The FBI admitted today in a story in the New York Times, that newly released declassified messages show that they lacked sufficient evidence to arrest a Portland lawyer, Brandon Mayfield, last year in connection with the Madrid train bombing.

Mayfield was released later when the FBI realized they messed up the fingerprint comparison in a rash attempt to arrest someone, anyone, and as Mr. Mayfield is a Muslim, he clearly fit the profile I guess.

Trillin
read the rest at:
http://www.mnleftyliberal.blogspot.com

I think the goal should be to cast light on the Republicans being corrupt.  Not to make them look corrupt.  It may be word parsing but its word parsing the enemy will use against you.  All you want is a "smear" campaign is the argument they'll make when you should be engaging in a campaign of renewal.  A campaign to get the truth out.  Which I know is the real intent.  But the words you used several times and Ive seen before are critical if the intent is conversion.  The more your words can be used to prevent those on the right from listening to you the less likely your words will find an ear.

I still believe the issue here is Iraq, re-election over protection, and playing politics with the lives of soldiers.

I'm worried that the Democrats are too quickly jumping behind what sounds like a generic campaign based on the vague "credibility" numbers in the press.

But like everyone else out there, I just have an opinion at this stage.  This thing is very much in flux.

What is even more astonishing about the Rove mess is its continuing contribution to the Bush admininstration's singlehanded success at weakening every part of the Republican mantra of: limited government (see Terri Schiavo and No Child Left Behind), lower taxes (see huge tax breaks for the wealthy with widening economic gap, economic doldrums and financial insecurity for the non-wealthy), traditional family values (see compulsive lying and deception across the board by Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al and political corruption by Delay, et al) and strong national defense (see screwed up situation in Iraq).

The "wall" has to be a single unified Democratic Party alternative to "the culture of Republican corruption". The problem can be summed up with the adage: What does one get when 100 Republicans are locked in a room for a day? A manifesto! What does one get when 100 Democrats a locked in a room for a day? A riot! Now this is a little less true in the last few months, but still remains THE PROBLEM. There is not a unified voice talking from the Democratic Manifesto. We have to have that "wall" to give substance to the charge of corruption and the response.

This was the brilliance of the "Contract of America" (call it what you want, it was a good political strategy). The contract accomplished the two objectives it set out to accomplish. It provided the "wall" to bash the Dems as corrupt and out of touch with mainstream values. More importantly, it provided the Repubs the unified manifesto from which to read from during the 1994 midterm cycle. It framed the Dems and provided a unified alternative to the majority rule.

However, the devil is in the details. First, how do we get passed the "riot" stage? Second, what are the bricks and mortar used to construct such a wall? Finally, how it implemented?

The first question is really the hardest to get around. How do our leaders unify when the most important players a pursuing the own agendas by positioning for a White House run? As I am just a schmoe from Denver, I have but the vaguest of ideas. The second question of construction is a bit easier to answer, but ties into the first. There are many excellent ideas out there (Ruy Teixeira, John Arvosis, and Chris Bowers to name but a few) to start with. The problem of "riot" again arises, how can our party get past their individual egos and build a solid "wall" with a NATIONAL APPEAL? The ideas are there we just need the tradesmen to build it. Finally, there is implementation. The name of this "wall" is the first question. I know many out there may think the name is the least important detail in implementing the "wall", but I remind you of our modern culture and brand identification. This is what everything is built from, so the name is the most important part of selling it to America. Focus groups are the answer here, but can we trust those in our party's power structure not to fuck this up? I personally like something along the line of "American Values 21K", but a solid focus study would nail the name down. The other part of implementation is the "stay on message" laser focus. This, sadly, brings us back the "riot" phase. So hammer away we will, but a Chris says "everything else is out of our hands".    

It is to our advantage that Bush doesn't fire Rove or that Rove resign. He is the poster child for the "Republican Culture of Corruption" and we should use him to our full advantage.

The calls for Rove's resignation should be pro forma, but we should not devote a lot of time to them. Instead, we should make it clear that if Bush decides that keep a rat like Rove close by then that just tells us something important about Bush's character. If, by keeping Rove, Bush is comfortable with an image of political expediency over serving the national interest then that is just fine by us. It is his right to swim in whatever swamp he wants to swim.

It is our job to point out what kind of swamp he is swimming in.

I'm hoping Chairman Dean will play the part of the Iron Chef who can take all these goodies and deliver a dish to for the American people that is easy to understand and digest so they know what Party brings the goods and what party doesn't.

You're calling this a victory that is based on lies?  By comparing it to the "Swift Boat Liars," it sure reads that way.
I wouldn't advocate the use of lying to become victorious.  Isn't lying the crime you want a Bush official to be sent to jail for?

1) We need to attract as many voters to the table as possible. Keeping the argument to "corruption" may cause Republican voters to circle their wagons and reinforce their support for Bush and his allies.

There is precedent for this: many Democrats, myself included, were so infuriated after 2000 that we took every opportunity to insult Bush supporters for stealing the election.  This caused many people who were on the fence about his subsequent performance to stay with him.

What we didn't so, and should have done, was point out every instance that he broke a promise to his own supporters.

Our frame for the Republican leadership must include betrayal, because they have consistently broken promises made to their own supports.

2) The idea of "Hidden, Secret Government" should also be part of the argument. Secret government enables both incompetence and corruption because no one takes personal responsibility (a major Republican theme) for anything.

The theme that will cover this all, I think is "Effective vs. Defective Government".  It is an umbrella that covers all the abuses we've seen, and allows us to offer a solution:

Defective Government is hidden from the voters; they have idea how the rules that affect their lives are made.

Effective Government makes decisions in the open, so voters know what they are getting.  With effective government, you get health policy made for patients, energy policy made for consumers, and foreign policy made to actually protect US citizens.

Defective Government allows no discussion and treats questions as attacks.

Effective Government takes "advice and consent" seriously, making sure that members of America's highest court are acceptable to the highest numbers of Americans.  It listens to top intelligence and foreign policy experts to make sure that defense policy is directed against enemies that actually attacked us.  

Defective Government takes no responsibility. No one will admits to mistakes, no one is punished for wrongdoing.

Effective Government shows who makes decisions and how they are made; national security and executive privilege are used to protect American citizens, not corporate profits.

Defective government only serves insiders, and insiders will eventually betray everyone else.

Effective government includes as many as possible, so that policies work for as many as possible.