Well, as they say "you can't beat something with nothing."

Since the whole of the Dems "thinking on national security issues" amount to running away from our enemies wherever and whenever possible and to appease them if you can't, I doubt that you will be successful in painting McCain's vision of foreign policy as being "reckless and absurd."

Given where I think the economy is heading, attacking him there might be plenty to defeat McCain. Further, I think once people sour on the domestic front, they'll carry over the same sourness to international issues. You see this with the war being blamed (probably wrongly) for the current recession. Once people see things in the toilet for their immediate situation, they'll extrapolate this outward.

This ad goes for the enemy's weakest point, which is traditional strategy, and is probably correct. The Rovian "attack the enemy's strength" strategy only works if you have overwhelming firepower.

Tying McCain to Bush is deadly. I don't think most of the establishment has really grokked what it means to have had a president this unpopular for this long. Bush will do for McCain what he has done for the country as a whole.

"...making the case that for all the honor of McCain's military service, it's left him with a reckless and absurd strategic vision."

No, no, no. Attributing McCain's reckless foreign policy to his military service and POW experience is stupid, unnecessary, and not clearly even true.

Why attempt to blame his views on McCain's noble service and sacrifice, which everybody loves, instead of linking it to that which everybody hates: the imperialistic and inept Bush administration who, with their Neo-con puppet masters, who were willing to sacrifice thousands of American lives and billions of dollars to settle old debts and secure cheap oil, and who sold the war to the American people with a pack of lies.

When Dems talk about McCain, it should be all Huggy Bear all the time.

John McCain: President # 43.5

I think this is pretty good. Economy is now and a very good place to start this approach. Iraq will begin bubbling again at some point soon and the ads on Iraq can start then.

National defense ad isn't that hard. Version one: Show video of Iraq and voice over McCain wants to continue the Bush Policy in Iraq" or "Do you want four more years of this?" Version Two: Show wounded Iraq veterans with same voice over

Why don't we focus and McCain's dumbness and his dishonesty?

There's a great story on the Carpetbagger Report today- McCain recently misascribed the responsibility to decide how many troops we should have in Iraq to General Petraeus. So McCain's supposed to be an expert on the military- but he keeps making so many of these mistakes on the Iraq war, I think he doesn't really read any of the news about it, and he must spend most of his time thinking about golf, sports and his affairs (or God knows what- he apparently doesn't know much about anything he tries to speak about, except maybe his POW story) instead.

When a Republican calls someone a dumbass, it usually doesn't stick- to be dumb, you actually have to have done something dumb. But the Republicans don't have anything to follow it up with- they just say the accusation over and over and hope you'll believe.

But when we're talking about the Republicans being dumb, it's different. They're really dumb.

That's right chicounsel keep on lying. If you actually are an attorney my qeustion to you is have you ever won a case? Did you ever settle befor a case went to trial? Having a strategy that you don't agree with isn't running from the enemy. The real enemy in this country are the people you support who would throw the constitution out with the bath water and sell the country and it's people out to corporations that only have an interest in making money and nothing else.

Ms. Bash on CNN

BASH: The reality is McCain is a GOP candidate who rarely talks unprompted about either God or guns on the stump. So the McCain campaign strategy is to cloak his hit on Obama in a theme where McCain has more credibility -- patriotism.

Chico: the Dems "thinking on national security issues" a

As opposed to the brilliant Bush strategy, which is basically: "Saudi citizens, led by Yemeni based in Afghanistan, attacked us. Let's go invade Iraq!"
which can also be defined as:
"Bin Laden wants our bases out of Saudi Arabia. Let's move into Iraq"
or
"Bin Laden wants to draw us into a hopeless quagmire. Let's go!"

Try again, Mr. Unsel.

Swan

The GOP won with Reagan and Dubya. Pointing out that the Republican presidential candidate is dumb is like pointing out that the sky is blue. We won't beat McCain by saying he's dumb, even if it's true. A lot of the swing vote is dumb as well.

"Well, as they say 'you can't beat something with nothing.'"

Good thing that neither Obama nor Clinton have "nothing" then, isn't it? And, actually, you can, since given a choice between driving off of a cliff and doing nothing is pretty clearly a winner for doing nothing, wouldn't you say?

"Since the whole of the Dems 'thinking on national security issues' amount to running away from our enemies wherever and whenever possible and to appease them if you can't"

ROFL.... That's why I love you so much, Chi. You're so completely unplugged from reality and so blissfully unaware that most of what you post is mindless partisan drivel that it's a joy to watch you in action.

"I doubt that you will be successful in painting McCain's vision of foreign policy as being 'reckless and absurd.'"

Dear heart, of course we can, because McCain's foreign policy, such as it is, is, in fact, reckless and absurd, which is why you can't even find a way to describe it, much less defend it.

Just mention the cost of the war, 3 trillion, and the inflated asset values, by about 3 trillion.

Then, just for grins, mention that 90% of the 9 trillion in debt came from Republican expansion of government.

That ad wins, it makes the issue, but it hamstrings the Dems. Dems cannot complain about Republican inflation of government and still promise government checks to their special interests.

Tiger, no. Not good to politicize wounded vets, even if they agree. There are other ways to get the same point across.

I want to see a concerted effort to distroy the myth that JMac is a straight talker. This can start soon and can use all types of methods and spokes people. Like Bill Clinton did to Dole in '96, JMac can be shown to be almost as craven as the rest of the political elites who have been in DC for decades. Jebus knows there is enough ammunition.

Hell, a few days ago, I heard an interview where an academic who I believe was neutral, speak in terms of McCain as being a straight talker. It's becoming accepted truth and I think attacking that needs to be job one. If not, what's the use of anything else?

I disagree with both of you guys. The first priority is to hit McCain on his strengths and reconstruct his moderate, maverick image. Flip-flop him.

"Defining McCain"--

Every time I see a picture of McCain smiling with his mouth hanging open, he looks like a lost old man looking for his way back to the Walgreens to pick up his prescription.

I've got more confidence in him to explain where his farts come from than to explain where terrorism comes from.

I bet McCain pays a little attention to his official briefings, though not as much as he's supposed to, and watches some news headlines, but other than that ignores the war news and the Iraq news completely.

Either that, or the guy could be a case study on how poorly informed you become by only watching Fox News.

The important thing is to show him hugging Bush like that, over and over and over again.

And pray that for veep he picks Condoleezza.

"Mavericks" don't hug George W. Bush like that...

To Matt's point, we CANNOT tie his recklessness to his service--i.e. "(his service has) left him with a reckless and absurd strategic vision". Talk about opening yourself up for attack!! No, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a reckless foreign policy is just reckless, not rooted in 5 years as a POW.

One point on which McCain should be hammered is his shameful record of votes against measures which would help veterans - while claiming that he supports them - that issue blends security and domestic issues very nicely, and with just a bit of attention from the press would leave McCain very vulnerable.

One point on which McCain should be hammered is his shameful record of votes against measures which would help veterans - while claiming that he supports them - that issue blends security and domestic issues very nicely, and with just a bit of attention from the press would leave McCain very vulnerable.

I don't think Democrats should attack McCain because he cheats on his wife (although I wish his doctor would stop giving the old coot Viagra) or because he narrowly escaped being indicted and imprisoned for being one of the Keating Five.

No, his economic policy (or lack thereof) should be the first target, since he basically doesn't have one. His idiotic, senile reply to a question about how he planned to balance the budget was classic "voodoo economics" - i.e. he plans to 'stimulate' the economy like Ronald Reagan. Ignoring the fact Reagan tripled the deficit with his 'stimulus', maybe McCain is planning to use some of his extra Viagra for this mysterious 'stimulus'. This moron is also going to preserve the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against and called "morally reprehensible". No hypocrisy there. No, siree.

Folks - this country is down the tubes economically if this cretin steals this election!

I must disagree with Kevin and Matt’s suggestion that McCain be attacked based on his foreign policy insanity. There is much that can be said and challenged about it but foreign policy issues remain a somewhat elitist sphere. I know liberals have beaten up about foreign policy issues -- weak on defense girly men etc but I believe that elections are won on economic issues.

One of the problems liberals have faced for many years is the problem of elitism -- looking down our collective noses at the middle and working class. We lost those people by becoming overly concerned with elite issues and then accusing those who disagreed as being ill informed, racist or just plain stupid. Recapturing the folks we drove off will not be easy but one way to make sure that they all know that liberals care about their day-to-day problems and have plans to help them out.

See www.dailyhowler.com for much better composed piece on this topic.

"Since the whole of the Dems "thinking on national security issues" amount to running away from our enemies wherever and whenever possible and to appease them if you can't, I doubt that you will be successful in painting McCain's vision of foreign policy as being "reckless and absurd.""

Gee, I seem to remember that George W. ran for president in 2000 claiming the Democrats had overcommitted our military in numerous adventures around the globe. Leave it to W. to show us what true over commitment really is.

"but I believe that elections are won on economic issues."

It depends on the election and on the year. 2002, for example, was definitely not an "economic issues" election. Neither, I would argue, was 2004.

"One of the problems liberals have faced for many years is the problem of elitism -- looking down our collective noses at the middle and working class. We lost those people by becoming overly concerned with elite issues and then accusing those who disagreed as being ill informed, racist or just plain stupid."

You know, I see this argument a lot, usually from concern trolls, but I sure don't see much evidence of this. This is a Republican meme, not something that is firmly grounded in reality.

I couldn't disagree more, Bob O'Reilly. Give me one, specific example of a Democratic politician "looking down their collective nose" at underprivileged people. Just one and don't use this Obama "Bittergate" nonsense. Betcha can't give me one concrete example - you are just regurgitating FoxNews propaganda.

No, what has happened is the Republicans have used propaganda to convince people to vote against their own best interests using inconsequential "wedge issues" like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, etc., which in the grand scheme of things don't amount to a popcorn fart.

If you are going to hit McCain on the war, you need to deliver a one-two bunch combining it with a list of all the proposals benefitting veterans he's voted against.

McCain says he's not senile- but I'm sure he probably spends his spare time practicing Charlie's Angels karate kicks in his living room, in a karate outfit + high-heels.

You know, I see this argument a lot, usually from concern trolls, but I sure don't see much evidence of this. This is a Republican meme, not something that is firmly grounded in reality.

I mostly agree with that, but sometimes I think part of the reason we get hit with this smear is the Republicans are able to make it look like it's true. Sometimes I wish we'd be more open to something like, say, Barack Obama make on of the stated goals his campaign, from day-one, to be to clean up baseball. Is it a really important issue? No. But do we really need to be so ashamed of saying something like that? It's great show biz, and from my point of view I'd like to see our leaders be a little more focused on winning and a little less preoccupied with themselves (or whatever) so that they'd go outside the box to try something like that.

Maybe it's me, maybe we don't need it, and maybe I'm totally wrong that it would play well, but it just seems to me like we're missing something- we're not even playing as sophisticated a game of politics as the Republicans are.

Anyway, to be serious for the second time in a row: I think the idea of calling McCain the same as Bush might not really be good for us. Just a hunch.

How many people, if they could vote for Bush again today, would do so? That's Bush's real approval rating, not the 28% figure for his presidency. Yeah, they may disapprove of the way he's running his presidency, but would they vote for him again if the option was him or Hillary, or him or Obama? If his number on that question is 51%, then calling McCain "Bush" is like calling McCain "Mr. 51%."

Rove would advise, "Attack his strengths". Here, that means attacking competence on national security issues. And there's no need for a smear job, its voter education.

I thought the commercial was great. I hope it is the first of many. The point is simple and credible: McCain is running for Bush's third term. I hope many other commercial's make the point as powerfully.

I really appreciate that they used the phrase "Same old politics". You get same (i.e. McSame) and old equated with McCain.
I was already planning on making t-shirts with those printable iron-ons with the Bush hug picture and the words "McSame old, McSame old" below.

Rove would advise, "Attack his strengths". Here, that means attacking competence on national security issues. And there's no need for a smear job, its voter education.

I beg to differ: the reason Rove employs that strategy is because we have strengths. On policy, our strategy against the Republicans is more appropriately "expose their weaknesses."

If Republican candidates-- like McCain-- do have a strength, it's their showbiz: their image. For example. maybe we should stop saying things like what a great patriot McCain is. Come on-- how much do Hillary and Obama really believe that?? If McCain really cared about our country, wouldn't he vote differently in the Senate, and not lie??

I think Democrats should start cutting McCain down to size and start talking straight about a lot of things- like just because McCain got captured or tortured, doesn't mean he's a hero. Sure, he didn't offer to turn traitor for the VC, as far as we know. But guess what? YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TURN TRAITOR TO THE ENEMY IN A WAR!!! Big flipping deal, that he wasn't giving their officers blow-jobs. If we got him back and we found out he turned traitor, we would have court-martialed him.

Their could be any number of reasons was McCain enlisted, fought, and resisted torture (if that's what he did- I'm not straight on the story). It could be anything from being a young hotshot to being a young racist who hated Asians and wanted to put them in their place (and was too proud to give in to torture) to personal ambition. Just because he had a little bit of balls does not make him a good man. Hitler and Napoleon fought in wars for their countries and risked their lives too, and both of them were monsters.

"Bittergate" is a good example that a candidate can't always be the attack dog, because opponents will put any negative connotation they can on what he says. But if that's the case, we should just have attack dogs, other people, say what needs to be said, and then stridently defend themselves against the negative connotations. If you want to attack McCain's strengths, attack his bimbo white-conservative-guy image-- don't prop it up.

If I were writing campaign spots, I would pay constant homage to McCain's service while repeatedly pointing out that his military experience, honorable as it is, has not stopped him from joining his fellow Republicans in supporting a president who has done more to weaken our fighting forces than a hundred Bin Ladens; who has fired generals and admirals who tried to speak the truth that THEIR experience has taught them; who has allowed wounded veterans to languish in despair just blocks from the White House; who continues to block attempts to get returning troops the help and support they need; and who, in trashing the Geneva Conventions, has made our soldiers fair game for torture and other war crime-level treatment should they ever fall into enemy hands.

What Obama's ultimate move to do would be this: Don't tell anybody he's going to do it, and then when he debates McCain, lure McCain into a little spat about patriotism- try to get him to show a little anger first, and especially to use the word patriotism. Then, when the moment is right- and even interrupting McCain if he has to- Obama should look McCain right in the eye, and say, "You're not a patriot." Then he should explain that McCain's policies reject a lot of people that live in the country, cause us to fight war ineffectively, are basically corrupt, and spit in the faces of a lot of people who live in this country. How could he keep claiming he's a patriot? If pressed, Obama should declare that he's not going to let McCain claim it anymore, and if asked for an apology he should refuse.

How could the Democrats spend so much time praising military service, and then just let McCain grab that honor towards himself with trying to raise any kind of objection to or blemish that might appear on McCain's particular service?

How can they talk about McCain's service with saying "..., But..." right afterwards? It's absolutely stupid, an absolute disaster.

Sure, if the Democrats started raising things and made a good point there, the Republican response through the media criticizing it would be big. That has to be taken into account. But maybe the attack on his military service is worth making to the point it should be made anyway. Certainly, if all else wasn't biased-- if we knew the media would be fair about it-- then it would be the thing to do.

"with trying to raise any kind of objection to or blemish that might appear on McCain's particular service?"

Should have been "without."

Oh I do not have cable or satellite so I never see Fox, CNN or the rest of them. Most of my news gathering comes from a variety of websites, the Boston Globe, NYT, WaPo, Economist, Al Jazeera, The Guardian Observer and International Hearld Tribune, The New Yorker, Ed Week. Oh and the books I read. Very little comes from TV -- So I am an effete impudent snob.

Taken from Why we are liberals:

When following his election loss, a woman tired to soothe his feelings by telling him that he had "educated the country," Stevenson replied: "Yes, but a lot of people flunked the exam." Stevenson's high opinion of his own intellect helped define in the public mind the "effete liberal" stereotype.

Pretty condescending I think.

But going back to the 1950s to find an example is pretty weak.

But it is not always the politicans it is academics, writers and activists who can be made to appear arrogant. The media and then the right wing people can take a quote and some video of a professor and make the person look like he or she is patting the common people on the head telling them that we know better. They manipulate and are really good at it.

The real problem is that the Republicans with Frank Luntz, Rove and others have become masters at manipulating language to create a preception that liberals hate working, middle class Americans. Some of use helped by attacking the symbols and by living life styles that were interpreted as disrespectful of middle America. We conceeded the ground to them in simple ways -- burning flags, refusing to say the pledge of allegiance. So we gave those guys control of the symbols that mean something to lots of people. So part of the problem is how do we seize the back those sysmbols which in my mind should not be about what we are but about what we should be striving for -- Liberty & Justice for all is not such a bad goal.

So now I need to go back to work.

Bob O'Reilly

Bob O'Reilly

John McCain authored legislation to authorize torture.

He wants us to stay in Iraq forever.

He has confused Sunni and Shiite Muslims several times, despite supposedly being an expert on the Middle East.

He has said Al Qaeda were Shiites when they're really Sunnis, despite supposedly being an expert on the War on Terror.

He admitted himself that he knows nothing about economics.

He got election campaign reform passed and now he's violating that law.

and

He's against real health care reform.

You just can't trust John McCain to pull our troops out of Iraq, to protect and grow the economy or to protect your health.

You just can't trust him.