Any strategy devised around the fundamental decency of the American people is doomed to fail.

yes embracing "values" is useless. They have their values, they don't need ours. We have to tell the truth and become more liberal, more leftist. We have to give real alternatives and a better life not better values.

As larre's post below indicates the real problem isn't Bush, it isn't the media it's the people and their "collective insanity". The woman is larre's post knew that the policies of Bush were not in her best intetersts but voting for Bush was the "Godly" thing to do. How do you combat that? You can't. Here in the US we are entering a Dark Age. The earth is once again flat and the Grand Canyon was formed by the great flood. The reality based community is in the minority. You can't fight that.

Post-election posting: the "tramoya' of the election Posted: 03-Nov-2004 23:06 Reply

In contrast to all the pollyanna rhetoric from many sources about how strong a position the Democrats were in, I have been noting for months that despite Bush's unpopularity, and substantial majorities feeling that the country was moving "in the wrong direction" the tramoya ('jury rigging of the election') pointed clearly to an agenda of a Bush win. This was boosted by a mini-October suprise of the release of a bin Laden tape that was in all PROBABILITY INTENDED to boost the Bush polity, as it has been so BENEFICIAL to terror-jihadism and they know it.

But, as I've pointed out, the key is, to quote Robert LaFollette, as cited in Walter Karp's classic study of US national party politics "Indispensable Enemies" that "Machine politics is always bipartisan". What Karp leaves out it the extent to which the mass media, including mainstream and supposedly progressive pundits and sources, down to the astroturf roots, are governed by a logic of "justifying the lying". And such a system functions EXACTLY as this one has been doing.

I have noted at length how the flimsy flipflop spin that was the central theme of the Bush campaign for SIX MONTHS went virtually unchallenged until after the Republican Convention. When, eg Jonathan Chait in the New Republic exposes how full of it the whole template was in "The Invention of Flipflop" (New Republic Oct 18 issue cover story) he obligatorily had to (flimsily, but when you're justifying the lying ANY old crap will do) give some kind of argument as to why the press had ignored this spin for over 5 months. Then, as the flipflop spin, long solidified into a national cliche, reached the point of diminishing returns in the debates -- despite its obvious centrality to voters, with half-hearted but still convincing refutation partly offered by Kerry when forced to respond to a citizens' question regarding THE MAIN reason her friends weren't voting for him.

Then, along comes the Matt Bai article in the Sept 10 issue of The New York Times Magazine. I have talked also about that and its progeny, including from Dick Clarke, in a tsunami of daily columns across America echoing what became the central theme of the Bush campaign. Kerry failed to do what I said was necessary, namely to clearly challenge the article itself and NOT merely the Bush camp, noting eg his proposal to massively ENLARGE the special forces to militarily FOCUS on Al Qaeda MUCH MORE than Bush has been doing. (A position I support, despite being against imperialist militarism generally). This crystal clear line of response, as on flipflop, was another hound that didn't bark in BOTH the Kerry camp AND the mainstream and progressive press. When everyone is busy justifying the lying, and then inevitably ignoring if possible, pooh-poohing and explaining away the phenomenon of the justifying of the lying if necessary (as with Chait), the results are what has happened. This happened also in 1988, when Dukakis was running 8 points ahead in the polls at the time of the Democratic convention, as the Republican Party in general (after Contragate) and Bush in particular were NOT popular. The Village Voice ran a classic cover with Dukakis' picture entitled "Will He Blow It" which indeed he did.

The real coup de grace came with the bin Laden tape. The public, or almost all those who are not already committed partisans, are guided heavily by the discussion that takes place in the media, which is what the justifying of the lying is FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE -- and of course, the concomitant denial of any such thing as systematic 'justifying of the lying' as paranoid, cynical, etc. These dismissals are nothing more than "cultural defense mechanisms" by which a system brushes away truth the way a person in denial does so. Naturally, anyone who points out that this is the case in such a system is treated as the one in denial; such is the way the tramoya of the mass media and political machine politics is maintained.

With the Osama tape, note that here the Kerry campaign themselves COULDN'T even reasonably raise the question of whether bin Laden SOUGHT to boost Bush. It is a debatable point as his intentions are not necessarily as easy to reason out as in the cases of how the flipflop spin and the Matt Bai spin were handled and used; the INTENT described nevertheless seems likely. In the mainstream media, suggestions that bin Laden was pro-Kerry were legion, both insinuations and direct claims, even before the tape. Krauthammer in the Washington Post insisted weeks before the tape that Osama wants Bush defeated; no one stigmatizes such things as "paranoid" or somehow at the margins of reason, even though completely speculation with ZERO evidence. The Bush campaign suggested the same throughout. With the tape, Safire insisted that such was the case, and there was a flap with FOX news doing the same. They were hardly alone. Yet a column on the oped page of the NY Times emerging the day BEFORE the tape was released described the elation on jihadist websites over Bush's going into Iraq, and sotto voce, Maureen Dowd cautiously notes in passing that "some intelligence experts suggest" an Al Qaeda preference for Bush due to his belligerence. What about Bush's MISPLACED belligerence, and his letting Al Qaeda and bin Laden sit pretty, a policy Kerry has challenged. Bin Laden is certainly quite well aware of that issue, including Michael Moore's film, and Al Qaeda's sophisticated understanding of US society suffused the 9-11 plot. But some ideas, even with powerful evidence, are simply NOT seriously expressed in the mainstream or even progressive media (eg, an Al Qaeda preference for Bush) and some have free rein, with liberals "courageously" saying 'a plague on both your houses' condemning even handedly a pure lie/spin on one hand and probable or, on the other matters, simple fact truth on the other. The main point is to shut down unruly voices but not expose that such content unruliness is the reason (which is illegitimate, but like the SwiftBoatVeteransForSlime lies essentially in defense of military "honor", felt legitimate, a sense of legitimacy magnified into deification by the possession of power).

Incidentally, when Bush Sr AND Dole parroted a similar line on the SwiftBoatVeteransForSlime smear (the 'where there's smoke there must be fire' spin) obviously reflecting a coordinated Republican Party strategy, with vets of high status promoting the substance of the smear while the chicken hawks on the ticket stayed 'above the fray' on the substance, this political issue was UNBELIEVABLY vulnerable to political attack with effective ads. The wolf pack ads were also vulnerable to effective counterrattack in well constructed counter ads:they could eg have had one with Kerry speaking directly into the camera pledging never to try to exploit your fears in that way, as I suggested on another website.
But seeing many of the ads played on Cspan, I was surprised how weak the Democrats were with the material they had (never using the Clarke clips from Fahrenheit 9-11 eg). The excellent analysis of the weakness of the Democrats logo in the NY Times Oct 9 (the day before Bai) by graphic designer Dadich was similarly revealing.

Overall, when Dean was running as a consistently antiwar moderate, he was sniped at including by ostensible progressives, for silly issues like the confederate flag and a moderate red meat speech ("the scream"). Kerry was put forward on the overriding grounds that he could beat Bush, and then he 'reported for duty'. The agenda was not to have a clear antiwar Democratic Party nominee, and then to see to it that the unpopular Bush Administration would win to provide a (tramoya based) "mandate" for the invasion of and occupation of Iraq.

As long as the press remains in thrall to its culture cops, and progressives in the media draw in their horns for fear that what happened to Dean might happen to them (Dean has shown himself unable to punch the proverbial shark of such dynamics in the nose, as is needed), the polity will remain the pile that it is. And imperialist politics is entrenching itself, possibly irrevocably, in the meantime, while many who merely purport to oppose such machine politics, but are in fact among its crucial toadies and culture cops and such, prevent authentic progressive expression from the place it could earn in the so-called "marketplace of ideas". It is true that there are LOTS of conservatives out there, but this election was not the 1984 election, or even the 1980 election. The 'rightwing mandate' was brought about by the manipulations accurately outlined above, and of course, throughout the media, the hounds that don't bark in the first place is inevitably supplemented by hounds that don't bark concerning the reasons WHY the hounds that didn't bark in the first place.
There is also the issue of the systematic gap between exit polls and the election counts, the only evidence we would have of ballot-box shenanigans. Dick Morris, true to form, accuses the many pollsters of sleaze, a classic example of that staple of our cultural apparatus: s***ting down the blame, on to the victims and exposers of wrongdoing. But courage starts with the electoral process and with those things that aren't even occurring behind closed doors, but which, like the emporer's clothes, are insistently and, as a matter of "principle" ignored and denied.

I laugh, because you all think that the right wing is insane, and we think the same thing. Isn't democracy grand?

I seem to recall that the DLC strategy won the Presidency for two terms and that Democratic presence in the House and Senate looked a heck of a lot better than then, at least until the Gingrich bloodbath of 1994, than it does now.

Here's the cold hard truth of electoral calculus and last night's map shows it: the Dems have got to be able to appeal to, and capture the vote of, the 50-percent-plus-a-few-thousand voter in moderate states like Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Missouri, and Iowa. They have *got* to come up with a candidate that can plausibly take Ohio or Florida or both. You don't do that with a candidate who rouses all of us who live on the West Coast or the Northeast to a fever pitch.

Kerry was a reasonably good candidate who ran a sucky campaign: he tried to accomplish too little at his convention (establish defense & security credentials) and for two critical weeks did not respond to the Swift Boat ads, letting Bush define him instead of defining himself.

Look at the numbers carefully: we lost several million voters who were more inclined in our direction on social and economic issues but fell for Bush's b.s. about security and the war on terror. These voters were open to Kerry but because of Bush's b.s. he never closed the sale; this is why you have a president with an approval rate of less than 50 percent being re-elected.

All that said, if Hillary wants the nomination in 2008, it's hers...she's the 1200-pound canary and there isn't anyone who can stop her.

Follow-up to RIP above: the Democrats can win without the Bible-thumping anti-Choice homophobes.
It's the middle class voters who vote their fears on security when they are more with us on economic and most social issues, gay marriage aside, that are the ones that we can peel off and leave the Intolerants pounding sand.

Face it, the turnout was so high that every committed Progressive voted; Nader was reduced to a footnote and still it wasn't enough.

Nicholas Kristof is quite right in pointing out that the Republicans succeeded in persuading large numbers of Average Americans to vote against their own best interests. I do not believe, however, that the Democrats lost the election because John Kerry failed to communicate the fact that he embraces religious values that are important to most Americans. I would argue that they lost because they simply do not understand how Republican strategists use religious issues---and every other sort of issue---to win the only campaign that matters: the Image Campaign.

Republican strategists pulled off yet another big victory because they understand something that their Democratic counterparts do not: the state of mind of The Swing Voter. The typical Swing Voter knows that he does not understand the subtle details of the issues well enough to make a wise decision, so he relies on his “impressions” of the candidates. Is this candidate someone I can trust to rule over me? Understanding this, the Republicans focus all of their efforts on defining Democrats in the minds of the Swing Voter in a negative, vaguely threatening way. They do this by relying primarily on negative campaigning.

Republicans know that accusations and insinuations are persuasive to Swing Voters primarily because they are typically headline-readers and sound-byte-nibblers who do not seek out in-depth explanations of complex issues. If the media reports that a Republican has accused a Democrat of having a character flaw, the average Swing Voter will tend to believe it unless it is successfully answered. These attacks not only create a negative image of their opponents; they also implicitly suggest that Republicans are devoid of the character flaws they are attacking. It enables them to indirectly claim that they are noble & virtuous before the electorate.

Republicans understand precisely what they are doing when they speak disparagingly of “those Democrats.” It’s a variation of the “us vs. them” social comparisons that are so common among high school students. Throughout October, Swing Voters constantly saw video clips of George Bush standing in front of his adoring supporters, ridiculing John Kerry with his smirky smile. People do not tend---on a natural level---to want to be associated with those who are being ridiculed.

Average Americans who put Republican candidates into office with their votes do so because they are identifying with those whom they intuitively perceive to be social “winners.” They don’t understand all of the nuances of the issues, but they do have this impression that there is something “defective” with The Democrats. Once they’ve become invested in their identity with the Republican Party, they instinctively defend Republican policies even when those policies are likely to harm them. In order for the Democratic Party to win these Average Americans back, they must begin to fight fire with fire.

If they want to again become the majority party, Democrats need to define The Republican Politician as a DECEIVING, MANIPULATIVE, SCHEMING, MEAN-SPIRITED, CON-ARTIST who willfully and gleefully assassinates the character of any innocent victim that stands in the way of his rabid lust for power. They need to create an image of The Republican Politician in the minds of the Average American that is instinctively feared. In defining The Republican Politician as essentially manipulative, Democrats will also indirectly be defining themselves as The Protectors of the Average American.

Democrats tend not to want to participate in “character attacks” because they maintain an idealistic hope that a respectful debate of the issues of the day is possible in a civilized society, but they really have no choice. The Republicans have no such inhibitions re: the use of scorched earth tactics and character assassination. Every attack and accusation made by the Republicans must be used to define them as smiling, disingenuous weasels. In doing so, they must express both derision and wisdom and show an eagerness to explain what the Republicans are up to. They need to take the time to point out and explain in television commercials the misrepresentations, the deceptions, the intent, and the strategy of the Republican attacks.

It will also be important for Democrats to spend more and more time ridiculing the stupidity of Republican policies and---implicitly---those who embrace/defend them. This is necessary in order to socially isolate those who belong to the Republican Party (or to at least counteract the social pressure on Swing Voters that is created when Republicans ridicule Democrats). If the Democrats fail to do this, the Average American will not even listen to what they have to say re: “the issues.” If their image of Democrats is sufficiently negative, they won’t want to be persuaded because they’d want to protect an identity that had become very important to them.

James J. Kroeger
www.taxwisdom.org

The only thing that pull the bushbots out of their fantasy world is economic collapse. They don't care about Iraq because it's not their kid getting killed.

Anyhow, Kerry won both the left and center in the election campaign. We have a good base on which to build. It's not going to happen overnight.

Funny thing, for the first time in Jr.'s life he actually will be held accountable for his mistakes.

Repugs will never, ever say they made a mistake or did something wrong. It pops their "god directed" bubble. They will never play by the rules. They will hide behind religion whenever possible, while taking the most un-religious path. There is a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", plain and simple. It controls the message through a Media they Own. They tell "the Big Lie".
I thought of tossing in the towel today, then I remembered something:
I remember looking at the Dem convention on tv last summer and thinking "those are the people of America, those are the people I align with; all colors and ways of life." Then in August I watched a starchy all-white GOP robot-walk their hate-filled way through their convention and thought "man, I ain't part of that mess".
I still ain't. And I ain't gonna be. They can stuff their "values".

Repugs will never, ever say they made a mistake or did something wrong. It pops their "god directed" bubble. They will never play by the rules. They will hide behind religion whenever possible, while taking the most un-religious path. There is a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", plain and simple. It controls the message through a Media they Own. They tell "the Big Lie".
I thought of tossing in the towel today, then I remembered something:
I remember looking at the Dem convention on tv last summer and thinking "those are the people of America, those are the people I align with; all colors and ways of life." Then in August I watched a starchy all-white GOP robot-walk their hate-filled way through their convention and thought "man, I ain't part of that mess".
I still ain't. And I ain't gonna be. They can stuff their "values".

sorry about the double post...but maybe it needed to be said twice.

I agree quite adamantly with Kroeger (above). Unless we are ready to accept that the Democratic Party is simply the minority party (which is not out of the question if the culture doesnt fit our values) we have to change from the party of intellectuals to the party of image. I for one believe this election marks a sea change in the American culture, an anti intellectualism that has historical precedence in many declining civilizations. What we have seen is the beginning of a slow rejection of thoughtfulness and intellect for bravado and homespun salesmanship.

In other words the Democratic Party can win elections only if it abandons its values of substance over style. We are no longer a nation of serious thinkers we are a nation of reality show addicts and politics as theater. Our high-minded ideals simply do not apply any longer. America just voted against health care for all, against corporate tax reform, against diplomacy and voted for anti gay hypocrisy for corporate handouts and for outsourcing because they see only the style of the candidate and can process very little else. It's not an America I am proud of but this sort of culture change has been coming a long time. If we want to take back the government we will have to be the party of style and forget issue related politics on the campaign trail.

I agree quite adamantly with Kroeger (above). Unless we are ready to accept that the Democratic Party is simply the minority party (which is not out of the question if the culture doesnt fit our values) we have to change from the party of intellectuals to the party of image. I for one believe this election marks a sea change in the American culture, an anti intellectualism that has historical precedence in many declining civilizations. What we have seen is the beginning of a slow rejection of thoughtfulness and intellect for bravado and homespun salesmanship.

In other words the Democratic Party can win elections only if it abandons its values of substance over style. We are no longer a nation of serious thinkers we are a nation of reality show addicts and politics as theater. Our high-minded ideals simply do not apply any longer. America just voted against health care for all, against corporate tax reform, against diplomacy and voted for anti gay hypocrisy for corporate handouts and for outsourcing because they see only the style of the candidate and can process very little else. It's not an America I am proud of but this sort of culture change has been coming a long time. If we want to take back the government we will have to be the party of style and forget issue related politics on the campaign trail.

Let's face it guys and gals. The "moral values" was a complete ruse and the American people are being taken, as BushCheney and crew laugh all the way to the bank. It's too bad that the Democrats have a higher threshold for truth than the Republicans, perhaps we could have won otherwise. We must continue to stand up for what we believe. We must change the conversation in America, we must expose the Republican "moral values" myth for what it is, a cover to get votes while they destroy the American tradition from the inside out.

People will only begin to see through it when we turn the conversation around. They want to talk about values? I say BRING IT ON. It is not moral to abandon the elderly and the poor, nor to ignore a healthcare crisis, destroy jobs, cut taxes for the rich while cutting programs for the poor, for ignoring the peril of a deteriorating environment, for invading other countries and killing thousands of its citizens so we can have a reliable source of oil by which to grow richer.

The Republican party is anything but moral. The fraud must be revealed for what it is. They pander to the religious right. Well, let's talk about religion. In fact let's talk about Jesus. What would Jesus do? He certainly would not associate himself with the Republican party.

We need to take it back, restore the glory of the American Republic.

I agree with the quote from TaxWisdom, and with some of the other posters, but I think it goes deeper. When Kerry let the Swiftboat attacks come and did absolutely nothing to defend himself, he looked like he didn't want to defend himself. He talked a good game at the convention, and came out of it with a decent bounce, but going dark during August while John O'Neill dropped bombs on him undercut his national defense credentials in a serious way. Thereafter, when he gave his lines about "I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president" it sounded like more talk than action.

That was the consequence of what I thought at the time was a critical strategic blunder - the decision to accept federal funding. He had to conserve his cash, which is why he went dark in August. The people I hold responsible for that are Bob Shrum and Mary Beth Cahill, and if there is any backbone in the Democratic Party those two will be sent to a far Siberia.

Each and every one of us reading this blog has got to start pointing out, at every possible opportunity, how Republican policies are not working and are in fact immoral, and that they are being incompetently executed and mismanaged to boot. Every failure, everything that's less than a stunning success, has to be laid at the Republicans' feet. We can't win the Biblical voters to our side, but we can neutralize them if we can get that meme into the conversation.

As to the ascendancy of religion in politics, that's something we Americans go through every generation or so. It started with Reagan, and it's about to reach its apogee. It happened with the 18th Amendment (prohibition), and that period ended with repeal. We seem to have to learn that lesson over and over again; we're about to learn it now. We go from a period of secularism to a new set of ecumenical snake-oil salesmen; the religious manage to organize and dominate for a while, then the rest of us get sick of them and shut them down.

The upside is that everything they try to do gets rejected, and banning gay marriage (and abortion) will get rejected too. The downside is the brain drain we go through while their baloney holds sway.

There is something squirrelly in our psyche that makes us go through this; it may have something to do with our ability to reinvent ourselves that leads to us having a short memory for history. It may be age - we're not that old a country, and we don't have a lot of deep national traditions in the way that England and the other Commonwealth states do. So at any given time a whole bunch of us think that we're discovering whatever phase we're going through, the same way that each generation thinks it discovered sex, and there's no sense of historical perspective or tendency to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Will there be harm to be undone? Yes, and undoing it will take decades. Will these bozos wear out their welcome and get kicked to the curb? Yes, but that will take years. At the outside, I don't see that peaking happening before 2008.

In the near-term, however, we (and our allies) can harp on how ineffective and counterproductive Republican economic and social policies are, and how far behind the rest of the world we're slipping because of those policies. The more we tie those words together in the public mind, the weaker their support will get. We have to back up those criticisms with substantive bullet points, with simple and easy-to-understand (in the two minutes we'll get in the SCLM) analogies. Paul Krugman is especially good at this, as is Bill Clinton.

To do this right, however, those criticisms have to all be built around the central theme that Republican policies are bad economically, bad environmentally, and bad morally. I will be thinking of all of these as I get time and energy.

We must continue to stand up for what we believe. We must change the conversation in America, we must expose the Republican "moral values" myth for what it is, a cover to get votes while they destroy the American tradition from the inside out.

People will only begin to see through it when we turn the conversation around. They want to talk about values? I say BRING IT ON. It is not moral to abandon the elderly and the poor, nor to ignore a healthcare crisis, destroy jobs, cut taxes for the rich while cutting programs for the poor, for ignoring the peril of a deteriorating environment, for invading other countries and killing thousands of its citizens so we can have a reliable source of oil by which to grow richer

I would add that the seemingly obvious and near epic magnitude of the Bu$h greed involved in efforts to privatise major institutions such as social security, reap the profits and send us the bill is not seen as the very antithisis of Christianity.

I have no idea how we will bridge the divide or even if I want to try anymore but I am very grateful for people like Bill A and others contributing to the Left Coaster. It helps to know we are not alone in our thoughts. Perhaps if we continue to think together we can find a way.

I profoundly disagree with James Kroeger's comments, that:

It will also be important for Democrats to spend more and more time ridiculing the stupidity of Republican policies and---implicitly---those who embrace/defend them.

This approach will quite simply ailienate Progressives from the right, and confirm our status (in their eyes) as snooty know-it-alls.

I believe we can start to 'heal the wounds' and get them listening to us, if we look the country in the following (very) general way:

The left are intellectually supiror to the right, but the right are morally supiror to the left.

We can't ridicule them because we will simply confirm our status as a morrally corrupt group.

The Reality:

There are red states and there are blue states.
We all know the map. The thinking in red states amounts to Kool-Aid relig. wingers and Kool-Aid military types sending their offspring off to lose life or limb for Bushie regime and their plans.

People spent hours in bad weather to vote in this election. The total was 3% difference. We are not gong to bridge the gap in a long time.
We are split as in Civil War days.

Blue states tend to have smarter (whether coll. ed. or not) and those who don't want to live evolved from the dark ages.

WE NEED TO POLITELY and FUNCTIONALLY SECEDE FROM THE RED STATES' CONTROL & EFFECTS. WE NEED TO GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. PROPORTIONAL VOTING RESULTS MAY BE THE ANSWER. FIND WAYS TO FUNCTION SEPARATELY FROM THEIR CONTROL. Some of you may now see some of the benefs. of states' rights (blue states) vs. federal controls.

A pox on both pol. parties. $600M was spent on this election!! All given to the media whores. Cos. could have kept going and other cos. started and employed people long-term.

I am mad as hell. Changes to be made.
Edwards and other millionaires around need to put some their money toward good purposes(and not just the too young and inexper.)...to free the blue states from the control and effects of the red states...and to exert viable pressures where and when needed in the public interest. They can sign me up to assist them for the rest of my life.

From a Thinking Independent

They need to be attacked every day just as if it was still a campaign. They need to be ridiculed and characterized negatively. ALL THE TIME. It is time for Dems to speak out against Bush every day- what do you think you have left to lose? We need to start attacking and taking states. that is what they did, we need to start. Let's take back Arkansas for instance, West Va, or how about Louisiana or colorado/ Nevada. Systematically focusing on one or two states at a time. the electoral calculus is not going to change anytime soon, it is too beneficial to the Repugs. Make it work for us. We need to start talking about values and not gays/abortion but Read Barak Obama's speech. With enough repetition maybe just maybe we could re-educate enough people to believe in the Constitution for governance and leave the Bible at church. Party of responsibility? We need to hammer home that morals start at home with individuals( not a function of Government) and the first individual we need to hammer about his morals is BUSH, over and over and over again. Fiscal discipline same thing. Kerry said stuff like this but not enough not over and over ad nauseum but ad nauseun is what it takes in todays mediaworld
No need to Blame Kerry. He did his best even if he did it too late in the campaign.
I personally believe that Bush rest on a three legged stool: Karen Karl Dick. Each one needs to be gone after personally, professionally,economically, psychologically hounded like raccoon with a pack of Walker hounds at his heels, every day, over and over. There's certainly dirt to be found there-- all we gotta do is dig. Without these three holding him up, he can't chew a pretzel by himself. If he wants 4 more years we should make him pay for them.

James Kroeger is ASOLUTELY right. But to put it in terms that the red states will understand. We have to Bitch, Bitch, Bitch and then Bitch some more.

Anger can motivate the converted; it persuades nobody. This is political communication 101.
This idea of Kroeger is nonproductive except in this limited capacity.

And don't dis "values" -- NOBODY is talking about copying Republicans or phony posturing. It really means injecting a candidates motivations into the debate. Religion can be a part of a candidate or party's given policy position. But it's not necessary.

Anger can motivate the converted; it persuades nobody. This is political communication 101.
This idea of Kroeger is nonproductive except in this limited capacity.

And don't dis "values" -- NOBODY is talking about copying Republicans or phony posturing. It really means injecting a candidates motivations into the debate. Religion can be a part of a candidate or party's given policy position. Any decidedly non religious Dem Prez candidate is at a disadvantage in the current environment. Probably won't always be that way; it is now.

I'm still in shock to over the election but I need to know where do we go from here?? What is our gameplan for the future? Who will be our touch carrier for 2008?

I'm still in shock to over the election but I need to know where do we go from here?? What is our gameplan for the future? Who will be our touch carrier for 2008?

Rocco From Venice said:

I profoundly disagree with James Kroeger's comments, that:

It will also be important for Democrats to spend more and more time ridiculing the stupidity of Republican policies and---implicitly---those who embrace/defend them.

This approach will quite simply ailienate Progressives from the right, and confirm our status (in their eyes) as snooty know-it-alls...

...We can't ridicule them because we will simply confirm our status as a morrally corrupt group.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention, but the Right has gradually become the majority party ever since Rush Limbaugh began to constantly ridicule "The Liberals" during the Reagan Era.

This is a tactic that comes "naturally" to hereditary Republicans, who love to build themselves up by putting down those who are not a part of their group. Dividing America is a key part of their electoral strategy. They want the Average American to identify with their group, the "in-group."

"Ridiculing them back" is not the ideal solution to all of the problems in this world, but it is absolutely necessary in order for liberals to negate the power of Republican Ridicule. Like it or not, we need to send the Average American the message with our demeanor that our group is the one they are going to want to associate with.

We are the ones who honestly want to help them. They are simply looking for some dupes, some "hanger-ons" to helps them get elected so that they can laugh all the way to the bank.

Can you see what I'm talking about?

Embracing 'values' would repeat the Democratic reflex to be GOP -Lite. A shift of stategy is still a calculating, self-conscious and patronizing tactic that doesn't dig deep enough and can't compete with the Republicans' Orwellian 'perceptions are everything' (Rove) approach. Democrats have to embark on a real 'spirit quest'. You can't say in advance what you you'll find or how it will change you or where you'll end up. Fact is, there's no choice anymore but to go forward. You've got to assume that the impulse of self-deception will be constantly present and you must be ready to shed a lot of ideas and opinions. Now is now and fresh perception is urgently needed because the Republicans seem intent on creating a one-party Theocracy. This is, in the first instance at least, your fight. I'm a Canadian and have lived in Europe for 15 years. I can assure you that the Bush regime is widely feared and loathed here. The fact of a Second Term is something other than worrisome or dissapointing. I think Europeans sensed it coming and there's a quiet realization that we've entered dangerous era. Whatever the Terror/radical Islam threat may be, it is compounded by a geat distrust of the USA as led by George Bush in terms of its competence and an imperial agenda. Appearing patriotic is a non-issue for non-Americans as we try to read contemporary events. The Democratic Party is now the front line. America saved the world from the Nazis and Communism- now America must save the world from America.

Embracing 'values' would repeat the Democratic reflex to be GOP -Lite. A shift of stategy is still a calculating, self-conscious and patronizing tactic that doesn't dig deep enough and can't compete with the Republicans' Orwellian 'perceptions are everything' (Rove) approach. Democrats have to embark on a real 'spirit quest'. You can't say in advance what you you'll find or how it will change you or where you'll end up. Fact is, there's no choice anymore but to go forward. You've got to assume that the impulse of self-deception will be constantly present and you must be ready to shed a lot of ideas and opinions. Now is now and fresh perception is urgently needed because the Republicans seem intent on creating a one-party Theocracy. This is, in the first instance at least, your fight. I'm a Canadian and have lived in Europe for 15 years. I can assure you that the Bush regime is widely feared and loathed here. The fact of a Second Term is something other than worrisome or dissapointing. I think Europeans sensed it coming and there's a quiet realization that we've entered dangerous era. Whatever the Terror/radical Islam threat may be, it is compounded by a geat distrust of the USA as led by George Bush in terms of its competence and an imperial agenda. Appearing patriotic is a non-issue for non-Americans as we try to read contemporary events. The Democratic Party is now the front line. America saved the world from the Nazis and Communism- now America must save the world from America.