link: http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/avery/b...rica_010405.htm

CAMPAIGN 2006
Let the battle for America begin now
By Avery Walker | RAW STORY COLUMNIST

I say, let the 2006 congressional campaign begin now. The campaign, you see, is where Democrats have the most trouble, and since George W. Bush scared the living hell out of nearly everyone with Green, liberal, or Libertarian tendencies, we all
Advertisement
now hang out hopes on a Democratic majority that has spent the last twelve years slipping ever further away. And, let’s face it: they’re just not as tight an organization as the RNC.

As I’ve said before, liberals own public opinion on virtually every major policy issue. Even gay marriage, which right-wing Republicans have spent the last six weeks proclaiming as the decisive issue, is owned by Democrats (60% of Americans oppose gay marriage, and the same number, 60%, support civil unions—exactly in line with Kerry’s stance). But Democrats flail in the one area where Republicans shine: Selling the product.

The real business side of politics, you see, is advertising. If soda companies can convince generations of Americans that a product that can double as drain or battery post cleaner is so superior to water that you should actually spend money to poison yourself with it, then Republicans can certainly convince a plurality of them to cast their vote against their own best interest. And, boy, have they ever.

Usually, the very business of politics is what does the consumer—er, constituent in. The Republican lawmaking/deal making machine has become one of the biggest businesses in the world.

Arnold Schwarzenegger calls nurse staffing ratios—essential to the lives of his constituency, as anyone who’s ever even visited a hospital knows—an invention of the “special interest” nurse’s unions whose butts, he said, got a kicking. Major contributor to the RNC Wal-Mart, on the other hand, is not a special interest. Their whims, like the urge to deprive employees of lunch and break times, thereby having to add fewer seasonal employees, constitute a state of emergency—literally. Last month, Arnold submitted a plan to suspend regulations relating to employee lunch hours and breaks. California law only allows for such an order when it is “Necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health and safety, or general welfare”.

Oh, my God! The kid at the GAP (major Arnold contributor,) counter is taking a lunch break, and I’m third in line! Quick, call the Governor! With the money that this little bow to special interests will land Arnold, he'll have millions more to convince gullible voters that he’s a good guy. Then, when he’s re-elected, the workers of California can expect another round of assaults on human decency and their own best interests, for which he’ll receive even more money to buy the votes he doesn’t deserve.

And Arnold is one of the good guys on that side of the fence. The big boys at the RNC make Arnold look like a Saint—and I mean that in the connotative way, not the historical. George W. Bush has operated the White House like a vending machine of special interest favors, while simultaneously vilifying his enemies with vague allusions to corporate control.

During the campaign, Bush ran ads attacking Kerry for taking “millions from special interests”. Factcheck.org (Dick Cheney’s favorite website,) was quick to point out that Bush took far more money from the same sources he accused Kerry of being beholden to. But it goes beyond just the evil of soiled money—an investment in Bush will pay off for even the most wicked of companies.

Power companies gave Republicans $13 million in 2000; Bush relaxed environmental regulations so much that some projected their savings to be in the billions. And, no, this has not given the consumer a price break.

Bush received about $3.5 million from pharmaceutical companies for his 2000 election campaign and inauguration. The industry has been allowed to control life-saving drugs like a diamond cartel, costing millions of lives in third world countries and untold human suffering, while simultaneously making billions selling drugs that they knew killed thousands of Americans.

The chemical industry gave Bush half a million dollars in 2000. Even though the military projects that a chemical plant attack is second only to biological warfare in terms of potential lives lost, Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress refuse to secure the open-door plants. And, to make sure nobody knows how close they are to just such a facility, post-9/11 legislation has made that previously public information classified. Frankly, Bush’s willingness to forsake human life for special interest money is beyond nauseating, and those are just the tip of the melting iceberg. Democrats, who expanded their private donor base from 400,000 to 2.7 million individuals in the 2004 Presidential Election, are in a great place to attack special interest politics.

With Republicans getting so much dirty money from evil deeds to promote themselves as guardians of the public trust, I guess the truth's defense simply must be an ad campaign. I call my hypothetical campaign, wherein everyday Americans quickly and simply dispel myths about the liberal agenda, one fact at a time, over the next two years “Fact check”. Why aren't the cameras rolling yet?

You see, this isn’t going to be about candidates for another eighteen months. Right now, it's about incumbents. And my, oh my, do these people have some very dirty secrets that by all legal standards is public knowledge. If the next year and a half are made about defining parties and the status quo, then Democrats will have a decided advantage going into 2006.

Even at the end, the Democratic campaign for Congress must be a coordinated national effort. The message must be all-encompassing, and more importantly, passionately opined. Everyone at the DNC: Step one is to take a deep breath and realize that focus groups lie, elections do not. You cannot ever turn-of a swing voter by stating your beliefs and standing up for them. If you could turn swing voters off, Republicans would never have won with their vile, chimerical ’94 campaign.

What worked for Bill Clinton will not work for another candidate. It’s that simple. Clinton, you see, had something most politicians lack: Charisma. Other candidates cannot simultaneously suppress their beliefs and still project a likeable personality, much less one that shows real conviction. Those without Clinton's gift for oration must actually own what they believe.

Let’s start with a little bit of re-framing when it comes to our rhetoric. From here on out, the word “conservative” no longer exists. Say it with me: “Reactionary.” Conservatives don’t run up the biggest deficit in history with tax cuts. Also, the Bush Administration no longer exists, unless someone is being prosecuted for something. Say it with me: “Republicans in Congress.” Or, if you’d rather, “The Republican spending machine,” “The special-interest cash-machine Republican Congress,” or even, “Socially reactionary, fiscally irresponsible Republicans in Congress.” It isn’t name-calling; it’s observation. Control the language, and you control the debate.

The word liberal must be reclaimed. For some reason, social liberals have been equated with lavish spending, which has been a ridiculous equation since Reagan hammered it in the 80s. Republicans can spend trillions on tax cuts that actually stifle the economy (sure, you got $300, which comes to $220 after depreciation due to the deficit, but the stagnant economy probably costs you, and well, you're gonna have to pay it back along with about $3,000 in interest). But when Democrats demand Bush actually pony up a couple million to pay for his own education program, they get the big spender label. Reagan and Bush have been the two most irresponsible spenders ever in the White House, while Clinton was among the most responsible. There is no conservative or liberal when it comes to spending—there’s responsible and irresponsible, and Republicans haven’t fallen into the first category during my lifetime.

Now that we've taken ourselves just a tad outside of the lunacy of contemporary politics, let's all pick up a copy of our old logic text books from college. Memorize the informal fallacies. Republicans, you see, aren’t very good at winning arguments. They are amazingly good, however, at muddying any argument just enough to turn it into a draw. You’ll be amazed at how quickly the word “red herring” shuts up a smart person who knows they’ve got no concrete case. You’ll also be amazed at how childish it looks for an adult on national television to demand that their argument, logically invalid by definition, deserves serious attention. Guess what? Not every argument is sound, and not every argument, even in what some have called our “feminized” society, deserves to be taken seriously. (I want to note that, personally, I dislike that term, as it equates irrationality and emotional incompetence to an entire gender, when frankly, these are not traits specific to either gender. I do, however, believe that the phenomenon itself is real.)

But, while doing this, we must also realize that being right just isn’t enough. Facts are great, but the touchy-feely “I believe,” “I feel,” and “I just know”-s that reek of self-help nonsense have also defined George W. Bush’s “connection” with Soccer Moms. Bush has been great at turning irrational appeals to our sentiments into votes. If charismatic people could replace his rationalization, which appeal to the worst parts of voters (even if they often value them the most,) with appeals to the best part of voters—their reason, compassion, and desire to do good—Congress would be unrecognizable in two election cycles. Soccer moms have a higher self, too.

We must also accept that Red States must be targeted even more than swing states. People in these states have voted against their own self-interests because Republicans make them feel personally victimized by social trends in far-off states. So why not make sure they know how they’re really being victimized? The next two years should be spent bombarding red states with information and ads illustrating just how eager Republicans are to sell them out for a big donation or a golf buddy. Disillusionment is your friend, especially when you're not in power.

The South is too far, and so very inexplicably, gone. Then again, some people there still feel victimized by the Civil War, so maybe it's not such a surprise. The Mid-West, however, can and should be the heart of the Democratic Party. The voices that the party chooses over the next two years will play an immeasurable role in deciding its fate in these states. Garrison Keillor should be a major voice in the Democratic Party (though, let’s be honest, not a major face). Steve Earle must be our Rush Limbaugh (only not a repugnant moron). “Republican favor-for-money-machine,” should be shouted loud, clear, and in an Oklahoman accent.

Above all, Democrats need a new crop of leaders. They don’t have to be proven, experienced, or even the best person for the job. They just have to be likeable, smart and passionate. Proven, experienced Gray Davis lost California to Arnold Schwarzenegger, a man whose resume was bolstered mainly by his ability to lift heavy objects. Proven, experienced Al Gore lost (in some accounts) to George W. Bush, who spent the first 40 years of his life in one perpetual party, before going off to run several companies into the ground and becoming Governor of Texas. Both Ahnold and Dubya are likeable personalities, with exceedingly poor qualifications and obvious ethical problems. Fresh, likeable faces must lead the Democrats through 2008.

Finally—and I know that it’s hard to part with something that we’ve had for forty years—we’ve got to lose the losers. Not the losing candidates, as they already have a built in support base. If anything, Democrats need to treat their losing candidates better. Democrats have got to ditch the losing campaign managers, and anyone who relies on their failing strategies (Hillary Clinton, this means you). Everybody makes mistakes, sure, but if you worked on Dukakis, Kerry, Gore and Carter, I would say you should probably move into a more peripheral role. Like maybe, handing out buttons.

In spite of Bush’s “mandate”, I have a feeling that one-point-five percent of the American people might be able to be persuaded to vote in their own best interest, if only there was a competent campaign to persuade them. With a crop of moderate Republicans running in 2008, Democrats are going to have to move to the left just to survive. But will they move far enough to win? If so, they've got to start moving America. Now.

Thats what needs to be seared into every candidates mind!

Yes and 2006 is just next year!

And speaking of "re-framing", we should read some of George Lakoff's writings on that subject.


Fuggeddaboutit. The "L" word has been disgraced since 1972 and the ill-fated campaign of George McGovern. Let's coin an untainted word like populist or progressive.



We need to fund "think tanks" so that their "experts" can appear on the Sunday Gasbag Shows to make that point about the repubs giving them all the free stuff like values, faith, gay marriage while giving their cronies the money instead.



I agree. Don't even try to explain it. Just accept it as a fact of life. If Edwards couldn't get us a single electoral vote, I don't know what or who can.


Perhaps even more important, we need to TARGET House seats where we have a chance to change out a repub and install a Dem. About 90 percent of all House seats are "safe seats" (a national disgrace IMHO, but a fact of life). However, if we look at districts which were close in 2004, we have a chance to selectively alter the composition of the 2007 House (impeachment, anyone?)




Amen, brother.

I agree but we have to be selective. There are House Republicans that will swing our way if need be.

Someone I'd like to see get the attention he deserves is Sen. Mitch McConnell from Kentucky. He has done more to keep big money in political campaings than anyone else. He has risen to power vitually under the radar. He's a man to keep your eye on! Both eyes!

yeah, me too. But he's a "CLASS II" meaning his seat is good until 2009.

Here are the Class I's (from the 2000 election): I think it is correct.



CLASS I UP IN 2006



ARIZONA: Jon Kyl ®
NEW JERSEY: Jon S. Corzine (D)
CALIFORNIA: Dianne Feinstein (D)
NEW MEXICO: Jeff Bingaman (D)
CONNECTICUT: Joe Lieberman (D)
NEW YORK: Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
DELAWARE: Thomas R. Carper (D)
NORTH DAKOTA: Kent Conrad (D)
FLORIDA: Bill Nelson (D)
OHIO: Mike DeWine ®
HAWAII: Daniel K. Akaka (D)
PENNSYLVANIA: Rick Santorum ®
INDIANA: Richard G. Lugar ®
RHODE ISLAND: Lincoln D. Chafee ®
MAINE: Olympia J. Snowe ®
TENNESSEE: Bill Frist ®
MARYLAND: Paul S. Sarbanes (D)
TEXAS: Kay Bailey Hutchison ®
MASSACHUSETTS: Edward M. Kennedy (D)
UTAH: Orrin G. Hatch ®
MICHIGAN: Debbie Stabenow (D)
VERMONT: Jim Jeffords (I)**
MINNESOTA: Mark Dayton (DFL)
VIRGINIA: George F. Allen ®
MISSISSIPPI: Trent Lott ®
WASHINGTON: Maria Cantwell (D)
MISSOURI: Jim Talent ®
WEST VIRGINIA: Robert C. Byrd (D)
MONTANA: Conrad Burns ®
WISCONSIN: Herbert H. Kohl (D)
NEBRASKA: Ben Nelson (D)
WYOMING: Craig Thomas ®
NEVADA: John Ensign ®



18 Dems and 15 repubs. Any repubs that look like they would make good targets?

I'm in south central PA. Santorum needs to go. The man is small, petty, a homophobe, and overall just a menance. I'm going to a meet-up tomorrow with a lot of state, county and local party officials to discuss strategy for 2006. He's had a lot of political missteps in PA that make him vulnerable, if they can find someone half way decent to put up against him. I'll report back if anything interesting is said.

Rick Santorum beat Ron Klink 52/46 in 2000. This is NOT a safe seat. We could beat him.

Don't remind me and now we have Bunning for another 6
The only hope I have is that we can unseat Northup in 2 years. She won big this last time so it's going to be tough but I think their blustering may have upset a lot of people.
I plan to get busy locally so that by 08 we're ready to take Kentucky back!

Lugars the only one I'm familiar with and he's someone I could putup with for awhile. He can be persuaded to our side at times. He's also been a critic of Bush of late. What about DeWine of Ohio?