KERRY KERRY QUITE CONTRARY PT. 2 ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

A little more on my smear ideas...

I know that some on the left might say that my suggestions to smear Bush are all fine and dandy, but they're just about little piss-ant issues. They might say that we should take him to task on bigger things, like the war, the deficit, etc.

Well, that would be nice, but it is better to stick with the piss-ant issues, because that's what the befuddled public can relate to. For example, everyone can relate to alcoholism, but most people have a hard time getting their head around federal budget numbers. That's why Bush's drunkenness makes for a better smear issue than his lying about the tax cuts helping the middle class.

OK, another thing...When this smear campaign gets going good, what should be done if a reporter or a TV host or radio interviewer tries to call us on something or bring up some pesky facts? What should be done is to defend your position. Defend it. Don't acknowledge that the person trying to harangue you might have a point. Defend your assertions even if the proof that you're being faced with is incontrivertible. People like to see someone who has the "courage of their convictions" even if they're dead wrong. Even your defense descends into nonsensical gibberish, defend it. Do not admit you're wrong.

Also, always accuse those who don't agree with you as partisan hacks, i.e. O'Reilly's attacks on Krugman on Russert's CNBC show recently. Don't be afraid to associate anyone who opposes you with history's worst political leaders. If someone says something openly right-wing, dismiss it immediately as partisan rubbish, which supposedly drains any statement of its validity. Interrupt the person if you can. Then say things like, "you would've loved living in Germany in the 30's, huh?"

After all, like the Daily Howler will tell you, the press corps is asleep. They won't or don't check facts, they just report what each candidate says--like a stenographer (I can't remember where I read this comparison, but I like it). That leaves any candidate--theirs or ours--to pretty much say what he wants without much hassle.

And so...

And it seems that the public as well as the media expect dishonesty and dissembling. Everyone decries it, but believe me, people want blood. If every candidate for office really went out of his or her way to be civil and rational, you'd start seeing snarky articles complaining about how much of a goody-goody everyone's being.

I mean, the press wants sensational claims--sensationalism gets viewers, or readers, or listeners. The press sells audiences to advertisers, that's their main function. We've all been led to believe that fearless journalists hound those in power for the truth. But alas, the reality is not so noble (there are exceptions, of course).

Vigorous, exhaustive documentation of the veracity of a candidate's claims can get tedious and wordy, and that turns off the casual audience member (which is most of the audience). If audience members get turned off, ad sales decline and media organizations lose money, which is of course unacceptable. So such pieces are not run, or not run very often, or not given much prominence. And then the smear campaign can very smoothly.

So let's get it on...

Oh, and one last interesting article about the history of Republicans and smear campaigns (the relevant section is "The GOP of 1936 and Today's Dirty Politics")...

Books And Music

I'm quite enjoying Carville's "Had Enough?"...

The Rolling Blackouts rock...really smart, inventive, garage rock...maybe Stooges crossed with Led Zep...

The Red Krayola's "Singles 1968-2002" has some really good stuff...if you like experimental, decade-and-genre-spanning music that has a logic unto itself...and/or if you're a fan of Beefheart or Hampton Grease Band...