Republican campaign agenda: fear, fear, and more fear. But at least they have a plan.

I've never been one to believe that the president's bully pulpit or even his agenda has much to do with the economy. I think Bill Clinton got way too much credit for the economic prosperity we saw in the 1990's. Similarly, I think George W. Bush took too much heat for the economic slowdown during his first term.

I'm also not surprised to see that the Republicans, given a lack of high profile accomplishments (except their pro-horse legislation), are resorting to their usual shallow, two-pronged attack of "Democrats love terrorists and high taxes."

However, President Bush and his team need to be careful that the economic issue doesn't get reframed in such a way that is less flattering. Bush wants to remind everyone of that absolutely awful tax increase that Bill Clinton and the Democrats in Congress pushed through back in 2003, you know, the one that cut taxes for 15 million working families and provided tax breaks to nearly all small businesses while raising taxes on fewer than 1 in 50 filers. Those aggregate tax hikes also played a role in shoring up our nation's finances, pushing us consistently into the black for the first time in a long while.

(Then again, I guess I'm impressed by that because I'm a real fiscal conservative, one that believes a balanced budget is real responsibility and that it's better to raise taxes and/or cut spending to take care of that than to just push tax cuts and red ink budgets like Bush has.)

Nobody likes tax hikes, but Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of enjoying what you can do with the extra revenue. Democrats will usually create new social programs and Republicans will usually lock more people up and give the rest back to their rich friends. But one can easily argue that the federal budgets offered during the Clinton administration were infinitely more responsible than the budgets Bush has presented, the ones totally written in red ink.

If Democrats were smart, they'd just reframe the issue into a take on an old classic: are you better off now than you were in the 90's? Ten bucks says that overwhelmingly, Americans would say no. Some of that may have to do the whole pre-9/11 nature of the 90's, but Democrats don't have to mention that. Let that work subconsciously with voters.

I'm not saying that Democrats are smart either. As best I can tell, they're on the verge of pissing away a 1994-like opportunity by failing to coalesce around any kind of agenda that Americans can find without GPS navigation.

But here's what Democrats can talk about in the 90's that bodes well for them:

- Longest economic expansion in U.S. history
- Turning record budget deficits into record budget surpluses
- Paying down the national debt
- 22 million new jobs
- Increasing the minimum wage
- Steady, strong decreases in unemployment

Democrats have a lot of good things that they can unashamedly take credit for in the 90's. If that's the game the President wants to play, play it. Bush doesn't have an economic record that looks anywhere that good, so he's going to resort to the old stereotype. He's banking that if he puffs his chest out and talks big, Democrats will puss out like they always do.

If Democrats were smart, they'd punch him in the mouth and watch him run to his mommy.

The Republican election strategy is that of the playground bully. It's all bravado. They think that by talking big they can distract everyone from the fact that they're more insecure about their chances in November than in any election since 1994. The less they accomplish, the bigger they talk. And they have no real accomplishments to talk about, on the federal or state level, unless you're a horse, in which case you're cutting big checks to the GOP. So for a few months, they'll try to convince you that Democrats want to tax America to death and then hand the keys over to Osama. That gay marriage is a bigger threat to your way of life than your stagnant paycheck. It's all hogwash. Voters just need to be smart enough to not be manipulated by the rhetoric.

If idiot Republicans like John Boehner are going to talk about how Democrats are more interested in protecting terrorists than Americans, it's clear that even the leadership of that party has hit rock bottom in terms of desperation. So I have no problems with Democrats going in front of Americans and taking credit for an economic boom in the 1990's that would've happened without their "assistance." In fact, I encourage it.

But as a better approach, I would just encourage my fellow Americans to turn off the television and radio and stop reading newspapers or newsmagazines or blogs until the day after the election. C'mon guys, you know what's important to you without all these political monkeys on both sides trying to scramble your brains and confuse you. They're not trying to make you smarter or more informed. They're just trying to manipulate you. All they want is your vote, and they will say anything they have to say in order to get it. And the day after the election, they're going to dump your ass and crawl back into bed with their lobbyist buddies and the special interest groups that pump all the money into the 527s that cheapen political discourse in America.

So instead of subjecting yourselves to the cascading rivers of bullshit, go read a book. Take your kids to the park. Rake the leaves in the backyard. Get to that nagging honey-do list. Vote your priorities, the ones you had before the political consultants told you what you're supposed to care about, and come on back after the election. Trust me, you won't be missing anything out here. Besides, deep down, you already know who you're voting for. And if you can't tell me right now whether you're voting for Green or Doyle, or Van Hollen or Falk, or Gard or Kagen, you should probably do everyone a favor and sit this election out.