3/4 of Bushies believe in WMD and Saddam - al Qaeda. Let's USE THAT.

[aden_nak]

Look. Kerry and Edwards have clearly obliterated Bush and Cheney on every possible domestic issue, from jobs to the economy to education to the environment. I have yet to meet a SINGLE Bush supporter or "undecided" that doesn't agree with me there. Every last one I talk to concedes willingly that Bush and Cheney have a far worse policy and record in those areas.

And yet they're all still leaning towards Bush. Why? It's the Security, Stupid.

They have these absurd notions that Bush is "tough on terror". Most of the time, that's because they view the War in Iraq as a necessary part of counter-terrorism. We've all been pulling our hair out in frustration over the recent study showing that 75% of the Bushies think Saddam had WMD capacity and believe that he was working with al Qaeda, either before or after 9/11. They are voting for Bush because they think he's done a good job protecting America. That's it. They agree he sucks for everything else, but they think "security" trumps all other issues.

Anyone who saw Ed Koch on The Daily Show knows what I am talking about.

It stands to reason, then, that if Bush's "tough on terror" image were shattered, or even weakened, these people would either switch over to Kerry or not vote at all (on the theory that Bush sucks, but they refuse to vote for a Democrat). I'm personally happy with either outcome.

I think we need to focus our rhetoric and our arguments on the reasons that Bush is not "tough no terror". And I know that's not an easy thing to do. I mean, what can you say to convince a person that Saddam didn't have WMDs if they won't even believe it when it's said on the news every night? How can you make them understand that Hussein and bin Laden were ENEMIES?

Well, one way is the "straight from the horse's mouth" approach. Learn (even memorize) the EXACT statements by the EXACT officials. Know exactly WHEN Rumsfeld admitted there were no al Qaeda ties. Know the very date that Bush admitted they found no WMDs. That's one way to handle it.

Another way (that I have more success with, actually), is to foster distrust. When they make a declarative statement that you know is false, ask them WHY they believe that, or HOW they know. They'll inevitably say that they heard it on TV. Suggest, at that point, that the media cannot be trusted to tell the truth anymore. They'll probably agree to that right away.

Point out that no one has EVER seen a single picture of a single WMD in Iraq. Ask how it's possible that no one has ever seen them. People are far more likely to believe something or realize something if they think they are coming to the conclusion themselves.

If they claim that Hussein was involved in 9/11, ask what role he played. A lot of times, they don't actually have an answer to that. None at all. The just "know" he was involved, but can't even tell you what role he played. I find that pretending to be "educated" by someone who believes this bullshit forces them to really think it trough, and start to have their own doubts.

But it's a topic we have to stay on. Don't jump right into Kerry, since a lot of the real Bush supporters probably hate Kerry for irrational reasons we have neither the time nor the energy to argue. Stay on Bush and stay on Terrorism. Those are topics they are eager to talk about, and the more they try to explain, the more they will realize they don't know what they are talking about.