Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Susan Estrich was SO offended by the "hate" at the RNC (I guess she got the special "Hate-filled" feed), she offers up THIS piece of advice for the Dems: RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2004, AND THEREAFTER My Democratic friends are mad as hell, and they aren't going to take it any more. They are worried, having watched as another August smear campaign, full of lies and half-truths, takes its toll in the polls. They are frustrated, mostly at the Kerry campaign, for naively believing that just because all the newspapers and news organizations that investigated the charges of the Swift Boat assassins found them to be full of lies and half-truths, they wouldn't take their toll. The word on the street is that Kerry himself was ready to fire back the day the story broke, but that his campaign, believing the charges would blow over if they ignored them, counseled restraint. But most of all, activists Democrats are angry. As one who lived through an August like this, 16 years ago -- replete with rumors that were lies, which the Bush campaign claimed they had nothing to do with and later admitted they had planted -- I'm angry, too. I've been to this movie. I know how it works. Lies move numbers. Remember the one about Dukakis suffering from depression after he lost the governorship? (Dukakis not crazy, more at 11.) We lost six points over that lie, planted by George W.'s close friend and colleague in the 1988 campaign, Lee Atwater. Or how about the one about Kitty Dukakis burning a flag at an antiwar demonstration, another out-and-out lie, which the Bush campaign denied having anything to do with, except that it turned out to have come from a United States senator via the Republican National Committee? Lee Atwater later apologized to me for that, too, on his deathbed. Did I mention that Lee's wife is connected to the woman running the Swift Boat campaign? Never again, we said then. Not again, Democrats are saying now. What do you do, Democrats keep asking each other. The answer is not pretty, but everyone knows what it is. In 1988, in the days before the so-called independent groups, the candidate called the shots. To Michael Dukakis' credit, depending on how you look at it, he absolutely refused to get into the gutter, even to answer the charges. His theory, like that of some on the Kerry staff, was that answering such charges would only elevate them, give them more attention than they deserved. He thought the American people wanted to hear about issues, not watch a mud-wrestling match. In theory, he was right. In practice, the sad truth is that smears work -- that if you throw enough mud, some of it is bound to stick. You can't just answer the charges. You can't just say it ain't so. You have to fight fire with fire, mud with mud, dirt with dirt. The trouble with Democrats, traditionally, is that we're not mean enough. Dukakis wasn't. I wasn't. I don't particularly like destroying people. I got into politics because of issues, not anger. But too much is at stake to play by Dukakis rules, and lose again. That is the conclusion Democrats have reached. So watch out. Millions of dollars will be on the table. And there are plenty of choices for what to spend it on. I'm not promising pretty. What will it be? Will it be the three, or is it four or five, drunken driving arrests that Bush and Cheney, the two most powerful men in the world, managed to rack up? (Bush's Texas record has been sealed. Now why would that be? Who seals a perfect driving record?) After Vietnam, nothing is ancient history, and Cheney is still drinking. What their records suggest is not only a serious problem with alcoholism, which Bush but not Cheney has acknowledged, but also an even more serious problem of judgment. Could Dick Cheney get a license to drive a school bus with his record of drunken driving? (I can see the ad now.) A job at a nuclear power plant? Is any alcoholic ever really cured? So why put him in the most stressful job in the world, with a war going south, a thousand Americans already dead and control of weapons capable of destroying the world at his fingertips. It has been said that in the worst of times, Kissinger gave orders to the military not to obey Nixon if he ordered a first strike. What if Bush were to fall off the wagon? Then what? Has America really faced the fact that we have an alcoholic as our president? Or how about Dead Texans for Truth, highlighting those who served in Vietnam instead of the privileged draft-dodging president, and ended up as names on the wall instead of members of the Air National Guard. I'm sure there are some mothers out there who are still mourning their sons, and never made that connection. It wouldn't be so hard to find them. Or maybe it will be Texas National Guardsmen for Truth, who can explain exactly what George W. Bush was doing while John Kerry was putting his life on the line. So far, all W. can do is come up with dental records to prove that he met his obligations. Perhaps with money on the table, or investigators on their trail, we will learn just what kind of wild and crazy things the president was doing while Kerry was saving a man's life, facing enemy fire and serving his country. Or could it be George Bush's Former Female Friends for Truth. A forthcoming book by Kitty Kelly raises questions about whether the president has practiced what he preaches on the issue of abortion. As Larry Flynt discovered, a million dollars loosens lips. Are there others to be loosened? Are you shocked? Not fair? Who said anything about fair? Remember President Dukakis? He was very fair. Now he teaches at Northeastern University. John Kerry has been very fair in dealing with the Swift Boat charges. (APPARENTLY, threatning to sue TV stations that run the ads, pressuring book stores to not carry the book and the publisher to stop printing it is "very fair"). That's why so many of my Democrat friends have decided to stop talking to the campaign, and start putting money together independently. The arrogant little Republican boys who have been strutting around New York this week, claiming that they have this one won, would do well to take a step back. It could be a long and ugly road to November. http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=ses You know, for somebody as upset about the "hate" --- she is advocating some hateful, blatant lying. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slickster 0 Report post Posted September 4, 2004 I agree with a lot of what this article says re: Kerry being 'too nice.' And Mike, unless Kerry actually pursues these 'lawsuits' (read: PR stunts) beyond like a month, I'd say he's being pretty tame in responding to these accusations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Susan Estrich: the Conservative's Liberal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Maybe someone should start a rumor about George's lil black baby... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Susan Estrich has a voice that makes the baby Jesus cry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted September 4, 2004 --- she is advocating some hateful, blatant lying. -=Mike well like she said....fight fire with fire......... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Too bad they've thrown just about everything at Bush and nothing has stuck. This seems to resemble Clinton in some ways -- if the other side keeps getting more and more red-faced it'll make the POTUS stronger in the eyes of the public. God, elected Democrats can dish it out but they sure as hell can't take it... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted September 4, 2004 --- she is advocating some hateful, blatant lying. -=Mike well like she said....fight fire with fire......... I don't know, I'd rather fight fire with water to be honest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CronoT Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Susan Estrich has a voice that makes the baby Jesus cry. So does Ann Coulter. What's your point? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Too bad they've thrown just about everything at Bush and nothing has stuck. This seems to resemble Clinton in some ways -- if the other side keeps getting more and more red-faced it'll make the POTUS stronger in the eyes of the public. God, elected Democrats can dish it out but they sure as hell can't take it... The Bush fans havent handled the 2000 election arguements too well... Lot of '4 years ago, get over it, duh duh duh' whining... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Can't speak for other Bush fans, but here's how I handle it: Next time you run for President, don't put your campaign in the hands of a bunch of far-sighted Jews... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 I liked the, "Is an alcoholic ever really cured?" line. Way to bring in the AA vote there, chief. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest GreatOne Report post Posted September 5, 2004 The Bush fans havent handled the 2000 election arguements too well... Lot of '4 years ago, get over it, duh duh duh' whining... Uh hate to tell you this, but it's not the Bush fans who were whining about the 2000 election. Where's the argument coming from? And '4 years ago, get over it' is exactly what it is................ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
