As numerous people have asserted on various threads, the spin of the debates has a much bigger impact than what actually is said or not said. Without spin, the good citizens of this fine homeland would actually have to think and judge for themselves. Heaven forbid we return to such dark ages!
The problem is, Dems were pretty weak when it came to coherent spin over the summer, especially the less-than-rapid response during the GOoP convention. However, I have high hopes that things will improve now that the Clintonistas are running the show.
The point that we've got to realize is that, regardless of what actually happens during the debates, we can twist the message into almost anything we want to as long as we agree on the spin and repeat it enough so that it takes on a life of its own. Rove knows this. I gaurantee that his thugs have already prepared their spin and they'll let it fly immediately after the debate. We need to do the same, and do it better and shout it louder.
So, just in case some DNC strategists are really peeking at these threads now and then, why don't we brainstorm spin ideas? A usuble gem or two might just surface.
Here are my thoughts:
For Thursday's debate, regardless of how Bush "really" performs, we ought to brainstorm and then choose 5 or 6 adjectives for his performance and stick with them. Some suggestions:
groggy
slurring
confused
perplexed
sullen
wandering
swerving
roving
shifty
unhinged
unglued
vindictive
malicious
radical
desperate
cowering
delusional
unbecoming
ludicrous
anxious
And for Kerry:
lucid
honest
straightforward
sincere
presidential
Whichever adjectives are chosen, work them into about 50 polished spin points, and then while listening to the debate, choose the 3 or 4 that seem most appropriate, then spread the word to all our talk show guests, surrogates, etc. and run with them.
embedded examples:
-George Bush struck me as tired, groggy, and confused tonight. Was he medicated? It stood in such sharp contrast to Kerry's lucidity. Frankly, I'm worried about the mental well-being of our president.
-Even Lehrer's softballs seemed to perplex Bush. His "answers" wandered this way and that, as if mentally roving for the right prepared response without speaking from the heart. What was he doing in Crawford? Perhaps he outsourced debate preparation? The American people deserve a leader who values public discourse opportunities rather than cowers from them.
-What happened to the swagger and smirk!? Tonight George Bush appeared sullen and slouching, as if visibly weighed down by the massive Iraqi albatross around his neck.
-Tonight, after long last, millions of people could watch the 2004 version of George Bush speak without having to sign a loyalty oath. No doubt some were shocked to see how 2000's hollow promises of compassionate conservatism have morphed into the unrepentent malicious radicalism of today. Real conservatives are no doubt stunned and appalled.
And, of course, don't forget the more subliminal stuff. For example:
-history shows that tall presidents WIN, so use words like "low" and "short" whenever possible: Bush's low brow tactics, low blows, short on specifics, short on vision, short on details, short-sighted...
Also, I like the idea of subtly portraying Bush as a sown together puppet of Rove, now coming unstiched, unglued, etc. Our reps making the rounds ought to "mistakenly" use Rove's name again and again when they mean to say Bush, as in:
"Rove, er, I mean Bush would like us to believe..."
"... and that's why Mr. Rove's, um.. excuse me, Mr. Bush's policy is not working"
And make "Rovian" a new adjective! Even if viewers don't know what it means yet, they'll get around to asking someone after hearing it 10 times. And it certainly has a sinister ring to it.
Forget the debates. We already know 98% of what they'll both say. Focus entirely on the debate spin and be relentless.
