"A party led by chickenhawks and closet cases" (Digby - how to deal wRove)

[scottxyz]

This is ultimately about simple leadership archetypes. (The "gender studies set" will know what I'm talking about --- king, warrior, lover blah, blah, blah.) And we are failing to embody them on a very basic level. Asking for an apology is better than nothing. {But} hitting back in simple ways that convey strength and conviction is even better. ...

Republicans are very successful at connecting with the primal instinctive feelings voters have about people in charge. We aren't. It is their greatest weapon against us and it has nothing to do with policy or positioning or demographics. It has to do with the fact that a lot of people make their decisions about leadership on the basis of who looks the strongest. It's primitive shit. And the Republicans strip it down even more simply than it has to be. There is some room for experimenting with this in innovative ways if we would just accept that it exists and work within it.

It's very hard for me to believe that a party led by limp, myopic chickenhawks and closet cases is getting away with this, but they are. And they have for a long time. We are fools if we let it continue.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_digbysblog_archive.html#111971676221360314

I think Digby is one of the top Dem strategists, and every Dem strategist should be reading him every day. (Particularly Dick Durbin's PR people. "No more tears, Stupid!")

Other writers such as blogspot.patriotboy.com are starting to apply these ideas concretely, with Operation Yellow Elephant.

If Dems keep failing to apply this simple "gender studies" principle, Dems will continue to lose. If Dems are tired of seeing a Purple-Heart veteran lose against a draft-dodging cokehead, we're going to have to stop giving tearful apologies and reciting resumes when they're strutting around in Alpha Male drag. It's not fair, but that's the way TV works, and we need to recognize this and deal with it effectively.

Like Digby points out, there are plenty of opportunities to out-macho this merry band of joystick generals. Dems can still stand up for gender equality, gay rights etc. while pointing out that the Emperor is wearing a big pink tutu.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. And it is not even a lie or an exaggeration...

[BeFree]

2. But...

The republican leaders are liars and exaggerators. It really is as simple as that.

The old saying applies: You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Sadly, many Dem's have been fooled. Happily, they are seeing their foolishness take it's toll, and are getting mad about the deception they have been fed. One day they will bite the hand that has fed them such foolishness, and that day can come none to soon, eh?

[BrklynLiberal]

8. It is the old time Republicans that have to wake up to the fact that they

have been lied to, and realize that this administration and everything it represents does NOT represent them or their best interests.
Everything that was espoused by Republicans in the past is in direct contradiction to what this administration has done.
Democrats are not the only ones that have been lied to.

[cally]

3. So does this mean we can't run women?

While I somewhat agree that the Bushistas successfully protrayed Dems as the party of wimps, I think focusing on building up our machoness will lose elections. If all we do is focus on the male vote, then Dems will lose everytime. We win by getting women votes. Kerry lost in large part because he didn't get a huge women's vote like previous Dems (other than voter fraud.) Kerry's trying to out macho the Reps also lost many women. Dems have to show that they will protect our lives at home with healthcare and social security and not just focus on foreign wars.

Then there is the question is how do women compete if the debate is all about who has bigger balls. Do we only run women who have been in the military? or prosecuters? So far, women haven't successfully won for President. I think a woman can win but she will lose everytime if she tries to play the game the way Digby suggests.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. I am not sure that being a strong leader and telling the truth is

necessarily a "MACHO" thing. That is part of the Repuke illusion. These "Macho" Repukes are the ones who did not go to VietNam and are the "Closet cases". I do not think "macho" is what Digby is talking about. I think he talking honest and courageous and willing to stand up for the truth when you know that is what you are speaking. It goes back to that "SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER" neme.
Remember it is the NeoCon, CryptoFascist Fundies who are trying to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and revoke their right to vote.

I do not think Women are being excluded from Digby's premise. There is more than enough room for women of courage and spine to be on the political forefront. eg. Barbara Boxer, and every woman in the Black Caucus.

[shimmergal]

18. Right. When Kerry's "moment of truth" came,

in Vietnam--when his crewman fell into the enemy-infested river--he didn't hesitate. He plunged right in and rescued him.

When Chimp's moment of truth came--in that Florida grade school classroom--he froze. Rather than order planes into the air, fly back to Washington to take command, or any number of other steps that would show leadership, he fled. What a coward!

This aspect of leadership is about strength and COURAGE -- being willing to put oneself at risk to protect those whom you're responsible for. Men and women both can have it (and granted, stark cases like these don't pop up in every politician's life.) But I'll never understand why the 2004 campaign didn't do more with the contrast between these two incidents.

[Maraya1969]

10. Don't underestimate the "balls" of a woman!

Women have gotten where they are in their country by fighting all the way. It was not too long ago when women were not even allowed to vote! And it was women marching through the streets that got alcohol banned through the entire country! (An amazing feat when you think of it.)

Who was it that refused to give up her seat on the bus? A woman.

Who successfully fought to allow women to take back their own bodies? A women and her woman lawyer.

What group has staged the largest marches and protest rallies? The National Organization for women.


"Well behaved women rarely make history" - A big magnet on my refrigerator! Source unknown - to me.

[cally]

13. I wasn't clear in my post

I was trying to question all these recomendations to try to run macho candidates because I think it doesn't work. Several left bloggers recently have seemed to diss women and women's issue. I see the Digby post in that line. He seems to be saying that Dems need to be manly and I think it's absurd. We win with women.

[deacon2]

17. "We win with women." We lose without men. n/t

[scottxyz]

21. That's a great slogan!

Pretty much sums it all up!

[scottxyz]

32. Lady Bug: "Make fun of Rove & the boys while they shower in gym class"

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/digby/111971676221360314/?a=40928#282111

I believe Clinton was asked why the Repubs, now in complete power, continue their smear campaigns, and he said "because they work." As long as the Dems passively allow Rove and his shills to kick sand in their face, they will keep at it. The Dems think too heads-up, too intellectual. We are the A student in junior high who gets shoved into the locker. Like it or not, an indelible American icon is Shane or Gary Cooper in High Noon. As Ahhnold showed us, there is nothing worse than being called a "girlie-man". So lets put these losers masculinity on the line. Highlight their cowardice, bring out their closet homosexual dalliances ("Not," as Seinfeld said, "that there is anything wrong with homosexuality...") because -- in their twisted book, nothing can be worse. Bring out that their children are too chicken too fight.

Digby, as always, is spot on. I've spent a good portion of my life in Red State america, and the underlying theme of Republican mythology over the past 20 years is that the Repubs have bigger weenies than the Dems. Its time to start pointing and making fun of Rove and his boys while they shower in gym class.

[WhiteTara]

37. We call those Ovarios

and Margaret Mead is the person to credit with that great quote, I believe. I have a magnet on my refrigerator that says "brave women fear nothing, brave men fear women"
:toast:

[scottxyz]

11. This does NOT mean we can't run women

We can point out that the neocons are a bunch of scaredy-cat chickenhawks - and at the same time we can run Dem women. There is no contradiction here.

A few strong, effective Dem women in Congress I can think of off the top of my head:

- Barbara Boxer
- Hillary Clinton
- Stephanie Tubbs Jones (the Congresswoman who led the inquiry into the Ohio voting problems)

And I'm sure there are many more others could add to this list.

Standing up to Rove doesn't mean Dems can't run women.

What it means is this: If Rove implies that liberal New Yorkers (ie, 80% of New Yorkers) "don't get 9/11" - we need to call him on this bullshit. All it would take is one well-known tough-talking liberal New Yorker to get up on TV and say: "Come say that to my face Karl - come tell me I don't 'get' 9/11."

Maybe the main Dem surrogate to confront Rove doesn't need to be a woman - maybe, due to "gender" stereotypes, it has to be another guy.

That doesn't mean Dems can run women.

But it does mean that Dick Durbin shouldn't go on TV and break down in tears, just because some Repubs were upset that he quoted an FBI report on torture at Guantanamo.

And it means we need a strong Dem figure to stand up to Rove. Once we start standing up to him, we will find that puffed-up bullies like him can be pushed over with a feather.

[cally]

14. I agree

I think several of the Dem women have been more effective and strong than the Dem men. I think Kerry made a mistake with his campaign and the convention. He tried to make himself a warrior and strong. I watched the convention and thought that he's going to lose some of the needed women voters with that. Kerry seemed afraid to focus on domestic and soft issues. He did not get as many women voters as previous Dem presidential candidates.

[scottxyz]

16. Kerry was in a rough spot

I think a lot of Dems felt like we had to run a guy with a military record, and I think Kerry felt like he had to emphasize his military bona-fides - because of 9/11 and because Repubs were steering us into a war with Iraq.

When Kerry gave his nomination acceptance speech, where he droned on and on about being a Viet Nam vet, after a few minutes I wanted to say "Alright, alright, we got the point - you fought in Viet Nam, you're a real soldier - and Bush isn't. Now talk about something else."

So I agree that Kerry probably was afraid to appear "soft" - and that may have made him focus less on domestic issues, and more in military issues.

But I also think (with hindsight) that Kerry didn't handle the Swift Boat Veterans the right way. Basically, they were challenging him to a duel. They "threw down the gauntlet". An archaic, primitive image perhaps - but one which resonated with viewers.

And Kerry failed to rise to that challenge the right way. He continued to drone on and on about his military bona-fides.

I think we now know (and this seems to be what Digby and Billmon are saying) that this was not the right response. Repubs were using the word "flip-flop", they were calling Kerry "French", they were saying he didn't earn his medals.

I think the only way he could have confronted that was head-on. Like it or not, this was political "theater" at that point. He should have confronted the Swifties head-on; he should have said something along the lines of "I dare any of you to say that to my face." Since this was theater, and they were basically saying he wasn't a tough guy, he should have called their bluff and shown them that he really was a tough guy. There's a lot of ways he could have done this - also because his opponent Bush was so clearly a wimp when it came to military service. I think a few attack ads talking about Bush going AWOL, talking about Bush's coke habit, actual footage showing Bush freezing like a deer in the headlights on 9/11, actual footage showing the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing juxtaposed with images of Bush "clearing brush" on his phoney ranch throughout August, some ads talking about how Clinton stopped terrorists heading to LAX before Y2K - this would have destroyed the Swifties and would have left Bush scrambling to find a new campaign strategy based on something other than talking about who's more macho.

Then Kerry could have safely gone back and worked on domestic and other "soft" issues.

[ginnyinWI]

33. please read this and decide

This is what Kerry said on August 19. It seems like a pretty tough response to me. I think most of this idea that he didn't respond to the Swift boat liar attacks is right wing media spin.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth--and they're not telling the truth. They didn’t even exist until I won the nomination for president.
But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They’re a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know--he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You’re proud of what you’ve done--and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/ for more.

[scottxyz]

41. It was a good defense - but a miserable counter-attack

What Digby and other Dem strategists are saying is that even a tough defense sounds, well, "defensive". And on a subconscious level, sounding defensive sounds weak.

I know it's not logical - but we're not talking about logic here, we're talking about emotions.

Kerry's response was adequate. It was a spirited defense, ending with a subtle dig (talking about "our" Viet Nam service) and a clever reference to Bush's earlier use of "Bring it on."

As the answer on a college essay exam, this sort of response would get a B+ or maybe even an A.

In current American politics, it rates about a C or D. What's wrong with it? It is merely "adequate". It is defensive. It is too subtle to talk about "our" Viet Nam service, and stealing Bush's "Bring it on" phrase is clever the way all literary references are.

So Kerry's response was defensive, subtle, clever - almost literary. Can you understand what is wrong with that now? The objective of the Republican attacks on Kerry was to paint him as an effete New England intellectual - as a wimp - as something less than a man. By being defensive, clever, subtle and literary, Kerry played right into their hands.

A better response would be short, and would attack Bush. There was so much about Bush's "service" record that could be attacked, and the very notion of a draft-dodger / deserter trying to question the service of a decorated war hero was laughable in the first place. Do you get this message anywhere in Kerry's response? Remember, people are listening to these things in their car, while other people are yelling in their ear, while they're driving, while they're drinking a soda - they're not paying attention enough to really appreciate the subtleness of Kerry's literary references, or his subtle dig about comparing "our Viet Nam service". To the distracted listener, it might even sound like both Bush and Kerry both had some sort of comparable Viet Nam service.

No, Kerry's answer was all wrong (we now see with hindsight). It should have been a soundbite, and it should have counterattacked Bush.

I could think of a few suggestions:

- "An AWOL cokehead is going to talk about the Purple Hearts I earned in Viet Nam??"

- "If the Swift Boat Veterans want someone to attack, maybe they should take a look at George W. Bush. His daddy got him into a 'Champagne Unit' of the Texas Air National Guard so he wouldn't have to go to Viet Nam - and then evidently he was so busy drinking and snorting coke that he couldn't even bother to show up for his physical."

I think you get my drift. You need to attack, and you need to ridicule the other guy, and you need to do it in a soundbite. This isn't an essay question on a college exam. This is gutter politics as practiced by Republicans, and you can't be all prim and proper about it - you have to hit them where it hurts.

[ginnyinWI]

43. yeah I see what you're saying

I'm not sure it would have helped--but I guess we'll never know for sure.

[scottxyz]

23. "Barbara Boxer has gone head-to-head with them - and come out on top"

Women. Yes, women. They are the key.

The righteous fury of women wronged.

These clowns are terrified of raging females whose boundless wrath will tear them to shreds -- and laugh over the pieces left strewn hither and yon.

Bush/Rove still hasn't had proper payback for what they did to Ann Richards, and they are long overdue.

Barbara Boxer -- a tiny, itty-bitty mite of a woman -- has gone head to head with them and come out on top again and again. How come? Don't they destroy all opposition? Well, not in her case, hunh?

The 9/11 Mothers, Wives, and Daughters and the Gold Star Mothers have partially shamed them; time to do far, far more.

Fury. Unrepentant fury.

- in Haloscan comments on digbysblog.blogspot.com

[Maraya1969]

27. I just copied your post and sent it to some of my girlfriends

I LOVE IT!

[scottxyz]

29. Shakespeare's Sister to Rove: "You use 9/11 as your own ... wrecking ball"

Here's a woman who gives Karl a good smackdown. Maybe this is a good way out of the Rovian "sexualized double-bind" - a woman can show what a big sissy Rove is.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2005/06/i-misunderestimated-him.html

I misunderestimated him

Just when you think Karl Rove can't morph into an even larger asshole, he goes and opens his yapper.

NEW YORK - Speaking in a ballroom just a few miles north of ground zero, Karl Rove said the Democratic party did not understand the consequences of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said Wednesday night. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

{Shakespeare's Sister says:} Karl, you ignorant slut.

In case you forgot, even though you were standing in the frigging city just a few miles away from the site of the tragedy, 9/11 occured in one of the most liberal cities and states in America, if not *the* most liberal. New York City is Democrat. Always has been; always will be.

You were NOT there on 9/11. I was. I was standing in the street watching when the towers went down. I inhaled those buildings and those dead people for weeks afterwards.

I have never, ever felt the strength of the American people like I did that day, and the weeks following. We pulled together as a community. We fought back in the best way we could: By offering support and compassion to our fellow New Yorkers. I was goddamned proud to be an American.

And what did you do? I'm not exactly sure, you didn't show your weasely face anywhere that day, but I'm willing to bet you hid under the frigging bed and wet your fatass Dockers®.

We were not Democrat, Republican, Liberal or Conservative that day. We were New Yorkers, and we were Americans. We were united.

I know that idea is completely fucking foreign to you.

YOU saw 9/11 as an opportunity to sleaze every unctuous, despicable plan you and your cronies had on the back burner into American life. YOU saw 9/11 as a way to play on America's fears to attack the wrong country. YOU saw 9/11 as a way to keep Americans afraid, obedient, and ready to look the other way while you destroyed everything that America stands for.

You see 9/11 as an opportunity to divide Americans. You took the horrible event that could have finally united us as a country, and made it your own personal wrecking ball.

And as for the "consequences of 9/11?"

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war." - Rove



{ Bush "preparing for war" during the first attack on 9/11 - before he "got out of harm's way" by scurrying around the country on Air Force One for 2 hours, while 343 men from the NYFD died, along with 60 NYPD and Port Authority officers, and 2,420 other people, as WTC 1 and 2 collapsed -- scottxyz }

{Shakespeare's Sister continues:} The wrong war. A war built on lies and deciet. A war against a country that never attacked us, while you let the attackers escape. Attackers that you have never pursued, never made a true attempt to locate, and in the words of your own boss, "Don't think that much about."

I see the consequences of 9/11 every day when I watch the death count in Iraq click closer to 2000 American soldiers, and 30,000 civilian deaths.

I see the consequences of 9/11 when I see how your actions have destroyed every bit of goodwill and American support that we gained on that day.

All you saw on 9/11 was death.

And the deaths you saw were not the people that died in the twin towers, nor the Pentagon. Any sympathy you offer to the victims and their families is a hollow lie.

All you saw on that day were the deaths of the people you could now slaughter in the future.

"No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals," Rove said.

No more needs to be said about the motives of conservatives.

Death and Greed.

Racism and Fear.

And more goddamned Lies.

[scottxyz]

31. Mrs. Robinson: "Mama gonna kick these 'manly men' in their littleboy butt"

- http://www.haloscan.com/comments/digby/111971676221360314/?a=40928#282078">Mrs. Robinson says in Haloscan comments on Digbysblog.blogspot.com :

I love Che Pasa's idea that it's time for these "manly men" to find out what it's like when Mama comes in and starts to kick some little-boy butt.

The whole culture war is, at its heart, a gender war. Lakoff and Stephen Ducat and many others have said as much. Male right-wingers overwhelmingly score very high on tests of gender insecurity -- their manhood is easily threatened, and it's the softest of all the soft spots to attack and/or make fun of.

That's why they hate Theresa and Hillary and any other woman who looks like she's got a little power. They just get hysterical and start spitting and drooling all over themselves -- they can't help it. Which means that a strategy that involves angry liberal women demanding a moral accounting from them would top the hit parade of their very worst nightmares. All we'd have to do is make sure everybody's watching while they pee their pants in public.

Kristin Breitweiser is already leading the charge (her questions for Rove are over at Ariana's blog). Every female politician in the country should pick up her theme, and belt it out in loud harmony.

Oh, and one more thing. Karl Rove is proving once again this week that Republicans never, ever EVER apologize for the outrageous things they say. It's a strength we need to emulate.

Politicians say embarassing shit all the time. The Reeps (who are far more prone to saying crazy things out loud than we are) know in their bones that the best thing you can do for your party when this happens is to shut up and let the gaffes evaporate down the memory hole. Any kind of public statement just keeps it alive for another news cycle or two. Silence lets it die.

Dean and Pelosi need to make it clear that ANY Democrat who does to another Dem what these chickenshits did to Durbin will never see another dime of national party money. If you can't say something nice about another Dem, shut up. You stand by your party, or you stand alone. Period.

[scottxyz]

25. Rove is using a sexualized "double-bind" - Amanda suggests a way out

Rove isn't a genius, but I'm sure that Bush worships him far more than Jesus Christ or someone like that. But he has a knack for coming up with political attacks that are hard to circumvent.
...
New Yorkers, as you can imagine, are ready to burn Rove in effigy. And the sniveling, whisper campaign-loving coward would probably shit himself if they did, so let me be the first to encourage 'em. Austin's got your back, pissed off, New Yorkers! Let's hear it for national unity!
...
The problem with the standard-issue Rove attack is that he gleefully plays on people's deepest anxieties -- there's a solid reason that most of his attacks center on sex and gender identity. Even the "therapy and understanding" thing is just one more variation of his whisper campaigns about homosexuality or the whole "looking French" crap -- it's a childish taunt about masculinity and it works really well, I'm afraid.

And that's because there's no good response to a sexualized taunt. Feminists will be the first to tell you this -- when a man is called "feminine" in any way, both defensive postures will damn you. If you say, "Ah hell no, I'm no pussy!", then they have you because they've sucked you into their own hyper-gendered, anti-feminine way of thinking and you'll never out-cock the shameless cock swingers. But if you refuse to play their game, then the audience that shares their prejudices will assume that your reticience confirms that you are somehow emasculated.

Sexualized double binds are Rove's forte, but they are not his only double-bind taunt, as McCain learned when Rove spread rumors that he has black children by a mistress. How do you respond? Angry denials make you look racist and ignoring it only makes the racists all the more sure it's true.

I guess what I'm saying is someone has got to figure a third way to answer these accusations -- defensiveness isn't going to work and ignoring the attacks won't work. (Ask Ann Richards.) That's why the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that New Yorkers burn Rove in effigy, a way not to ignore it while also not playing the "We've got cocks, too, you know!" game.

Why {are} they pulling out the lowly Rove gun now? Once they bust out the Rovian do-anything-to-win-include-commit-treason-and-kill-your-grandmother technique, you know BushCo is worried about losing something. ... My opinion is they are feeling the heat about pulling out of Iraq and afraid that without military protection, the assets of heavy campaign contributors and Halliburton will be seized by the Iraqis for themselves. And so they have to stiffen people's resolve to stay there, and how better than to whip out the "Love the war or you're a limp-wristed hippie" attack?

-

In the comments to Amanda's post, there's one suggestion from The Jew which might be able to side-step this Rovian anti-feminist double-bind:

When Rove says: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." ...

Dems should reply: "Democrats saw the savagery of 9-11 in the attacks and immediately started work to prevent future attacks. The Republicans saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and immediately tried to use our pain to get No-Bid contracts for their cronies."

And here's another approach from "kth":

"I don't see why demanding an apology is incompatible with saying that, if Rove ever said something like that to my face, he'd be picking his teeth up off the sidewalk."

[cally]

26. It is a double bind

and we do need a third response. Maybe you should post this as it's own thread.

:hi: I'm off to read the responses at Pendagen.

[scottxyz]

28. Maybe a female Dem could come up with the best response to Rove

That could be a way out of Rove's "sexualized double-bind" - let a woman smack him down.

There are a lot of easy smackdowns to pasty fat Rove, on this thread and elsewhere.

And a lot of strong Dem women who have formulated them and could deliver them.

[scottxyz]

30. Here's some more smackdowns to Rove - posted at Shakespeare's Sister

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2005/06/question-of-day_23.html

May your child do to you the damage you have done to the rest of us. - oddjob

Yet another person from whom I would refuse proferred help should I be lying broken and bleeding in a ditch. - Darryl Pearce

You're on fire? 'Scuse me while I just pop into the men's room for a moment. - Phoenician in a time of Romans

Words are inadequate. I'd call him a treasonous, scum-sucking, yellow-bellied, worthless-ass motherfucking coward who doesn't deserve even to be buried in a septic tank. - D.

Is it true you were at Mehlmans house last week gettin some spankity-spank? - JJ

I was going to say that I'd let the bullets do the talking, but D. stole my thunder. - maurinsky

I think I would just laugh uncontrollably ... and maybe mumble something about fuckin' fat fuck Repubfucklicans being uglier and more porcine in person (I sort of like the way that rolls off the tongue) - True Blue Liberal

Call a traitor willya motherfucker? Pick up all them chiclets and put 'em back in yer gums. Or leave 'em out. Gannon and Mehlman'll like you even better. - Gordon

"Time to 'prepare for war,' doughboy. Put 'em up, because I'm about to hit ya." - patrick

How about, "Fuck you, you sanctimonious, self-righteous piece of shit." - dave golbitz

I'd say: Thank God I'm a lesbian. - cjt

You look like all the nerdy douchebags in my freshman dorm. Is that why you burn to do damage to everyone? - Rogie

I saw you on American Dad. You are much uglier in person - Me4President

I'd say, "Go live in Uzbekistan; its government is more to your liking." - The Green Knight

Fuck you...you fucking...fucker! - sumo

Sir, as a former Republican turned Democrat, I wish to thank you and others in your party for helping me to see light. Why a party like yours that advocates hate, war, ignorance, lies, greed, treason, crime, and cronyism is even a legitimate political platform beats me. - Anonymous

The best part of you dribbled down your mother's leg. - Donna

I "Photoshopped" him today and it made me feel very, very good. The CultureGhost
http://cultureghost.blogspot.com/

There is nothing to say to a man like that. He does not listen to dissenting words, he does not hear opposing opinions. All things that do not agree with his world view he dismisses. - Erik

I wouldn't say anything, I'd just give him a healthy kick in his nuts...assuming he has any of course. - scott1960

You are a horrible, ugly-ass, double-chinned, evil, complete and utter sociopath, and you deserve to have your balls cut off and shoved up your nostrils. Fuck you. - erinberry

It wouldn't do any good to talk to him. Just run him over. Shooting would be too kind, maybe we could get him a room at one of our "allies" detention facilities and they could get some information out of him in a way that Gannon couldn't. but Karl would probably enjoy it. - PwapVt

I would ask him why he hates Americans. - Scott

I'm afraid I'd be overcome by nausea and vomit on him.Chloroform his ass,put him in some,er,compromising positions,take lots and lots of pictures and take the pictures to every single media outlet I could. - An Angry Old Broad

He's not worth the effort. - Nora |

You suck and you're ugly. - Jen

"Why Mr. Rove, how lovely to see you. Yes, Moustafa will "handle your bags" for you, and show you to the Presidential Suite here at Hotel Gitmo. Enjoy your stay. Motherfucker."
**Moustafa is a fictional name, and not intended to be a racial slur of any kind, just trying to paint the mental picture... Feel free to replace it with "our bellboy, Scottie" if you prefer... - Sister M

See you in prison, you sick fuck. - Ellen

Makes me ashamed to say this, but I'd hit him. Fuck saying anything to this grandchild of a Nazi. - Rook

eat. shit. and. die. - triozyg

May you rest with the fishies. - Missouri Mule

"You've brought shame and disrespect upon all overweight white men. More than we already had. Thanks K. I'm goin' on Atkins!" - Andy

The Most Evil Nerd in America. - Gene Ha

"Shotguns, Fuck, we should have brought shotguns ..." - amish451

"Eat shit and die, you little prick." - Red State Blues

"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike - as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I want to look up into your lifeless eyes and wave . . . like this. - SAP

lick the santorum from my crack - michael

"Sorry 'bout those undescended testicles. Can't medical science correct that now?" - sara

I'd introduce him to my father: a 73-year old highly decorated combat vet, a man fighting for his life against a stem-cell related illness, and a liberal, and let him beat this flabby chickenshit's head into hamburger. - mikez

Who the fuck do you think you are, playing god and trying to bring about Revelations? Trust me, you ain't no messiah, and your ass is going to be the first against the wall when the 4 Horsemen ride. I wish you would be tried in the World Court. And forced to apologize to each and everyone of us - in alphabetical order. Bastard. - Georg

I sent him an email that was very simple - "You, sir, are a fucking asshole!" It was just pissin' in the wind but felt good! - bronco214

[rucky]

38. third response: public psychoanalysis

ridicule the challenger. call his ass out. ask him why he feels he has something to prove. suggest he may be overcompensting for shortcomings in other departments.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

4. This is why I support

Howard Dean in his attempt to show the GOP, the Democratic party and all the fence sitting voters in the country that WE ARE NOT SPINELESS WIMPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's about time someone stood up and got in the face of the right wing bullshit machine :)

[fooj]

5. "the Emporer is wearing a big pink tutu" is right!

There's much about this administration that they would rather nobody KNOW about...

peace

[Maraya1969]

6. Excellent points.

"No demands for apologies --- veiled threats. Bring it on."


I learned a couple things by being a substitute teacher for high school kids. I found that there was one technique that got really bad classes under control. I had to followed through on a threat to send "the next one to the principle's office". It was amazing how the atmosphere changed after they watched one of their own march to his demise.

If you let them walk all over you they will walk all over you. If you make them pay the consequences everyone watching is affected.

I also remember one young boy saying to his friend in front of me: "She's mean". And it made me very happy! Because I knew their perception of me determined their behavior in front of me.

Also, splitting them up helps a lot. People have a lot more confidence when they are supported by their peers. Move them to an isolated position and they loose their gusto.

Divide and conquer and follow through on a threat.

If it works for young teenagers it will certainly work for the people in this administration!

[Nay]

9. The fact that this is true (and I believe it is) makes me really not

give a flying shit about the human race. This primitive, hormone-run behavior in a primate that has taken over the world is the driving force behind all that is rotten about the human being. The fact that half the voting population in the supposedly most advanced nation in the world still follows these fucks slavishly is UNACCEPTABLE.

[scottxyz]

15. We shouldn't close our eyes to this, or be turned off by it

I understand that it can be a turn-off - to think that Americans still choose their leaders based on such "primitive" criteria.

It's normal to be frustrated by this. But we are not angels - we are primates - even in "the most advanced nation in the world" as we sometimes fall into the habit of calling ourselves. We still have hormones. We still engage in rituals. When someone struts around and acts strong and tough, we respond to this in a certain way. When someone bursts into tears (Dick Durbin, I'm talking to you) we respond in another way. Some communication is non-verbal. And I don't think there's actually anything wrong with that.

We should not be snobs unwilling to use the entire arsenal of public relations to get our message across. Just because we studied Plato and Aristotle or whomever in school doesn't mean we should turn our nose up at David Ogilvy or Marshall McLuhan - particularly when our opponents are currently basing a lot of their messaging strategy on Machiavelli, Leo Strauss and Josef Goebbels. Just because some of us learn mainly from books does not mean we cannot craft a message that relies partly on symbolism and subconsious or non-verbal cues.

I don't think Digby is saying that Dem women need to act "like" men, or that Dem men need to act like thugs. The Repubs are obviously trying to pull American discourse into that gutter - and we won't let them go there.

But we can still "speak truth to power." Among primates, there will always be puffed-up bullies and phonies (Rove, Bush) sometimes the best way to "speak truth" to them is to expose them for the wimps they really are.

The main issue in American politics today is: How to you stand up to a puffed-up, phoney bully? I think Digby and Billmon are among the few Dem strategists who have the answer to this question. (Dukakis and Kerry ignored it, and you see what happened to them. By the way, many people are now realizing that it was probably Clinton's image as a "womanizer" that innoculated him from being portrayed as a "wimp" by the GOP.)

Yes, it might be shocking that an "advanced" country like America still runs to a certain degree on hormones - but we are people, not angels or robots. The Repubs are factoring this reality into their messaging strategy, while the Dems (except for Dean, Reid) are closing their eyes to this reality and hoping it will just go away.

This doesn't mean Dems have to act like thugs. But it means that when Repubs act like thugs, we shouldn't go on TV and apologize and break down in tears. We should realize that this "thug" act is just that - and we should expose it as such. If that means sending another surrogate thug out to huff and puff and blow Rove down (which should be very easy), then so be it. It might not be as neat and pretty as a policy statement - but it's a bit of harmless theater and right now it seems to be an absolute necessity.

[shimmergal]

19. You're so right, scottxyz.

Even at the time, I though part of the reason the public (in defiance of press expectations) didn't get more upset about Monica was because of the ancient principle that the realm's safety and well-being depend upon the king's virility. People respond to these things even if they're consciously unaward of them.

Incidentally, Al Gore's big kiss for Tipper appealed to this same archetype as well as to the "happily married" image. And Al almost won (well, actually, by any rational standard he DID win...)

Democrats should be delighted with the surveys that show how unsexy most women find George W. We should be looking at ways to exploit this too.

Where can I read more about Digby and Billmon's strategic thinking?

BTW, I'm a strong feminist. Wishing these subliminal factors didn't exist doesn't make them go away; it just loses elections for us.

[scottxyz]

20. Here are some more insights from Digby and Billmon on Rove

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_digbysblog_archive.html#111957759629161877

I am currently working on a project about Rove and have done a lot of research on how people perceive him as compared to his actual success. I agree with the assessment above. He is highly overrated as a strategist --- indeed Democrats have imputed to him almost magical powers to shape events in the most complicated ways. It's much simpler than that.

He is just someone who has no limits. And he has a client and a party that are willing to do as he advises. That is a powerful thing, but it is not genius. It is useful in elections, but it is a disaster in governance, as we are seeing. Brute force cannot accomplish every task, as any plumber or mechanic can tell you.

= = =

http://billmon.org/archives/001935.html

I actually think Rove's rant should be seen as a somewhat encouraging sign. Rove and his idiot chorus aren't roaring at the top of their lungs to try to drown out the liberals -- that would be absurd overkill, given how effectively the corporate media has ridiculed and/or demonized the likes of Howard Dean and Dick Durbin. No, Rove's hate rally is aimed squarely at suppressing the growing doubts of the great silent majority -- and even, to a certain extent, those of the conservative true believers, some of whom are showing ominous signs of war weariness.

like fellow psychopath Mike Tyson, Rove isn't just telegraphing his punches, he's also displaying the depths of his fear. The rhetorical ear chewing and head butting is a clear sign the champ doesn't have the juice any more, and knows it. Rove is trying to get by on sheer intimidation. He's pushing as many primordial conservative buttons as he can -- leaning on them, in fact -- in hopes he can once again make the dreaded liberals the story, not the march of folly currently sinking into the Iraqi quicksands.

= = =

http://billmon.org/archives/001938.html

In retrospect, I think Rove's comments will be seen as both the GOP's opening shot in the 2006 congressional elections and the swan song for Bush's ill-fated Social Security "reform" campaign. Depending on how things go at the polls next year, it could even be remembered as a kind of howled lament for the death of Bush's entire domestic program (with the significant exception of his bid to pack the federal courts with the kind of judges who think Plessy v. Ferguson was a perfectly sound piece of constitutional jurisprudence.)

= = =

http://billmon.org/archives/001937.html

If Rove really believes what he said -- and we've had absolutely no indication from the GOP politburo that he didn't -- then it would appear the Cheney administration has concluded the war is already lost.

In effect, Rove has accused the "liberals" of trying to undermine (to use Bill O'Reilly's term) the war effort, either out of their blind hatred of Cheney and his presidential surrogate, their secret allegiance to Al Qaeda, or both.

But that still means that approximately one in five Americans is a traitor and/or terrorist sympathizer!

By my rough calculation, that adds up to over 59 million potential spies and saboteurs (although that number admittedly includes young children, who might be useful as smugglers and suicide bombers, but probably aren't as dangerous as your hardcore liberal movie makers -- Michael Moore, for example.)

I don't think history holds any example of a nation that has survived for long with so many internal enemies plotting against it. Even in Germany, the number of dedicated Bolsheviks, Jews and Freemasons actively involved in stabbing the troops in the back probably never amounted to more than 15% of the population -- and I'm throwing the Gypsies into the mix, too.

Personally, I think it's reckless -- if not defeatist -- for Rove and the rest of the Republican high command to talk about this perilous situation in public. If Americans learn the truth, if they realize that one in five of their fellow citizens (their doctor? their garbage man? their hairdresser?) is a liberal fifth columnist working for Osama, they could become demoralized.

= = =

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_digbysblog_archive.html#111962604575880621

There are two ways we can play this. We can step back in the hopes that the Republicans will look like slavering beasts, or we can slug it out and see who comes out on top. The first is probably the instinctive reaction of the Dems because we keep relying on the public to "wake up" and realize what crazy fuckers we have running the country. But I think that works against us --- they may look like slavering beasts but we look like a bunch of wilted pansies. No matter how crazy the Bushies are, wilting pansies aren't an appealing alternative. I don't think we have any choice but just keep pounding away. The Democrats really have one meta-issue that they must contend with --- wilting pansy-ism. Everything else flows from that.

It's time for the Democrats to stop thinking so much about what Karl Rove is doing.He is not god. He does not have supernatural powers to control events. And he's not hard to figure out. The only thing he ever does is rile up neanderthals by making Democrats look like wimps. Look at the campaigns he's run. (It is the opposite with a woman candidate --- he makes them look like man-hating harpies.) The whole schtick comes down to exploiting masculine and feminine archetypes. And he didn't invent this. This has been the main political staple of the modern Republican party. He just does it with more relish and less decency than others.

We need to stop worrying about Karl and play our own game.

[CJCRANE]

12. Compensation:

It is the chickenhawks and closet-cases who compensate by pretending to be macho. A REAL man is not afraid of women and gay people and considers them his equal. A REAL man is a rounded individual, who has talents in every field. For me an example of this is Wesley Clark. He has physical courage (e.g. taking bullets, rappelling down mountains) but he is also not afraid to be an intellectual and an academic.

However, courage is not the preserve of men only. Look at the Jersey Girls, Colleen Rowley, Sibel Edmonds, Barbara Boxer etc.

[scottxyz]

22. Someone in the Comments on Digby had this to say: "Fight Back"

The historical record proves the correctness of the argument presented.

McCain and Kerry kept their mouths shut when they, their families and their military records were vilified by Bush and his entourage. Bush deserted his post in the military, but McCain and Kerry fought and suffered. McCain wouldn't protect his own family from ridiculous push polling that claimed his adopted daughter from Bangladesh was a bastard from an illegitimate affair with a black woman. Where did it get McCain and Kerry?

Bush's war plans were accepted without any significant question, and now we have yet to capture Bin Laden, and there is an endless supply of war crimes the US will have to deal with at some time in the future.

Bush's handling of the economy, tax cuts for the rich, deficits, etc have had little opposition.

But, for the insane Social Security plans, there was a lot of opposition. Bush has been brought to a standstill because people spoke out and fought back.

Acquiesce and lose, fight back and stand a chance of winning.

- in Haloscan comments on digbysblog.blogspot.com

[tavalon]

39. We get it

Why the fuck doesn't the Democratic "leadership" get it? This isn't rocket science, it's just schoolyard bullshit.

[scottxyz]

42. "This isn't rocket science, it's just schoolyard bullshit."

Exactly. By the way the Dems are "fighting" it looks like they actually want to lose.

This is schoolyard bullshit. Most of the people on this website seem to have a better understanding than our Dem "leadership" of how to fight bullies like Rove and Bush.

Eventually, the Dem leadership is going to get replaced if this keeps up. You can't stand up to a bully by reciting facts and figures. You have to hit them where it hurts.

It would have been SO easy to hit Bush on the subject of his missing time while he was in the 'Champagne Unit' of the Texas Air National Guard. He has never released his records, and there are indications that he was an alcoholic and was doing cocaine - while Kerry was leading his men up the river in Viet Nam and being a hero.

Did any Dem leader ever say this? No. Just us bloggers.

The days of being polite and demure are over. The Repubs stopped being polite a long time ago. We have to fight fire with fire. This is simple stuff about how to confront a schoolyard bully. Until the Dem leaders figure that out, they're going to lose election after election - and the country is going slide into ruin because of it.

[scottxyz]

24. Medium Lobster says: Flip this back at Rove and his party

The better plan is to flip this back at Rove and his party. Why, pray tell, should any Republican be allowed to look strong on national security when by any sane measure Republicans are losing the war on terror on multiple fronts, and through every fault of their own? Invading Iraq was the decision of a weak leader; Abu Ghraib was the result of a weak leader; retaining Rumsfeld was the decision of a weak leader. Don't let hippyism be the benchmark for "weak" when Bushism is costing the US the war.

http://thejewishblog.blogspot.com/2005/06/beating-rove-with-figurative-baseball.html#111973167376302410

[snot]

34. kick nt

[yurbud]

35. You got this from gender studies?! This is Machiavelli on steroids.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:


_____________________________________________________________

[norml]

36. They have all negative personal characteristics. We have all positive...

personal characteristics. That's how propaganda works. It's not true, but it works. It's primal. I've recommended this thread. Thanks for posting it.

[stickdog]

40. Dems should be able to pick up this stuff IMPLICITLY.

Fight back. Stand up for what you believe in. Show some guts. When you are attacked and your beliefs are attacked, fight back. When you are baited by the media, tell them to get bent and then have your say.

This is the main thing Repuke "leaders" do better than Dem "leaders" and this alone is worth about 10% of the electorate.