Is it good politics not to mention *'s name?

[senseandsensibility]

How do you feel about the Dems apparent decision not to mention * or Cheney by name? It is seems to be a co-ordinated strategy! Now, as impressed as I am by the Dems attempting a CO-ORDINATED STRATEGY of any kind at any time, I think it's still worth evaluating its effectiveness.

We on DU, myself included, dislike * and his policies so much that we generally avoid mentioning him by name. I do this because I don't want to give him the dignity of addressing him by his proper name. It is a form of disrespect which gives me great pleasure.

Nevertheless, we should remember that the average viewer is not of our mindset. Without being patronizing, I think we should remember that most people have only a sketchy idea of who the candidates are and what they stand for. Don't you think we're missing an opportunity to really point out clearly what * is doing wrong? Or, phrased another way, are there viewers out there who won't get the points that are so obvious to us? That said, I'm feeling mostly positive about the attacks on * so far. Keep them coming, please!

[starroute]

1. Forcing people to fill in the gaps themselves is good strategy

Novelists know that the parts you make your readers fill in out of their own imaginations will be more vivid and stay with them longer than the parts you spell out in detail.

Cartoonists know the real story is in what happens between one panel and the next.

Teachers ask their students to figure out the logical conclusions for themselves instead of spoon-feeding them the answers.

Someone who has to figure out for themself that the Democrats are criticizing Bush without mentioning him -- or that many of their positive statements about Kerry are implied negatives about Bush -- will be more inclined to accept the conclusion, even to feel they have experienced a revelation. That more than makes up for the few who may be too dumb to realize what is going on.

[Literate Tar Heel]

2. also, it gives the other side no visual aids to use later

they can cry Bush-bashing all they want, but if his name is never used, it doesn't carry the same weight in a campaign release or commercial

[sangh0]

3. People are more likely to believe something

if they feel they figured it out for themselves. After all, wouldn't you be more likely to believe yourself than someone else?

BTW, not mentioning your opponent's name is old-hat.

[tblue37]

4. He is our Voldemort--

He who must not be named.

[kwolf68]

5. YES

It is a form of protest.

By not mentioning *'s name, the Democrats are saying, "We do not recognize G.W.Bush as the legitimate President."

I love it.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. It's the undecideds

Polling shows that the majority (70%) of the few remaining undecided voters already have a negative opinion of *

Kerry's base already has a negative opinion of *

The undecideds need a reason to vote for Kerry not a reason to vote against Bush.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi John Q. Citizen!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[John Q. Citizen]

13. Thanks newyawker99

it's good to be here.

[library_max]

7. Anything said against Bush or Cheney by name

will be taken out of context and repeated a thousand times on the "liberal media" as proof that the Democrats are just engaging in four days of Bush-bashing and have no plan or candidate of their own.

Here's the beauty of the way it has been done: Clinton says something like "wisdom and strength are not opposing values." The clear and unmissable implication is that Bushco thinks they are and avoids wisdom to appear strong. But they can't complain about it without providing proof positive that the shoe fits.

[gottaB]

8. Who*? n/t

[redqueen]

9. I think so, yes

They have mentioned him, though. Several speakers have.

[lottie244]

10. Dems don't have to mention them by name. The media has already

brainwashed the dittoheads into believing that their names are being mentioned. They will swear that the President was called a name. The only time I remember Cheney being mentioned was by the child asking for a 'time out' for him because of his 'bad words.'

[joanne]

12. I seem to recall Senator Kennedy

said Cheney would retire to an "undisclosed location" next year.

He was just stating a fact, not bashing him. :evilgrin: