In the year 2005, we witnessed the "humbling of Napoleon" in Bush's White House. Like Napoleon Bonaparte when he lost almost all of his army in a grand scheme to conquer Czarist Russia, Bush began the year with a plan to assault the New Deal in the way of Social Security phaseout, and symbolically put his stature above FDR's, and that of all 20th Century Progressives. With his "political capital" he intended to create a "permanent Republican majority." However, like the frigid winters of Mother Russia and the guerilla tactics of Russian troops that weakened Napoloen, we witnessed a series of things weaken Bush, from Iraq, to Katrina, to Schiavo. Bush has finished the year with a weaker standing than a year ago (albeit, recovering somewhat.) Next year, we need to remind the voters of 2005 and Bush's follies. We cannot allow for Natalie Holloway or another Bush speech to swallow up his incompetence in the MSM!
In 2006, we will wage a battle that would seem unprecedented in 2002 or even 2004. We will take on the entire Republican Party! We need to make Rick Santorum, Katherine Harris, and Conrad Burns just as much the targets as George Bush. However, we need to makes sure that voters are reminded of why they disapprove of Bush. We need to run on the following, under broader themes.
I'm going to outline my plan in a note-taking style format, with Roman numerals as the broader themes.
I. "The Republicans are an overreaching group of people that want to get into your bedroom and tell you how to behave."
A. Schiavo, and government intervention of the fundies.
B. NSA wiretapping
C. Use this message to implicitly oppose anti-gay or conservative social state referendums.
II. "The powers that be have made cronyism and patronage their art."
A. Harriet Miers nomination
B. Brownie, especially Brownie
C. Talk about the nominees to positions that are unqualified, like the Vet who was nominated to the FDA.
D. Local issues of Cronyism. Mike DeWine and Bob Taft in Ohio, Conrad Burns, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff.
III. "The dangers of laissez faire government."
A. Cutting taxes for Paris Hilton, while ruining student loans and home-heating programs for the poor. "Fiscal responsibility"? I think not!
B. Privatizing Social Security - HAMMER THIS HOME!
C. Cutting FEMA's budget, - suggestion, MoveOn or some other third party group should run a commercial with Grover Norquist's quote about shrinking government and drowning it in the bathtub, with a picture of a Katrina victim floating. Do not have the Democratic Party do this because it could result in a backlash. If the Republicans ask us to condemn this practice (or any other negative ad) do what they did with the response to the Swift Boat Ads, and tell them, "only if you stop attacking our people with your third party groups." and condemn it and pretend to distance yourself from it.
IV. "This administration does not know what to do in Iraq, and they also have faults in the War on Terror."
A. Demand a timetable for withdrawal, BUT do not ask for an immediate withdrawal.
B. Keep THEM on the defensive as often as possible. Their message will be "cut & run liberals" we need to have something that will throw THEM off balance instead of making the debate of "cut & run."
C. Make the voters cynical of withdrawal. Taking out troops will be their October Surprise in 2006 in the way that a last-minute Bin Laden appearance was in 2004 (and could be again in 2006 in addition to withdrawal.) Also make people cynical of terror alerts. Periodically make phony withdrawal or terror alert cynicism the number one topic in the blogs.
D. Remind them of the Tora Bora botched capture. We did not do enough in 2002 or 2004 to remind the people of this bullshit. Play the commercial where Bush said in March 2002 that Bin Laden is "not a priority" and then show how he lied about his 2002 comments in the debates.
E. Tell them of how we could have captured Al Zarqawi in early '03 while he was in the Kurdish area.
F. Make the debate again about WMD and the lie, this will keep them on the defensive and serve as a counterweight to the Republican tactic of smearing us over the withdrawal.
G. Have the Democrats present a party-wide consensus position on Iraq. It should be something to the effect of calling for our own timetable and troop-training quotas