ACLU Targeting Pelosi/Reid

[kpete]

ACLU Targeting Pelosi/Reid
by: Matt Stoller
Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 21:29:31 PM EDT

The ACLU is planning to run this ad in the hometown papers of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.




http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=47F49A5A1B2B65099591A94186782785?diaryId=832

[Buzz Clik]

1. well deserved.

[blondeatlast]

2. Baaaaad aaaaad. Quality wise, I mean.

The criticism may be deserved, but the ad is just dumb.

[Tesha]

4. And you, of course, are busy writing and running a better one?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Tesha

[blondeatlast]

6. Um, no. But then, I'm not a professional.

:hi:

[PurpleChez]

71. Invalid. Totally invalid.

You don't have to be able to do better in order to say you don't like something. I liked the ad myself, but dude/dudette can say otherwise without having to do better.

[Tesha]

95. Unfortunately, complaining about what others are doing is a mainstay around here.

You may say it's "invalid", but anyone who has watched
DU for any length of time can see that complaining about
what others are *ACTUALLY DOING* is a mainstay around here.

ANSWER? They suck. How dare they stage demonstrations
that attract hundreds of thousands to Washington?

The ACLU? How dare they run an ad critical of the Democrats
without also pillorying the Republicans at the same time?

Kucinich? How dare he kriticize Hillary, the goddess
incarnate?

If you want talk, DU is the place for you. But if you want
action, look elsewhere, especially to those places and
people that DUers complain the loudest about.

Tesha

[ccpup]

7. you're wrong

I trust your judgment of the ad being "just dumb" is based on personal preference and not knowledge of how successful advertising works.

The ad is good in that it makes it's point, it's humorous (always appreciated in advertising) and, more importantly, those flipping through the magazine or newspaper or what-have-you will pause when faced with two sheep in front of the White House. A "what in the world?" moment. It's that "pause" that advertisers absolutely need to get their message across.

So, in my view, the ad is successful.

[blondeatlast]

11. I can accept that--and I happen to agree that they need to be called out on this.

As I say above, I'm not a professional ad person.

It just put me off from the get go, but I can see the point you are making--the response is immediate (as was mine--I shouldn't have resoponded on a gut level) and hunorous and thus easy to digest--that's to be desired.

But that's my gut reaction which is exactly what the ad wants--and it didn't get the response they are looking for. I may not be the target audience, but if I react that way, how many others will as well?

Edit: On the other hand--that was my gut reaction which is exactly what they are looking for and it put me off--so maybe, at least for one small part of the market--it is a bad ad. :shrug:

Edit the second--and I am the type that does call my congressctitters and writes LYYEs, so...

Anyway, maybe I should have held my criticism.

[ccpup]

16. fair enough

I don't think you should ever hold your criticism. DU is a good place for appropriately criticising and honestly questioning.

For many people, though, the ad may work fairly well. Actually, I don't know that the ad is intended for Voters. I strongly suspect it's main goal is to put Pelosi and Reid -- and their baaaaaaaaaaad decisions -- into more of a public view and, perhaps, get their Offices swamped with angry phone calls. It's more about informing Reid and Pelosi -- very publicly -- that we know what they're NOT up to and now, because of this ad, the Public knows too. I trust this will be one of many things that get them off their asses and back into being an Opposition Party.

Then again, I am rather famous for my unshakable sense of optimism.

[dansolo]

93. I thought the point was to get the media to talk about the ad

It is the indirect coverage that garners the attention. They can get much more exposure by making an ad that will be picked up by the pundit shows, comedians, and blogs.

[ooglymoogly]

65. I agree...it is an excellent add....and right on point

though at least in this add they are in front the capitol bldg.

[Tesha]

3. A big baaaaad ACLU K&R!!! (NT)

[MuseRider]

5. Ha Ha

Love it.

[porphyrian]

8. Good. Hold them all accountable. - n/t

[rucky]

20. That's what us Democratic voters are all about!

and that's why we voted them back to a majority.

[porphyrian]

23. Yep, which is why it's all the more unacceptable that they have to be told so by the ACLU.

Our Democratic leadership should fucking know better.

[rateyes]

49. Yes, they should.

:hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Obviously the ACLU is nothing but an attention whore.

And from now on support for the ACLU should be banned from DU. Or at least we should have a dungeon called ACLU Discussions where all of the traitorous ACLU talk can be relegated.

Obligatory sarcasm smiley omitted.

[G_j]

22. yea

damn-it! :sarcasm:

[qb]

10. They need a good kick in the ass (nt)

[Breeze54]

12. Correct Link!!

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=832

;)

----------------------------

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

13. As well as they should be! Well done ACLU! Recommended! eom

[mmonk]

14. I wonder if the blue dogs will have a conscience about it

if they get wind of the ad. Probably not.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Great. Now maybe they can target the...

real obstructionists.

If they have time, or the guts.

[Exiled in America]

34. They ARE the real obstructionists.

Here are the people you should be blaming:

1) The Bush Administration
2) The Democratic Congressional leadership
3) "Blue Dog" Democrats or any democratic congress person who has voted with the administration

Here are the people you should not be blaming:

1) Democratic congressmen who have consistently voted in the best interests of the country and the history of the party - standing up to the administration.

Now, there is no point advertising against the Administration who absolutely does not give a shit. They will not see an ACLU add and say, "Oh my god you are right, I never thought of it that way!"

And it is wrong to take out an add that lumps every Democrat in Congress together in one boat, because that isn't fair to those who have consistently stood up for what's right.

But, its very right to call Democratic leaders on their complicency with the Bush agenda. They have the power to thwart the bush machine and they will not. They could have send the same bill ending funding for the war to Bush over and over again over every veto. The control the legislative agenda and do not have to even let bills destroying our civil rights onto the floor.

The have failed. They are complicit in the Administrations crimes. And they should absolutely be called on it.

[Skidmore]

91. Why should you leave out the Republic leadership and their

rank and file who railroaded and goose stepped this nation into war to begin with and are still spitting out talking points to support it?

[cui bono]

75. The ad is not about obstructing. It's about giving Bush what he wanted.

They allowed the FISA bill to go to a vote. They even allowed it to cgive Bush even more than what he asked for. They knew damn well it would pass. Therefore they are aiding him in his mission to illegally spy on Americans. Okay so for now it's technically legal, but it better damn well be found unconstitutional in the courts.

The ad is targeted at exactly the right people.

[NavyDavy]

17. they are as bad as Bush attacking the wrong enemy....IMO

[LSK]

28. no, this is the right target

Reid and/or Pelosi could have tabled this bill indefinately.

[defendandprotect]

31. Do you not understand that their FIRST responsibility is to protect the Constitution?

[Exiled in America]

35. Wrong.

Here are the people you should be blaming:

1) The Bush Administration
2) The Democratic Congressional leadership
3) "Blue Dog" Democrats or any democratic congress person who has voted with the administration

Here are the people you should not be blaming:

1) Democratic congressmen who have consistently voted in the best interests of the country and the history of the party - standing up to the administration.

Now, there is no point advertising against the Administration who absolutely does not give a shit. They will not see an ACLU add and say, "Oh my god you are right, I never thought of it that way!"

And it is wrong to take out an add that lumps every Democrat in Congress together in one boat, because that isn't fair to those who have consistently stood up for what's right.

But, its very right to call Democratic leaders on their complicency with the Bush agenda. They have the power to thwart the bush machine and they will not. They could have send the same bill ending funding for the war to Bush over and over again over every veto. The control the legislative agenda and do not have to even let bills destroying our civil rights onto the floor.

The have failed. They are complicit in the Administrations crimes. And they should absolutely be called on it.

[lovuian]

18. it tells it like it is THE TRUTH

this Democratic Congress has done nothing to save our Constitutional rights

[NavyDavy]

19. just think how bad it would have been if the repukes were still

in charge....

[warren pease]

25. Assuming you're not joking...how could you tell the difference?

The occupation is being funded on BushCo's terms; constitutional freedoms are still disappearing with only token objections from democrats; the Senate voted 97 - 0 to accept BushCo's bullshit story on the justification for attacking Iran, so that'll probably happen soon (particularly since these madmen have now declared much of the Iranian army to be a terrorist organization); the infrastructure's going to hell and, by supporting BushCo's Iraq adventure and supplying the money needed to continue it, democrats have helped ensure that there's no money left over to fix it; China owns most of our paper and may call in the debt unless we keep buying their toxic shit; bankruptcies are on a record pace, yet the majority party does nothing about repealing that hideous bankruptcy bill written by credit card lobbyists...

You get the idea. Really, what the hell's the difference? It's not democrats vs republicans these days as much as it is corporatists vs humanists. It happens that the majority of republicans are corporatists, but so it seems are the democrats if voting records and sources of campaign dollars are any indicators. And then there's the DLC to keep democrats from getting too cozy with the needs of actual people when there are so many needy corporations out there begging for tax relief, regulatory favoritism and more no-bid contracts.

These corporate shills in both parties need to be replaced as quickly as possible. Find a candidate who represents progressive values running in the next Congressional or Senatorial primary, work hard for them and/or give them money, write lttes and op/ed pieces for local papers about them, boost their credibility at every opportunity and maybe some of them will actually win their primaries. If so, then repeat all above steps in the general election to try to keep slimy corporatist hands away from the levers of power in this country -- preferably for at least a thousand years, if humans can manage to hang around that long.


wp

[dickbearton]

53. America is a corporate fascist state...

America was a corporate state long before the Criminal Bush.
Now, it is being turned into a corporate fascist state. Good
Luck with changing it. 

[PurpleChez]

72. Excellent point, excellently made.

I was so happy in November. I am so disgusted now.

[Larkspur]

21. Excellent ad and proper way to critique Pelosi and Reid

The Dems have no right to give away our inalienable rights to Bush & Co.

The Dem leaders need a spanking when the cave into Bush on critical issues, like our Rights.

[Richard Steele]

24. K&R

[Trillo]

26. Love it!

A very creative and to-the-point message.

[dglow]

60. Newspaper Ad

Great ad, but it needs to be turned into a TV ad to reach the masses. The ad could also go out to the Blue Doggers who voted for the FISA amendment in both the House and the Senate.

[LSK]

27. good, should include Hoyer too

[babylonsister]

29. K&R! Maybe embarrassment will work. nt

[defendandprotect]

30. Good ad, but so true that it's almost boring --

[redqueen]

32. ahahahahahah... what a great ad!

*sigh*

if only it weren't necessary...

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[salib]

36. But Cindy Sheehan is wrong to run????

[Duppers]

69. my thoughts too.

nt

[Hippo_Tron]

81. As an independent yes

If she were challenging Pelosi in the primary it would be a different story.

[salib]

96. Hold on there... the ACLU is not a part of the Democratic Party

And it is criticizing a Democratic Party elected official and Party leadership in the House and Senate. How is this different than Cindy Sheehan challenging Pelosi outside of the party, becuase that is the ONLY way Pelosi can be challenged?

As a side note, though, if I were in that district, I would be working for the Democratic Party and vote for Pelosi, even though I would feel betrayed. I would love to vote for Cindy Sheehan, becuase I know she would actually live up to her one promise. However, I am a Democrat.

Still I applaud her for her action, one that I cannot take, for it is needed action. Pelosi and the other HAVE TO get the message or get out of the kitchen!

[orleans]

37. i love it! it's funny and true.n/t

[EV_Ares]

38. Good for the ACLU, very well deserved; eom.

[BuyingThyme]

39. This thread rules!

Thanks DU!

[MasonJar]

40. Thank God for the ACLU.

[bonito]

41. Thank you ACLU!

:thumbsup:

[acmavm]

42. We would be up Shit Creek without the ACLU

[uberllama42]

43. In the words of The Onion:

I voted for you assholes because you said you were against shit like this.

http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/congress_approves_surveillance

[BuyingThyme]

45. I couldn't have said it better.

[mzmolly]

47. LOL, that is a good quote.

;)

[Chimichurri]

44. Good! Maybe now we can get some semblance of accountability

I really tried to give Reid and Pelosi the benefit of being newly elected to their positions but what they are doing is giving Bush the blank check they accused repubs of doing. I hope something comes of this. I'm so sick of their excuses.

[Raksha]

46. My immediate reaction to the ad was to laugh out loud

at those two sheep. I got the point right away...so I guess it's an effective ad.

[rateyes]

48. Thank you, ACLU.....

I hope it hits home. Great ad.

[creeksneakers2]

50. Its a fair ad, but

I'm still angry with the ACLU for working against the Democratic alternative which was a much better bill.

[jgraz]

78. Hey, the ACLU didn't magically change the rules of the House to require a 2/3 majority

That was all Pelosi and Hoyer. I'll say that again: Pelosi and Hoyer changed the rules of the House in order to require a 2/3rds majority to pass the Democratic version of the bill.

The bill would have passed had they not done that. They intentionally changed the rules in order to make it look like they had no choice but to give * everything he wanted and more. And in doing so, they played us all for suckers.

[creeksneakers2]

90. Pelosi didn't change the rules

The only way they could get their bill up for a vote was with a suspension of the rules. That required 2/3rds.

[eleny]

51. I finally joined this year and am glad to be a part of this albeit small

http://www.aclu.org/

[Sanctified]

52. When you carry water for the Devil...

sometimes you get called out for it.

[Madspirit]

54. k&r...Excellent!...n/t

[Dr Fate]

55. Of course, our "leadership" could make liars out of the ACLU and FIGHT Bush.

The ball is in their court.

Att his time, I would make a donation to the ACLU a hell of a lot quicker than I would to Reid or Pelosi.

[bjobotts]

56. Time to circle the wagons and fight off the attacks. What dya' expect.

Pelosi and Reid keep trying to put everything off til we get a democratic president. They avoid conflict at every turn. Let's hear one more time about the min.wage. bill they could only get passed by adding it as blackmail to the war appropriations bill and even then with conditions. This last time there was NO EXCUSE with the FISA bill because they could have tabled it. Even if they voted against it it never should have come up for a vote. We were in no danger. Bush says 9/11 or terrorism and like Pavlov's dog they cant roll over fast enough. What is left for them to roll over on. They've blown every opportunity to stand up against Bush and people are still covering for them. Oh they are trying. Just pathetic.

[ThomWV]

57. It might be time for me to rejoin

[deacon]

58. Well deserved.

[Generator]

59. Those sheep are damn cute!

If only I felt that much love toward Reid and Pelosi.

[Truth2Tell]

61. K & R

And worth a signature line change :)

[Adsos Letter]

64. Nice!!!

:D

[PurpleChez]

73. Bee-yoo-tiful!

Cut 'n' paste!

[MsLeopard]

62. I just renewed my ACLU membership

....to thank them for speaking the truth.

Sorry Grovelbot - I gave to you last quarter, this one's for the ACLU.

[MsLeopard]

63. Please delete

Dupe.....:blush:

[ooglymoogly]

66. good for the ACLU

Legislators need to learn if they are too dumb to get it...that the constitution is the line in the sand...that if they are allowed to disrespect the constitution and allow it to be shredded they will lose the support of thoughtful Americans .

[autorank]

67. K*R If the shit fits bear it! n/t

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

68. Great ad richly deserved by the 2 enablers

They have both been a great disappointment to me.

[gulfcoastliberal]

70. That ad is just too nice - they're worse than sheep!

They actively passed fascist, unconstitutional legislation because bush told them to. Next they will acquiesce to bush's demands for them to pass illegal immunity legislation, protecting traitorous companies like ATT, ensuring they can spy on citizens unopposed.

[Yukari Yakumo]

74. Dumb idea

Are they also targeting the Blue Dogs/New Dems/etc who voted for it?

If not, this is just pointless and plain stupid.

It's kinda hard to get things done when your majority depends entirely on the center-right contingent.

[cui bono]

76. Why? They allowed it to be voted on. They are the two who could have stopped it.

[EFerrari]

77. And the more you pander to the right, the wronger you go. n/t

[jgraz]

79. You should bone up on how Congress actually works

And also read a bit on the history of this particular legislation.

The bill would not have made it to the floor had the Democratic leadership not allowed it to. Oh, and Pelosi and Hoyer also changed the rules of the House so that the Democratic version of the bill would require a 2/3rds majority to pass.

This can't be repeated enough: the Democratic leadership changed the voting rules of the House of Representatives so that a veto-proof supermajority was required to pass their own bill. Then they changed them back so that they could pass *'s bill with a simple majority.

Want to tell us all again how pointless and stupid it is to go after the leadership on this one?

[gulfcoastliberal]

83. WTF? Peosi changed the rules to guarantee defeat for the dem version? Wow.

They are worse than worthless.

[jgraz]

86. Filed under "just how stupid do they think we are?"

:banghead:

[Skip Intro]

88. really?

I wasn't aware of that.


That just destroys any hope I held out for those leaders.


Why would they?


Surely there is another side of the story that makes more sense.

[jgraz]

89. Very few people mention it, but you can find it if you look hard enough

It's really the most shameful part of this whole sad story. Here's one article where it's embedded in the middle:

http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002567347.html

Democrats in the House preferred their own legislation to fix an intelligence gap created by a hitch in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA — PL 95-511) and a recent court ruling. The Democrats’ bill, defeated by a vote of 218-207 the night of Aug. 3 under suspension of the rules, which required a two-thirds vote for passage, would have clarified that FISA does not require warrants for surveillance of communications between foreigners — the main problem cited by Republicans and Bush administration officials and the one primarily caused by a recent court ruling.

[flyarm]

80. now that is a good dose of truth!!

something that has been sorely lacking for too many years now in this country!!
plain and simple truth!!

good job ACLU!!


fly

[Hippo_Tron]

82. I don't see why they are running it in the hometown papers of Pelosi and Reid

Since as representatives of their constituencies they didn't vote for this. It is in their role as leaders that they failed by allowing it to get to the floor.

That said, I support the idea. They must be held accountable.

[Norrin Radd]

84. k+r

[Vidar]

85. Kudos to the ACLU. Recommended.

[Skip Intro]

87. We don't need sheep protecting the bill of rights, we need lions.

Can't argue with that.

[NoFederales]

92. K&R

NoFederales

[Anita Garcia]

94. no more sheeple!

"We don't need sheep protecting the Bill of Rights."
Right on!

[WA98296]

97. Totally deserved. Hope there is more to come. Do they have to be forced to do the right thing?