The Rovian scenario for our candidates

I am making the assumption here that the field will narrow down to Dean and Clark.

For Dean:

1) The civil union issue gets hammered. (As you know, I will be one of the first gay people in line to get married but reality is reality.) It will be a typical Republican diversionary tactic, with the focus on getting people riled up over an issue that is fairly tangential to the deeper questions surrounding the major Bushian failures and the radical path of Bush's administration.

2) The "anger" mantra is reinforced, over and over again. We are treated to a stream of visuals similar to the commercial that the Republicans have already created. The pundits get on TV, similar to this past weekend, and intone that Dean is not "collegial" and doesn't play well with others.

3) The Republicans hypocritically demand Dean's sealed papers and then make hay with whatever is in them. The sound bite material is released with thundering headlines via Drudge.

4) When the Dean campaign goes mainstream a certain small percentage of his supporters get turned off. The papers hammer upon this theme for weeks. We see headlines about a "weak" candidate and a "divided" Democratic party. (This is the reason, folks, why we must unite wholeheartedly behind our nominee.)

5) The elitist, liberal New Englander theme gets played to death.

With Clark:

1) Expect to see more generals who didn't work with Clark, and even some of them who did, surface, giving unsubstantive, innuendo-laden sound bites.

2) The general tends to take on complex issues that are hard to explain to the general public head-on. Expect Rove to swoop upon this characteristic. Clark is an intellectual who actually thinks deeply about issues and whose responses to questions often use subtle shades of gray. Rove's world is black and white. He will sink tens of millions into quick response ads in an attempt to blow Clark out of the water with one of Clark's thoughtful comments.

3) Rove will release carefully excised segments of Clark's Kosovo testimony that portray Clark in the worst possible light.

4) The "unstable military" guy theme gets replayed in every RW venue, with no substantiating evidence.

Just my thoughts here.

I certainly hope our candidates have staff that will "game" all possible scenarios. Nowadays, any well-organized campaign should have a group that role plays the opposition in order to anticipate any strategy they could come up with.

The only problem I see with your analysis is that you are far, far, too moral !

active (not retired), then they should have their asses Court Marshalled!!!

Every D candidate: LIE ABOUT THEM.

What more does Rove need?

Gona get hit below the belt over and over!

I think it will be imperative for the candidate (whoever it is) to approach the innuendos calmly and rationally, and to hammer away at the damage Bush has done to the country, especially:

1-the deficit. This is a big worry to many conservatives, and could become a real wedge issue. It will be important for our candidate to assure people that he/she will try to get things back in the black.

2-jobs. Sure, they are painting rosy sceneros now. But NPR had economists talking danger signs-pay has risen only by one cent in the last quarter, the very real possibility that this is a weak recovery at best, or a false recovery. By 2004, many folks could be out looking for work or working in jobs that pay them far less/have fewer benefits than the jobs they lost. These folks are the ones who voted in Clinton in '92. We can't forget that.

3-the military. I'm talking the treatment of the military. The 18 month tours for Guardsmen, which leaves families in hardship. The slashing of benefits for vets and for military families. These issues are real, and these people will be ready, willing, and able to vote Dem in 2004 if we tell them the facts about this, and keep on telling them. This also plays well in the South, where there are lots of bases and a tradition of support for the soldier.

I hope whoever is eventually nominated takes the best of the other eight campaigns and uses those points to hammer away at the Bush Administration. And I hope all Democrats rally behind this nominee, no matter who he/she is.

Here's my idea for a Clark for President ad.


----------------------------------------------------------

opening: nuclear explosion (like the one used in LBJ vs Goldwater)

voice over: this is a nuclear bomb.

cut to: Polaris submarine at sea.

voice over: The United States has more nuclear weapons than all the other nations on earth combined.

cut to: aircraft carrier Bush

voice over: This man wants to build more of them

cut to: Wes Clark

voice over: This man won a war without using nuclear weapons. He'd rather use that money to build schools.

VOTE CLARK...sleep better at night

----------------------------------------------------------

I guess that might be too subtle, but there it is. It may be a foolish idea of mine but I think the prospect of a renewed nuclear arms program will hit an awful lot of older folks and young parents very, very directly.

There are more than two likely candidates for POTUS.

vs. the terror of terra.

They will rely on people not looking for facts an they won't give hime airtime to dispute.

It's a big risk...but it really is the "elephant of all lies"...if people see this and are educated ...* and others are history !

Massive education is required for 911...no other way. All he has to do is raise the level of doubt and give people a few facts.

The major problem is that in the minds of many Americans, this is an advertising war, not a war about real, serious issues. The same ads that make them buy cars, Wal-mart stuff, or whatever, works on them just as well when candidates are the product. We've known this for years, but continue to try to view the majority of the American public as intelligent, thoughtful, considerate of others, well-informed, well-read, and concerned for their country's welfare as much as their own.

This is not true. It never has been and never will be. The repubs continue to tell their followers that they ARE what I have said above, all the while laughing behind their hands at how dumb and gullible Americans are. They know what works on Americans psychologically, just as all the advertisers know what works, and they use it to the max. One of the major precepts is that the manipulators must keep telling the people that THEY (the people) are in charge, THEY are wonderful, THEY would never be so gullible as to fall for (you name it), THEY are the ones with common sense, etc., etc. This way, you build up the ego but do nothing to change the underlying ignorance, apathy, maleducation, and selfishness. Then you hit them with your propaganda and you get your desired result.

The democrats, on the other hand, are painted with the labels "egghead," "elitist," "overeducated," "whiny," "no common sense," etc. Every time a Dem tries to educate someone about the issues, they are rejected, because the general public has already been told over and over again it is already smarter than any damn Dem. When anyone challenges the idea that the USA may not, despite the hype, be the "most generous nation on earth," there's an uproar about the challenger being unamerican, followed by articles on what the USA is throwing money at (forgetting totally to compare our generosity with the generosity of other countries, where we do not show up so well as a percentage of GNP).

It goes on and on. I do think that the public can wise up, but it will take reality, not words, to do it. Too many words these days are pure propaganda and have a propagandistic effect, not an educating effect. Our grandparents learned thrift in the Depression, worker solidarity during deadly union strikes, caution with war when too many bodybags come home, etc. This is the way today's public will learn its lessons -- real-life pain. It's the old story of those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it.

Add to this the bone-deep venality of the Bush cadre now in office, and we have a deadly combination. If this or any country has too many rapacious leaders in office in any one era, the country's political and social structure can be irreparably harmed. Despite the claptrap to the contrary, we DO need good leaders at all levels for this country to succeed. Most of us contribute by getting up every day and going to work, raising our kids, maybe doing a little volunteering. We cannot organize ourselves effectively -- we need good, farseeing, and honest leaders to do this.

That would be to keep Bush/Rove on the defensive so that they don't have the time or energy to attack. The only flaw with this is that while Bush/Rove et al are answering charges made against them (actually not answering but spinning their way out of it) their media attack dogs (Insanitty, Rush, Savage etc) can level attacks any way they want. We need to put our infrastructure together before the ...uuummmm....manure hits the ventilating shaft.