How To Destroy George W. Bush -- The Denouement:
This entire week, the Rude Pundit has offered advice on how the Kerry/Edwards campaign, the DNC, and those slanty-eyed 527s can destroy George W. Bush the President and the man. While one should read the rest of the week, in short order:
1. Co-opt the media by getting Kerry and Edwards out there on conservative talk shows.
2. Co-opt the language on war by constantly associating "Iraq" with "Vietnam," a task made increasingly easier as each day goes by.
3. Two slogans, one implicit and one for the rally signs - implicit one: George Bush wants to kill you. The one for bumper stickers: George Bush - Strong But Wrong.
4. Use the father against the son by showing how George Bush, Sr. assiduously avoided going to Baghdad and bragged about it, and ask if Poppy was a flip-flopper.

Yes, the Rude Pundit laid out a plan for not just the defeat of the Presidency of George W. Bush, but a method to lay waste to those who would oppose John Kerry. As expected, there have been naysayers, people who have written to the Rude Pundit and about the Rude Pundit. Primarily, this saying of nay has been centered around that slogan, "Strong But Wrong." And like a bear waits by a river for the ever-leaping salmon so the bear can smack those slick fuckers down and rip out their sweet flesh, so the Rude Pundit is prepared to answer:

Len Hart writes, "Strong but Wrong sucks!!!! Are you trying to get that Nazi spawn elected? The dumbasses in Kansas don't care how 'wrong' he is." And scoutradio opines, "'Strong' is simply too complimentary, and buys into the BC04 message. Why not 'Stubborn and Wrong,' or somesuch? Big difference between being 'strong' and unswayingly holding to a failed ideology, not admitting mistakes." Some suggest other slogans: "Wrong, Not Strong" or "Weak and Meek." There's also the fear of how it could be turned around on Kerry, with the "Weak and Meek" applied to the Senator.

Let's explain this a little more: we know, Christ, how we know, that Bush is not really, actually "strong," just like Arnold Schwarzenegger is not an action hero. We know that Bush is a flaccid cock, a weak-kneed bully who hides behind family and fortune and lackeys as surely as any Corleone or Soprano ever did. But there's simply no getting around the fact that the image of Bush as a "strong leader" has stuck. It's become part of the popular consciousness and the media mill, and six weeks ain't enough time to dislodge that bit of detritus from the brain of America. So it has to be used and then abused. "Strong But Wrong" means "Alright, fuck you, we acknowledge your so-called 'strength,' but strength used for the wrong purposes is going to fuck us all." And it says to the public, "A strong man who is wrong is going to get you killed." As for the idea that it would reflect back on Kerry as "weak," that's solved using a couple of Republicans: Teddy Roosevelt and Bush, Sr. Was Teddy Roosevelt strong with his soft-speaking? Was Bush, Sr. wrong to say that he wouldn't get soldiers killed just to be "macho"? (And one could use the awkwardly phrased "Strong and Right" in reference to Kerry, which also has implications that Kerry is conservative.)

The great thing about the Rude Pundit's complete plan is it relies absolutely, solely on the truth. That's why Karl Rove fears the Rude Pundit. Whether planting documents and bugs or claiming that a vote for a lower tax cut is actually a tax hike, Karl Rove has to traffic in lies and deceit. The be-jowled buggerer can't actually get a candidate to win based on the facts. The Rude Pundit's plan is based, totally and completely, on facts and truth, with little or no spin. Bush claims, in speeches to large, loyal crowds, that Kerry is going to raise taxes. That's huge spin on Kerry's stand. Frankly, there's far less spin in saying that, due to Bush's environmental policies, a vote for George Bush is a vote for your own slow, horrible death from toxin-based diseases.

Jesse Kornbluth, in his Swami Uptown blog, posed this question a couple of days ago: How do you defeat evil without becoming evil? The answer is this: you use the tools of evil to bring about the triumph of good, but you don't use the ideology of evil. Spinning the truth to show its consequences is a use of the tools of evil. Spinning lies to make them seem like truth is just evil.

Of course, we out here in Blogsylvania, we are all just dealing in theory. No one from any campaign or group has contacted the Rude Pundit and no one will. That would take a massive leap of faith that would require breaking the hold on the Democratic party of the allegedly qualified consultants and campaigners who, with the facts and truth on their side, have not been able to destroy George Bush.