http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/2/141950/9291

We need to be like white on rice on any Republican that will attract swing voters, calling them when they support the right's agenda and praising them when they support legislation that is unpopular with the wingnuts. (Photos with McCain and Ted Kennedy smiling over passing something or another  for example.)

Democrats in Congress can be a real help on this by forcing Republican moderates to take stances that will split their base. We in turn help them by getting over our obsession of Bush and documenting their actions in Congress. Just because we lose a vote doesn't mean that we don't use it as a weapon.

McCain is a Senator. They live by compromise. That's why it's so hard for them to run for President where everything is so partisan. We need to make him choke on his attempts to play the middle. We need to make his party's base despise him for being so sane and rational. Force him to either move to the right play to the middle. DO NOT let him have it both ways.

A moderate Republican may be able to win the general, but we have to make damned sure that they never win the primary.

1. We will have divided governemnt, always agood thing.

2. McCain will balance the budget.

3. McCain is a uniter, and America needs a uniter.

It's quite doable, but we haven't managed it yet. We will need to to this effectively even to win 2006. Do you recall that in early 2004, Kerry and a few other Dem. candidates were polling some 10 points better than Bush? So, once the campaign starts, they will overcome anything under a 10% margin, by hook or crook (mostly the latter) and the election dynamics currently work.

The Culture of Corruption (apparently originated from Dean/DNC, but may hav e got ideas from bloggers) is working out quite well.

Let me throw a couple of Bash the GOP memes of an academic nature:

Feel free to generate more and more these memes. I will compile them (with due credits) and post in a followup on the "Democratic Slogans" diaries I have done recently (myDD, dKos).

thanks.

No nomination, no worry.

Yeah, before 2004, I wouldn't have thought it would have worked either.

But it isn't tomorrow and he'll have time to mend fences.

McCain's health may also become an issue (no, I'm not suggesting GOP style smear tactics).

Do you realize he'll turn 73 in what would be the first year of his administration? That's older than Reagan was. He's also had rather severe skin cancer.

New on EWM: Kevin Bacon to play Libby in upcoming "Six Degrees of Scooter"

It's `Dumb and Dumber' meets `All the President's Men.'

They are negatively disposed to professional politicians.  They are socially moderate with a libertarian streak, patriotic, and strongly geared toward a balanced budget.  It is a group that will often hold their nose and vote out of a sense of civic duty for a less than desirable candidate--but will become strongly motivated by a candidate that satisfies enough of their personal expectations, which include patriotism, personal integrity, and charisma.  In short, they like the hero myth.  

Wes Clark embodies these virtues very well.  His military background, lack of political experience, and apparent motivation for civic duty are strong assets in mobilizing this population.  The beauty of Clark is that he can take progressive ideals--such as increased taxes for the wealthy, gay rights, and universal health--and by his embrace make them appear more reasonable and saleable because of his background and persona.  

It's the opposite of Hillary's problem.  Hillary can tack to the right all she wants, but she will still look like an opportunistic leftie to this crowd.  It is simply impossible to make Clark look like a raving, irresponsible liberal--I mean, for Chrissakes, he was a General, and LOOK AT HIM!!  He hugs the flag, and it looks like a natural fit.  He speaks about soldiers like one himself.  If the Democratic Party  nominates him, he would neutralize McCain's advantage in this crowd, and the election would turn on issues and campaign.  If the Repugs nominated anybody else--even Giuliani--they would be dead meat.  

However, I must add that I suspect that McCain wouldn't run as strong in the general election as we fear.  His resistance to BushCo has been spotty, with many lapses (such as his role as an apologist for the CIA leaks--SHAME ON YOU, JOHN!)that will be ripe for exploitation.  Plus, he'll have to do it with a very unmotivated right wing base.  So maybe Gore will be enough to beat him--Hillary, less so.  With Clark--it would be a very civil race, with two respectful and respectable candidates--but I'd bet Clark would win.              

He has voted against estate tax repeal.

He has voted against drilling in ANWR.

He supports the International Criminal Court.

He believes in global warming and has sponsored a significant bill in the Senate to begin countering it.

He's two years younger than Ted Kennedy.

The Republican Party as now constituted cannot nominate someone with a record like this.

look for it on a blog near you!

McCain would certainly insure a right wing third party candidate.  The right wing nuts have been so coddled, are so use to getting their way, for so long, that they will go "ape-shit" if McCain gets the nod.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out by others, McCain is really not very different then Bush on two issue in which the President is very unpopular: Iraq and economic policy.

The way to beat McCain is with a southern progressive like Edwards.  I say this because the third party candidate I mentioned above will siphon the most votes off McCain in the South, thus making that entire region "in play."

The key: You're not the man we thought you would be.

There is plenty of ammo for this, because it's true.  McCain's persona and his record are miles apart.  All you have to do is articulate the frame properly, and repeat it relentlessly.  Message discipline.  Slow but steady, it works.

A key to making this work is that McCain is not the complete fraud that Girlie Man is, and we should be straight about that.  He was a POW. He's been tortured. He's against tortute. That's a good thing.  But he helped to elect a pro-torture President. Not so good.  And not the sort of integrity we'd expect. Less integrity. More "integrity."  Not the man you'd think he would be.

After winning the New Hampshire primary in 2000, he was visciously attacked by Bush's campaign in South Carolina.  Bush campaigned with an extremist vet who spewed false charges about McCain's record.  Given Bush's own shady record, that was a particularly vile attack.  But four years later, when Bush used the same sort of strategy--employing extremist vets to spew false charges about another decorated Vietnam War vet--John Kerry--McCain interceded to tell Kerry not to fire back against the very same man who had also slandered him.

These are the kinds of stories we have to tell, over and over and over again.  Yes, he's a good man. Up to a point. And beyond that point, he's not the man you expected him to be.  Maybe in 2000, we could have lived with that. Maybe in 2000, that would have been enough.  But we are beyond that point.  We need a leader you can count on all the way. And McCain is not that man.  He's not the man you expected him to be.

As for Wes Clark denying him the military vote...I wouldn't be so sure.  He might, and I hope he does if this scenario comes to pass but its not something you can just assume. McCain may never have been a general, but he draws more war-hero sympathy than Clark. Also, it is no secret that much of the military community was not crazy about Clark as a general. Will this matter? I have no idea, but its somethign to think about. Clark would still be one of my top choices for the nomination but I think its foolish to assume a military career washes away all sorts of potential liabilities.

Hold him to his record of enabling dubya for the past five years.