I will admit up front that this idea is not my own. I was over at TPM and came across this post that Josh Marshall highlighted, and it is something that I agree with. All of us politically active American citizens who intend on successfully getting Barack Obama into the White House have got to modify the current attack that we are using against John McCain. From all accounts, McCain is far more unstable than George W. Bush and will thus be even more destructive. So why don't we drive that point home?
I am unclear as to whether this constitutes some sort of violation, but I am hoping that the original poster of the below and Josh do not mind that I have brought this over to Dkos share this person's insight in order for us to change our strategy.
Posted under the headline of "McWorse," here is the highlighted post from MN over at TPM:
Tell them to stop. They have to stop saying that McCain is just "more of the same"!
I'm a marketer, and it's through those eyes, to some degree, that I view politics. In marketing, you won't sell anything if say your new product is just as good as it was -- you say it's better and improved. So, in politics, in the sort of inverse marketing that one does on one's opponents, you don't say your opponent (McCain) is the same as the earlier product (Bush): you say he's worse.
This is a serious issue, and a huge lost opportunity for the Democrats. The damage done by Bush has been, to some degree, mitigated by the fact that when he began his first term after the Clinton administration, the country was in very good shape. But when Democrats say that McCain will be "more of the same failed policies" they're wrong: it'll be much worse, because he'd be starting in a deep dark hole that has been dug by Bush. More of the same actually means seriously ... dangerously ... inferior.
Beyond that, saying "more of the same" has no bite at all. It's all gums. Saying, "John McCain will make things worse" means something tangible. Plus, it has the benefit of being, as you have observed, eminently true. McCain wants to do what Bush has done, but more so.
(Emphasis mine)
For over five hours, I sat with my eyes and ears glued to CSPAN, listening to several of our elected leaders going after John McCain as a man who will only further the policies of George W. Bush. That isn't necessarily a bad tactic, however, as MN says above, I believe it is imperative that we take it a step further. We need to pivot away from the whole McCain = Bush = more of the same to it henceforth being McCain = worse than the Bush Administration.
Providing examples as to why this is indeed the case would go a long way towards making people understand the significance of not only rejecting John McCain and his fellow Bush-embracing Republicans, but of voting for Barack Obama and downticket Democrats.
I believe that Mark Warner's speech accurately highlighted Obama's intent to represent all Americans and how one can reach across the aisle (as Warner had) to together find solutions to benefit their constituents. Loyalty should fall to country and not party first. You do what you need to on behalf of the people and do not fall in line in support of an agenda that harms the many. Deval Patrick and Brian Schweitzer somewhat touched upon this as well. Making the case that McCain would be worse than Bush while also pointing out that McCain does not intend to be a President to all Americans (like Obama intends to be) could prove effective.