What's your opinion on Democratic opposition research?

We go through this every election season. The Democratic Party wants to take the high road. (Well, at least till Howard Dean got in there and started breaking a few dishes.) They just can't do the oppo research the Republicans do. It wouldn't be "seemly". After all, it's mean, right?

I just got done reading this thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1009971 and I have a few questions.

How dedicated is the Democratic Party to going after a few of these R candidates with the truth this time? On the strength of the OP's comments, IMHO, YMMV, but a strong offense may finish this man's candidacy before he even gets started.

Should we encourage the national party to do so?

I'd like to hear what you think about it.
Julie

and politicans have been trashing each other since Roman times and probably before, so I don't see things changing much as far as that goes.

I just read an article this morning about a Democratic candidate who was forced to withdraw from a local race because he was trashed on a conservative website. With the internet, things are more immediate and widespread. Local politics becomes national in a hurry. I'm not sure where it ends, but it just seems to get uglier.

One is defend our candidate against the Republicans and the media. Democratic spokesmen need to stand up to the Matthews and the others in the Mainstream Media who will trash our candidates. And they need to do this even at the risk of losing their opportunity to kiss up to Matthews and Russert and their ilk. At best the media will cheerfully pass on Republican spin on our candidates without challenging or even analying it (as they did in 2004). At worst they will actively slime our candidate (as they did in 2000). Those on our side of the fence need to be vigilant at working the Media and keeping these lies and calumnies from going through unchallenged.

The second is I don't think that Democrats trashing Republicans on personal or non-political reasons will be as successful as the other way around. The Media is not on our side and won't pass on our accusations unfiltered. And in all honesty I'd rather run campaigns of ideas not campaigns of mudslinging. So I don't think Democratic Mudslinging is likely to be successful, nor do I find it particularly moral. So I oppose it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

but the S&L stuff is explosive, IMHO.

>The second is I don't think that Democrats trashing Republicans on personal or non-political reasons will be as successful as the other way around.<

The S&L and lobbying stuff should be enough to make Americans pin their ears back. We've had six years of someone who thinks it's his God-given right to spend this country into a hole we'll never get out of. To show that Thompson presided over the worst fleecing of the American taxpayers in history is more crucial than his personal life or the fact he was evidently ineffective in Tennessee.

I wonder sometimes if the Democratic Party brings even more grief onto itself by NOT showing a tenacious offense to begin with -- "your candidate is wrong for the country because of _____," instead of sitting back and waiting till we're attacked.

Julie

That's obviously a substantive issue and well worth discussing and flagging up. I have to admit I assumed it was one of those ones about Thompson's trophy wife, which is more what my comments were directed to. I'm sorry for assuming.

I will repeat though that attacking the candidates, even on substance, isn't going to be enough unless we actively work the press to ensure fair or as close to fair coverage.

Bryant

Is my computer going wonky?

An errant comma...

It should work now ;-)

Julie

To answer your question: I'm really not sure if anything about the S&L scandal will resonate today. It's old news & unfortunately most voters have the attention span of a gnat. A lot of people who are in their 80s probably lost money (I know my parents did) but other than that it just seems iffy. I agree that it's a important, just not sure if the politically clueless will realize it. Now, the hot young wife will probably play well. If Dems can dig up an baby or a sexual harassment charge or a blow job or drug use, well that would be big news & something that can be explained in 30 second sound bites in what passes for news. Dirt sells unfortunately.

>other than that it just seems iffy<

I know it sounds insane, but maybe the Democratic Party needs to subcontract their communications through the "Daily Show" writers.

If Jon Stewart can come up with an easily understood, concise explanation of the CIA leak case in less than 30 seconds on TDS, would he (or anyone else,) not be able to craft exactly WHY someone who allowed a debacle like the S&L scandal would be a disaster in the White House, even 20 years later?

Just curious. I'm just tired of the R's defining the fight. Maybe it's time for us to do it.
Julie

toward the more politically astute. And Stewart's viewers will get it.

I'm thinking more about the MSM nightly news viewers who seem more interested in sex/drugs/celebrities & having quick sound bites, not detailed, historical analysis. Of course, I could go off on a rant about that too. Viewership is down & the MSM tries to increase the audience by broadcasting more fluff. I think that viewership is down because they do air more fluff & have turned off a lot of their audience, but I don't think that MSM will ever see that.

last week about how young people watch "TDS" (and trust them,) more than mainstream media. They don't watch traditional news. I think the Democrats need to capitalize on this -- how can we gear our message to those who've been fed a steady diet of sex, drugs and celebrity?

Mr. JulieRB and I are far out of "TDS"'s target demographic, but we watch because, between the jokes, we learn something every time we tune in. Every time.

Of course, IMHO, YMMV.
Julie

I guess what I'm saying is that TDS is great to reinforce the message to younger viewers, but I think (& YMMV)that we need to expand & get older viewers who tend to be repugs & who are more likely to watch MSM than TDS. And for that we need some catchy oppo research that can be explained in short bursts.

If the S&L crime & his involvement in it catches on with older viewers then of course I think it's great. Use anything & everything until something sticks. Though I agree with another OP that when the general election starts we might do better to stick to 2 or 3 issues & pound at them instead of bouncing all over the map.

>we might do better to stick to 2 or 3 issues & pound at them instead of bouncing all over the map.<

It's this simple: Are you better off than you were four years ago?

It all comes from this.

Do we have the courage to start the dialogue?

Julie

(getting an error on it)

As to any thoughts of opp research being 'unseemly' or 'mean', I say BULLSHIT! But sometimes I wonder if it's not a case of not having the research but more a case of knowing what to do with it.

I put a comma where it didn't belong...

In the meantime, you wrote:

>more a case of knowing what to do with it<

Exactly.
If the Democrats would get out in front with irrefutable facts, instead of waiting for the R's to define the fight, it would go a long way to neutralizing their attacks, period.

Let's face it. I can't tell Howard Dean how to do his job, but if I were him, I'd be deputizing spokespeople to every talking head show for the next week. "Let's talk about Fred Thompson and his role in the S&L debacle. The worst taxpayer fleecing in the history of the country. Bla bla bla."

IMHO, YMMV,
Julie

He's been running with the Rove playmates for years.

Sure it's dirty politics, but I've always believed in fighting fire with fire! That old quote "You don't go into a gun fight with a pocket knife" is as true today as it was when it was first uttered!

The media insists that the public hates dirty politics, but I don't believe it! The public LOVES scandals and always remembers the dirty stories much longer than they remember a good deed!

enthusiasm and consistency that a Republican will LIE for their guy.

This has gone on since the late 90s, because all the pundits and most of DNC was only schooled in defending Clinton for all those years and knew very little about the other Democrats and had no institutional knowledge about their own party and couldn't even show up for Gore in 2000, let alone for Kerry in 2004.

I have been hoping Dean will follow through and prepare and school REALLY SMART pundits with a greater grasp of recent history than we have had under past Dem party stewards.

but that will be the problem. The MSM won't post or publish anything negative to the republicans. After all -- all the media is owned by republican corporations.

What would have happened if the real truth about bush and his lack of military service had gotten out instead of all the lies about Kerry. What would have happened if the media posted the information about the abortion bush paid for, the one for the high class call girl. How about the questioned suicide of an old girl friend who had filed that harassment and stalking civil suit against him. Nothing absolute nothing hit the news about that. Then we had all the fraud and illegal operations bush and his henchmen did before the 2004 election. Hell yes, if it is true publish it.

>After all -- all the media is owned by republican corporations.<

Younger voters will be a force in this election, will they not?

Maybe TDS and Colbert might want to get the word out there. It seems they're leading the MSM now anyway.

Would this be effective?

Julie

I think that the younger viewers are already on the Dems side. I think we kicked butt the last election with the help of the under 35 crowd. What I think we need to do is get the older voters (& we've made great progress). I don't think that TDS is going to help us there.

do it by proxy (a la swiftboat), exaggerate if necessary. I want to see blood on the floor.

"Nice" politics hasn't gotten Democrats anywhere. GOP corruption was a big part of '06. But don't let it end there: foreign policy, Halliburton, Katrina, 911 preparedness, wartime tax breaks for super-rich cronies, the list just goes on. Stuff polite politics, Republicans saw that as a waste of time decades ago.

>"Nice" politics hasn't gotten Democrats anywhere.<

The R's have controlled the dialogue by picking a few points and pounding, pounding, pounding until the "truthiness" takes hold. Al Gore did NOT invent the Internet, but that meme is still being repeated, for instance.

Maybe it's time for us to pound, pound, pound some of the home truths into the electorate: Fred Thompson was involved in the S&L debacle. It may not mean much at this moment, but do you want someone in the White House that presided over the fleecing of American taxpayers?

If I have to sit through another election cycle in which I listen to the same R bullshit points we don't bother to refute, early, often and aggressively, my head will explode.

Julie

the longer the fall...

no need to be liars like they are.

As someone posted upthread, "you don't take a knife to a gun fight".

The Republicks and their minions have been using the Democratic Party as a doormat for 27 years and it's about time that is put to rest.

I know the S&L scandal was a long time ago, but it can be used to point out that the "culture of corruption" didn't just start with the latest edition of these assholes.

>the "culture of corruption" didn't just start with the latest edition of these assholes.<

Can you imagine the impact of a commercial, for instance, that showed clips some of the more egregious R talking points of the past 30 years or so? Think about it.

"I am not a crook"
"Ketchup is a vegetable"
"What will we tell the children"

bla bla bla, I'm sure you get the idea, finished up with

"Mission Accomplished"

Source it, produce it, run the hell out of it. NOW.

Julie