Eureka! Great Kerry idea

(From the diaris -- kos)

I was just listening to the Al Franken show, and he touched on a point, but didn't make an interesting connection. Colin Powell told president Bush, "if you break it, you own it." And now president Bush is going around talking about having an "ownership society." That's a huge opening for Kerry:

"Mr. president, Colin Powell told you about this war that 'if you break it, you own it.' And now you're going around talking about an 'ownership society.' Well, Mr. President, let me tell you what you own. A million jobs lost. You own that. A thousand soldiers lost. You own that. 1.4 million new people living below the poverty line. You own that. 1.2 million less people covered by health insurance. You own that. A seventeen percent medicare increase. You own that. Health care costs skyrocketing. You own that. The tax burden increasing amongst the middle class. You own that. Mr. President, if you want to talk about an ownership society, let's talk about what you own."

•  Excellent tp

  Somebody send it to the campaign!

  by gypsy on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:41:32 AM PDT

  •  Nice!

    Post it on the Kerry/Edwards blog!

    http://blog.johnkerry.com

    by Geheimbundler on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:16:19 PM PDT

    •  OK

      If everyone of us does this, somebody will get the message, right? I'm on my way...

      by KumarP on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:40:56 PM PDT

      •  I did it

        I didn't see Zach's comment posted elsewhere in the blog, so where are you, Kossacks? This will sprout blog-legs if you want it to-repetition works!!!!! Let's clog the blog!!

        (off soapbox now. Thank you ZackPunk.

        by KumarP on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:46:44 PM PDT

        •  If Kerry delivers a good line and reporters don't

          report it is it a good line?  I would love for Kerry or Edwards (or any Dem) to say somehting like the following:

          Last August, in Crawford, Texas, George W. Bush gave a barbecue for the press corps. Bush has let it be known that he's not much of a television-news watcher or a newspaper reader, apart from the sports section; and during a conversation with reporters he explained, perhaps without intending to, why his White House often seems indifferent to the press. "How do you then know what the public thinks?" a reporter asked, according to Bush aides and reporters who heard the exchange. And Bush replied, "You're making a huge assumption--that you represent what the public thinks."

          At the White House, I recently heard much the same thing--it sounded like a declaration of press irrelevance--from Andrew Card, Bush's chief of staff, who said of the press, "They don't represent the public any more than other people do. In our democracy, the people who represent the public stood for election. . . . I don't believe you have a check-and-balance function."

          Or the dems could do what everybody else does:"Sony Agrees to Buy MGM for Nearly $5 Billion" NYT

          http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040119fa_fact2
          

          by Kalki on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:51:17 PM PDT

          •  Here's a simple message:

            Bush makes BAD DECISIONS.

            Republicans have smeared Kerry with the "flip-flopper" line relentlessly for the past six months. We need to hit Bush the same way, with a simple easy-to-understand message that people already somewhat believe.  "W stands for Wrong" is good, but we need to make it even clearer.

            Bush makes BAD DECISIONS for America. The tax cuts and the Iraq invasion -- these were very bad decisions. They've led to zero job growth, huge deficits, more terrorism, and a quagmire in the Iraq.

            This is what the Kerry campaign and all Democrats should begin repeating. People can believe that Bush is religious and well-intentioned and strong, but he simply makes the wrong call when it matters most.

            by existenz on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:50:46 PM PDT

            •  How's that better?

              How is "bad decisions" better than "wrong choices"?  both are simple, two word phrases.  Plus, you've got the whole "W stands for Wrong" thing.  Kerry repeats "wrong choices" about 100 times at every speech.

              by fwiffo on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:23:00 PM PDT

              •  Failure stronger than wrong

                As a trial lawyer, the word FAILURE is much stronger than Wrong.  Also, three examples are best to get the point across, for example   Bush legacy:  failed economy, failed intelligence, failed war on terror.
                Keep it simple Kerry.  It doesn't matter how much knowledge you have if you can't communicate it to others!

                by warriordem on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 08:22:41 AM PDT

              •  use the word "decisions"

                because you can link it to "decisive," which is the Bush-co's big claim for W -- sure, he's decisive, while totally ignoring the facts!  he makes decisions, but they're wrong every time!

                "what good is decisiveness if you make the Wrong Decisions?  W is for wrong... (blah blah blah)"

                acm

                by redfox1 on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 11:29:57 AM PDT

            •  W stands for wrong

              I think Kerry should stick with the wrong decisions. That way when we see W stickers we think WRONG.
              Switching to bad dilutes the message.
              

              by Carnacki on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:09:56 PM PDT

              •  I agree- W stands for WRONG

                by Sherri in TX on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:29:37 PM PDT

    •  ALRIGHT!

      People are doing it! Now keep it up, because unless this gets repeated A WHOLE LOT for A WHILE, it will NOT sprout legs. We need them to notice, even if we have to harass them to do it.

      by KumarP on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:39:18 PM PDT

      •  Done.

        Just posted it.  That is truly brilliant!!!!

        Why the hell didn't Kerry's numbwits come up with this????

        by Sean Robertson on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:52:34 PM PDT

        •  Sent it too.

          Repeated points made in the Diary. But I added the Pottery Barn Division of America. And Iraq quagmire.

          by rodean on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:07:54 PM PDT

    •  Another one for the blog:

      Here's the debate slam dunk!
      After Kerry gets through the list of promises that Bush made and never kept and how inept he has been at everything, he finishes by saying:

      ...And so I think that the American people need to be asking themselves now that they've fallen for your promises once before (you sort of remember the saying, don't you George?), "fool me once, shame on you (is that how it goes?), fool me twice, shame on me!"  If the American people fall for your hollow promises one more time, they will have themselves to blame.  There's no good reason to vote for you now and there was no good reason to vote for you in 2000.

      by intrados on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:48:11 PM PDT

      •  needs some adjusting

        He shouldn't be telling voters "shame on you," which is how that comes out.

        by rm on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:53:38 PM PDT

        •  Yes it is a bit rough.

          Best stick with Zach's perfection and not complicate things.
          It is a shame on the Republican party that they fooled so many American people into voting for them with lies.  Even more shame since they stole the election from the voter's intent.  In fact, we were never even fooled once.  This would be the first time I guess...But it would be more of a shame on the American people if they get fooled again.  In fact, they should be playing that Who song at rallies.

          by intrados on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:03:56 PM PDT

          •  Love that song

            We Won't Get Fooled Agaiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnn!!!

            I would love to hear that at a rally. The Allawi theme:

            "Meet the new boss- same as the old boss."

            by KumarP on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:23:31 PM PDT

            •  Only problem is

              Pete Townsend, who wrote the song, has gone over the deep end.  He supports the war and doesn't want his song used against it.

              by gerbbils on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:32:20 PM PDT

              •  And he let his song be in that damned H2 ad.

                His songs are used to hawk Hummers. It makes me so dissapointed when an artist turns out to be with them.

                Damn good think I'm not a Republican. I don't think I could stand only having Ted Nugent and Dennis Miller on my side.

                by DynomiteUVA on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:56:52 PM PDT

      •  Slam dunk

        Intrados,
        I like it!

        I like your tag line, too....
        

        by Margot on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:52:54 PM PDT

  •  Letters to Editor

    I'm writing 3 local newspapers with this theme.  Let's all start writing!

    by kdlmac on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:52:22 PM PDT

  •  send it on

    Sent it to someone I know in Kerry's DC leg. office who said she would pass it on

    by RevDeb on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:00:55 PM PDT

  •  And Bush is serious about owning it

    This new reuters article talks about forgiving debt.

    HOLLAND, Mich. (Reuters) - Faced with mounting violence in Iraq (news - web sites), the Bush administration plans on Tuesday to propose shifting $3.46 billion from Iraqi water, power and other reconstruction projects to improve security, boost oil output and prepare for elections scheduled for January.
    Congressional sources briefed on the plan on Monday said it cleared the way for President Bush (news - web sites) to forgive 95 percent of Iraq's prewar debts to the United States. Those bilateral debts total about $4 billion.

    And don't forget one of the big disputes over the $87 billion defense package was that Bush wanted it all in the form of grants, not loans.  Must be because the bastards don't want to have to pay back the money they're stealing...
    

    by gerbbils on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:26:38 PM PDT

    •  Do we live in Amreica anymore?

      If Bush wins- get ready for more of this:

      MOULTON -- Lynne Gobbell never imagined the cost of a John Kerry-John Edwards bumper sticker could run so high.

      Lynne Gobbell said her boss fired her last week because of the Kerry-Edwards campaign sticker on the back of her car.
      Gobbell of Moulton didn't pay a cent for the sticker that she proudly displays on the rear windshield of her Chevrolet Lumina, but said it cost her job at a local factory after it angered her boss, Phil Gaddis.

      [...]

      "We were going back to work from break, and my manager told me that Phil said to remove the sticker off my car or I was fired," she said. "I told him that Phil couldn't tell me who to vote for. He said, 'Go tell him.' "

      She went to Gaddis' office, knocked on the door and entered on his orders.

      "Phil and another man who works there were there," she said. "I asked him if he said to remove the sticker and he said, 'Yes, I did.' I told him he couldn't tell me who to vote for. When I told him that, he told me, 'I own this place.' I told him he still couldn't tell me who to vote for."

      Gobbell said Gaddis told her to "get out of here."

      "I asked him if I was fired and he told me he was thinking about it," she said. "I said, 'Well, am I fired?' He hollered and said, 'Get out of here and shut the door.' "

      She said her manager was standing in another room and she asked him if that meant for her to go back to work or go home. The manager told her to go back to work, but he came back a few minutes later and said, " 'I reckon you're fired. You could either work for him or John Kerry,' " Gobbell said.

      "I took off my gloves and threw them in the garbage and left," Gobbell said.

      Though she is unemployed and uncertain if she will get her job back, Gobbell said, she doesn't regret her decision to keep the sticker on her windshield.
      If Bush wins, get ready for more of this:

      From salon
      "I would like to find another job, but I would take that job back because I need to work," she said. "It upset me and made me mad that he could put a letter in my check expressing his (political) opinion, but I can't put something on my car expressing mine."

      She was referring to a flier that she said Gaddis placed in employee envelopes to remind them of the positive impact that President Bush's policies have had on them. An employee at the plant who would not identify himself confirmed the contents of the letter.
      

      by Kalki on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:32:35 PM PDT

      •  Sorry, that was from Salon

        by Kalki on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:33:00 PM PDT

      •  Wow. What a terrible comapny.

        Wow.
        That is incredibly shitty.
        I'm almost left speechless on how horrible some people can end up being.
        

        by mdpatrick on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:10:38 PM PDT

  •  I'm Afraid -

    
     - that that's much, much to clear, concise and spot-on to ever be used by Sen. Kerry (whom I admire greatly).

     Why use this when his silk-stocking, 6-figure, consultants have already decided mealy-mouth, unrememberable, unenergizing, "anti-zingers" are what America Wants to Hear?

     C'mon, get with the program . . .

    by BenGoshi on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:29:35 PM PDT

  •  yes

    Lose "Colin Powell said..." and it's a winner.

    by TrentL on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:33:51 PM PDT

  •  Not too Effective

    Why would Bush own the health care crisis?  By himself ?  The guy has been a poor performer, plenty bad enough without ascribing every evil of mankind to him.  

    Why not blame him for AIDS and Hurricane Ivan?  

    It's is not even mental masturbation- its just juvenile, and it gives the wingers more jerk material for their paternalistic fantasies of controlling you and yours forever.    

    Sometimes being a real democrat means watching it go away when most of your countrymen don't want it. Democracy in America may have had its time, but then again, maybe not.

    Its pretty unlikely that worthless propaganda, like that praised above, will help the form.  

    by bluelaser2 on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 08:29:15 PM PDT

•  Brilliant

  Perfect. Handed to Kerry on a platter!

  by bumblebums on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:41:52 AM PDT

  •  With ideas like this

    we will own Bush's sorry ass come November

    by MarkInSanFran on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:59:37 PM PDT

    •  LOL

      by Geotpf on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:29:34 PM PDT

    •  The President

      Yeah, right now the media is teh pwN3d but on November 2 Kerry/Edwards is teh pwn4ge.

      by daria g on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:15:10 PM PDT

      •  wow

        I can't believe how often I see my 'pwn3d' image get around these days... :)

        by teedz on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 08:10:41 PM PDT

    •  Dang

      "we will own Bush's sorry ass come November"

      Isn't that just like getting socks for your birthday?  Except these are old smelly, motheaten socks at that.

      If I own Bush's ass, is there a return window I can take it to for credit?

      by Dancing Larry on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 04:43:18 PM PDT

      •  Well, if you own something

        then I guess you have the right to shit-can it!

        by MarkInSanFran on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 08:43:21 PM PDT

•  Dear John. Kerry

  ...steal from Zach. STEAL FROM ZACH.

  by JeffLieber on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:45:22 AM PDT

•  W stands for

  oWn the mess in Iraq

  Sadly, W's our president, legally elected or not, so we all own his screw ups.

  by zic on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:47:24 AM PDT

  •  So does the rest of the world

    thanks to the increase in terrorism because Bush's Not-so-Excellent Iraq Adventure has pissed off so many people.

    by Plutonium Page on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:50:04 AM PDT

  •  W stands for

    Wrong
    Weak

    by TarheelDem on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:45:44 PM PDT

    •  W stands for Wuss

      w stands for wobbly
      w stands for whitewash
      w stands for wimp
      w stands for worst

      by David in Burbank on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:08:15 PM PDT

    •  W stands for Whackamole

      Zach's is an awesome line.  Kerry used something similar today.

      Bush presidency:

      http://georgewhackamole.blogdrive.com/GeorgeWhackamole.html

      by GFunk on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 12:49:12 PM PDT

•  How do we bump this to 'recommended'?

  by Jeff Boatright on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:57:02 AM PDT

  •  Click "Recommend This Diary"

    The button to recommend a diary is in the right sidebar.

    by Geheimbundler on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:16:58 PM PDT

•  I really hope

  this is the type of strategy the Kerry campaign has been sitting on, to unleash at debate time.

  by Muboshgu on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:05:20 PM PDT

•  Pimp it!

  Pimp it on the Kerry blog.  They seem to occasionally notice things there.

  by fwiffo on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:16:51 PM PDT

•  This is the kinda thing

  Kerry is gonna do in the debates.  Bring the hammer down.  Excellent.

  by reef the dog on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:25:42 PM PDT

  •  Bush will win the debates

    He has never lost.  
    He is the master of managing expectations.  He is the master of negotiating the formats (like no camera on him during his opponents comments - no 3rd "town hall" style debate.)
    He aint as dumb as he looks.

    Unless Kerry gets some negative spin on his own chances - "Kerry will likely lose the debates because of the way he talks."  "Kerry we lose because Bush will seem much friendlier."  If that gets out, then Kerry might have a chance to not just win, but sway public opinion.

    I found Kerry to be awful in the democratic debates, though I was surprised at how ruthless he could be - AND that will only help him if America and see the Presidents reaction to Kerry's attacks, the way they showed Dean getting all red-faced.

    I think we ought to DEMAND  a split screen debate, where both candidates are on TV the whole time.  After all, this whole election comes down to who you think has better reactions to attacks, right? Because Bush does have temper, like a spoiled child, and if America could see that, well, I think even his staunchest supports might question there choice.

    by David in Burbank on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:21:14 PM PDT

    •  Win the debates?

      I heard this discussed the other day on NPR, i think.  He WAS a good debater, 10 years ago, against Ann Richards.  They played a tape of him then, and now. BIG damn difference.  He did not falter, didn't mangle words, spoke quickly and glibly. Now he really seems to have trouble with speech fluidity, long sentances, and remembering things.  This is not an asset in a debate.  He's already wimped out of one which would have questions from the public.  He's not up to that.
      Something's wrong with him, and I'd like to know what....
      Kerry, on the other hand, sounded the same 35 years ago as he does today re: sentance length, etc.

      by Margot on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:03:48 PM PDT

    •  It was Kerry

      who claimed that Bush has never "lost a debate." He emphasized it, almost like it was some kind of setup. I hope so. I've been puzzling about that. Any takers?

      And what's with this "win" business? I dunno, I missed the part last time where they declared a winner. Seemed like it was a messy hash of punditry that led to any indication of a winner.

      They're not like real debates, y'know.

      by Terry in Austin on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:15:56 PM PDT

      •  Kerry was raising the bar for Bush

        In past debates, Bush benefited from the soft bigotry of low expectations.  People expected him to be an idiot at the debates.  So all Bush had to do was show up, string two sentences together and not fall flat on his face and the pundits would say that he "won".  

        Kerry is raising expectations so that Bush now has to show up with intelligent answers and explanations for his policies/ideas.

        by Rosali on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:34:26 PM PDT

•  Excellent

  I rec'd it.  It's not "blame"--it's ownership and the responsibility that comes along with it.  The Boy King asserts ownership over things Rove thinks help him--like the the tax cuts, 9/11, etc.  He needs to admit he owns the deficit and failure to find Osama, too.  

  But Kerry needs to be ready to take it one step further because, once he's elected president, he'll own the problems The Boy King created.  So JFK has to be prepared to explain--with the same simplicity and clarity as Zachpunk--how he'll right the ship.  

  by droy20 on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:34:20 PM PDT

  •  It's all about responsibility and accountability

    Bush has never stood up and taken responsibility for anything.  It's always blame.. blame the Democrats, blame John Kerry, blame his advisers, blame the intelligence community.  

    If Bush is a leader why doesn't he take responsibility and lead?

    I still want to see Kerry come out strong on Iraq and say basically.. "I am responsible for (I own) my vote for the war - I have a plan for Iraq and I will lead."  I don't care that he was wrong to vote for it because there is no do-over here, I care about whether or not he will now take a stand and own that vote.

    by daria g on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:35:00 PM PDT

    •  Really Does Turn Full Circle

      No; manchild Dubya isn't responsible, according to them, and he doesn't need to account for it (according to his own words many times over).

      When folks in the corporate world speak of creating a sense of ownership, they talk about people (employees) taking more than a 9-5 interest in the company's business. (But damn, don't open up the budget to them.)

      When Dubya patronizingly speaks of ownership, he fails to mention that he takes none in his job himself (apology to Ms. Pickler for appropriating her device)

      by wystler on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:07:52 PM PDT

    •  Kerry didn't vote for the war

      This is another example of how the right controls the language we use to talk about things.

      And it isn't Nuance either.

      Kerry voted to give the President the ability to threaten Sadaam with real war.  As I've said before, he voted to give the president a loaded gun to threaten sadaam with, not an empty one -- it was Bush who decided to pull the trigger.

      Bush was supposed to force Saddam to cave to inspections with the threat of war -- unfortunately for Bush he did, so Bush had to make at least the appearance of going that route - but it was just for appearances sake and you can't blame Kerry for trusting that the President of the United States would go to war as a last resort.  T

      he question to ask Kerry now isn't about the WMD (since the whole point was we wern't sure what Iraq had), but if he knew then what he does now about the President, would he have cast a yes vote.  To that he should resoundly say NO!

      by David in Burbank on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:32:11 PM PDT

      •  Or

        ...an example of how Kerry doesn't control the language.

        by kdlmac on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:49:20 PM PDT

        •  or how we don't control the language.

          by David in Burbank on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:50:29 PM PDT

      •  Oh, indeed

        I understand 100% but thought it was tangential to my larger point.. the CW is that Kerry is ambiguous on the war, but voted for it.  Which is annoying and stupid and impossible to rebut until Kerry makes his stand clear, i.e. puts it in language even Wolf Blitzer can understand.  And if he stands up and says clearly (without focusing on whether or not the vote was a mistake) - I take responsibility for that vote and for leading us out of this war, then he is going to sound a lot stronger and clearer than Bush on the issue.

        by daria g on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:19:16 PM PDT

•  Everyone send an email to

  John Kerry, [e-mail], and tell them to use this now.  I did.

  by ETinKC on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:40:47 PM PDT

  •  I will do just that

    by theprogressivemiddle on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:31:24 PM PDT

  •  done

    everybody, be like starsky and hutch: do it, do it.

    by KumarP on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:34:40 PM PDT

  •  My E-Mail

    
    My email per your suggestion and the e-mail address given.  I did a variation on the theme (don't want 'em to think they're just getting "spammed."  Thanks.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Dear Kerry Campaign:

    Why won't Sen Kerry and all surrogates NAIL Bush on his running from responsibility for the 1,000 + deaths in Iraq;  running from helping Al Qaida to recruit more disaffected and bitter Arab boys to be terrorists;  running from the million
    jobs that've been lost with Bush as CEO;  running from the spike in Medicare premiums and pharm companies soaking the American consumer with his Administration's tacit approval;  running from engaging the North Korean crisis like a leader ought to;  running from the fact that good will
    towards the U.S. and Americans is at an all time low due to his sorry diplomacy;  running from the FACT that personal bankruptcies are at an all time high;  running from his promises broken -- from Yucca Mtn to assault rifles to job creation;  running from his close, close ties with Enron and Ken Lay; running, running, running . . .

    All the while hoping others will "cover" for him and clean up his messes -- that's George W. Bush's life story and it continues to this day.

    Sen. Kerry needs to say, "While George Bush runs from his responsibilities, I'm running for President to get our country back on track and, with your help and God's grace, to make
    it what it can be again:   strong, respected, and envied as a beacon of freedom and opportunity."

    So why won't Sen. Kerry HAMMER him on this?  Why?

    by BenGoshi on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:53:57 PM PDT

    •  Running on Empty...

      by Jackson Browne is "running" through my head right now.
      

      by savior self on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:04:24 PM PDT

  •  Wouldn't go through . . .

    
     . . . for whatever reason, that email would not go through to that address you posted.  Maybe its on my end, and maybe they've just taken the phone off the hook bcz they're tired of EVERYBODY telling to get their frigging act together . . .

    by BenGoshi on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:58:34 PM PDT

  •  done n/t

    by CaptUnderpants on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:22:00 PM PDT

  •  done n/t

    by CaptUnderpants on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:23:03 PM PDT

  •  I sent to Kerry and 5 newspapers-

    Anyone who's ever gone shopping knows, the rule is `You break it, You own it'.

    Well Mr President, here's the bill from America:

    A million jobs gone: You own it.

    1.4 million more Americans living below the poverty line: You own it.

    1.2 fewer Americans covered by health insurance: You own it.

    Health care costs skyrocketing: You own it.

    Tax burdens increasing in the middle class: You own it.

    Over 10,000 Iraqi civilians dead: You own it.

    More than 1000 American soldiers dead: You own it.

    Well Mr President, it's time to pay the bill. When will you own up to what you've done?
    __
    Well, I think it works. Short, punchy, to the point.

    by Lainie on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:28:02 PM PDT

  •  done

    by tlh lib on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:49:18 PM PDT

  •  Done !

    by Pounder on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:21:22 PM PDT

•  Even without the Powel Link

  It's still a great idea. Toodle-oo, I'm off to write a letter to the editor incorporating this very fine theme. Thanks for the inspiration.

  by bramish on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:41:57 PM PDT

•  You can't spell 'own'...

  ...without 'Dubya'.

  by Jonathan on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:44:58 PM PDT

  •  You can't spell War without W either.

    by ultrageek on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:53:39 PM PDT

•  You're missing the point...

  ...."ownership society" means owning the working class.

  by Doug in SF on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:54:20 PM PDT

  •  We, the working class

    do own the mess george has made of things.  

    by lapin on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:23:10 PM PDT

  •  missing point

    not missing point.  Just turning his own words against him.

    by kdlmac on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:23:10 PM PDT

•  The W.ages of Sin...

  ... is Death.

  You o W.n it.

     You broke it- let a competent adult fix it.

  Take notes AWOL and maybe you'll see how it's done right the first time.

  by Mr Murder on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:11:02 PM PDT

  •  Agreed...

    The guy who breaks up a marriage isn't the guy to put it back together.

    Ask Henry Hyde.

    by Ralph on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:41:30 PM PDT

•  get your ownership on

  
  
  

  by Merkin on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:18:09 PM PDT

  •  Mark my words...

    If we privatize social security and it's in trust funds managed by greedy bastards (no offense intended to anybody at Fidelity who has been stealing my retirement for 12 years) they will be making so much on transaction fees that it wouldn't be too long before THEY would own it.

    But, privatization has worked so well for the telephone, airline, energy and health insurance industry...

    by Ralph on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:18:09 PM PDT

•  Now that would be something

  I'd love for him to say that.

  Tell me, is there ever a chance that they take advice from the e-mails that they receive?

  by theprogressivemiddle on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:25:47 PM PDT

•  tip jar please

  by Tom Frank on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:28:41 PM PDT

  •  Tips unnecessary

    I'm already a trusted user. I don't really need mojo, but I appreciate the sentiment. But I am pleased that people are enthusiastic about the idea. Let's see if we can get it to go somewhere.

    by Zackpunk on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:52:40 PM PDT

    •  Mojo Best Before November 2nd, 2004

      Actually, IIRC, mojo expires over time. So lots of four-rated comments a few months ago are worth less than a couple of four-rated comments now. And while making more insightful comments is always good, I can't see any reason not to put out a tip jar, as a good diary is really just a really long insightful comment. ;) Though I'm not sure if Recommending a diary gives the poster mojo or not. If it does, then tip jars are obsolete.

      by RHunter on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:59:59 PM PDT

  •  Why do you have a tip jar

    on someone else's diary?

    by bumblebums on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:52:48 PM PDT

    •  please disregard my dumb post

      sorry...

      by bumblebums on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:00:00 PM PDT

•  Meh

  It's a fine, well-reasoned argument -- the problem is, there's a time and a place for fine, well-reasoned arguments and this is neither that time nor that place. Sure, okay, Kerry can use that in the debates, that'd be great, but the really important thing right now is to put the nastiest surrogates the Kerry campaign can scrape out from under rocks on every news show in existence to talk about Jenna Bush's abortion, George Bush's bisexuality, and Dick Cheney sucking cocks in hell.

  by Field Marshall Stack on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:42:49 PM PDT

  •  WTF?

    "about Jenna Bush's abortion, George Bush's bisexuality, and Dick Cheney sucking cocks in hell."

    WTF?

    by theprogressivemiddle on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:01:46 PM PDT

    •  Well, sure

      I don't believe that Dick Cheney's "undisclosed location" is in the bowels of Hades itself, nor do I think that he's been spending all his time there slurping on Satanic schlong. No, no, I personally don't believe that Mr. Cheney is  acquainted on the most intimate and depraved terms with the literal root of all evil --  however, don't you find Mr. Cheney's baffling refusal to respond to these allegations somewhat... suspicious?

      by Field Marshall Stack on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:34:31 PM PDT

      •  Uh...

        by theprogressivemiddle on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:39:39 PM PDT

      •  I'm saying we don't know

        by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:17:09 PM PDT

      •  Isn't that what really happens

        in Wyoming?

        by mcjoan on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:20:51 PM PDT

        •  always expected that

          In Idaho, we were pretty much sure that Wyoming was the sole of evil. Utah repels it, it then skips through Idaho, and lands on you.

          by mcjoan on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:28:29 PM PDT

        •  Who knew?!

          by MyDeskChair on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:47:47 PM PDT

      •  Religious right

        The Talibaptists already act as if this is how the "lib'rals" talk about Bush so there's no harm politically in actually putting the word out like this. They see Bush being slandered and libeled when facts about the situation in Iraq or even about the U.S. economy are reported. I pointed out to a Talibaptist at my church that many jumped on Clinton for adultary but not one of them jumped on Bush for breaking the other commandment about bearing false witness. She nodded in agreement then said, "But Bush is protecting us from the gays." After I picked up my jaw, I asked how was he protecting us from gays? "He was so courageous in standing up to the gays to keeping them from getting married. That took courage."
        I told her it doesn't take courage to take a stand against the oppressed. It takes courage to stand up for the oppressed. It sailed over her head.
        Where was I going with this? I wish I could put coherent thoughts together.
        I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't want to bear false witness against Bush, but if the muck fits he should wear it.
        

        by Carnacki on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:07:57 PM PDT

    •  Read the link

      I've had the sinking feeling for about a month now that Neil Pollack is 100% right. Our culture is now so corrupted that the only way to win an election is to lie as brazenly and viciously as the Rethugs do.

      Hope this isn't true, but, honestly, I don't think we can afford to trust in the good sense and pinpoint moral compass of our fellow citizens. Not this election anyway. There's too much at stake.

      by matt n nyc on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:39:31 PM PDT

      •  Aw, c'mon

        Don't sound so sad and serious about it. Jump on in, the wallow's fine!

        by Field Marshall Stack on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:03:59 PM PDT

  •  I won't argue with your logic...

    ...if your only concern is getting Kerry elected. But could you tell me the time and the place for the well-reasoned arguments? I'd like to be there.

    by Jim Riggs on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:47:11 PM PDT

    •  After the Election

      Just like in 2000 . . . .?

      No, I really hope truth triumphs over fiction, but since reality shows aren't either, I have only my faith to sustain me (and I'm agnostic...)

      by David in Burbank on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:04:23 PM PDT

    •  I think

      It might take several years, or even several decades.  It took thirty years or so for the Regressives to destroy effective political dialogue.  It will take a while to build it back up again.

      Which is only all the more reason to fight and fight hard, fight dirty if need be.  You think FDR or Truman were afraid to get in the gutter?  It's politics.  It's always the gutter.

      by scott on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:33:41 PM PDT

      •  I have no problem with the gutter.

        I may even prefer it to other places I've been. But effective political dialogue isn't completely destroyed as long as you and I are here.

        by Jim Riggs on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:42:07 PM PDT

      •  years or decades

        I wish we could win by taking the high road and discussing issues in an honest forthright manner.  But that's like bringing a knife to a gun fight right now.  The Rebugs have home field advantage. They have the White House, Supreme Court, Congress, the Media, and a ruthlessness devoid of even a hint of ethics.  

        Every time the media behaves like Matt Lauer did this morning we must flood NBC with emails and phone calls.  We must flood their advertisers with emails and phone calls.  EVERY TIME  We have to let them know that if they're going to play this  they're going to pay a price.  We not only have to work as hard as we can to elect Kerry , but just as hard to take back the corporate media.  Right now we have a sophisticated version of Pravda, and we pathetically sit around and wait for them to toss us crumbs of fairness.

        by opinionated on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:39:19 PM PDT

        •  What did Matt Lauer do this morning?

          by raging red on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 08:09:55 PM PDT

          •  what Matt Lauer did

            He had Kitty Kelly and Sharon Bush on and was trying to spoon feed Sharon Bush things to say to discredit KK's book.  It was like he was leading a very reluctant witness.  Really appalling.  The only thing I could think at the time was "Does Rove sign his paycheck?"

            by opinionated on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 08:39:12 PM PDT

•  This is inspired ...

  an email to the Kerry campaign AND an email to the Letter to the Editor of every newspaper.  

  by caliberal on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:44:03 PM PDT

•  Great.. another slogan...

  Sorry - not to toss water on our little firestorm of marketing brilliance here, but how do we think another new slogan is going to win this election?

  The Kerry campaign is saying all the right things, but they are just words.  We should be focused on how we can help the campaign in concrete ways rather than thinking up new ways to say things that they are already saying and for which they already have too many ideas - I mean the idea that we are going to market our way to the White House is just plum crazy.. and even if you can market yourself to the White House, the odds that the "Where's the Beef" hit of the campaign is going to a.) be discovered on this blog, b.) be identified and codified by the powers that control the marketing message of the campaign are someplace between slim and zero.

  Write letters to the editors, volunteer for GOTV... this is time better spent than debating the finer points of the difference between saying that Bush screwed up the Iraq war because he was "Wrong" or because he "Owns it."...

  by mlangner on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:45:21 PM PDT

  •  We can do both

    We can volunteer and get out the vote, and also talk about marketing ideas for the Kerry campaign. The truth is, many elections turn on such ideas ("there you go again"), and sometimes these ideas do bubble up from the grassroots. I definitely agree with your sentiment -- we really have to work hard, doing real volunteer work, and not just sit around talking about strategy. But at the same time, it's naive to think this election won't be heavily influenced by marketing decisions, and we can take grassroots action in that department as well.

    by Zackpunk on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:49:47 PM PDT

  •  As many have pointed out . . .

    this would be a nice approach to take in letters to the editor, so I don't think this is a waste of time.  As far as the Kerry campaign already "saying all the right things," I have to disagree--maybe now that they've added some new members to the team, they'll get a clear message out.  But they haven't done it yet.  

    by droy20 on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:20:52 PM PDT

  •  Uh...

    ...even if you can market yourself to the White House...

    I think this was proven in 2000, if not before.

    And somebody in the Kerry campaign knows it.  The whole "W stands for Wrong" schtick is nothing but marketing.  I don't like it, but it works.  After all, Bush is running on NOTHING but marketing.  So be it.

    by iago on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:51:19 PM PDT

•  Terry McAuliffe mentioned this

  at a rally today.

  It was in regards to the war in Iraq, and he mentioned Colin Powell.  Said Kerry was the man to "fix" what was broken in Iraq.

  I won't be surprised if the broke it/own it thing started showing up in talking points for surrogates.

  by Newsie8200 on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:51:27 PM PDT

•  US Republican Party now runs 3 countries

  USA, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

  This ruling party was elected by a majority of the people in exactly none of these nations. Sounds like the old Soviet system.

  But since they have the guns and the money, they will likely continue to hold power and take over other nations.

  If they even let you vote, it will be a rigged election designed to keep themselves in power.

  Democracy is dead. Long live Empire.

  by greendem on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:57:28 PM PDT

  •  LOL

    by theprogressivemiddle on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:06:26 PM PDT

•  All that stuff

  Clinton owns.

  by Ralph on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:14:57 PM PDT

•  Fewer!

  Fewer people. Fewer! Not less. Fewer.

  by elishastephens on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:23:14 PM PDT

  •  Funny

    I was actually just reading the entry again and that popped out at me. I'm going to leave it in though, because it makes me sound more like a regular guy. ;)

    by Zackpunk on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:28:20 PM PDT

•  Small Change

  Instead of:

  "Mr. President, if you want to talk about an ownership society, let's talk about what you own."

  How about:

  "Mr. President, it's time to own up."

  by FlipYrWhig on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:23:56 PM PDT

  •  BRILLIANT

    It's time to OWN UP, Mr President.

    by daria g on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:36:55 PM PDT

    •  Ownership Society starts with YOU Mr. President!

      Like the ring to that !!

      by AustinSF on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:33:52 PM PDT

•  NO NO NO NO NO

  This is the worst idea ever and I will tell you why.  After Kerry goes off on the litany of the bad things, George Bush will say "Senator, is all you can see the negatives.  what I see is a nation of freedom loving citizens willing to sacrifice for Freedom where it once did not exist.  blah blah blah."

  It will be turned into Kerry sees the glass half empty, Bush sees it half full.

  Zach I agree with you but, you have to think how they will spin it.

  by kennyc on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:31:00 PM PDT

  •  Eh.

    Yeah, but he's going to say that no matter what. The thing about this idea is that it sells responsibility in the same way that Bush sells strength. And it turns one of Bush's platform ideas against him. If Bush comes out and says, "you're being negative," it's going to sound like he's ducking his responsibility. Which in fact, he is. That's why I think it works.

    by Zackpunk on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:34:56 PM PDT

  •  No, Kerry has to apply anti-spin

    Bush has been spinning everything like a top from day one.  It's time for Kerry to take a stand and say the truth.  If Kerry calls a spade a spade relentlessly, people will finally realize that Iraq, our fiscal situation, our health care system (for most people), etc. are all turds and all the polish in the world won't change them.  Only a change in policy -- which Kerry is offering and Bush is NOT -- will take the stink off these turds.

    However, if Kerry DOESN'T make the case that Bush keeps turning everything to shit (as he has his entire life), people will be swayed by the Republicans' sugarcoating and distractions and they'll see a bunch of beautifully polished turds way off in the distance and think they're gem stones!

    by Jim in Chicago on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:45:37 PM PDT

    •  Too many references...

      ...to turds, stink, and shit. I couldn't focus on the point you were making.

      by Jim Riggs on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:08:13 PM PDT

  •  YES YES YES YES YES

    This is the worst idea ever and I will tell you why.  After Kerry goes off on the litany of the bad things, George Bush will say "Senator, is all you can see the negatives.  what I see is a nation of freedom loving citizens willing to sacrifice for Freedom where it once did not exist.  blah blah blah."

    SO WHAT?  Bush is gonna deride whatever words we say. That's his strategy.  This time we DO NOT BACK DOWN.  Full frontal assault. The battle now is mano a mano - who can beat the shit out of whom.  It is a battle of wills.  Bush has never had to work hard in his life and his will is weakening.  He is on the verge of folding.  The GOP is on the verge of imploding.  To back off now is to reinforce everything they say about the Democrats being afraid to fight.  Kerry has got to, and will, stick the knife in his gut, look him right in his beady eyes, and twist it.

    by reef the dog on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:00:21 PM PDT

  •  Easy Response

    If Bush does that, he's just conceeded defeat. Because then he's redefined the entire campaign in terms of his foreign adventures, and those have been abysmal failures. Kerry's response to that should be:

    "Yes, Mr. Bush, they are. Unfortunately, the people they depended on to lead them in these endevours have failed them, and lead them in the wrong direction. Thanks to the inadequate leadership displayed by the present administration, countless opportunities to create freedom have been squandered."

    by RHunter on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:54:09 PM PDT

  •  About as negative...

    "Senator, is all you can see the negatives."

    As saying Kerry voted to raise taxes 350 times.
    As saying if Kerry wins, we will be attacked by the AQ, etc

    by georgeNOTw on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:36:53 PM PDT

  •  Run out of

    new ways to back down and cower in the corner? Its time to take it to the chickenhawks. Forefully. Unapologetically. Ruthlessly.

    To hell with the far right's whining. They started the war. We need to end it.

    by cdreid on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:58:52 PM PDT

  •  And then Kerry says

    "Go fuck yourself George!"

    by sharonmatt20194 on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:29:28 PM PDT

    •  To which Bush replies...

      To which Bush replies, "Sorry, John, I'm just not that flexible."  Then we're all screwed. :-(((((

      by Sean Robertson on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:29:24 PM PDT

  •  good. interrupt him

    when he gets to "you see the negatives" kerry then butts in with there's nothing 'negative' about taking personal responsibility.

    by zeke L on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:31:32 PM PDT

•  Just tie it to Iraq

  One of the perceived problems with Kerry is this penchant to go into these endless series of clauses in search of a period.  It gives the impression of being long-winded when, oftentimes, a simple, concise phrase would get the same message across favorably.  This would be a killer in the debates when, if questioned about his vote on Iraq or what-not, Kerry simply said:

  "Mr. President, you like to talk about an Ownership Society.  Well, you own Iraq.  You made the decision to go to war there, and you built the coalition, and you made the plans to win the peace.  You own it.  And we've all seen what a disaster Iraq has become."

  People will connect the other dots on their own.  "You own Iraq" is the best way to hammer this message.

  by dday on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:33:45 PM PDT

  •  Its the ? link to Islamic terrorism!

    In 1992, "It's the economy, stupid" was made famous by political strategist James Carville, who hung it on a sign in Bill Clinton's Little Rock campaign office to keep everybody "on message" in the 1992 election.  It worked because it was the key then, and the American public knew it.

    I strongly believe the current most important catch phrase for this election is, "there is no linkage, stupid"!  If all the horror, killing, and suffering going on in Iraq because of our invasion can be shown to have resulted from a criminal act by this administration and not an act of self defense, then Bush loses and loses big.  It is absolutely critcal that everyone in this country find out the truth between whether that linkage between Iraq and Islamic terrorism existed or not.  Everything seems to point to no linkage, and yet the dems don't run with it!  Why?  

    If there is truly no linkage, meaning we are responsible for a criminal act in Iraq, then this election is just over.  Hint, Hint.

    by truthbetold on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:57:44 PM PDT

•  Send it to the Kerry Campaign

  Right NOW!

  by jmbaron on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:39:01 PM PDT

•  Just an FYI

  Polling Report has new poll out showing the race exactly tied:

  http://www.pollingreport.com

  by chicagoprogressive on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:46:59 PM PDT

•  K/E

  Should save this for the debate(s). John F. Kerry brings it up during a question about Iraq/security. Its so good it'll make the debate headlines and it'll make georgie boy piss in his flight suit.

  Kerry tells Bush he broke Iraq, now he owns it

  Edwards fires back 'American citizens own their government, not the other way around Mr. Cheney'

  by moeman on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:53:58 PM PDT

•  Bush's bisexuality

  Could anyone tell us the provenance of this rumor, which I've heard a couple times on this blog. Vis a vis Neal Pollack, this is the meme I want to see spreading like wildfire over the next few weeks...let all the christian right yahoos in the repug base enjoy that one...

  by Reviser on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:01:30 PM PDT

  •  It must be true

    the Freepers are denying it aren't they?  Kitty Kelly says so...of course our candidate won't stoop to talking about it, tis beneath him.  But remember, if KARL ROVE DENIES IT, IT MUST BE TRUE!

    by TheGryphon on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:28:52 PM PDT

    •  ah, so it's from Kelley's book...

      Go Kitty! Go Kitty!

      by Reviser on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:34:38 PM PDT

    •  Well...

      as the Freepers always say, where there's smoke, there's fire ;)

      by logorrhea on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:35:49 PM PDT

•  New Slogan?

  "Avarice Society"

  Whenever I hear GW say "Ownership Society" all I can think is what he really means is a society where those who own more stuff are better than those who don't.

  I would like to turn the phrase into Avarice Society, but I fear that about 99.643% of the voting population has no idea what avarice means.

  by Espumoso on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:05:52 PM PDT

  •  Three Great Stimulants...

    Your post reminds me of Joni Mitchell's song, titled above, that lists "artifice, brutality and innocence."

    She'd probably revise that to "four" without much prodding.

    by savior self on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:01:12 PM PDT

•  But It's All About...

  ..."character" the pundits keep saying.

  Forget the issues, it is the quality of the man, they say.

  They say Bush wins that one.

  I want to know how.

  How does a lying smirking AWOL scumbag win the "character" issue?
  

  by Long Haul on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:06:19 PM PDT

  •  Because

    all of that makes his quite a character.

    by Arlyn on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:05:55 PM PDT

  •  Bush = great leader

    This is a Chris Matthews mantra.

    He says it constantly because he knows
    that it brings on acute acid reflux.

    Bush is such a fine leader, that's why
    it took 7 layers of cops to hold back angry
    citizens at his special convention appearance.

    Today, he made another snide swipe about
    Massachussetts.

    I think that state has every right to secede
    if chimp isn't ousted.

    In fact, I think that both coasts should
    strongly consider secession.  We have nothing
    in common with O'Reilly's lemmings.

    by checkers on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:37:31 PM PDT