffered more and the tollerance and harmony we enjoy now will not last. This will be picked up and exploited.

But this is a price well worth paying considering the alternative. Let these attempts to supress the vote and depress your spirits do the opposite. Work harder. We have the votes we need, just focus on getting them to the polls and we can look at ousting this regime.

[SeekingTruth]

9. Clarifications....

I'm not saying we need to become lying, craven and disreputable people, but to pick out tactics that the other side uses successfully and utilize them as well. We can keep our honor and dignity and still learn to fight tougher and better.

I don't think there are many people who are not surprised at how Rove and Co have hobbled Kerry's Vietnam history, especially when contrasted to Bush's own history. Let's be honest - we are all bewildered about how anyone can put the two records of each man side by side and not think Bush is a coward. But for several reasons, Bush is seen at "tough, resolute, honorable" and other things. Certainly a large portion of this is party affiliation but there is another part out there that does not explain this.

Another area is that of the use of the various mediums in political discourse. I'm sorry to say this, but the visual news medium is only going to grow and we Dems must figure out how to use it better to advance our causes. We must accept that liberals and conservatives process information differently and it appears America is trending toward a shorter and shorter attention span when it comes to news and information. We must start crafting our message differently to get our ideas out there as much as possible.

One last observation is how well the Repugs stay on message. Every time I turn on the news, regardless of what repug/conservative is on, you can almost repeat the Repug company line.

[jacksonian]

10. sometimes fighting fire with fire is the only strategy people can jump on

but water can work too. Not so sure Rove is going to come out of all this smelling so nice - somebody's going to have to take a fall. Going negative is an art; and art can spawn some very repugnant excesses.

I don't think Kerry overstressed his Vietnam heroism in the convention. The Swift Boat Liars were coming anyway, if anything Rove has given Kerry an excuse to talk about his service more. The SBL won't have a direct impact on this election - yea, I know about the poll numbers and all, but there was going to be a reassessing of the public who still knew very little about him as a national figure. If not SBL, then something else would be wrong with Kerry, the lack of drama in the primaries left him little more than a name and face to most people in the US. Actually I have to say I'm kind of glad this is what the Bushies focused on.

Into this breech went the Bush campaign. "I'll have people thinking Kerry was a Vietcong!" claims Rove. Why did the Swift Boat guys get traction? Because people trusted Bush insofar as they expected his campaign to be concise and authoritative, and the Bush hand was obviously behind this. Good old tricky Karl. But you yourself mention the flaw in the argument like everyone who has looked at the issue - it's very obviously a lie, Kerry is very definitely a good guy and who he says he is. And, the truth is, Bush lies.

I think that's when it spun out of control for them. This issue is no longer a Rovian dynamic, and that's what happens when you go too negative. Bush lost credibility by doing this, he may have smirked and played coy as the stuff was breaking, but Vietnam/Kerry's record is no longer an issue the majority are going to take with them to voting booth. And sofar I have seen they have no fallback position. They fumbled their own forward pass by going too far, along with a bad debates it's why a slam dunk re-election is now a president hanging on by the skin of his teeth (at best - I think Kerry's already won).

[RafterMan]

11. "Next, attack a candidate's strengths"

I think that's the key point -- the Dems just let that "decisive leader" thing ride and ride, and they're paying for it.

"Nothing is off limits": eh. TANG was a bit of a backfire. Tread carefully.

"...white male conservative politicians..." Disagree. If you choose to fight a stereotype, fight them with other people's stereotypes (not your own) and make sure that caricature is unpopular enough to beat. Otherwise, you're just letting you own biases cloud your vision.

[ClassWarrior]

12. Some Lakoffian lessons, too.

And George Lakoff is actually a professor. Of linguistics in Berkley. If you want to start to make a FUNDAMENTAL change in the dynamic of American politics, start with Lakoff's latest book, "Don't Think of an Elephant." Short, easy to read, devastating.

24.

[Cats Against Frist]

13. Oh, you forgot their two favorites

1. The false dilemma -- if Kerry speaks about your openly gay daughter, he's a "bad man," -- nothing else. You are either with us, or against us -- no inbetween. Since Kerry testified against Vietnam, he is a traitor -- there is no defense. Our enemies are an "axis of evil," -- simple as that. If you criticize the war, you are demoralizing and disrespecting the troops -- there is no other possibility.

2. The ad hominem attack that attacks neither the speaker, and especially not the message, but the vehicle, timing or delivery of the message. Al Gore gives a passionate speech -- "he's wild-eyed." Howard Dean whoops into a microphone -- "he's unhinged." If the Democrats say anything slightly political about a tragic event, they are "disrespectful, o god, how dare them." (But 9-11, The Reagan Funeral, and the beheading of Nick Berg, should be exploited out the ass.) If anyone speaks against the president or the Iraq invasion -- "how dare you when our country is at war."

These, my friends, are their two most very favorite tricks. There's no way that these things can be called lies or falsities, necessarily, without going into a very detailed analysis. It's like arguing with a really dumb person, who never gets it, or never responds to any logical reasoning. There are more -- they use logicall fallacies out the wazoo. Their entire social platform rests not on individual rights or liberty but the "argumentum ad populum," fallacy, which means that something must be true, because lots of people believe it's true. The question of "what are inalienable rights?" should be answered by the whim of a zealous majority, independent of reason, discussion, ethics or analysis.

I can't decide if they're dumb enough to not realize it, or if they're actually plotting, though. You'd think since, at least in the art world, that Conservatives are always pimping "the classics," that some of them, somewhere, might have a grasp on the study of logic. Of course, that does not prove that they do...:)

[liberal N proud]

14. The lesson here is that the Media is "NOT" Liberal and if anything

they are biased in favor of the Neo-Conservatives.
It is going to be difficult to beat anybody who has the media behind them the way this regime has.
What need to be learned is how to overcome that hurdle

[popstalin]

18. And that is because of Govt. Deregulation by who?

The Repugs. They have stacked the deck against the American people in so many ways, it could take years to get out from under it. I don't see how anyone can believe this administration has the best interest for the US at heart. It really does amaze me.

[mumon]

17. A fair and balanced reply...

Take Kerry's Vietnam experience - yes, hindsight is 20/20 and maybe he should not have focused on it so much during the Dem Conv, but look at how successful Rove has been at throwing up so much shit about Kerry' Vietnam service, that it really hasn't been the huge asset it could have been.

Kerry had to focus on this because he wanted to higlight his real war time record against Bush's concocted "TANG service."

This WAS going after Bush's perceived "strength," and it was brilliant, IMO.

Kerry should have gone out swinging against the liars earlier (and he should have let Moveon.org keep running their ad), but all in all, doing the Vietnam thing was a net plus for the campaign, though he should have also found a way to reduce BCCI to a sound-byte.

I think Kerry's doing a fine job- my only advice to their campaign at this point is to hammer home the utter lack of credibility that Bush's cronies have about anything.

[sherilocks]

19. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine

There is much truth in what all of you are saying. But I would like to point out that the print media (just look at the endorsements this year) is generally fair. It is the broadcast media that is killing us. It amazess me that Kerry is doing as well as he is when the deck is so obviously stacked against him. They just don't give Kerry a break.

After the election is over, regardless of who wins, it is time to start a campaign to get the Fairness Doctrine back. I'm talking big time. Marches, letters, boycotts, whatever. I am disgusted by what I hear 24/7 on the radio and TV. Talking heads can say whatever they please with no accountability whatsoever. They lie, lie, lie all day long. Faced with the prospect of giving free air time for rebuttals, and the economic burden this entails, the broadcast media will opt to be very cautious.

[SeekingTruth]

21. Completely agree with you....

This is something we need to get done when this election is over. I think it is utter bullshit that the FCC gets all hot and bothered over the bearing of a breast and then has nothing to say at all about all the portrayed murders on network television or programs or commericals that are completely false.

[farmbo]

20. Leaking the "fake" TANG documents was brilliant...

...and will go down in history as one of Rove's greatest ploys.

As a result, the whole issue of Bush's failure to serve was taken off limits by the media and CBS' credibility received a serious if not mortal wound in the process.