"These People Could Be In Charge"

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025403.php

'THESE PEOPLE COULD BE IN CHARGE'.... We've seen Democrats experiment with a variety of campaign themes in recent months. "Party of No" was a longtime favorite, but became less effective when the GOP seemed to like it. "Bush Republicans" and "BP Republicans" have been used, but didn't stick.

With about nine weeks to go before the midterm elections, the DNC is today rolling out what's likely to be its final message. To summarize, the pitch effectively tells the public: Republicans aren't just wrong, this year, they're kind of crazy.

Democrats unveiled this video, titled "These People Could be in Charge," this morning, shining a light on a variety of high-profile GOP candidates. All of those featured appear to be, to varying degrees, stark raving mad.

The point isn't subtle -- voters are supposed to start connecting "Republican" and "crazy." This is a party that doesn't just want to turn back the clock to the Bush/Cheney era; this is a party that wants to scrap New Deal-era pillars of American society, repeal constitutional amendments, eliminate cabinet agencies, purge the GOP of moderates, etc.

That this effort is being launched the day before right-wing, anti-government zealots gather at the Lincoln Memorial is not, I suspect, a coincidence.

What's more, the larger significance is very likely intended to push back against the very nature of the cycle. For months, the Republican plan has been to make the elections a referendum -- if you don't like the status quo, vote for the GOP. The Democrats' task has been to present the midterms as a choice -- you can choose to move forward with Dems, or you can go backwards with a radicalized Republican Party.

It's a direct response to the best scenario Democrats could have hoped for. The GOP brand is still deeply unpopular, but presented with a key opportunity for massive gains, the party has nominated some real nutjobs. Voters who may have been inclined to vote Republican this year may think twice when they consider the weirdo whose name is on the ballot.

At least in theory, that is. We may be looking at a dynamic in which there's just nothing more Dems can do. With a struggling economy and a listless base, GOP lunatics may be poised to win in November no matter how compelling the Democratic message is.

But on the whole, I consider this the Dems' strongest pitch. If the American mainstream is already inclined to be suspicious of the Republican pitch, it's wise to reinforce those doubts by demonstrating just how ridiculously right-wing the GOP has become.

As E.J. Dionne Jr. noted yesterday, "Democrats ... have every interest in turning the election into a philosophical contest, arguing that even unhappy voters cannot trust their fate to a party in the grips of a right-wing revolt."

—Steve Benen

Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCdh2qFl7JI&feature=player_embedded
GOP Tea Party: These People Could be in Charge

[JNelson6563]

1. Some excellent points.

The Rethugs have some real crazies on their ballots. This can only be good for Dems.

Julie

[nightrain]

2. doubtful that fear of these wild Repubs could draw enough of the

Dems back in the fold.

Too much dirty water has gone over the dam, and wait for the catfood commission's recommendations....

We remember, and have felt the betrayal too deeply. If ya want our votes, ya better shape up and quit protecting the corporations, buying more occupation and death, and get some damn jobs program going, at a minimum.

[CTLawGuy]

5. that's the logic that got us

George W. Bush in the first instance. Sad to see people peddling this shit on DU.

[nightrain]

6. no. Obama and Congress folks campaigned to get the progressive vote and then

switched to "New Dems" and "Blue Dogs" in governance, and lost progressives by doing that.

[CTLawGuy]

9. polls show 90%+ of liberal democrats support

Obama. He has not "lost" progressives. Nor should he have. What other president in the past 30 years has signed ANY new regulations on insurance companies, credit card companies and other businesses? Obama has ended the era of deregulation and the idea that business should just be allowed to do whatever it wants. Also, what other president in 30 years has done squat about health care?

No, he hasn't instituted soviet-style socialism, so you have him there, but he has steered us away from Reaganism.

[nightrain]

14. Did someone suggest "soviet-style socialism"? Your percentages are unreasonably high. The fear

exudes from these kinds of posts. Another approach would be to promote better candidates than the current crop of New Dems and Blue Dogs.

[CTLawGuy]

20. that's what the left seems to expect from Obama

they value punishing insurance companies over getting insurance coverage for the uninsured, for example. They screamed for Obama to nationalize industries as a response to the economic crisis, including (hilariously) BP, a British company.


Also My #s as to liberal dem support are not unreasonably high...

This shows liberal dem approval at 86%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

[nightrain]

21. it's okay that you don't understand the alternative viewpoint, but at least

try to keep the nasty hyperbole to a minimum.

We'll see how the Dem support of Obama is come November huh? When a push-poller called me this week regarding November's election of my New Dem US Representative vs the traditional Republican challenger, I was lukewarm supportive (true) of Obama too. If push came to shove, I'd rather have Obama than Bush, but more and more it's looking like there's one party--of wealth, and the rest of us.

Significantly greater numbers of Dem folks are having the courage to verbalize their discontent with the direction that Obama and New Dems/Blue Dogs have taken the country. It's not so much about the speed at which change is or isn't happening, it's the direction in which it's going--i.e. corporate protectionism vs traditional Dem values, for me.

[CTLawGuy]

25. if the left wants to put another republican in office

like they did with George Bush, they can. The reason that what is getting done isn't more progressive is because of the US Senate and the Republicans, and blue dog dems, plain and simple, not Barack Obama. What was he supposed to do? veto all these bills and pass nothing? Is that what president Kucinich would do???

The Rs are disrupting all progress hoping that it will make Obama fail and will cause the very alienation that you suggest. They don't want any progress, any help for the middle class and the poor. They are about obstruction, obstruction, obstruction. They are very gleeful for your sentiment and for your assistance in effecting their strategy. And if they take back congress, forget any other beneficial legislation for the foreseeable future.

Your choice.

[nightrain]

27. yeah, more booga booga....

[CTLawGuy]

37. stick your fingers in your ears

cover your eyes.

That will make it go away.

[nightrain]

41. the icon says it all...

[CTLawGuy]

45. yup

put the people who stir up outrage to make a buck in their place.

[nightrain]

46. but it's not working.... we don't STFU because DLCers say to

Democracy doesn't work like that.

[CTLawGuy]

47. no one thinks you shouldn't push for what you believe in

there's a reason we have primaries. I supported the Lamont challenge of Lieberman. But if Lamont had lost the primary you'd be DAMN sure I would have supported Lieberman over a Republican, who would have been even MORE of a vote for the Bush agenda.

Just because you don't like the choice doesn't mean the choice will go away or get better.

The choice is between, at bare minimum, some hope for progressive change vs. zero hope of progressive change and a good chance of going backward.

Again, your choice.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CTLawGuy]

62. for the record I am no fan of the DLC

let me know what Rachel said and I will comment on it.

[Hansel]

11. We are electing reps only from our own states.

Exactly what does Obama and the Blue Dogs have to do with that unless you have a Blue Dog representing you.

We need to bring this election down to a local level and stop pretending that Obama has anything to do with it. He is in the executive branch. We are electing the legislative branch and only for our respective states.

Want progressives in congress, then make sure you support them in your own state and make sure you support ones that can win.

[nightrain]

13. the November election could be seen as a unofficial referendum on Obama's effectiveness in

dealing with the issues at hand--unemployment rate skyrocketing, health insurance costs increasing, bailing out Wall Street, equivocation on DOMA/DADT, concerns about Social Security being gutted, all kinds of issues.

It would be naive to think November's election is soley about one's local or regional situation.

[NJmaverick]

16. It sounds like you are willing to hold our nation's well being hostage

to fulfill your self interest.

[nightrain]

17. no. but nice try. Is that what the DLC is doing? promoting fear of Republicans

rather than being able to advance their "successes"?

Even Rachel Maddow commented on this approach earlier this month--

"But one less soul-sucking way to motivate your base and to win an election and to keep winning elections and to, frankly, have history look kindly upon you, is to get your base to cheer for you -- not just to cheer against someone else, but to see you standing up, not just to bad guys with worse ideas than you, but to see you standing up for what is right because you know it is right, because we know you know it's right, even though you also know standing up for it is hard.

That is how you regain the enthusiasm of your base. That is how you win the respect of your base. That is how you win the respect of the country. And admit it: that is how you win your own self-respect, too."

from--
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/16/democrats


What a novel idea.

[NJmaverick]

18. "no" doesn't cut it, you sit there holding a gun to our nation's head

with a list of demands that must be met if our nation is to live

[nightrain]

19. no such thing. I don't think you'd understand another approach besides instigating fear.

Care to comment about Rachel's quote and approach?

[babylonsister]

26. How condescending of you. Care to address why you seem to

be salivating at the downfall of the Dems? All you do is demean them. Do you have any constructive ideas, yours, not Rachel's?

[nightrain]

30. no babylonsister, I'm not salivating, that seems to be your projection...

I do believe in consequences for actions though... karmic debt that some earn as they go along.

I don't think you'd understand either.

Interesting how no one addresses Rachel's points...

[slipslidingaway]

31. Thanks for the link to Greenwald's article and quote by Maddow...

:)

Posted it at the bottom so others can read it as well.

[nightrain]

39. thanks!

[slipslidingaway]

43. My pleasure, and still the point you raised goes unanswered. n/t

[geek tragedy]

29. Okay, just promise us you won't complain when

Republicans screw you and your neighbors and your children. Because, you know, you have hurt feelings and stuff.

[nightrain]

33. we're all getting it bad enough now... more booga booga...plus the nastiness...

[Imajika]

3. Interesting...

"'Party of No' was a longtime favorite, but became less effective when the GOP seemed to like it."

They seemed to like it because being the party of "no" was not hurting them. The whole "party of no" thing is ineffective and might even be counterproductive during this election cycle. The public is either indifferent or opposed to many of our legislative successes at this time, so pointing out that the Republicans voted against these things will not help us at all. These things will take awhile to become more popular, and as long as the economy is bad almost everything we do will be viewed negatively.

Letting Americans know that this crop of Tea Party/Republican candidates are nuts is a much better strategy. People may WANT to send a message to the President by voting Republican, but if that means putting a nutcase in office they might not. Paint the whole party as disciples of their craziest members and we might diminish any wave that might be forming. Additionally, no matter how demoralized the Democratic base may be, if they are downright frightened by the opposition it just might get more people out to vote.

[nightrain]

7. why do fear? why not have good candidates?

[Imajika]

22. Because fear works...

It works well actually - that is why they do it.

Ofcourse, we should be running good candidates as well.

[babylonsister]

24. You could ask the same thing of the rethugs, but you never do. nt

[nightrain]

34. "never"? that's a pretty long time, and how could you possibly know? more attack.

[DemocraticPilgrim]

4. I think this at least defines why they came out for Blanche Lincoln to promote their moderation ...

where the right are veering all the way to their extreme. I'd of preferred Halter but any seat we can pick up from here is helpful for the next Congress.

[Safetykitten]

8. This is the wrongiest of the wrong, the worst of the worst, the catastrophies of messages.

This is NOT the way to sell the message. Look for a ENOURMOUS backfire on this.

[Arkana]

10. Thanks for your insight. Care to tell us why you think this?

[Hansel]

12. Or it's just the truth.

And so far where they have been using it, it is working.

[babylonsister]

23. Why is this wrong? Should we not point out the weaknesses

of the opposition?

[Safetykitten]

60. Reasons this is a mistake

First, this is the best we can do? A "those guys are crazy, plus a thousand!" kid games are really beneath us. Now that the general public holds congress at historically low levels, is it really that good of an idea to point out crazy in a governmental nut house? The average person thinks it is out of control now. Comparing crazy in the land of the insane is generally not going to win confidence and votes.

Second the situation we are in economically. Do the perspective voters really want to hear this when they want decision? They want a plan, a blueprint, shit, even a dinner napkin sketch would suffice now, but we as Democrats are not going to give them that. No message, no plan, nada...and zip.

Third, it perpetuates the FACT that Democrats will more than oblige and play with the message games, they said this, the republicans said that, as the country is crumbling around people's heads. And the kicker? WE SUCK AT IT! You think that the Beck thing was timed on a whim? What about the very strange Mehlman admission? You think these two items are not realated? The right is taking the stuff we don't value anymore. We owned it but we don't care and the right see this. The right sees an opportunity to pick off some people. Mehlman comes out and does the I'm sorry tour? Well now we have one of most venal republicans seen as pro-gay marriage. No message generator in the creepy mind of Rahm will overcome that, along with the eye-scorching site of a sociopath/narcisstic personality disorder gaping ax wound on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.

Actions and the slightest hint/talk of action inspires people.

This is not inspiring. It is almost a throw the hands up give up.

[jillan]

15. What's wrong with this is that it's too long. Unfortunately we live in a bumpersticker society.

If they would have just played the most insane clip from each crazy, showing their name, this may have been more effective.

[slipslidingaway]

28. The fear campaign ....

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/16/democrats

"...In other words: devote yourself to the Real Goal -- saying and doing whatever is necessary to defeat the dastardly Republicans and keep Democrats in power -- rather than criticizing the political officials who . . . . actually hold power, decrees this "journalist." It's the same reason there are so many blogs devoted to doing little else beyond railing against the latest moronic outbursts of Sarah Palin, or right-wing talk-radio hosts, or obscure GOP backbenchers even though they possess no control over the Government: because Democratic apparatchiks want to ignore what Democrats are doing with the power they've been given and instead are relying upon exactly the fear-mongering tactic of distraction which Maddow described. As she says, it's the same tactic Karl Rove used for years to gin up victories -- we may not be good but look over there at those awful, scary liberals -- and it's as common as it is effective. This fear-based polarization perpetually keeps the electorate distracted away from what political leaders -- and the permanent factions which control the Government -- actually do.

It's certainly true that elections are about comparative choices, and it's obviously worthwhile and necessary to understand what the out-of-power party is and what they would do once in power. But it's at least equally important -- I'd say more important -- to critique what the party that actually controls the government is doing with that control. The fact that the Democratic electoral strategy depends upon distracting attention away from what they've done -- "make your base afraid of what the other side has to offer," as Maddow put it -- speaks volumes about that record..."

[geek tragedy]

32. Greenwald is not worried about Republicans controlling Congress.

He doesn't care about economic issues and climate change and stuff like that--he's essentially a aultard who's liberal on social issues.

He will probably be smugly satisfied when the Republicans take over Congress.

[nightrain]

36. really? that's not at all how I read him... amazing mindreading though...

[slipslidingaway]

38. You avoided the point being made and went on the attack, he quotes Maddow...

so you can attack the same line of thinking by her as well. So tell us what Maddow does not care about and how she'll be happy when the repubs take over.

People need to feel that their party listens to them and acts accordingly, why is that such a hard concept?

"...But one less soul-sucking way to motivate your base and to win an election and to keep winning elections and to, frankly, have history look kindly upon you, is to get your base to cheer for you -- not just to cheer against someone else, but to see you standing up, not just to bad guys with worse ideas than you, but to see you standing up for what is right because you know it is right, because we know you know it's right, even though you also know standing up for it is hard.

That is how you regain the enthusiasm of your base. That is how you win the respect of your base. That is how you win the respect of the country. And admit it: that is how you win your own self-respect, too..."

[nightrain]

35. thank you, as always... :)

[slipslidingaway]

40. Thank you! Missed quite a bit this past month or so :) n/t

[nightrain]

42. content, maybe a little... but otherwise kinda the same... LOL

[slipslidingaway]

44. Well then I think that is good :) n/t

[MadHound]

49. So rather than taking actual actions that would win people's respect and vote,

The Dems are going to once again use fear to motivate voters.

That's getting old, really, really old.

[nightrain]

50. absolutely. That's Dems taking a few pages from Rove's playbook. We should do better.

[Yavin4]

51. May I Ask You A Question

How does UE benefits get extended with a Republican congress?

[nightrain]

52. or, how do we end invasion and occupation (deaths) of foreign countries with a Democratic Congress?

or, how do we stop the outflow of American jobs by formerly American corporations with a Democratic Congress?

or, how do we end torture and rendition with a Democratic Congress?

or, how do we get health CARE for all affordably with a Democratic Congress?

or, how do we end bankruptcies for people who have serious health/disability issues with a Democratic Congress?

or, how do we support labor unions/teacher unions with a Democratic Congress?

or, how do we end the spiraling upward unemployment rate (U6 in the neighborhood of 16-20%) with a Democratic Congress?

or, how do we end the continuing expulsion of gay and lesbian service people with a Democratic Congress?

or, how do we promote self-respect and ethical behavior with a Democratic Congress?

or, how do we end profit-sucking corporations/banks from foreclosing on peoples' homes with a Democratic Congress?



We end the incentives for higher unemployment, we create real jobs with real benefits.

We end the growing disparity between the haves and have-nots.

Neither major party has been successful with these issues.

We get a better conversation going nationwide than who can do fear of the other Party better.


"But one less soul-sucking way to motivate your base and to win an election and to keep winning elections and to, frankly, have history look kindly upon you, is to get your base to cheer for you -- not just to cheer against someone else, but to see you standing up, not just to bad guys with worse ideas than you, but to see you standing up for what is right because you know it is right, because we know you know it's right, even though you also know standing up for it is hard.

That is how you regain the enthusiasm of your base. That is how you win the respect of your base. That is how you win the respect of the country. And admit it: that is how you win your own self-respect, too."

--Rachel Maddow--http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/16/democrats


Look deeper and longer-term than November.

[Yavin4]

53. So, You Don't Have An Answer

Just more questions to a simple question. Or, you want to evade the question entirely because you know the answer is that millions of Americans will be cut off from any further extensions with a Republican controlled congress.

So, for you, millions of Americans losing their one economic lifeline is not enough of a motivation to vote. Amazing.

[nightrain]

54. you didn't read carefully. Look near the bottom. And try to listen with an open heart

instead of this attacking.

[Fire1]

55. Just "standing up" doesn't get legislation passed.

What you and Rachel are promoting is ideal and unrealistic. I would love to see a total overhaul of this capitalist society but I know it ain't gonna happen. So, here we are again, throwing out the baby with the bath water.

[nightrain]

56. you miss the point of acting with integrity and how that changes a person

from the inside out. To DO and BE the right thing in spite of the voices to the contrary is incredibly courageous and is infectious. The power of attraction is greater than that of fear.

But you can keep up the Rovian fear tactic and see how that feels...

One of the real threats to our financial security is the "catfood commission", and that's a Dem's doing.

Both parties have failed to address the real issues of the day.


One thing we can do is to help frame issues and the discussions.
--http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/67922

[Fire1]

57. So, now PO has no integrity? n/t

[nightrain]

58. PO? who/what are you referring to?

[Fire1]

59. President Obama. n/t

[nightrain]

61. I wasn't alluding to Obama. Fire1, think of it in personal terms,

as in, "your integrity". Whether you use fear, or attraction via good deeds, being a decent and courageous person to motivate/attract others.

But since you brought up Obama, I certainly cannot speak for or about Obama in that regard with any personal knowledge or assurance. I am wondering, though, as a trained observer, what he truly values and would not cave on. His rhetoric is stunning and he's full of charisma.


As I believe it was ProleNoMore on DU last year said--

"One Must Remember That Obama's Rhetoric And Action Are Disjoint
The Rhetoric is alive with hope and change.
The Action is replete with reconciliation and appeasement.
It is as if the man is at war with himself.
How can one so conflicted be expected to stand firm and act?"


I wonder if perhaps we are witnessing his internal dichotomy played out on larger stage, and if we are suffering as a nation as a result.