Sunday, September 28, 2003
The Domestic Version Of "Bring Em On," Or What We're Up Against, Part 170 Million
That's the number of dollars the President has thriftily saved up in his piggy banks to wage his uncontested primary campaign. (Try and imagine how many of even those super large piggy banks it would take, even if stuffed with thousand dollar bills, to hold $170.) When asked how he plans to spend so much against no opponent, the President replied, with that twinkle in his eye and that clarity of verbal expression available to him only when he is speaking from the heart, "Just watch me."
The Slactivist has an important discussion prompted by Mr. Bush's campaign holdings. Remember the way Gray Davis used his campaign media budget largely to attack Dick Reardon? Fred does, and thinks it's a model for what Bush will do. And he's going to have a field of ten candidates to have fun fiddling with.
The Slactivist has an answer, a most interesting pledge via Chris at Interesting Times, to which Fred adds this important insight:
"....a sitting president cannot single you out for attack without dragging you up to his level." Wonderful insight, that, which applies as much to all potential targets of such presidential attention, congresspersons, NGOs, citizen activists, bloggers, commentators, and the rest of the media. When any us is attacked by the Bush forces, we're all attacked, and there should be an immediate cessation of internal conflicts in favor of a unified resonse, what in another era might have been called a united front.
If you want to think about an example, the best I have to offer is a negative one - what Chris and Fred and I are talking about is everything that didn't happen on the left through-out the eight years of the Clinton presidency. It's what didn't happen between the Democrats and the Greens in the 2000 election.
And sad to say, it's what hasn't happened in response to the White House response to Senator Kennedy's remarks about the fraudulence of the Iraqi war. (more on the Kennedy matter in another post)
To do what I'm talking about requires the kind of prior conversation that leads to the kind of organizing that leads to the ability to mount a unified response, within the DNC, between the candidates, within the Democratic congressional caucus, within the Democratic base and the various NGO's that make it up, from the Sierra Club to the organized labor to student organizations, and on and on.
Big job, I know, so surely not too soon to begin the discussion.
The Slactivist has an important discussion prompted by Mr. Bush's campaign holdings. Remember the way Gray Davis used his campaign media budget largely to attack Dick Reardon? Fred does, and thinks it's a model for what Bush will do. And he's going to have a field of ten candidates to have fun fiddling with.
The Slactivist has an answer, a most interesting pledge via Chris at Interesting Times, to which Fred adds this important insight:
A key factor in the 2004 election will be how such candidates -- and their supporters -- react when they are given the opportunity to shift the focus of their criticism away from Bush and onto their fellow Democrats. If, like Bill Simon or Tolkien's trolls, they take the bait, they will end up sharing a similar fate -- a mossy relic forever on the political sidelines.
Keep in mind that a sitting president cannot single you out for attack without dragging you up to his level. Whenever the Bush campaign attacks any challenger, it is an opportunity for every challenger to "act presidential" by responding to that attack forcefully.
"....a sitting president cannot single you out for attack without dragging you up to his level." Wonderful insight, that, which applies as much to all potential targets of such presidential attention, congresspersons, NGOs, citizen activists, bloggers, commentators, and the rest of the media. When any us is attacked by the Bush forces, we're all attacked, and there should be an immediate cessation of internal conflicts in favor of a unified resonse, what in another era might have been called a united front.
If you want to think about an example, the best I have to offer is a negative one - what Chris and Fred and I are talking about is everything that didn't happen on the left through-out the eight years of the Clinton presidency. It's what didn't happen between the Democrats and the Greens in the 2000 election.
And sad to say, it's what hasn't happened in response to the White House response to Senator Kennedy's remarks about the fraudulence of the Iraqi war. (more on the Kennedy matter in another post)
To do what I'm talking about requires the kind of prior conversation that leads to the kind of organizing that leads to the ability to mount a unified response, within the DNC, between the candidates, within the Democratic congressional caucus, within the Democratic base and the various NGO's that make it up, from the Sierra Club to the organized labor to student organizations, and on and on.
Big job, I know, so surely not too soon to begin the discussion.
