I think democrats "Harry and Louise" ads, should they ever come into existence, should stress the risk of privatization rather than the solvency of Social Security as is.  People are afraid of change.  We saw that in the last election. Of course Social Security's solvency should be mentioned but the emphasis in the "Harry and Louise" ads should be the risk of change, I think, at least right now.  This is something Moveon, ACT or TrueMajority or someone is going to have to get busy on right now.  Maybe AARP too.

And w/r to this morning's Washington Journal:

There was an awful woman on Washington Journal this morning,  Leanne J. Abdnor,  Women for a Social Security Choice , who just lied and lied and lied.  She, of course, brought up the 2018 phony doomsdate, but she also, interestingly, admitted that PRIVATIZATION WOULD NOT BE A NET PLUS OR MINUS in terms of making Social Security more solvent. She also mentioned that there is a scheduled $800 billion surplus yet to be "collected" and that that money could be used to pay for the transition.  Of course it's being used for something else again right now.  She had no answer for the disability question of a caller, saying that's important and we should look at another way to meet that problem. No one even brought up the life insurance aspects for breadwinners with young dependents.

Henry Aaron, Brookings Institute, was pretty good, as was the fellow, William Spriggs, last night on The Newshour, from EPI.  They stressed the social insurance nature and stability of Social Security. He also mentioned that at the end of the "transition" the losses would go on and on.  I think that's an area which needs to be explored.  The very word "transition" implies that at the end of it, things would be back in balance, which is far from the actual case.  I think he threw out something like $5-7T more to be "found" somewhere.

I'm beginning to see this strategy as a growing and rather complex synthesis of a number of ideas which have been circulating here since the election and even before in other arenas.

Chris Bowers' idea of using meet-ups and house parties organized around election precincts, over the long-term, not just in the final weeks before an election, formed around community action causes, as  skrymir proposes, is the most effective framework for the solution, in my opinion, at this stage of the game.

But within that framework, we must also learn and properly apply principles of influence and persuasion such as those outlined by Robert Cialdini in his books on Influence and also incorporate and invent the new "frames" suggested by Berkley professor George Lakoff in his books and essays.  All the while, we must also recognize the profile of our target audience, the undecided voter, as outlined by Christopher Hayes in The New Republic and on Digby's blog. The undecided voter does not like politics as most of us do, distrusts politicians, is rather poorly informed overall and "does" politics, if at all (remember around 50% don't even vote) as we do laundry, only when forced to and with no great pleasure.

Andrea, I Don't Think You Understand Social Security

Accusing Senator Kerry of pandering on that issue is way off base.
Especially given your husband's position on the issue.

The Social Security trustees have declared Social Security solvent until
2042, almost 40 years into the future.  They form their estimates based on
very conservative estimates of GDP growth, around 1%, when actual
historical GDP growth is more like 3%.  There is currently a cap on FICA
witholding at around $90K which could be removed and generate a lot of
revenue for the Trust Fund; and a small FICA tax increase, about 12.5% of
the 6.2% witholding or about 0.8% of gross earnings, would provide
solvency in 2042, even if the cap isn't removed and the pessimistic
estimates of the Trustees hold true.  On a $50K salary,for the employee,
that would mean a FICA tax increase of around $400 per year or $7.69 per
week, hardly more than a Big Mac and Fries.

The Republican scare tactics should not be countenanced and John Kerry,
far from pandering, is telling the truth.  Your husband is the panderer,
to republican interests interested in deep sixing Social Security or
turning it into a welfare program.  You should have made your conflict of
interest public and/or kept your mouth shut on this issue.

Read the book "Social Security and Its Enemies" to get the full picture of
what's really going on.

I haven't seen anything recently on this, but I was originally under the impression that there would be some sort of replacement for Voter News Service.  If there is no exit polling, there will be a tremendous "moral hazard" for voter fraud.  

I hope someone will investigate.  I've been googling but have found nothing so far. Malloy was discussing this last night....

Bush's performance recalled that immortal moment in the 1992 debates when Stockdale remarked, "I'm out of ammunition..." But the timing lights just kept on glowing as exclamation points to Bush's lack of facts and knowledge.

The time limits and lights actually worked to Bush's disadvantage as they called attention to the fact that without long pauses and the repetition of spin points, he had nothing meaningful to say. As Fineman said, "he had 35 minutes of material for a 90 minute debate."

He kept denying reality, over and over in tautological fashion... it's true because it's true sort of stuff. This works well with his hand-picked-loyalty-oath-signing campaign audiences, but not in the real world.

However, Bush has always been incoherent, and has done well with much of the public in spite of it.  But perhaps last night was different; he was seen as incoherent and repetitive for 90 minutes instead 10 seconds as he is seen in the typical, cleaned-up 10 second soundbites we see on the evening news.

I am cautiously optimistic, awaiting the media respinning of this Bush flax into gold over the next few days.

Script: President Bush's description of the situation in Iraq reminds me of that joke where the wife walks in on her husband in an adulterous relationship with another woman and the husband says "Who are you gonna believe... me or your lyin' eyes!" And that's the question I would ask voters to consider, Who are you gonna believe, Mr. Bush or you're lyin' eyes....beheadings, road side bombings, pipeline bombings, kidnappings, dozens of cities under insurgent control and 27,000 (approximate number) American casualties, either dead, wounded or evacuated for medical reasons?

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/sep/27iraq.htm

...The Bush administration has been forced to scale back a plan proposing a covert CIA operation to aid candidates, favoured by Washington, in the Iraq elections after lawmakers raised questions about the idea when it was sent to Capitol Hill.

The plan, written several months ago, wanted to help such candidates "whose opponents might be receiving covert backing from other countries, like Iran" but not necessarily to go so far as to rig the elections, US media reports said.

But lawmakers, from both parties, raised questions about the idea when it was sent to Capitol Hill. In particular, house minority leader Nancy Pelosi "came unglued" when she learned about what a source described as a plan for "the CIA to put an operation in place to affect the outcome of the elections," said Time magazine.
...
A senior US official hinted that, under pressure from the Hill, the Administration scaled back its original plans. During his visit to Washington and New York, interim Iraqi president had insisted that elections, scheduled for January, would go ahead despite increasing violence in the country.

Sure, I believe them...Sure I do....NOT!

I've been thinking about the debate and think that Kerry's best bet might be to go at Bush personally. Kerry must get Bush to come out from the "bunker" of his pre-packaged sound bites, and a personal attack might just do that. We know Bush is extremely thin-skinned, arrogant and sensitive to critism, remember his "who cares what you think" comment to a disgruntled constituent and "things would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship...and I was the dictator." His handlers are also careful to orchestrate his campaign appearances with hand-picked supporters and shield him from the sight of demonstrators who disagree with him. He simply can't handle criticism and his handlers know it.

For that reason, I think Bush is vulnerable to getting flustered and off message under strong personal attack.  He is probably most vulnerable to attack with regard to his relationship with his father, since his entire presidency (and perhaps his entire adult life) seemingly is directed at proving his father wrong.

Perhaps Kerry could quote George HW on the folly and consequences of going to Baghdad and could say something about the incomptetance of how Bush went to war in Iraq without consulting his own father, the only living president with direct experience on the issue...

It's touchy, because Kerry can't appear petty or mean, but I do think that's the best way to get Bush off balance, off message and prone to make gaffs.