Great post. It's a big problem, the Lack of Theme. I wonder if people will like the idea of GW Bush: Above the Law-- because laws and rules are for the French, after all.
I can't understand why his approval ratings are out of the single digits, myself-- so don't ask me to pick a resonating narrative.
I think you're on the right track. I kind of like the memes of "Rules are for other people" and "Buying his way out of trouble since 1970."
Clearly, that's the lesson he's learned for a very long time. The rules that all of us play by have never applied to him, because his daddy and granddaddy, and any problem he's had, either he or they have bought his way around.
Got a draft problem? We can buy our way around that. Only the poor go to war, not you, Georgie boy.
Got a drunk driving problem? We can buy our way around that. Only the poor go to jail, Georgie boy.
Got a past drug problem? We can buy our way around that. Only poor people have drug problems in Texas, Georgie boy.
I think that most Americans knew that rich kid in town who thought he could get away with anything because of who his daddy was, and unless they were that kid, they hated him. George Bush is that kid, and he's still getting people to bail his ass out.
I've thought that the narrative to push is that he's a phony. Pretends to be a veteran. Pretends to be a rancher. Pretends to be a successful businessman. Pretends to be a moderate. Pretends to be pious. Pretends to be president when we all know it's Cheney. Pretends to be anti-elitist with degrees from Harvard and Yale.
I like the all hat, no cattle line, though I can't remember where I heard it before. The problem for me is that it doesn't have that same visceral resonance that the "Rules are for suckers" meme has.
I think too, that whether or not someone's a phony is up for debate, and it's more a truly personal matter. "Rules are for suckers" on the other hand is something that can really tick people off. Imagine him as that guy who drives up the long line of cars waiting to get off the freeway, cuts you off, and then smirks at you as he drives away. Rules are for suckers.
"I don't know what she sees in him, he's just a goodlooking rebel who plays by his own set of rules"
This, I believe, is Bart's angrily denunciation of the appeal of Jimbo Jones in the babysitter epsiode. Didn't work for Bart, doubt it will work for Kerry. If you get a clip of Bush weepnig while threatened by an angry Moe Szylack, however, you've got gold!
The fact that this portrayal is double-edged with benefits for Bush is precisely the point. Bush is already cutting up Kerry with the pro-Bush edge: bold leader, Jimbo Jones, however you want to think of it. The goal is to give this trait another name; to give people another way of thinking about George Bush.
I like the post. Maybe you could simplify the theme down to "George Bush isn't responsible" Thereby, you might mitigate some of that "rebel" imagery. And people really like that "R" word.
The one thing, however, which I don't believe is quite correct was this: George Bush lies constantly. But people think he's credible and it's far too late to change that impression to such a degree that John Kerry will benefit.
Most people, as we have seen in recent polls, don't seem to be aware that he is lying. I know Juan Cole argued that this may have more to do with self-deception, but I still believe that the biggest problem is the under-reporting of the lies. I think this is a drum waiting for the Kerry campaign to beat, and the idealist in me believes it can be effective.
The Negative Theme: "Bush has made a mess of everything, and someone else has to come clean it up."
This works across the board -- the half-trillion deficit, the mess in Iraq, the environment, etc. Note that it's not "Bush is a liar" or "Bush is stupid" -- neither of which stick because many people like Bush. But "Bush made a mess of everything" attacks Bush's results without making people change their minds about his personality.
The Positive Theme: "One America"
A riff on Edward's "Two Americas" theme -- it's a positive message that all Americans are in this together, all of us should be treated equally, and Kerry will fight for better lives for all Americans.
Related to the "all hat, no cattle" theme, and one I think everyone should really be pushing right now, given this week's meeting between Cheney and Bush and the 9/11 Commission, is this: "George Bush is a big fucking pussy."
Condi had the balls to face the Commission alone, in front of God and everybody. George is afraid to talk to them unless Cheney is there to hold his hand, and the meeting is in private, and no official transcript is made. This despite the fact that he picked the Commission members himself. Pussy.
He supported the Vietnam war, as long as he didn't have to put his ass on the line for it. Pussy.
He wants to be a war president, but won't risk committing the resources necessary to get the job done right. So the Reserve has to pick up the slack for his sorry ass. Pussy.
Etc. etc. etc.
I haven't come up with a more nuanced way of saying "big fucking pussy" that will make it into respectable print media though.
"George Bush cheats" is a pretty reasonable distillation of a lot of critiques--and it resonates well with that part of American public culture that values fair play. It also potentially recalls the circumstances of his election, without having to dwell again on the "Bush stole the election" meme.
This is a repeat to my response on Obsidian Wings:
Jack O'Toole says,
What, thematically speaking, is wrong with this President Bush? I really couldn't tell you.
I can. He's a fraud.
He's not the Marlboro man. He's not a figher pilot war hero. He's not a compassionate conservative (hell, he's not even a fiscal conservative). He's not a friend of the environment. He's not a friend to his coalition allies. I sincerely doubt he's actually calling any of the shots, as he's not even able to face the 9/11 commission on his own or take questions at a press conference without bumbling all over himself.
When handed a speech, he (his team) will spin as far as he can, way past "the whole truth and nothing but the truth," up to the edge of what's barely "technically true," letting the public assume what he wants them to believe without actually saying it, falling back on semantics when caught out, falling back on technicalities when his real objective is revealed, disguising horrendous policies in Orwellian terms, shrouding his administration in absurd secrecy, favoring politics over science...business over workers...warfare over diplomacy, and pandering to his base with the most revolting regularity and disgusting disregard for the people or the constitution.
I was with you until you actually proposed an idea.
I think "responsibility, accountability, and openness" work well as themes for Kerry.
They can operate as a double-edged sword. As a positive message for Kerry, and an implicit critique of Bush. Surrogates can use antonyms directly "Bush is irresponsible, unaccountable, and secretive."
I think the only winner here is the "He's screwing up" or "he's made a mess of everything" criticism. "Breaks the rules," as I suggest above, is a total disaster (first question: whose rules? Kofi Annan's? Bob Rubin's? Brent Scowcroft's? Why not just cede the election today?)
Cheats, lies, is a fraud. These would be great, if they resonated broadly; but they don't. It's very hard to convince the broad swath of the American public with what can appear as extreme moralistic denuciation ("Where's the outrage", etc.).
So back to the screw up claim. Can this be about anything *other* than Iraq? The budget and Medicare are horrendous disasters true enough, but it's hard to tag an administration with domestic problems unless the economy craters. And that does not seem to be happening. So, again, an incompetance claim based on foreign policy. How does this look?
Advantages: it's true! Also, it has broad appeal: all Americans want Iraq to go well.
Disadvantages: the way in which the president has screwed up are either toxic for Democrats to emphasize (Bush' s diplomacy) or do not sound credible coming from John Kerry because he was a lukewarm supporter of the war (we need more troops).
I like the "he's screwing up" theme, although it's not as much fun as saying that he's a big fucking pussy.
I remember, during the 2000 campaign, talking to moderate and sensible Bush supporters who basically admitted that Bush was inexperienced and probably not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but who reassured themselves that he would have good advisors. So I don't think it's that hard a sale to make to moderates that he's not particularly competent, they already know it.
I think a good tack would be along the lines of: "he's a nice guy, sure, but he's just not up to the job. I don't hate him, I just want a competent president. I think he would have done fine if nothing serious had happened during his watch, but 9/11 changed everything. Too much shit is on the line now, and being a nice guy isn't enough. George is in over his head."
This is basically what I hear from some of those same people now. They thought he was a good or at least decent governor (I'm in Texas), and would be a good president, but he's really disappointed them, and they're embarrassed about it.
You know, I don't think people care so much about outcomes as such, so I'm not a big fan of the "he's screwing up" angle. And baa is exactly right that it's not a big winner for Kerry either (same goes for "responsibility, accountability, and openness"--does "John Kerry" really leap to mind when you hear those words?).
But baa, there you go with the daddy business. Here are rules that don't belong to anyone: the rules of good war planning; the rules separating politics from science; the rules separating politics from intelligence gathering; the rules about protecting the identity of covert operatives; the rules of economics. If you construe "rules" narrowly, then GW is the cowboy with the big dick, but that, I'll say again, is precisely the point: his own campaign ties him to this characteristic, the Democrats need to provide another way to see it: rule-breaker, reckless. That, as I said in the original post, is the way to shift the focus to outcomes in a way that people will care about: make this a he-said/she-said: Bold vs. Reckless, and then we'll go to the facts armed with a rubrick that can be advantageous to Kerry.
Here's what I mean about outcomes: voter X believes we need to get tough with terrorists; George Bush bombs the crap out of Afghanistan and Iraq; terrorism increases, but voter X is happy, because we were tough. I'd say voter X is more concerned with taking the course he believes is right than with the outcome.
People get around dealing with adverse outcomes in various ways: long-term vs. short-term distinctions; disputing the facts of the matter; blaming unanticipated external factors; but, in the end, if you really care a lot about outcomes, yeah, I do think you're in the minority.
I think the difference between Bold and Reckless usually comes down to: what was the outcome? Good outcome, then it was Bold. Bad outcome, then it was reckless.
How about: he's bold, but only with other people's money, sons & daughters, etc.? He's happy to take credit for other peoples' sacrifices (think Carrier flight deck), but doesn't take responsibility for and has never had to personally deal with any of the fallout when his "bold" plans don't go well? (which is also, by the way what makes him such a big fucking pussy).
I posted before I read your latest comment, Ogged, but I think you're largely right regarding most people's thinking about outcomes.
Just continuing to brainstorm, but how about: Bush doesn't deliver. He promises a lot of things, but he never closes the deal. He hasn't made the US safer, he hasn't even made Americans feel safer, his job creation projections haven't come anywhere near to being accurate, he hasn't united the nation or changed the tone in Washington, our troops weren't greeted with flowers, he hasn't brought peace and stability to Afghanistan or Iraq or the Middle East, he hasn't been compassionate, he hasn't reduced spending, etc. etc. etc.
Of course, the one thing he did deliver was a lot of tax breaks, but even that didn't deliver the economic results he predicted . . .
OK, I'm perplexed by that. But I take your point that rules go beyond mere process -- I'm a Kantian, after all, so I'm a big believer in the rules that belong to us all. But, and here's the point, just talking about "rules" mires any Democrat in a (highly toxic) proceduralist-liberal lexicon.
If you want to cast undermanning the occupation as "breaking the rules," fine. It's your funeral. But let me predict: insofar as such a strategy succeeds, it will be because people read "breaking the rules" as *screwing up.* Not because the proceduralist language helps them. Likely it will turn them off.
And, if I can rant further, where have we seen this before? Why in the craven democratic oposition to having the war in the first place! "We need to bring France and Germany along, we need UN approval": These were proceduralist claims advanced by people (like Daschle) who thought the war was unnecessary/too big a gamble but did not have the guts to oppose it openly and directly. Hawkish Democrats (like the New Republic) were all over the congressional democrats for outsourcing foreign policy judgement under the guise of proceduralism. That debacle didn't even help the Dems politically.
The guy is a slacker and a dodger who hasn't done a hard days work in his life.
He's a coaster, a drifter, a boozer, and a bum.
Why should we do all the work while he gets all the credit? Him and his country club cronies are laughing at us. They are laughing all the way to the bank as they blow smoke up our ass.
"Doesn't play by the rules," needn't be a proceduralist criticism. A lot depends on how it's done. Criticising the administration for outing Plame is hardly a proceduralist complaint; it's about honor (and nastiness). To say that the administration's insistence that the EPA soft-peddle its own reports is a violation of long-standing rules isn't really a proceduralist criticism either; it's a matter of truth-telling. One could go down the list.
I *agree* that the break the rules plaint needn't be proceduralist, but I do think it sure sounds that way. The theme needs to be connected to the damage not the process. You can say: Bush is a failure, Iraq is a mess, the environment is terrible. Or you can say: Bush has no honor, he doesn't respect our service men -- ignoring Shinseki, outing Plame, etc.
Honor seems to me a loser (long story, but would boil down to "where's the outrage"). So you're left with screwing up. And here, again, I don't see how invoking rules helps, rhetorically. If you break the rules, but succeed, you're Dirty Harry.
Here's my assumption: if you start with the outcome/facts/damage, the he-said/she-said focuses on the facts, and there's no movement. If you start with "rules," people will turn to the facts to adjudicate, if you will, and their first impression of the facts will carry more weight. Since that facts are against Bush, that's good for Kerry.
I don't advocate the "honor" line, or any of the other glosses I've made on "rules," ever being made explicitly, for reasons you and I have given. But I do think that the "rules" criticism can be made in ways that invoke things like "honor" and "credibility" etc.
The more I think about this, the more I think "doesn't play by the rules" is just too complicated to work. Political slogans need to be very quick and very simple. The paradigm here is, "it's the economy, stupid!" "Doesn't play by the rules' lacks punch.
i'm going to advocate my revision of it one more time. "George Bush: Not responsible enough to be President"
Not responsible enough to prevent 9/11.
Not responsible enough to take charge ON 9/11.
Not responsible enough to vet Iraq WMD intelligence.
Not responsible enough to vet Iraq-AQ ties.
Not responsible enough to take care of the economy.
Not responsible enough to plan for post-War in Iraq. Not responsible enough to have an exit-strategy.
Not responsible enough to appoint competent administrators in Iraq.
Not responsible to take care of Afghanistan. Not responsible to finish one project before starting on another.
He has spent 40% of his Presidency on vacation, ducking responsibility.
Of course, if you toe this line, there also need lines attacking his subordinates; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, to show that no one in this administration is compent. But those are easier targets, precisely because Bush delegates the dirty work to them.
No new information really needs revealed. What's out there just needs to be blased louder. Most americans are ignorant all of the dirt on Bush. I think the line that "we're worse of in the war on terror now than on 9/11" needs to be pushed. Reiterate that Bush is not just losing the war on terror, but fanning the flames, at the same time as our military is no longer capable of responding.
I disagree with the minor premise that we "need" a single image of Bush for him to be defeated. Different people see through him in a host of different ways, and that's fine. He's toast.
Still, if there's a single unifying notion, it seems to me it's that he's small. He's Bushlet, Bush Junior. He's a small man, eager to please the big guys. He's too small for the jobs he faces. Vison? He's so small he can't reach the knobs. He falls off the couch when he reaches for a pretzel. Is there a White House dog or a White House cat? No. Karl Rove is afraid that they'd piss on the President. From above.
Smallness encompasses many Bush traits widely known to most Americas: he's economical with the truth, i.e. he lies on all occasions. He's cheap to the poor and open-handed to the rich, a small-hearted quality.
He whines. He squints. He furrows his brow and often looks like a deer caught in the headlights. Too small for the role of President.
These are all good, but may I suggest the following?
George Bush has lost control . .
of the budget (massive deficits as far as the eye can see)
of the defense department (Rummy, the Grhaib torture scandal)
of the Justice department (Ashcroft, the maverick terror warnings)
of Iraq (take your pick)
of Afghanistan (let's take a drive in the countryside, why don't we?)
of his vice president (Plame)
of his party (Jeffords, Hatch, et al)
Remember, it was the fact that Bush had good advisors that was offered to rebut the criticism (hounding him since the first gov race) that he was stupid and lacked experience. Now the advisors have run away with him, basically doing what they want, without supervision.
The meme also fits with Bush's physical and personal characteristics. Doesn't he look 'in over his head' and worried alot? And it keeps us from saying he's stupid or bad. Rather, it lets us vent at the assembled cronies, none of which have half the Q numbers of the president. Whaddya think the negatives are on Ashcroft right now?
But despite this niceness, it's devastating to the W image. Conservatives as a group worship control. It is the avatar of the masculine, it is what's missing in the US today (self control, respect for authority, blah, blah, blah). And Bush himself exaggerates his control, to make up for perceived masculine deficits elsewhere. That's what those nicknames are about. Forget about the jokey aspect for a second, and think about the power of naming. Who has the power to name people? Parents, and those in loco parentis, obviously, but who has the power to nickname? The acknowledged leader of a group, the man in charge, that's who. Bush knows this, and he knows that his base understands it as well, that's why he went out of his way to publicize this little fact.
So, to sum up, the idea has a turn for almost every scandal, it targets unpopular figures, it avoids calling Bush names, it has some resonance with prior argument and it would be devastating if believed.
We had an election in 75 in Australia which demonstrated very clearly that the cheat meme didn't work. The left roared around saying "we wuz robbed" and came over as a bunch of whingers concerned about all this technical rubbish about fair and not fair, while the right came over as tough and decisive and willing to make the hard decisions.
There seems to be a hint of this in the response to the Florida stealing of the Presidency.
Its a long time ago, but the cards might play out the same way.
how could you enumerate the list of laws GWB is above, and omit the Vienna Convention on Consular Notification and of course the Florida recount statute.
I think the meme should be "The Buck stops where...?"
Bush has dodged and weaved over responsibility for one damn f*ckup after another. The most outstanding to my mind was the failure to control the Iraq/Syria border during and after the war. If Iraq did have any operational WMDs (a big if, but let's concede it for the moment), they are now in Syria, in the hands of who knows who. Great move, George. Holding off on going after Zarqawi until after US forces had created a situation where power lay in the streets was another brilliant move.
Great post. It's a big problem, the Lack of Theme. I wonder if people will like the idea of GW Bush: Above the Law-- because laws and rules are for the French, after all.
I can't understand why his approval ratings are out of the single digits, myself-- so don't ask me to pick a resonating narrative.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 04-27-04 7:13 PM
I think you're on the right track. I kind of like the memes of "Rules are for other people" and "Buying his way out of trouble since 1970."
Clearly, that's the lesson he's learned for a very long time. The rules that all of us play by have never applied to him, because his daddy and granddaddy, and any problem he's had, either he or they have bought his way around.
Got a draft problem? We can buy our way around that. Only the poor go to war, not you, Georgie boy.
Got a drunk driving problem? We can buy our way around that. Only the poor go to jail, Georgie boy.
Got a past drug problem? We can buy our way around that. Only poor people have drug problems in Texas, Georgie boy.
I think that most Americans knew that rich kid in town who thought he could get away with anything because of who his daddy was, and unless they were that kid, they hated him. George Bush is that kid, and he's still getting people to bail his ass out.
Well, it's a start.
Posted by paperwight | Link to this comment | 04-27-04 7:25 PM
I've thought that the narrative to push is that he's a phony. Pretends to be a veteran. Pretends to be a rancher. Pretends to be a successful businessman. Pretends to be a moderate. Pretends to be pious. Pretends to be president when we all know it's Cheney. Pretends to be anti-elitist with degrees from Harvard and Yale.
All hat, no cattle.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-27-04 8:47 PM
I like the all hat, no cattle line, though I can't remember where I heard it before. The problem for me is that it doesn't have that same visceral resonance that the "Rules are for suckers" meme has.
I think too, that whether or not someone's a phony is up for debate, and it's more a truly personal matter. "Rules are for suckers" on the other hand is something that can really tick people off. Imagine him as that guy who drives up the long line of cars waiting to get off the freeway, cuts you off, and then smirks at you as he drives away. Rules are for suckers.
Posted by paperwight | Link to this comment | 04-27-04 9:40 PM
"I don't know what she sees in him, he's just a goodlooking rebel who plays by his own set of rules"
This, I believe, is Bart's angrily denunciation of the appeal of Jimbo Jones in the babysitter epsiode. Didn't work for Bart, doubt it will work for Kerry. If you get a clip of Bush weepnig while threatened by an angry Moe Szylack, however, you've got gold!
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 04-27-04 10:21 PM
The fact that this portrayal is double-edged with benefits for Bush is precisely the point. Bush is already cutting up Kerry with the pro-Bush edge: bold leader, Jimbo Jones, however you want to think of it. The goal is to give this trait another name; to give people another way of thinking about George Bush.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-27-04 10:34 PM
I like the post. Maybe you could simplify the theme down to "George Bush isn't responsible" Thereby, you might mitigate some of that "rebel" imagery. And people really like that "R" word.
The one thing, however, which I don't believe is quite correct was this: George Bush lies constantly. But people think he's credible and it's far too late to change that impression to such a degree that John Kerry will benefit.
Most people, as we have seen in recent polls, don't seem to be aware that he is lying. I know Juan Cole argued that this may have more to do with self-deception, but I still believe that the biggest problem is the under-reporting of the lies. I think this is a drum waiting for the Kerry campaign to beat, and the idealist in me believes it can be effective.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 1:27 AM
The Negative Theme: "Bush has made a mess of everything, and someone else has to come clean it up."
This works across the board -- the half-trillion deficit, the mess in Iraq, the environment, etc. Note that it's not "Bush is a liar" or "Bush is stupid" -- neither of which stick because many people like Bush. But "Bush made a mess of everything" attacks Bush's results without making people change their minds about his personality.
The Positive Theme: "One America"
A riff on Edward's "Two Americas" theme -- it's a positive message that all Americans are in this together, all of us should be treated equally, and Kerry will fight for better lives for all Americans.
Posted by Oberon | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 7:28 AM
Related to the "all hat, no cattle" theme, and one I think everyone should really be pushing right now, given this week's meeting between Cheney and Bush and the 9/11 Commission, is this: "George Bush is a big fucking pussy."
Condi had the balls to face the Commission alone, in front of God and everybody. George is afraid to talk to them unless Cheney is there to hold his hand, and the meeting is in private, and no official transcript is made. This despite the fact that he picked the Commission members himself. Pussy.
He supported the Vietnam war, as long as he didn't have to put his ass on the line for it. Pussy.
He wants to be a war president, but won't risk committing the resources necessary to get the job done right. So the Reserve has to pick up the slack for his sorry ass. Pussy.
Etc. etc. etc.
I haven't come up with a more nuanced way of saying "big fucking pussy" that will make it into respectable print media though.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 7:39 AM
"George Bush cheats" is a pretty reasonable distillation of a lot of critiques--and it resonates well with that part of American public culture that values fair play. It also potentially recalls the circumstances of his election, without having to dwell again on the "Bush stole the election" meme.
Posted by Timothy Burke | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 8:13 AM
This is a repeat to my response on Obsidian Wings:
Jack O'Toole says,
What, thematically speaking, is wrong with this President Bush? I really couldn't tell you.
I can. He's a fraud.
He's not the Marlboro man. He's not a figher pilot war hero. He's not a compassionate conservative (hell, he's not even a fiscal conservative). He's not a friend of the environment. He's not a friend to his coalition allies. I sincerely doubt he's actually calling any of the shots, as he's not even able to face the 9/11 commission on his own or take questions at a press conference without bumbling all over himself.
When handed a speech, he (his team) will spin as far as he can, way past "the whole truth and nothing but the truth," up to the edge of what's barely "technically true," letting the public assume what he wants them to believe without actually saying it, falling back on semantics when caught out, falling back on technicalities when his real objective is revealed, disguising horrendous policies in Orwellian terms, shrouding his administration in absurd secrecy, favoring politics over science...business over workers...warfare over diplomacy, and pandering to his base with the most revolting regularity and disgusting disregard for the people or the constitution.
Did I mention he's a fraud?
Posted by Edward | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 8:21 AM
I was with you until you actually proposed an idea.
I think "responsibility, accountability, and openness" work well as themes for Kerry.
They can operate as a double-edged sword. As a positive message for Kerry, and an implicit critique of Bush. Surrogates can use antonyms directly "Bush is irresponsible, unaccountable, and secretive."
Etc.
Posted by asdf | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 8:36 AM
I think the only winner here is the "He's screwing up" or "he's made a mess of everything" criticism. "Breaks the rules," as I suggest above, is a total disaster (first question: whose rules? Kofi Annan's? Bob Rubin's? Brent Scowcroft's? Why not just cede the election today?)
Cheats, lies, is a fraud. These would be great, if they resonated broadly; but they don't. It's very hard to convince the broad swath of the American public with what can appear as extreme moralistic denuciation ("Where's the outrage", etc.).
So back to the screw up claim. Can this be about anything *other* than Iraq? The budget and Medicare are horrendous disasters true enough, but it's hard to tag an administration with domestic problems unless the economy craters. And that does not seem to be happening. So, again, an incompetance claim based on foreign policy. How does this look?
Advantages: it's true! Also, it has broad appeal: all Americans want Iraq to go well.
Disadvantages: the way in which the president has screwed up are either toxic for Democrats to emphasize (Bush' s diplomacy) or do not sound credible coming from John Kerry because he was a lukewarm supporter of the war (we need more troops).
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 8:44 AM
I like the "he's screwing up" theme, although it's not as much fun as saying that he's a big fucking pussy.
I remember, during the 2000 campaign, talking to moderate and sensible Bush supporters who basically admitted that Bush was inexperienced and probably not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but who reassured themselves that he would have good advisors. So I don't think it's that hard a sale to make to moderates that he's not particularly competent, they already know it.
I think a good tack would be along the lines of: "he's a nice guy, sure, but he's just not up to the job. I don't hate him, I just want a competent president. I think he would have done fine if nothing serious had happened during his watch, but 9/11 changed everything. Too much shit is on the line now, and being a nice guy isn't enough. George is in over his head."
This is basically what I hear from some of those same people now. They thought he was a good or at least decent governor (I'm in Texas), and would be a good president, but he's really disappointed them, and they're embarrassed about it.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 9:47 AM
You know, I don't think people care so much about outcomes as such, so I'm not a big fan of the "he's screwing up" angle. And baa is exactly right that it's not a big winner for Kerry either (same goes for "responsibility, accountability, and openness"--does "John Kerry" really leap to mind when you hear those words?).
But baa, there you go with the daddy business. Here are rules that don't belong to anyone: the rules of good war planning; the rules separating politics from science; the rules separating politics from intelligence gathering; the rules about protecting the identity of covert operatives; the rules of economics. If you construe "rules" narrowly, then GW is the cowboy with the big dick, but that, I'll say again, is precisely the point: his own campaign ties him to this characteristic, the Democrats need to provide another way to see it: rule-breaker, reckless. That, as I said in the original post, is the way to shift the focus to outcomes in a way that people will care about: make this a he-said/she-said: Bold vs. Reckless, and then we'll go to the facts armed with a rubrick that can be advantageous to Kerry.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 10:52 AM
Maybe I'm in a minority, but I care a lot about outcomes. Isn't that the whole point?
Posted by Oberon | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 11:22 AM
Here's what I mean about outcomes: voter X believes we need to get tough with terrorists; George Bush bombs the crap out of Afghanistan and Iraq; terrorism increases, but voter X is happy, because we were tough. I'd say voter X is more concerned with taking the course he believes is right than with the outcome.
People get around dealing with adverse outcomes in various ways: long-term vs. short-term distinctions; disputing the facts of the matter; blaming unanticipated external factors; but, in the end, if you really care a lot about outcomes, yeah, I do think you're in the minority.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 11:35 AM
I think the difference between Bold and Reckless usually comes down to: what was the outcome? Good outcome, then it was Bold. Bad outcome, then it was reckless.
How about: he's bold, but only with other people's money, sons & daughters, etc.? He's happy to take credit for other peoples' sacrifices (think Carrier flight deck), but doesn't take responsibility for and has never had to personally deal with any of the fallout when his "bold" plans don't go well? (which is also, by the way what makes him such a big fucking pussy).
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 11:36 AM
I posted before I read your latest comment, Ogged, but I think you're largely right regarding most people's thinking about outcomes.
Just continuing to brainstorm, but how about: Bush doesn't deliver. He promises a lot of things, but he never closes the deal. He hasn't made the US safer, he hasn't even made Americans feel safer, his job creation projections haven't come anywhere near to being accurate, he hasn't united the nation or changed the tone in Washington, our troops weren't greeted with flowers, he hasn't brought peace and stability to Afghanistan or Iraq or the Middle East, he hasn't been compassionate, he hasn't reduced spending, etc. etc. etc.
Of course, the one thing he did deliver was a lot of tax breaks, but even that didn't deliver the economic results he predicted . . .
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 11:47 AM
"the daddy business"
OK, I'm perplexed by that. But I take your point that rules go beyond mere process -- I'm a Kantian, after all, so I'm a big believer in the rules that belong to us all. But, and here's the point, just talking about "rules" mires any Democrat in a (highly toxic) proceduralist-liberal lexicon.
If you want to cast undermanning the occupation as "breaking the rules," fine. It's your funeral. But let me predict: insofar as such a strategy succeeds, it will be because people read "breaking the rules" as *screwing up.* Not because the proceduralist language helps them. Likely it will turn them off.
And, if I can rant further, where have we seen this before? Why in the craven democratic oposition to having the war in the first place! "We need to bring France and Germany along, we need UN approval": These were proceduralist claims advanced by people (like Daschle) who thought the war was unnecessary/too big a gamble but did not have the guts to oppose it openly and directly. Hawkish Democrats (like the New Republic) were all over the congressional democrats for outsourcing foreign policy judgement under the guise of proceduralism. That debacle didn't even help the Dems politically.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 12:25 PM
The guy is a slacker and a dodger who hasn't done a hard days work in his life.
He's a coaster, a drifter, a boozer, and a bum.
Why should we do all the work while he gets all the credit? Him and his country club cronies are laughing at us. They are laughing all the way to the bank as they blow smoke up our ass.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 2:39 PM
"Doesn't play by the rules," needn't be a proceduralist criticism. A lot depends on how it's done. Criticising the administration for outing Plame is hardly a proceduralist complaint; it's about honor (and nastiness). To say that the administration's insistence that the EPA soft-peddle its own reports is a violation of long-standing rules isn't really a proceduralist criticism either; it's a matter of truth-telling. One could go down the list.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 3:01 PM
Ogged, I think we've got wires crossed here.
I *agree* that the break the rules plaint needn't be proceduralist, but I do think it sure sounds that way. The theme needs to be connected to the damage not the process. You can say: Bush is a failure, Iraq is a mess, the environment is terrible. Or you can say: Bush has no honor, he doesn't respect our service men -- ignoring Shinseki, outing Plame, etc.
Honor seems to me a loser (long story, but would boil down to "where's the outrage"). So you're left with screwing up. And here, again, I don't see how invoking rules helps, rhetorically. If you break the rules, but succeed, you're Dirty Harry.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 3:35 PM
Here's my assumption: if you start with the outcome/facts/damage, the he-said/she-said focuses on the facts, and there's no movement. If you start with "rules," people will turn to the facts to adjudicate, if you will, and their first impression of the facts will carry more weight. Since that facts are against Bush, that's good for Kerry.
I don't advocate the "honor" line, or any of the other glosses I've made on "rules," ever being made explicitly, for reasons you and I have given. But I do think that the "rules" criticism can be made in ways that invoke things like "honor" and "credibility" etc.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 3:41 PM
Instead of saying "George Bush doesn't play by the rules", how about phrasing it this way:
"George Bush thinks the rules shouldn't apply to him"
or
"George Bush doesn't think the rules should apply to him".
Maybe throw in "that everyone else has to follow" after "rules", although that makes it a bit ponderous.
To me, "doesn't play by the rules" sounds either like a whiny "he cheated!", or like he's a bold maverick.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 7:25 PM
The more I think about this, the more I think "doesn't play by the rules" is just too complicated to work. Political slogans need to be very quick and very simple. The paradigm here is, "it's the economy, stupid!" "Doesn't play by the rules' lacks punch.
i'm going to advocate my revision of it one more time. "George Bush: Not responsible enough to be President"
Not responsible enough to prevent 9/11.
Not responsible enough to take charge ON 9/11.
Not responsible enough to vet Iraq WMD intelligence.
Not responsible enough to vet Iraq-AQ ties.
Not responsible enough to take care of the economy.
Not responsible enough to plan for post-War in Iraq. Not responsible enough to have an exit-strategy.
Not responsible enough to appoint competent administrators in Iraq.
Not responsible to take care of Afghanistan. Not responsible to finish one project before starting on another.
He has spent 40% of his Presidency on vacation, ducking responsibility.
Of course, if you toe this line, there also need lines attacking his subordinates; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, to show that no one in this administration is compent. But those are easier targets, precisely because Bush delegates the dirty work to them.
No new information really needs revealed. What's out there just needs to be blased louder. Most americans are ignorant all of the dirt on Bush. I think the line that "we're worse of in the war on terror now than on 9/11" needs to be pushed. Reiterate that Bush is not just losing the war on terror, but fanning the flames, at the same time as our military is no longer capable of responding.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 8:46 PM
Josh Marshall has similar thoughts.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-28-04 11:50 PM
I disagree with the minor premise that we "need" a single image of Bush for him to be defeated. Different people see through him in a host of different ways, and that's fine. He's toast.
Still, if there's a single unifying notion, it seems to me it's that he's small. He's Bushlet, Bush Junior. He's a small man, eager to please the big guys. He's too small for the jobs he faces. Vison? He's so small he can't reach the knobs. He falls off the couch when he reaches for a pretzel. Is there a White House dog or a White House cat? No. Karl Rove is afraid that they'd piss on the President. From above.
Smallness encompasses many Bush traits widely known to most Americas: he's economical with the truth, i.e. he lies on all occasions. He's cheap to the poor and open-handed to the rich, a small-hearted quality.
He whines. He squints. He furrows his brow and often looks like a deer caught in the headlights. Too small for the role of President.
George W: the small Bush
Posted by David Lloyd-Jones | Link to this comment | 05- 3-04 8:56 AM
These are all good, but may I suggest the following?
George Bush has lost control . .
of the budget (massive deficits as far as the eye can see)
of the defense department (Rummy, the Grhaib torture scandal)
of the Justice department (Ashcroft, the maverick terror warnings)
of Iraq (take your pick)
of Afghanistan (let's take a drive in the countryside, why don't we?)
of his vice president (Plame)
of his party (Jeffords, Hatch, et al)
Remember, it was the fact that Bush had good advisors that was offered to rebut the criticism (hounding him since the first gov race) that he was stupid and lacked experience. Now the advisors have run away with him, basically doing what they want, without supervision.
The meme also fits with Bush's physical and personal characteristics. Doesn't he look 'in over his head' and worried alot? And it keeps us from saying he's stupid or bad. Rather, it lets us vent at the assembled cronies, none of which have half the Q numbers of the president. Whaddya think the negatives are on Ashcroft right now?
But despite this niceness, it's devastating to the W image. Conservatives as a group worship control. It is the avatar of the masculine, it is what's missing in the US today (self control, respect for authority, blah, blah, blah). And Bush himself exaggerates his control, to make up for perceived masculine deficits elsewhere. That's what those nicknames are about. Forget about the jokey aspect for a second, and think about the power of naming. Who has the power to name people? Parents, and those in loco parentis, obviously, but who has the power to nickname? The acknowledged leader of a group, the man in charge, that's who. Bush knows this, and he knows that his base understands it as well, that's why he went out of his way to publicize this little fact.
So, to sum up, the idea has a turn for almost every scandal, it targets unpopular figures, it avoids calling Bush names, it has some resonance with prior argument and it would be devastating if believed.
Posted by epist | Link to this comment | 06-13-04 2:49 PM
We had an election in 75 in Australia which demonstrated very clearly that the cheat meme didn't work. The left roared around saying "we wuz robbed" and came over as a bunch of whingers concerned about all this technical rubbish about fair and not fair, while the right came over as tough and decisive and willing to make the hard decisions.
There seems to be a hint of this in the response to the Florida stealing of the Presidency.
Its a long time ago, but the cards might play out the same way.
Posted by David Tiley | Link to this comment | 06-13-04 9:01 PM
how could you enumerate the list of laws GWB is above, and omit the Vienna Convention on Consular Notification and of course the Florida recount statute.
But is it all finally catching up to him??
Posted by Andrew J. Lazarus | Link to this comment | 06-17-04 9:43 PM
I think the meme should be "The Buck stops where...?"
Bush has dodged and weaved over responsibility for one damn f*ckup after another. The most outstanding to my mind was the failure to control the Iraq/Syria border during and after the war. If Iraq did have any operational WMDs (a big if, but let's concede it for the moment), they are now in Syria, in the hands of who knows who. Great move, George. Holding off on going after Zarqawi until after US forces had created a situation where power lay in the streets was another brilliant move.
The buck stops where...?
Posted by Andrew Case | Link to this comment | 06-19-04 6:16 PM