Does anyone else think the Dems need to attrack the R candidates directly and personally?

[begin_within]

The issues are fine - and mostly on the Dems' side. The issues are winners for the Dems and they need to keep hammering on them, especially the economy. But it's clear now that the Rs are betting the whole election on McCain's biography and Palin's magnetism (remember that magnets can repel as well as attract). Their putting the entire election on character and image. And they're turning what should be a landslide for the Dems into a tight race.

As usual they're trying to make Obama and Biden look bad any way they can. Their usual method is to throw anything they can and see what sticks. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, as long as it sticks. I say the Dems need to fight back on the character issue. They need to show that McCain is senile and out of touch with common Americans and their concerns. How could you possibly be in touch with someone facing foreclosure if you don't even know how many houses you have?

They need to expose Palin for the bat shit crazy religious gun toting extremist that she really is. These things don't have to come from the mouths of Obama and Biden directly, they can be done indirectly like the Rs usually do. Does anyone agree with me on this?

[Marsala]

1. Not unless we need to.

We have the strategic advantage, no need to get dirty. Yet.

[backscatter712]

19. We need to.

The polls are too damned close.

There are far more room-temperature-IQ stupid low-information voters than there are smart, informed voters. That reduces the election to something resembling a cross between a soap-opera and a WWE match. They'll vote for they guy they think is "toughest". It's retarded, but we have to appeal to them, and that means bloodying the Rethugs. I don't care if we have to take some low blows. There's too much at stake. This country can't take another four years of neocons in charge. We have to do anything and everything it takes to win this one.

[snake in the grass]

30. We need to.

Democrats always have the strategic advantage. We have the better arguments. Hell, we have reality on our side. For 30 years now the Republican Party has smeared and lied and destroyed the very meaning of what it once meant to be a U.S. citizen. These pigs need to have their snouts rubbed in the droppings they leave for others to clear up. We MUST hit them hard, hit them repeatedly, hit them below the belt, and continue to do so until there is nothing left. I am not for reaching across the aisle. I am sick of seeing them make a mockery of partisanship. I am sick of even seeing them in the media. These people are thugs, criminals, and they belong behind bars (preferably in Den Haag). The underprivileged suckers who are happy to be poor, losing their homes or their jobs as long as they can keep their guns and the queers don't marry will come along when their lives actually get better. And for those who insist on remaining brain dead, I say, FUCK THEM! This election is too important.

[Marsala]

32. They *are* getting more and more blatant about it, I guess

This flag incident is totally ridiculous. Did they even think that they could get away with it? Palin has lied, what, four or five times about the Bridge to Nowhere? The media is calling them on it to some degree and Obama has escalated the rhetoric to even saying they "make things up" and telling Americans that they think we're stupid.

Would it really work for Obama to go out there and openly denounce them all for the lies, cheating and stealing?

[snake in the grass]

48. The point is...

to embarrass them. Force them into a corner by confronting them with their own lies and hypocrisies and not letting them frame the arguments or change the subject. We need to sink our teeth into them like a...like a pit bull and not let go until they fold. It actually won't take long because they don't have anything to offer but hot air. It's the political version of pulling their pants down in public. They will just run away in shame. And shame is what they must be made to feel.

[BlooInBloo]

2. The DU Handwringing Brigade is against attacking republicans....

The rest of us are fine with it.


EDIT: But they'll still whine about Obama "not taking the gloves off". Go figure.

[Two Americas]

28. why insult people?

FrenchieCat, for instance, is not part of any "handwringing brigade," nor is she or anyone else "against attacking Republicans." You know that. Disagree with people, but why insult them or misrepresent them?

Not all of us think that going after another candidate's personal life is "taking the gloves off." That is a legitimate point of view. It doesn't warrant attacking people here who hold that opinion.

[stolivodka]

29. They aren't a "handwringing brigade"

That is an unfair characterization! Just because they mostly post telling us to leave poor Sarah Palin alone doesn't mean anything.

Also, due to their moral superiority, they can read into your motives, all they want, but read into theirs, and its BAM RULE VIOLATION!!!

For serious, guys! Just because Sarah Palin is running as a pure Christian "Hockey Mom" supporting "family values" and "abstinence-only sex education", don't give YOU OR ANYBODY the right to bring up her questionable morals, her Jerry Springer-reject family, or her unwed pregnant daughter.

There's some moral lines that we shouldn't cross. Just because John McCain might start a nuclear war with Russia and incinerate millions of innocent people doesn't mean that we should get NASTY! Some things are more important than the survival of human life on earth -- things like INTERNET MESSAGEBOARD DIGNITY.

Where are your manners, everybody!? Shape up, or ship out. :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stolivodka]

34. You still here?

Oh yeah, you're the person who makes all those LEAVE SARAH PALIN ALONE posts.

Concern noted and all that.

Oh, wait, sometimes you also flame people who don't agree that everyone should LEAVE SARAH PALIN ALONE.

Hi there. I love you too.

Yep, our poor "bulldog with lipstick" would be lost without her DU knight in shining armor here to keep us all firmly focused on the issues that nobody cares about.

Maybe we should return to the pre-Palin DU where we kept fighting the primaries and spent all day hating on Democrats! After all, hating on Democrats certainly seems to be your specialty!

[Two Americas]

35. check it out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6966255

I think that the Catholic bashing gets more to the heart of what is wrong with the Religious Right and the Palin candidacy than the talk about her pregnancies or unwed daughter or affairs ever will, and it also is much more potent politically.

The Religious Right is a serious threat. We can't take it lightly, nor go into battle poorly informed. Misguided attacks can backfire. When you are being charged by a Rhinoceros careful aim and a steady hand is what are required, not being mad at the beast and calling it names and throwing marshmallows at it.

But you say we need to be tougher and take her down, so I will be interested to see your input about strategies to attack her candidacy on solid and practical political grounds, well informed, with arguments that will persuade people in the general population.

I would give up on trying to knock me off balance or insult me. I have been cursed, spit on, clubbed, tear gassed and jailed because of my politics. I can handle a few Internet insults without getting upset.

[stolivodka]

36. This is a no-go.

She mocked community organizers. Yeah, some Catholics are community organizers, but that unimportant comment in a single speech isn't gonna get God-fearing Catholics to go vote in-mass for a party of fetus-killers. The better strategy is to point out the moral hypocrisies of McCain/Palin and hope that it demoralizes them enough to stay home.

In any case, folks who vote based strictly on religion are a quickly shrinking minority, and are no longer enough to decide elections. Rather than try to accomplish the impossible task of convincing Palin's base to abandon her, we need to point out to normal people just how out of the mainstream her "Religion" is (snakes, speaking in tongues, hating Jews, etc).

It's nice to see you make an intelligent reply to one of my posts. Thank you.

[Two Americas]

37. oh really?

So you think that Catholics are Palin's base?

Now you are saying that by attacking Palin, and religion, we will "demoralize" people and they will stay home?

Really.

You are dismissing the importance of Catholic Services, and insulting Catholics the same way that Palin did. 87 million people there. Did you bother to read the thread? This, unlike some of the other garbage people are posting, has serious political impact.

I have a request to make. Stop "helping" us.

[stolivodka]

40. You asked my opinion.

I gave it. As usual, you threw a temper-tantrum when it didn't jive with your limited little worldview.

Boo hoo hoo. Sorry, I'm all out of tissues.

[tomg]

44. Great points throughout this thread.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about her kids, or her private life except insofar as it impinges on public policy. If she talks about being a hockey mother, nail her on her educational record or her positions on WIC and other programs that benefit women, infants and children. If she holds her son up as serving the country come back with McCain's votes on veterans benefits. If she supports her choice on having a child, nail her on her positions that deny everyone else their. If she brings up her religion and her faith in God - and this, I think pretty serious - talk a close look ( no one is doing this yet) - on her earlier long-time affiliation with what is a fairly millenialist-oriented religion (Assmebly of God until 2002, same year her husband left the AIP) and how her religious beliefs might impact a position on, say blowing the fuck out of Iran or screwing around in Georgia. She upholds life in the wild - awesome, so why the hell is her enviromental legislation garbage.

We don't need to go after the scandal. The sheer disconnect between image and reality will cause heads to explode.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. Sarah Palin would be lost without the left-wingers focussing attention on her.

Palin's personality is by far the strongest part of the Republican ticket. Whatever you think of the ethics of personal attacks, focussing attention on her - by personal attacks or any other method - is lousy tactics.

What the Democrats need to do is to concentrate attention on the issues and on John McCain, and try to keep Palin out of the headlines as much as possible.

Before the selection of the running mates, the Democrats could afford to let the election be about Obama vs McCain rather than Democratic policies vs Republican policies. That won't work now - Sarah Palin represents the same bad old Republican policies in a shiny new package, but that package is shinier, newer and more exciting than any package the Democrats have to offer, and if the election is about her rather than about the issues - which concentrating attacks on her, legitimately or otherwise, will make it - then the Democrats will lose.

Every personal attack on Palin makes the electorate think this election is about Palin the person. And that's the last thing we want.

[BuyingThyme]

3. Batshit extremism isn't necessarily personal.

[tomg]

47. I agree, Unfortunately her

batshit extremism is getting lost in the Dysfunctional Family Circus stuff. There is a huge difference.

[chicagoexpat]

4. It would not only be a sure loser, it would smack of desperation worse than Picking Palin

If for no other reason, you can't force a candidate to do something they don't believe in, and Obama has proven time & time again that he just isn't comfortable doing that.

Get over it, it's not 1936, Obama just won't do it & surrogates doing it would just help the press pull the campaign off message

[amborin]

5. NO and it's folly to do so....it has to be ISSUES

[DailyGrind51]

13. Gee, that's what Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry did!

And they all LOST!

[jobycom]

17. And FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton, too.

And they all WON!

[snake in the grass]

38. Bullshit!

We always run on issues....and lose! This time we have to go for blood.

[Bucky]

6. Personally, no. Highly negative campaigns turn off newly registered voters

It makes more sense to keep bringing in new people and only hammering on the Republicans' lack of a message when they get nasty and ugly.

We should fight tough and hammer on every front that does us good--but personal attacks will not win us any new votes, will cost us some new voters, and will make it harder for Obama to govern once we get to January.

[1corona4u]

7. No.

[1Hippiechick]

8. This has become not only a freakin' American Idol contest! It's a damn Rethug freak show!

The Dems have a HISTORY of LOSING ELECTIONS by TAKING THE HIGH ROAD! I vote for striking back, and hard. Do you honestly think the Rethugs are going to lessen their attacks?

I vote for running repeatedly McInsane's youtube films that show him to be a liar, PARTICULARLY the ones about running a "clean campaign because this is what Americans want."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZf05ijVFtc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rUTXfuz6S0&feature=related


The Republicans have sunk to a new low, IMO.

This has become a freakin' American Idol contest! God, how embarrassing for our country.

And THIS is what other countries see - some democracy! It's a damn freak show!

[amborin]

10. those who've studied the history of prez elections say NO

they say dems lose by losing the folks and the indies...and that we'll lose if we attack Palin personally

they argue is HAS to get back to the ISSUES

remind voters of what really matters

how only Obama will improve their lives in every way

foolish to let this get into a contest about personalities, and dems will not win this way

[snake in the grass]

45. Thank you!

Why is it said that when we do it, we lose votes, but Republicans do it and win? As sad as it is we must do the same. I'm not saying we should spread lies but we sure as hell shouldn't be ashamed to call them on their bullshit directly and mercilessly. Democrats are often perceived as losers because they take the high road or speak a language that your typical Bubba doesn't understand. This election is our last chance and to tell you the truth, by hook or by crook we must win. This attitude will get some people sputtering on their keyboards but I don't care. If McCain wins it won't be morning in America. It will be twilight's last gleaming.

[BlueIdaho]

9. Is calling a liar a liar a direct and personal attack or

just telling the truth?

[amborin]

18. rethugs don't care if one of theirs is lying

they don't care about the truth, or facts

they only care about their agenda

and finding the best person to implement it

[TwilightGardener]

11. I've always said that the way to take out your opponent is to

make them completely and viscerally unacceptable to voters. You must render them unlikable and untrustworthy. Obama and Biden will stick largely to issues and record when they attack, but there's a way to do that while still painting the McLoon/Palin ticket as unacceptable on a gut level. They already are hammering the themes of "Same as Bush", "out of touch", "think you're stupid", "no good ideas", "they got us into this mess", etc. This is all good. What other Dems can do is start raising serious questions about McCain's judgment and decision-making, especially on his VP pick--keep saying "we don't know this person, and she's only a heartbeat away", that the ticket is "risky", that John McLoon did NOT put "country first" by selecting her. They need to organize a strong narrative about McLoser in the last few weeks, one that focuses on the fact that he doesn't have the wisdom, judgment or temperament to be President, and has not used his many years of experience in the Senate to make anyone's lives better. Witchy-poo Palin is doing a good job of making people not like her all by herself, so the Obama campaign will have to play that by ear--but keeping up the "extremist" line that Barbara Boxer started is good.

[Historic NY]

12. SLAM THEM..............hard.

[OneGrassRoot]

14. I think they should. Specifically about extremist religion mixing with...

politics and family values.

The extremist religion part is obvious given Palen.

This is what I sent in response to one of the neverending slanderous emails from right-wing fundies, in which I challenged the new brand of Republican Family Values:

We know Palin threw Bristol under the bus by surprising her with a place on the national stage, with no advance notice (the children were told they were attending a surprise anniversary party for their parents), as she copes with a personal drama. There was no reason to do that to Bristol, not in that way, at that time. As a mother, I can't conceive of putting my child through that. I am certainly not judging Bristol nor her parents with regard to her pregnancy -- I'm not judging it one way or another, as it is a personal family matter. I will suggest that you imagine the response by moral conservatives if this were Chelsea Clinton at 17, even if she planned to marry the father of the baby. Be honest.

Some of us may have forgotten that McCain has thrown his daughter, Bridget, under the Straight Talk Express by pandering to those who were afraid of his "black child" back in 2000. He is courting these same people as his base. He is pandering to them by keeping her as invisible as possible. How often has anyone seen Bridget, the adopted daughter from Bangladesh, for the last eight years? Not much; granted, it's probably for her sanity as much as anything, but still....

What kind of father or mother "makes nice" with the very people who destroyed them back in 2000 (The Bush crowd led by Rove) and, more importantly, ATTACKED THEIR CHILD, all for the sake of politics, and now is seeking support from the people who were frightened or repulsed by this same child in 2000.

That is unforgivable.

To me, John McCain has sold his very soul and I don't want a shell of a person leading this country. There are many things about Palin I disagree with as well, and being a heartbeat away from the presidency, I am not comforted with her being on the ticket. Who he chose for VP was one of the big things I was waiting for, as well as what he said in his speech. I was disappointed in both.

If that is the new brand of Republicans, I no longer identify with that party at all, especially since they are far from conservative (both Bushes were the least fiscally conservative presidents once in office, away from the campaign stump).

For those of you who were turned off by the idea of McCain having a "black child" back in 2000 -- and perhaps still today -- I urge you to be honest about it. Don't disguise your hatred and fear of Obama in all the other BS going around. Aren't you the type of people who have always been proud of "calling a spade a spade," "call 'em like you see 'em" and all that? Hey, I applaud honesty and transparency, and I don't think we'll get far as a country if we keep pussyfooting around what's really going on. Isn't it the "wuss liberals" you have always chastised as being "politically correct"? Why are you being politically correct now? Lots of people who have been honest and even proud of their views about race are suddenly silent. I get all these emails about "I think he's a closet muslim," “he makes me uncomfortable,” “it’s his name.”


HELL YEAH, I THINK THEY NEED TO BE HAMMERED WITH THE TRUTH, AND HARD....OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL THEY CAN'T RECOVER

[catnhatnh]

15. Oddly enough, I am reading a book (fiction) that addresses this...

...And the point is that the attacks are not on "issues" or "personality", it is about what they say about issues and values and what how they ACTUALLY behave in light of their spoken words. The book (Point Deception) posits that the most effective attack is where what they say (abstinence works) is played off against either their behavior OR the outcome (17 year old pregnant and maybe getting married).

Or if you claim to be a reformer (what she said), and what you do (abusing your office to obtain a personnel file and using it for a personal vendetta).

Or where you claim to be a "maverick" and vote with George Bush 95% of the time.

Or claiming to be the "party of change" while claiming also to be aware that your VP pick was the subject of a current ethics investigation and then attempting to stonewall that investigation.

Or claiming "family values" when the ticket head is an adulterer and the National Enquirer (whom you swore was legitimate for the Edwards story) is releasing a story that your VP is also one.

The point is that the two edged attack produces an paradox...the "say and do" cannot both be true and if any pair is confirmed, well then, as Ricky said "Lucy, you got a lot of 'splainin' to do."

And explain it that way-it isn't issues vs personal attacks-the truth is it is what they say and what they do. Whether you realize it or not these are EXACTLY how you analyze all casual (non-personally intimate) human relationships in your life. Unless you live with them, or have extensive history with them, you contrast what they say against what they do and what you can confirm they have done, and then you pass judgment.

This is the ONLY way you can pass judgment and if either half of the information is missing than your "judgment" is only a guess.

We should provide enough information for an informed judgment. To do less would be foolish.

[jobycom]

16. So if we could win by supporting war with Iran, would you do it?

Maybe if we become just like the Republicans, we can win, eh? Since it's all about winning, and no longer about being right.

[TexasObserver]

20. People who refuse to fight back get their asses kicked.

And if Obama fails to do so, he'll get his ass kicked, too.

[JeffR]

21. No quarter, no rules, no exceptions, no hesitation.

Screw the Republicans. They declared this war.

False won't stick, and shouldn't, but anything short of false needs to be thrown at them, now, hard and continuously until November.

[samuraiguppy]

22. we have to fight

with everything we have. yes character is a good way to do it because our guys have great character

[stolivodka]

23. Palin is their weak link

I'm glad to see that we're hitting them where it hurts.

We've already staked our claim of being on top of the issues when the GOP ran an issue-free convention.

[Marsala]

33. Palin could have been incredibly dangerous

if she were honest. But she ain't.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. No, Palin is their strongest advantage.

If this election is fought about Palin as a person, rather than the issues or McCain, then the Democrats don't have a hope in hell.

Their best strategy is to do as much as they can to keep her out of the headlines, and focus on the Republicans' weaknesses - John McCain, and the issues.

[democracy1st]

24. we need to these guys are running all over us

[Two Americas]

25. who cares about the election?

We have waited a long time for an opportunity to throw hatred back at the Republicans, and it feels great to do it. Who cares about the outcome of the election? We have a caribou-hunting fundy nutcase to hate. Hatred is what it is all about, yes? They hated us, now they have it coming.

A question - who created, manages, controls and profits from the culture wars?

Outsmarted again. The Republicans knew that Palin would drive Democrats into a frenzy of irrational hatred and knock us off balance and distract the voters from the failures of the Republican party and the collapsing economy. Don't doubt that they knew that.

Have you seen that cape that bullfighters use? I think it says "Palin" on it. How often does the bull win - no matter how angry it gets?

But hey, that cape represents everything we hate, so paw the ground in fury and charge away with eberything you have. Anyone who doesn't hate that cape, or who tells us we shouldn't charge it, must be on the Matador's side, right?

[stolivodka]

26. ^^^ Productive and morally superior post above ^^^^

How do I make it do that sarcasm icon?

[Two Americas]

27. thank you my friend

:hug:

Come on over here big guy and let me give you a hug. I think we Democrats need to get in touch with our feelings and be more sensitive, don't you?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. No, I think attacking Palin personally would be catastrophic.

Palin's personality is by far the strongest part of the Republican ticket; keeping attention focussed on it is a sure-fire way to lose.

The Democrats need to concentrate on McCain and the issues, and try to keep Palin out of the headlines as much as possible.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

43. I think it's fine if it is based on facts and relates to issues.

Then it can be very powerful.

[RagAss]

46. Day after Day....Hour after Hour....Minute after Minute......

They're not used to it and it will put them in react mode....instead of bullshit spreading mode....