2008 : How do the Repubs personally attack Dem candidate ?

[kentuck]

And what will the Dem candidate do different? And of course, they will personally attack their opponent, because that is all they know. And they will once again be successful if the Democrats cannot control the agenda and the debate. I thought we would be ready this time but we were unprepared and outsmarted by those "stupid" conservatives. Does anyone see a different strategy in 2008? Or will the Democrats fall into the same trap once again?

[jasmeel]

1. Criticisms for Gore and Kerry were mostly the same---

stiff, impersonal, not in touch with the common man. The media went along with it. Maybe 4 yrs from now less people will be watching corporate media. Otherwise I don't see a change. Or we could get shows like Air America onto cable news (like Imus). HOw would we do that?

[BlueManDude]

2. Clinton, Gore, Kerry - all flip floppers n/t

[kentuck]

3. And as long as they are permitted to get away with it....

they will continue to "win"... What should be the Democrats response??

[Leilani]

4. Won't keep you safe!

Gets the Dems every time.

Since 1972, they have used this over & over.

Carter won because of Watergate fallout, & he was an Annapolis grad.

Clinton won because the Cold War was over, & the economy stunk. Also, people needed a change after 12 yrs of Reagan/Bush.

The War on Terror ain't gonna be over, if the Repubs have anything to say, & they control everything now.

AND, get a candidate people can LIKE, & relate to.

[kentuck]

5. Bingo !

Until the Democrats can find a way to counter these types of "personal" attacks, they are simply pissing into the wind. And they are personal attacks, however harmless or subtle they may seem at first. "Flip-flopper" doesn't sound that bad but the connotations are devastating. If we don't find a way to counter these types of attacks, we may as well not even go to the dance.

[quaker bill]

6. It is simple really

First you get a strong candidate. By strong candidate, I do not mean a sum of the resume and the policy flavor of the month. I mean someone who can actually speak powerfully and concisely in plain english. Someone who has presence and can turn a phrase. The image we need to convey is someone who speaks from the heart.

Think both Carter and Clinton. Carter clearly spoke to his faith using clear and understandable language. You knew that what he was saying came from the heart of his convictions. Clinton had no fear of speaking his mind and has the essential gift of presence. Agree with him or not, you knew he was engaged and speaking from his convictions.

Then when they attack, you amp the rhetoric. Why does my opponent choose to waste your time with this, when there are so many more important things to discuss? They have failed to - - (insert compelling example here). In short you counter attack and you do it more sharply.

Someone with less presence and gift for oratory would have been blown out of the water by the Jennifer Flowers tale. Think Gary Hart. Clinton was more popular after the impeachment than he was before it. Of course the economy was good and the repugs over reached, but someone without Clinton's gifts would have been out of there regardless.

Think less about the resume and more about the skills.

[dogman]

7. He/She loves gays more than God and wants to leave you defenseless with

no gun. Beyond that will depend on the individual.

[sonicx]

8. "flip flop"

they always use it. Gore got hit with 'elitist' and 'stiff' too.

[mtnsnake]

9. We can't wait until 2008, we need to attack them now

by going after their party, not just individuals. Our Democrat leaders need to start broadcasting to the media our accusations that the repuke party stands for things like bigotry. It'll put them on the defensive, and that can lead to division within their party, weakening them.

Why wait til spring, do it now.

[jlee1933]

10. Iraq Flip Flopping

Does anyopne know of a former or future candidate that voted against occupying Iraq but then voted for the 87 billion?

[emdee]

11. They attack a person's strong points....

Such as Kerry's military and medals. That's untouchable - or should be. Yet, their cronies shed shadows over it - questioning and bringing up doubt about a very strong positive point --- a point in complete contrast to Bush's past.

Conservatives wouldn't even compare Bush's service record (or lack thereof) with Kerry's because "Bush didn't make his record part of his campaign - Kerry did." Stupid, I know, but that was their answer -and it worked. While refusing to answer about Bush's service, they hammered on Kerry's and the size of his wounds.

They also have others to do their dirty work - they send out fliers with claims so untrue they are laughable (they'll "ban the Bible" and "love gay marriage" and "glorify abortion") -- all lies, but believed by "the base". The stupid base who doesn't care about truth but only what Rush Limbaugh feeds them.

They take talking points out of speeches made - pulling out two or three words to focus on and then change the meaning of them. ("First I voted for it, then against it" for example and "Global Test") When Kerry mentioned Global Test he explained it very well and it made perfect sense. But every conservative I know said "He'll have to have permission from other countries to do anything" which was totally wrong - where did they get it? The pundits.

We have to attack the pundits - right now --- RIGHT NOW, there should be no Rush Limbaugh (a Dem druggie would be out of the picture right now) --- there should be no Bill O'Reilly (a Dem pervert would be out of the picture right now) -- there should be no Sean Hannity (a Dem scum-bucket liar would have long been exposed and made to leave the air). Why don't WE pressure them into apologizing and admitting their faults?

During the next four years if these pundits and liars aren't put in their place (which is on the couch watching reruns and eatin' Cheetos while collecting unemployment) we're out of the race again ---- all based on lies.

emdee :argh:

[Frumious B]

12. Turn the attacks around...

This is advice from someone who voted for Bush in 2000, but voted for Kerry in 2004 so take it as you will:

For the past twenty-five years the Republicans have done an increasingly effective job of portraying the Democratic Party as the party of the urban intellectual elite who are hopelessly nutty and increasingly out of touch with mainstream America. Think about Ronald Reagan's line: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me." It's time to turn that same strategy around and use it against them.

The trick is to portray the Republicans as elites who recklessly persue an extremist ideology that they value far more than the people that they are supposed to be serving. The Democrats, frankly, needn't budge on a single issue. Throw all that left, right, center shifting nonsense out the window. They simply need to frame their stances as practical, common sense, real world solutions that put people first, second and third.

In 2008 the Democrats will likely to be able to point to six years of Republican kung fu deathgrip on the federal government with little accomplished of benefit to regular people as irrefutable evidence of Republican hubris, corruption and ideological rigidity. The Dems should be able to pick off the moderates and independents quite easily just by being the "common sense" party. The key is simply to run a candidate with a strong human touch who can take an issue and connect it to a person's real life.

[kentuck]

13. Good advice, Frumious B..

We need to stop with the little jabs, we need to deliver the knockout punch...and repeat it over and over every time they try to change the subject. It doesn't have to be a complicated strategy. In fact, it is quite simple.