The one where the decent, law-abiding, honourable and (usually) better-looking guy, finally has had enough. And he socks the bully in the kisser. Or straps on his gun and walks out onto the lonely street to confront the gang who's been terrorizing the town.

The hero didn't want to resort to this. He's civilized. He tried to negotiate, to talk rather than fight. But they just - kept - pushing - him -

Think Gary Cooper in High Noon. John Wayne in The Quiet Man. The Hulk. Or maybe, like, a million other movies.

The hero's tried - really hard - to do it the right way. It means getting a little dirty. But he has his reasons - those of us watching the movie already know what they are and are cheering him on - someone's just gotta take a stand, dammit. Shane!

Because the good guy will only win when he - or she - says at last: "That's it! Now I'm mad."

An ad like that.

I absolutely agree that the Dems need to be much tougher - but they really need to be much, MUCH tougher than even advocated in the article. They need to crystallise the following message:

+++

-- GW Bush and Gang lied to US citizens about WMD to get them to accept the neocons' and GW Bush's private war;

-- GW Bush and Gang lied to the US Congress to get the funding to conduct that war;

-- GW Bush and Gang lied to the UN to justify their war to the world;

-- GW Bush and Gang are still lying every which way, every day, in everything they do and say;

-- GW Bush and Gang are plain and simple war criminals and should be treated as such;

-- US citizens are sick and tired of being led by a bunch of war criminals, and we want them O-U-T.

+++

Those US citizens who cannot stomach that strong message must be adjudged to be complicit in GW Bush and Gang's war crimes. I am certain that a majority of US citizens have no desire to be thus complicit.

Just get the scoundrels out of power and into jail where they properly belong!

--- GSC

I first heard of Westen over at Huffington Post recently and asked then how can we get him on board one of the Democratic candidate's campaigns. Like NOW! I'm reading and shaking my head YES YES YES at every line. Same here.

I recall the fall of 2004, opening the NYTimes every day and seeing another story about Kerry's Vietnam service and the Swifitboats and the accusations and I was running around the house screaming at nobody "WHY IN HELL DOESN'T HE RESPOND TO THIS SMEAR!" I knew by the second week in October he was toast.

Still now, after all that has come to pass, the Democrats in control of Congress, and they still can't put stop to the Republican nightmare. Can't even stand in opposition to it. Can't even define themselves in any meaningful way in opposition to it. Is it because they secretly AGREE with it?

I'm with Hell's Liberal. The Republicans mean to rip your throat out. Hey Democrats, ever heard of a spine? When are you ever going to start fighting? We want you to fight godamnit!

My brother and I were having this very discussion the other night. In fact, we've been having this discussion every time we see each other since Bush stole the presidency the first time.

Some like to give Karl Rove way more credit than he deserves, but the Democrats have done more to contribute to Republican successes than the Republicans have.

The main argument that the wingnuts have with the Democrats is that they are "cut and run cowards". And the Democrats continue to turn that idiotic accusation into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their recent capitulation to Bush's illegal spying program was possibly the last straw for me. My frustration comes from the lack of a viable third party who is willing to stand up to these irresponsible Republicans. Because the Democrats aren't the party to do it yet. They're tentative. They're nervous. They're too damned restrained.

It boggles my mind that every televised bobble-head debate revolves around handwringing over Democrats needing to "be careful" about shifting "too far from the center". And yet rarely is the discussion ever about Republicans shifting "too far to the right". Instead, Republicans "playing to their base" is praised as a smart strategy because it "motivates" their voters.

The Republicans are fearless when it comes to offending "the center". It's damned time the Democrats became fearless, too.

Dear Democrats,

You are not as nice as you think you are. Democratic activists have equated the President with Hitler, called him a war criminal, a simpleton and, in some cases have blamed him for planning the 911 attack. Among netroots Dems, there is strong sentiment for criminalizing policy differences.

Such examples of 'toughness' have weakened, not strengthened the party. One reason for Obama's broad appeal, is he recognizes that this tone of 'discourse' (and its Republican equivalent) is bankrupt and counterproductive. Consider how an adult, a statesman and a true patriot, would communicate about serious issues, and you will have no difficulty getting America's attention and respect.

Best regards,

Renascent

While very interesting, I couldn't find many things in Mr. Westen's perspective on the Democratic candidates' messages with which I agree. First, Mr. Westen not so subtlely suggests the Democrats lose to the Republicans because they're too weak on defense. Well, I'd like to ask him what kind of defense is being rendered by the mass murder of innocent Arabs? Isn't the Democrats' problem more a case of not being able to tell the truth about our illegal and immoral militarism in the Middle East? This isn't a question of who's stronger. It's more a question of who's making prudent decisions and who's not. Further, has it escaped Mr. Westen's attention that George W. Bush has NEVER been elected president? In 2000, he was SE-lected by the Felonious Five Supremes and, in 2004, the election was a massive fraud. There's a mountain of evidence to prove it. Voters didn't come out to vote in significantly larger numbers in 2004 because they were satisfied with the monstrous Bush regime. Quite the contrary. The American people NEVER voted this monster into the White House and misinformed folks like Mr. Westen have got to stop spreading this idiotic propaganda. Next, Mr. Westen says the Democrats have to start appealing to the emotional side of the voter. Again, he seems to be oblivious to the fact all this emotionalism got us into an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq. We don't need more of this infantile approach. We need leaders, not cheer leaders. That is to say, a person who can think clearly under pressure. Responding to the mob is so 16th century. In case he didn't notice, we're living in the 21st century Global Village. Then, Mr. Westen makes another false statement, suggesting the Republicans have the upper hand on moral issues. While this may be the prevailing understanding, the facts paint a different picture. Unless Mr. Westen has been living in a cave for the last several years, I'm sure he's aware of the Republicans' problems with homoerotic sex, call girls and other forms of philandery. Statistics clearly indicate the areas of our nation with the greatest problems with divorce, teen pregnancy and family violence are the areas with the most religiously conservative people. In other words, they may have a lot of religion, but very little spiritual enlightenment, which is not the same thing. What the Democrats really need is to start thinking and acting outside of the rigid political box the Bush mob an our useless media try to place them. They need to start running ads which state war is obsolete in the Global Village. Quibbling over specious positions about who would be "stronger" is ridiculous. I'd prefer arguments based on who'd be wiser when confronted with serious issues. A whole bunch of emotionalism is no good no matter which party touts it. We need intelligent, resouceful leadership, not ignorant, disinterested cheer leadership. Mr. Westen spends his time badmouthing the Democratic fish without realizing the real problem perhaps is with our American bowl.

Franklin L. Johnson

starhelix@aol.com