In
an earlier diary, I tried to make sense out of the Veep's speech and Bush's "major policy speech" the following day. My first reaction was that these guys were losing it. Their disconnect from reality was starting to challenge even the mainstream media's capacity for supplying the suction necessary to turn cowering liars into Manly Men of Purpose. When I woke up the next morning [make a blues noise here] and read NewDonkey and Atrios' take, I decided that BushCo, or their handlers more likely, were crazy like a fox.
My prediction was that the lies and atrocities would escalate in both scale and number, that this would challenge our distended but so far effective rapid response system, and that that alone would have many of us running around with our hair on fire.
I said at the time I would be happy to be wrong, but I regret to inform you that I told you so. I said they were going to Saddamize Kerry. In a way, they have. By using the same line, "he can run, but he can't hide," Bush has made Kerry equivalent to Osama bin Laden. To us, that's funny, because Bush is an utter failure against al Qaeda. To them, however, Osama is the same as Saddam is the same as WMD. And now Kerry.
So, what do we do now?
Right now, we're spending a lot of time on Sinclair. Great. Couldn't happen to nicer people. But this also drags us back to the theme that the GOP used to great effect. Remember August and September? Vietnam is a distraction, since it puts both Bush and Kerry on trial.
Our national crisis is more important, AND it's the better case to make, since it puts Bush on trial all by his failed lonesome.
Everybody got it, now? Good.
I'll be the first one to admit: it's hard to think clearly while listening to one of Bush's stump speeches these days. The disconnect. The cheering, supine crowds. What the hell are they thinking? Sorry, stupid question. Look at the letters to the Crawford Iconoclast and you'll see what kind of feces is being flung in the monkey cage. Bush is so desperate that he has to make up Kerry quotes so that he can whine about them. Does anyone seriously think al Qaeda is intimidated by our whining, coddled little president?
But that's the good news. The bad news is that this flying monkey shit works. Overall, the improvement in the polls (and this is merely my unscientific observation) has come at Bush's expense, and has not shown a shift to Kerry. It's as if we're stuck in some earlier part of the election, where the electorate is still trying to figure out if they want to keep the incumbent, before they decided whether or not they like the challenger.
Every attack by the enemy has to be turned into a liability for them. You don't deflect, you counterattack. That's why the response to Sinclair CAN be useful, so long as we uncover the Republican sleaze behind it. Atriosians and Kossacks began doing that today, I'm happy to say. But it's still a side show. Bush's greatest weakness is still himself. I know there are a lot of "what XXXX must say tomorrow night" diaries, etc. This is not one of them. The new Bush line, "you can run but you can't hide," is not just a new Bush lie. It is a fundamental act of projection by a desperate loser. The run/hide meme will either kill Bush or it will kill Kerry. So, what do we do about THAT one?
Body language studies show that people look up to people who can confront without losing their cool. Think Atticus Finch. Up 'till now, the Kerry strategy has been to get under Bush's skin, to challenge him in a way that never happens in his silly little bubble world, and let Bush's anger and petulant lashing out alienate the nation.
It's worked. Kerry hasn't gone for the kill, and he hasn't needed to. Any major one-liner would just be picked apart 'till the next debate. But this is the last debate, and Kerry must get the last word. The news cycle will last 48 hours thereafter, which is a long time to bleed in a close race.
Kerry must confront the coward and say in effect "I am not the one who keeps running." Without matching Bush's chimpanzee panic, Kerry must physically square his shoulders to the target and deliver the counterattack: he must point out that Bush is the man who's been running all along. He's running from his record, he's running from the bad economic news, he's hiding from the disaster in Iraq, he tried to hid the bad news about worldwide terrorism.
Bush may whine about the "nuisance" language, even though it's used by conservatives, but pointing that out isn't enough: there's a reason Bush is peeved by those words. You see, other nations have successfully combatted terrorism through this approach. They have preserved their way of life. They don't live in fear. The terrorists haven't won.
BUT BUSH NEEDS THE TERRORISTS' TERROR
His presidency won't survive unless Bush's failure against al Qaeda scares us so much we won't contemplate a change. That's the alchemical feat of the present age by Rove. The worst thing that ever happened to America is the best thing that ever happened to Bush. Winning the war on terror won't help Bush at all. Like the drug war, it must go on forever, since (as LBJ observed) war language is the easiest way to kill democracy.
This is the fear that Kerry must address. We are being held hostage by a terrorist named "Bush." If Kerry can simply confront the man who's terrorizing America, America will trust Kerry to confront the terrorists, and that will be the end of Bush's power. If Kerry can show that Bush has been running even from that very debate, Bush will be an open joke in this country, just like he is in the rest of the world.
You see, it isn't enough so point out that Bush has failed. Blah blah blah, statistitics, blah. Bush has actually succeeded in unilaterally allying with the terrorists, in using them against his own people, just as our men and women in uniform are held hostage by Bush, support him or they DIE.
Up to now, I've been impressed with the Kerry people's willingness to talk turkey, to take on the talking points without the usual Democrats' fear of pissing off Peoria.
Will they be up to it again?