Bash Bush or Stay Positive or Do Both?

[MikeG]

Explain below.

[NMDemDist2]

1. hmmm could we do both?

keep delivering our postive message and on other ads bring up *'s lies and mistakes?

are they mutually exclusive?

[liberalhistorian]

2. Hey, Mike-

how about a "do both" option??? That's the only one I could vote for.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. Stay positive.....let the other side bitch about the "angry dems" while...

....while no sign of it actually exists.

[Beloved Citizen]

4. Stay Positive

The contrast will have a most incredibly negative impact on the Shrub campaign.

[TiredTexan]

5. I think you have to do both.

You have to give the positive message of what the Dems stand for and constrast it with the negative record of the Bushies.

It's not about negativity or style. It's about sorting the real from the illusion. In order to present a clear picture, we have to talk about how things have gone wrong, and what we plan to do to fix it.

[ClassWarrior]

17. Bingo!

[BillZBubb]

6. Count me in the do both category.

Kerry must stay positive in presenting a vision for his term that people will want to relate to.

But, Kerry must also respond to any Repug attacks in kind. They go negative, go twice as negative. Kerry, of course, shouldn't be the one doing the attacking. A few Dems with spine must carry the battle colors.

We on the left have to demonstrate that the days of lying down and taking Repug crap are over. From now on, we'll meet any attack with an overwhelming counter-attack.

[MikeG]

7. Anyone remember how much Bush bashing at the 92 convention?

That would be an example.

It was the perfect convention.

Gave Clinton a 20 point lead.

[meow2u3]

8. A 75/25 combination of both is optimal

75% positive, including pointing out how Kerry will make the country great again; and 25% accurate criticism of Bush, especially a bit of scare tactics of how democracy itself would be at risk if Bush is re-selected.

[Nite Owl]

9. The posiitve part has to give people a

reason to vote for Kerry but the negative to tell people why not Bush*. It isn't really negative, no need to make stuff up, the truth about him is damning enough. If the media had done its job we wouldn't have to say anything but they didn't and won't.

[Rowdyboy]

10. 85% positive 15% negative

Just enough to remind people of why we must replace Bush, without running them off with our anger.

[Jade Fox]

11. I'd like to vote for staying positive but....

I just got done reading some of the details of the lies told about Gore in
2000 (I had general knowledge before) and I am outraged.

I wonder if there could be some clever way to work that into the speeches
at the convention as a way of warning people to not trust what the
Republicans will say about Kerry/Edwards.

[Deja Q]

12. Bash his pasty white ass!

Politically of course. :-)

[glitch]

13. positively point out his failures and how Kerry would do differently

kindly, with a compassionate smile. Bushco just can't handle the job. Probably not their fault, what with all the cronyism, they advanced far beyond their abilities.
Not so blatantly smarmy as 'the grown-ups are in charge now' but the same idea. It'll work because it's the truth.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Tell the truth

when you show folks the fact, Bush winds up bashing himself. Look at the clips of him in the school room. Talk to folks about things Bush has/hasn't done. Then say what positive things the Dems will do in regards to health care, taxes, etc.

[mellowinman]

15. Make your top priority

delivering your message of what you will do to make America great again.

Mention Bush's failures as often and as carefully as makes sense.

Its not hard. Obama's "I think he had good intentions, (yeah, right!) but his policy was wrong" is a great example.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Speak up! Shout!! Make noise! Enough of the mumbling.

You don't fight fascists by whispering that we won't be "as bad" as they are. You don't stop wars by saying we'll be more effective occupiers. You don't promote democracy by locking up dissenters in pens. You don't throw the bastards out by being nice and pretending to be blind.

Patrick Henry didn't mumble, "Give me Liberty or...a piece of the corporate pie."

[Rose Siding]

18. If there's not to bash him , why challenge him in an election?

You say how bad he screwed up, then explain the fix.

Clinton explained this to a class in AK on C-SPAN. Basically, he advised to explain what you bring to the table as being all the good things the other candidate brings, none of the bad things he/she brings, and what you bring that they don't.

[Still_Loves_John]

19. Both is easy

You can hilight Bush's failures without going after him personally. Negative campaigning is entirely different than reasonably presenting a contrast.

Look at Clinton. The Republican base hated him, but they couldn't criticise him for anything substantial, but their personal attacks turned undecideds off. If we show the flaws in Bush's presidency, while at the same time proposing our vision for the country, we'll do great.