Dem Strategerist (sic) tells it the way it is ...

says one prominent Democratic strategist. "The Bush campaign is more adept than the Kerry campaign at playing the game. The game is, the press only covers four things in a campaign: polls, scandal, mistakes and attacks. And the only one of those you can control are attacks."

Anyone disagree with that assessment? I don't.

Since when has playing dirty hurt a republican's
chances of winning?  It's time for us to get
down in the mud.

Update [2004-9-1 11:18:6 by JoelK in AZ]: I forgot to include that this was taken from here: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/01/kerry_media/index.html

•  Then, you have to goad Bush into making mistakes

  then, attack his mistake.  Then the polls come out.

  by LionelEHutz on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 07:47:33 AM PDT

•  4 out of 4

  Kerry should be able to take advantage of

  Polls: Kerry is doing well in the polls

  Scandal: Uh where do we start... I mean just pick one of a hundred scandals, Plame, Enron, hallibuton etc, etc, etc

  Mistakes: again there is a plethora to choose from....

  Attacks: We are ready when Kerry is

  This is not a justifiable excuse for Kerry lackluster performance.

  by Genf on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 07:50:47 AM PDT

  •  asdf

    you know, that is interesting because monday
    Bush made his "we can't win the war on terror"
    goof....and as the Salon article notes...compare
    the attention that goof got to Theresa telling
    that reporter to "shove it."

    i say one good reason for this is the Dem's lack
    of attack on the mistake...sure a line or two
    at a campaign rally is good but you need all your
    winged monkeys out there on the media pounding
    the issue.
    

    by JoelK in AZ on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 08:23:46 AM PDT

•  Not in the muck

  You can attack without getting in the mud.  Just talking honestly about Bush's record is an attack.

  by KariQ on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 07:51:33 AM PDT

•  Looking Presidential

  It is a bit hard to look substantive and Presidential when one is rolling about in the mud.

  I personally think that one of the more effective lines of Bush's 2000 campaign was his pledge to bring honor back to the White House (thanks Bill. Monica, Linda, Ken, et al, for giving him that opening).    I think Kerry could play that back in regard to sending boys into battle only when neccessary, giving tax cuts only when economic circumstances warranted, not merely to appease political supporters, etc.

  That's not getting down in the mud, that is engaging the American people.   I suspect the mud will have an effect, but the war in Iraq and the general malaise of the current administration will have a far greater effect.   This is not 2000.   Bush can't even make up his mind whether he can "win" the war on terror, which we know is a flawed premise to begin with.   One cannot win a war against a strategy.   That whole idea makes about as much sense as saying that we are going to fight a war against people who go on strike.   All that Bush has done by his approach is to provide a false sense that all who use terror tactics are in league with each other.   In the process, he could well produce that outcome, by giving them a sense of shared external threat.  The last thing the world (or the Palestinians) need is for the world to link their struggle to the international jihadist movement.

  I think Kerry has plenty to work with, but more to the point, the Iraq/Middle East situation will so tar the Bush administration as to leave it incapable of retaining the trust of the American people.    I do not view that fact lightly.   Hundreds of American young people will be sacrificed  in pursuit of the fantasy that the Iraqis were ripe for becoming a democracy.

  by arthura on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 07:58:33 AM PDT

•  And 5-point plans

  The secret here is that most daily reporters have only a couple hours, or, at most, 6 hours to write their regular daily stories.

  It's easy to write an article about polls, scandals, mistakes and attacks in a couple of hours. Just the numbers, basic facts, etc. and reactions from both sides, and, voila! You have an article.

  But writing up some kind of new, clear, concrete 5-point plan for addressing some important issue is also easy. Not as sexy as scandal, but something to write when you have a cold and don't feel like doing much work.

  How do you get the 5-point plans covered?

  1. They don't necessarily have to consist of 5 points, but they'd better consist of 3 to 7 really clear, logical points.

  2. There ought to be a new 5-point plan dealing with some issue every week or so. A daily reporter/broadcast reporter probably can't do a straight news story about a plan that's more than a few days old.

  3. Leave out exaggeration, negativity and puffery. Never over-promise or try to use flowery writing to dress up a weak plan. Come up with a good, specific plan to address a rather narrow but important issue, such as protecting chemical plants from terrorist attacks or improving preschool education programs.

  4. Have really high-level folks and "independent," Brookings Institution type people available to talk to reporters at the drop of the hat. (If you call the Cato Institute or, on the liberal side, groups like Families USA, they immediately find someone for you to interview. If you call the Brookings Institute, good luck.)
     

  by sclminc on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 08:04:53 AM PDT