It's pathetic that on repeated visits on Sunday Suckfest talk shows our Dem representatives in the republican-controlled congress fail to do this simple negative branding of the GOP.

Of course they aren't earth-shattering ideas. If they were I would have called this post "Four Earth-Shattering Ideas for Bloggers." ;-)

that with the unquestionable divebombing of Bush's credibility, it will become easier and more acceptable for the next field of Republican presidential hopefuls to distance themselves from his failures and get away with it.  Earlier, Republicans could whip their people into line claiming that the 04 election was more important than individuals' particular issues. And when Bush was popular there was no incentive to break rank for other Republicans. However, we are now in a position where ambitious Republicans will conciously distance themselves from this unpopular white house and there is not much to stop them unless we take the suggestions given above. Can you imagine the tragedy of an-as-of-yet-relatively-unknown GOP governor running for president in 08 vowing to "fix whats wrong in washington".  These are things everyone should start doing. good work.

I don't think Republicans are "Grand" in any way, shape, or form.

Good diary - this is very important, make the Bush festering stink, for which they bear so much responsibility, stick to them.  Don't let them run away from it.

There was a similar discussion at dKos about two months ago when Bush started really sinking in the polls.  I've been sticking unwaveringly with my suggestion at the time:

1. Always refer to politicians, pundits, and right-wing pseuso-journalists as "Bush Republicans".

2. Always refer to the party as "the Bush Republican Party".
   

"Republican politicans" are the problem, and they will try to desperately cling to voters who vote Republican as protection. ("They're bashing you all too!")

Republican Politicians are the problem, in the US and in Missouri.

How to translate what we are doing here (blogs) into mainstream thought so we can wake up that the great mass of uninterested voters who believe in the latest slogan or attack ad. They vote in whoever has the better ad campaign and do not really take time to look at the real values that the Party stands for.  

How do we reach those guys?  <begin story here> a few days ago a co-worker give me political propoganda from their state senator (R) in the guise of an 'official communication' of an increase in homestead exemption legislation that was passed (pushed by Dems!)and instructions on how to 'officially' file under this act (homestead), assuming you haven't had the good sense to do it before they increased the exemption this session. Oh yeah, she rents, (and so why is this Bozo sending this to renters from the voters lists and not land owners from the Assessors list?).

She (my co-worker) was worried that this was an official communication of something she needed to do.  She brought it to me because she wanted my opinion, and did she need to do something or was this political?  I told her this was a political piece in disquise (and asked to keep it). <end Story>

This story shows the problems in reaching most of the electorate, for the most part they don't care.  I'm doing what I can but I believe that helpful hints like your post help to lay the blame and create the groundswell of discontent that will lay the groundwork for realignment.

What other ideas (simple examples that will stick with the great uninterested masses) are out there?  

In my view, this is one of the greatest hurtles we face.

Clueless folks who've been basted in the toxic pseudo-idealist stew that's endlessly served up by the media matrix often wander into MyDD, only to be brutalized by site regulars for the crime of exhaling faulty notions. This must stop. They must be persuaded, not alienated.

The former liberal Republican Connecticut Senator Lowell P. Weicker was defeated by the neocon Democratic candidate Joseph Lieberman, whose campaign was financed by William F. Buckley (!), a little over a decade ago. Weicker went on to become Connecticut's governor, and he pushed through a progressive income tax in that state during the final moments when that was possible to do. Lieberman went on to become the principle architect of the use-of-force-in-Iraq resolution.

People who happen to be Republicans are not intrinsically the problem that we face. It is the neocons that are the problem. Let's not flub this one.

I agree about the branding and the repetition. Someone on dKos wrote a diary about Mitt Romney, using the brilliant new (to me) word Conservatarian. I've adopted it, I HATE the way the word Libertarian initially sounds like liberal, which I am proud to consider myself. I am committed to the restoration of the word liberal to respectability. I loved the speech on The West Wing last week about all the things we have for which we must thank liberals. And while I'm on that roll, I'll just point out that not all conservatives are cons, but this current batch of Republican conservatives certainly are, they are the most ungodly shower of lying jerks to come down the pike in a century.

Secondly, I just read Krugman's Friday column, and one sentence jumped out at me: "politicians who don't believe in a positive role for government shouldn't be allowed to design new government programs." I've been hollering about this for a while. I don't think they should hold office at all. A little healty suspicion about government is one thing, but this Reagan meme that government screws up everything it touches seems to have become something that Republicans take great pride in proving. It's time for our candidates to start challenging Republicans who spout that malarkey.

I had an idea for a DNC ad that follows said guidelines.  It can be found here.  

Now, of course, it should be updated to include Libby and maybe even Abramoff but too many targets clutter the line-of-sight...  :-)

I've always felt that calling the Republican Party GOP was a big mistake -- gives them the respect they don't deserve.

Can we start calling it Bush-ism? I like that it connects his actions to a broader philosophy. I like that it attaches to that philosophy a name with 38% approval rating and a disastrous track record. I also like that it invokes the question of what his actions stand for.

What does a CIA exemption for turture stand for, Mr. President? What do your cuts for social welfare and expansions of corporate welfare stand for, Mr. President?

A lot of other people subscribe to his philosophy of government, try Kilgore and Forrester; or Cheney, Libby, and Rove; or DeLay, Lott, and Abramoff. If we want to clean a little house for the next few years, let's find every Bushist in the country and call him what he is. And we can keep calling him a Bushist until he's replaced by someone who's not -- I'd take an honest-to-god conservative over what passes for a republican most places. If we could just get all the Bushists replaced I'd certainly have a lot more faith in our two-party system.

... can be nailed with just one sentence. I usually use "Bush and the Republican-controlled 'ownership society' in Washington DC" and a host of variations. This way, the reader is reminded that Bush is a Republican and the Republicans have the "trifecta" all in one swoop.  

that it is very important to connect Moderate Republicans to their wack-a-nut leadership in DC.

Many voters do not make the connection (sadly, even some Democrats), so when you send out any literature, point out that Rep/Sen X's efforts in DC were thwarted by wingnut leadership which this person voted for...

A vote for Rep/Sen X is a vote for Tom DeLay/Bill Frist....

Oh yeah, and don't forget to mention also that the Republican Party has controlled Congress since 1994 and the White House since 2000 and that hard core, uncompromising Democrats like Michael from Daleyville (THE most corrupt city in America, run by Democrats by the way...), can't accept the fact that their political party is so out of touch overall, all things considered, with the American populace, that they will NEVER control the halls of government again.