Currently on the reccommended list is
Inauguration guide for Pissed-Off Patriots. I'm a pissed off patriot, but I think we should consider organizing protests around our issues, not our groups.
Groups of similar people fracture the message, devolving it into the lowest common denominator: "We're pissed off!"
Issues-based protests fracture the demographics and can add strength: Some women, some punks, some veterans, and some catholics can work together to say "Iraq is a debacle".
Which would you rather have on TV? Which would your mom rather march with?
Will (Not Roy, thanks YoGo) Rogers that said "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat"? We need to change that.
Reposting a bit from elsewhere
We don't need to dumb our message down to the least common denominator, like 'Bush is bad'.
If you look at the organization of the democrats, or at least as represented by the media, you see groups of people all anti-Bush. Women against Bush, Students against Bush, etc.. It makes it really easy for the media to choose a bush-hating theme and find video, signs and support for exactly what they want to show: a disorganized group of marginalized bush-haters. The good people sitting at home can look at it as say, "well, I'm a student, and I like bush. I'm not one of those losers."
We need positive messages, and there are plenty of them. We need to organize around the many positive issues and give positive messages. Instead of 500K people saying "bush sucks", we need 50 groups of 10K each saying
- "Ohio elections were racist"
- "Bush causes more abortions"
- "Bush failed to serve",
- "Darfour needs aid",
- "Bush explodes small animals",
- etc..
The media would have to work harder to show the bush-hater story, and also have a choice from a group of real issues. If they chose to cover the 'potheads for hemp' group over the 'Iraq WMD Debacle' group, the bias would show. Home viewers could say, "hey, my brother is a pothead--I wonder if he was there" or "I agree with the WMD debacle group. I could march with them, but I don't want to catch cooties from the hippies"
The recent discussions of jettisoning Row v. Wade as a Democratic plank made it clear to me that we can't focus on the essentials of the Democratic Philosophy. The group of people who ascribe to every issue of the Democratic Party might be too small to matter, and we shouldn't jettison ideas in order to gain agreement. We should provide a framework where anybody who had a grievance with the GOP's management of this country can work together.
We should however see how we can use each issue to our advantage. There are some pro-life(erk!) Democratic voters, and they do have value even if you do not agree with them.
Has Bush actually stood up for anything? Or has he just made figurehead-like noises, let people believe he was on their side, and sold them down the river? Bush is a paper tiger. People see what they want to in him, and when we come across as anti-Bush, we are also perceived as attacking the people who believe in him. His performance is indefensible. His personality is defensible. He is a uniter in that if you want to belive in him, he'll happily let you. It's all one way though, don't expect him to actually help you.
We need to build positive messages that provide alternatives for people to come behind. A focused Iraq WMD debacle protest could draw republican war widows, students, retirees, soldiers, politicians, and anybody from all walks of life.
There are many issues that are worth fighting for. We can beat the GOP if we didn't let them fight a one-front war against Bush hating.