oleeb's picture

    Note To Dumbass Democrats: It's Not An Issue--It's A Tactical Distraction

    By oleeb on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 1:07pm |

    Once again our dumbass Democratic officials get snookered by the cheapest and most rank tactics GOP strategists can come up with on, of all things, a local zoning matter in New York City.  That's all this really is and all it ever should have been.

    Here's what Republican pros know and Dumbass Democratic alleged pros cannot grasp: the best way to make your opponent look bad is to work and rework the oldest cheap tactic in the book which is the time honored "when did you stop beating your wife?" question.  That's all this fake "issue" distracting the media and the dumbass Democrats is.  Everyone knows that if you respond to that false accusation directly there is no good response and you look like a wife beater.  Right?  Right.  So the best way to respond to the tactic is not to get sucked into a discussion of wife beating but by pointing out that your cowardly opponent doesn't want to talk about the real issues so he/she is making this up so people won't be reminded that he/she is for everything the voters are against and so on.

    Republicans understand the purpose of this tactic is simply to distract the media and the opposition and thus the voters too by focusing their time and attention on an irelevant topic that is easy for the uninformed and ignorant to form an instant, ignorant and uninformed opinion on.  Truth, facts, religious liberty, motherhood, whatever... none of that is important because this is a tactic and as long as it works to distract then that is all that matters. 

    When they are able to manufacture such distractions it keeps voters from noticing that the Republican Party continues to support all the policies that destroyed our economy, led to nearly 20 million Americans losing their jobs, that has caused over 6 million families to lose their homes to foreclosure, nearly bankrupted the national treasury with an irresponsible policy of tax cuts for the rich and unlimited spending on war, committed the nation to a pointless, illegal, and extremely costly war in Iraq that is still going on despite the declaration of a formal end to combat there, etc.  That is all this is about folks: creating a diversion.  Republicans understand this quite well.  And once again, this cheap, tawdry "When did you stop beating your wife?" tactic has worked splenidly for them.  If they can keep people talking about nothing... things that don't matter... things that aren't even real... then their chances in the fall are improved because the last thing they want anyone talking about is how the two parties and their candidates compare and what their vision for the country is.

    This idiotic nonissue interlude in the campaign season demonstrates very, very clearly that the dumbass national Democrats of DC have learned absolutly nothing over the past 40 years despite the fact that the Republicans do this each and every election cycle.  It's worse than Lucy convincing the gullible and naive Charlie Brown to take one more go at kicking the football.  And it is quintessentially important for everyone to understand that the sole reason the Republicans are so very successful at this is 100% a result of the Democrats' failure to learn how to deal with this, adapt and respond effectively.  It is the Democrats stupidity and incompetent political strategy that continues to enable the electoral success of Republicans even as Republicans continue to grow more and more unpopular with a wider segment of the public.  It isn't because Republicans are particularly smart or even good at this stuff.  They aren't.  But, as this situation has so clearly shown us, Democrats make Republican pros look good by being so ineffective and incompetent and by always reacting and never, ever taking the initiative by forcefully going after the Republicans and making them react.  The miracle of the past 40 years is not that Republicans have dominated a nation that fundamentally disagrees with them on the most important issues, but that Democrats even continue to exist as a viable party given their impotence as campaigners and how ineffective they are in either communicating with the voters or defending their positions.

    So if what they do never works, how should Democrats respond to idiotic, non-issue distractions like the Mosque that isn't a Mosque at all but a community center?  Easy.  You come out swinging and you don't allow yourself OR the media to get off track obsessing about a meaningless nonissue.  You relentlessly stick to your position and refuse to take the bait and start talking about wife beating for any reason.  Keep in mind, this isn't about an issue.  It's purely tactical.  It's about obfuscating the important issues and nothing else.  Democrats should be responding by saying very clearly and forcefully something like this or some variation of this kind of tactical response:

    "I'm running for Congress in (fill in the state whether NY or IL or MT, whatever) and zoning issues in New York City have nothing to do with my district or putting the people in my district back to work.  My opponenet doesn't want to talk about how the Republican policies during the Bush years nearly destroyed our economy, he doesn't want us to talk about how he supports doing nothing to create jobs other than provide more tax cuts for the rich.  We have 10% unemployment in my district/state.  That's a serious issue we need to address.  I'll let New York City make it's own zoning decisions.  I'm not going to be distracted from the issues that are important to my constituents and my district because the Republicans don't want to answer for the damage they've done to this country with their irresponsible and failed policies."

    That is the sort of response that Democrats should have instantly rebutted this cheap tactic with.  It is the response they should be giving to every inquiry about the Mosque that isn't a Mosque and any other variant of this tactic that comes down the pike.  This isn't rocket science of course.  Plenty of people understand political tactics and strategy and what it takes to be effective in that arena.  Apparently though, very few of those people are among the exalted consultant class of the dumbass DC Democrats or Democratic elected officials in DC.

    The leadership of the party should have instantly communicated that message discipline is absolutely essential on this matter and that all Democrats from the White House on down should respond with one voice.  They should have literally written it down and handed it to them, distributed it to their staffers, made copies available to everyone in the media and never depart from that message.  That's what Republicans do when (mostly by accident) Democrats stumble upon issues that put them in the undesirable position of having no good response and it has served them well.  Our side could do it too, but our side doesn't like strong leaders willing to instill discipline and courage.  The dumbass DC Democrats like weak leaders who will allow them to do as they please, when they please.  Just look at the people who have led the Democrats in Congress since about 1980 and you'll see what I'm talking about. 

    It's a tactic and the response needs to be tactical.  It isn't about freedom of religion folks though we lefties and liberals like to focus on that and go on and on about it.  I'm not saying that the lefty/liberal position on this is wrong at all because it isn't.  My entire point is that this is a tactical and a strategic problem and not one of substance.  Democrats' failure to respond tactically is their downfall time and again.  Despite understanding that the issue is a tactical move designed to distract, too many Democrats insist on responding ineffectively instead of with a tactical response.  Instead they always, always, always seem to get suckered into a perfectly proper, intellectually defensible response that plays right into the hands of the Republicans because it focuses everyone in both parties and the media and consequently the voters too, on a matter of absolutely no consequence in terms of the issues facing the nation and puts the Democrats in the position of making themselves look bad in the eyes of a huge swath of ill-informed and essentially bigoted voters who don't understand the issue.  Yes, those voters are wrong on this issue but Democrats need a large share of those voters in order to win elections and with less than 90 days to go before voting takes place is not the time to try and educate people on freedom of religion.  There's no time for that.  We need to be talking about jobs and putting people back to work and saving their homes from foreclosure and so on.  It is, strategically speaking, foolish and destructively self indulgent for Democrats to respond in such a disunified and ineffective manner.

    Republicans, unlike Democrats, understand and accept that campaigns are about voter manipulation and marketing when it's all said and done.  It is not about the high minded, lofty issues of religious freedom or liberty or being liked and accepted or anything else like doing a good job running the government.  It's about convincing more consumers to buy your product on election day. Period.  End of story.  The Republicans are selling a product that looks bad, tastes bad, smells bad and is bad for the country's health.  They know that.  So how do they sell their shitty product?  Simple.  They convince the consumers that even though they don't like the Republican product, the Democrats' product looks worse, tastes worse, smells worse and is worse for the health of the country even though that is a demonstrable lie.  The Republicans have no desire at all to be liked.  They have no respect for and make no effort to hide their contempt for the intelligence of the American people and the average citizen particularly.  They never hesitate to do anything that is to their immediate advantage regardless of the long term prospects for their party or their country.  It's all about who is going to buy Republican on election day in November of this year and nothing else.  Once you get elected you just do as you please and if asked about what you're doing you lie if necessary.  That's their m.o.  I'm not saying Democrats should adopt the Republican approach in toto.  I'm advocating that Democrats learn about how to effectively implement campaign tactics and in that respect they have a whole helluva lot to learn from Republicans and they can do that without adopting the most disgraceful and disreputable Republican characteristics.

    If you take a look at how this whole thing has unfolded you can see this nonissue was actually fading out and the last embers were smoldering and about to die when Obama "did the right thing" and came out in defense of religious liberty for all.  I agree with him.  I think his position was correct.  But I also think it was tactically the worst thing he could have done and the evidence is that when he did so he breathed new life into that final dying ember and ever since, the keystone cops of the Democratic Party in Washington have been falling all over themselves helping the Republican effort to distract via their usual failure to have any sort of intelligent, unified, tactical response.  Instead we get a smorgasboard of the usual, embarassing Democratic antics motivated in large part by what appears to be the primary response of Democrats to everything: fear.  Some of them just immediately head for the hills and hide.  Others quickly come out for religious freedom and then pretty soon flip flop saying they think the Mosque that isn't planned and won't happen shouldn't be at ground zero in attempt to protect themselves even at the price of humiliating and debasing themselves.  Still others immediately chicken out and sign up for the Republican distraction program assuming that means the tactic won't hurt them which, of course, will be the case for some but not others depending upon how long the dumbass Democrats let this go on.  Others fuel the Republican wife beating fire by coming out eloquently and at length about our heritage of religious liberty and so on which is correct, just fine as a graduate school seminar topic and totally ineffective at responding to this political move on a tactical and strategic plane with the wider voting public.  They fumble, they stumble, they fail to communicate coherently or decisvely with the public.  All the while the villains profit, bigotry is allowed to puff itself up as righteousness and the Democrats assist the Republicans in selling their stinky, rotten, toxic product to the American people.

    America deserves better, but even more so, the countless millions of regular Democrats who pull their hair out every two years over the failure of the dumbass DC Democrats to at least put up a good fight against the Republicans continue to be frustrated and ignored and shut out.

    Will they ever learn?  If history is any guide: no. 

    Comments

    Great post but clearly a minority viewpoint.


    by Lalo35adm (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 2:53pm

    If there were a position for Senior Armchair General of the Joint Chiefs of Bloviating Staff, you would most certainly be appointed with a minimum of controversy.


    by Zipperupus (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 3:24pm

    You, being young, not half as smart as you think and inexperienced in running any kind of political campaigns,once again speak from a position of complete ignorance. Unlike your case, what I've written is not simply personal opinion but an educated opinion born of the experience of 30 years running campaigns. You've a right to your opinion of course, but as seems to be your habit, you don't really have anything but your opinion. So run along, accumualte some experience and then come back with your ignorant snark. Have a nice day.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 3:35pm

    Perhaps, but the point is that it is a game and you must play to win, not to be right. That doesn't mean you have to be wrong or morph into an unpricncipled hack like so many DC Democrats do. What it means is that you have to know the game and play it to win. You can do that without abandoning what is right. You can do that without humiliating yourself. You can do that without conceding one inch to the opposition. But whatever you do, you need to understand that by playing the game the way the Democrats are and how they have played it in the past you are giving the opposition the advantage and letting them beat up on you while also damaging your own prospects by keeping the diversion going. But if you refuse to play the game to win and to knock out your opponent as Democrats seem so committed to doing, then you are playing the game in a very ineffective and naive way that puts your team at a distinct disadvantage.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 3:42pm

    So because you have worked or run political campaigns for 30 odd years this means you are always right? And that if we disagree we should just shut up and bow to the supposed wisdom of your years?

    To say you have an over sized opinion of yourself would be an understatement.


    by jsfox (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 3:45pm

    I would use age as an argument. Stick to your point. You've made a lot of good ones.


    by tlees2 (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 3:49pm

    No, but I can tell ya I have more experience than either you or the ignornat zipperupus in this field and that having actually dealt with such matters mine is a valid albeit not the only valid viewpoint. Yes, it is shocking that I believe I am correct. What a unique thing for someone to actually believe they know what they are talking about because they've been there and done that? Wow!

    Now, you can talk about whether I'm right or wrong, but obviously I believe I'm right. If I didn't I wouldn't put up the post. I tried to explain why I believe I am right above. You don't like it? That's your right, but too bad. We don't agree. Big deal. I think it's pretty simple stuff actually. And frankly, there isn't much to dispute. Perhaps that's why you and zippy boy aren't actually addressing the post but instead taking a personal tack. Just so we're clear, it is of no consequence whatever to me what your personal opinion is of me.

    Now, those of you who actually are nothing but armchair generals and don't have any actual experience at this are certainly entitled to your opinion but it's pretty clear that the way Democrats respond to this predictable tactic doesn't work well. Do you dispute that? If so, you were probably pretty happy with the Kerry response to the swiftboat BS in 04 and all the other cheap diversions served up by the GOP and so ineffectively dealt with by Democrats over the years.

    So, in light of the record, as astounding as it may seem to some, responding differently with an eye toward effectiveness just might be a good idea. That's the actual point of my post. But you go ahead and focus on criticizing me personally and avoid the substance of the post with zippy, clinging to the oft tried and just as often failed tactics the dumbass DC Democrats prefer.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 3:59pm

    zoning issues in New York City have nothing to do with my district or putting the people in my district back to work.

    Her, hear!

    The Low Wage Conservatives march on as this issue sucks all the air out of the room.


    by Indie Pro (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 4:01pm

    Thanks.

    I do try, but get tired of those who have nothing substantive to add but like criticizing me or whoever the person posting happens to be. There are those who seem to make a habit of it.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 4:01pm

    My complaint was not that you believe you are right, of course you do. It is the fact you decided rather than to address a disagreement intellectually you decide just toss it aside as if you were being annoyed by some 5 year old.

    As to what you know about me nothing. So please don't assume you have a clue as to what I do or do not know or my background.


    by jsfox (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 4:08pm

    A. What was the disagreement? He had nothing but a snarky comment that was simply a personal criticism.

    and

    B. Who you are is of no consequence to me, but from reading your posts I am pretty sure you're no political professional, but truthfully I don't care a whit about you. To that end I'll make no further respnse to you. Adios.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 4:25pm

    In jest, how about a couple of 'tactical distractions' to rile up the teaparty masses against the useless fear stoking corporate funded masters of the GOP:

    'Republicans defeat Reid's Bill, SB911 to preserve forever the 2nd Amendment rights of Real Americans, while disarming Muslims in America.'

    'Republican divided on House Bill to allow abortion of gay fetuses into the 3rd trimester.'


    by NobleCommentDecider (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 4:26pm

    If you have to resort to credentials to back your argument that's an indication of the weakness of the argument.

    By the way, how many of those campaigns were non-local (e.g. State or National)? How many (percentage wise) did you win?


    by clearthinker (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 4:26pm

    No; oleeb's citation of his politcal experience is in response to the criticism that he's an "armchair quarterback". It's a criticism without substance. Really, who here could not be characterized that way?

    oleeb, great post. And I think your irritation with the jabs you got is a good illustration of how difficult it can be to avoid letting a "tactical distraction", well, distract us.

    Ironic, no?


    by Dave Adams (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 6:27pm

    I think the level of game you're describing can only be done by the real "pros", who are capable of keeping the eye on the ball constantly.

    In fairness to Democrats, it's always easier to be in opposition because opposition is by nature tactical.

    However, I think the real frustration people are experiencing is in the fact that all major reforms Democrats have implemented are hugely unpopular with the general public and yet don't go far enough for the activist base.

    In other words, something is not working out for them on strategy and that's the reason they are so easily knocked off by mere tactics.


    by Lalo35adm (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 6:32pm

    Your whole post is nothing about nothing.

    Democrats should do X, but they don't because they're sell out craven pussies.

    If you really have decades of experience running anything other than the interior decoration of your basement, then it would show in your authorial tone.

    But it's not there. You preach to the converted. That's your schtick. You tell people what's wrong with the party, what's wrong with Obama, and what's wrong with the government while prescribing what they should do instead. That is being an armchair general. You want your audience to be outraged and take action while never proposing the action. You tell your readers "I told you so" whenever there's a failure, and your only prescription is revolution.

    In short, you are a verbose and tiresome hack. I could care less that you criticise, but I do critique your manner. You are often boorish, bullying, didactic, and completely closed to conversation that doesn't strictly agree to your terms. When you and I initially had conversations, I tried to point out that I disagreed with your take on history, especially Truman. You insulted me, told me that I was ignorant, and that I don't matter.

    And you're doing it again. It's disgusting. You're trying to say my criticism of what you said doesn't matter because you have this magical resume that I don't and that I am too young to appreciate all that you've done.

    Why don't you tell me to get off your lawn too?

    Eegads, you are quite possibly the worst poster in the Cafe.


    by Zipperupus (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 7:29pm

    I was addressing your post. You are peddling outrage, the same old crap you usually post about spineless Dem cowards failing us and caving to big business and the Republicans.

    And what they really ought to do (if they had balls) is FIGHT BACK.

    What the hell else is there for someone with an ounce of reason or nuance in their nature to do but to ridicule your grandiose manichean fantasy?

    It's so simple, oleeb, you wear the white hat, nasty Repubs wear the black hats, and people like me that just "don't get it" wear dunce caps.


    by Zipperupus (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 7:37pm

    Thanks zippy. I know you don't like what I have to say. You've made that clear repeatedly over a couple of years. But guess what? I don't care about anything you have to say because you are rude, ignorant fella who has nothing to add to anything. So please, go somewhere where your ignorance and personal attacks will fool somebody. You never have a word of substance to say about anything I've ever writen. It's always a personal attack as you began and ended with here. You are a small and small minded person. I'll have nothing further to say to you as you are essentially a worthless peon. Adios!


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 7:53pm

    Absolutely correct Dave! Thank you!

    Some folks though consistently make it their business to criticize the person instead of what the person has to say. It's tiresome to say the least.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 7:55pm

    Loved your rant and agree that Democrats and/or liberals have failed to come up with a language that explains how an aristocracy of wealth has with the help of Republicans (and many Democrats) undermined the American Dream. But --

    Is the Mosquerade only a "tactical distraction" or is it rather critical to a conception of what the American Dream is -- and since maintaining or reinvigorating the American Dream is at the heart of this election, the Mosquerade and the issues it highlights can't be so easily dismissed.

    It seems to me that Americans are hungering for community as a buffer against the globalization ("off-shoring") and financialization ("bank bailouts") of the economy which is destroying the very idea of an American community. Democrats* must explain why an American community can't be built on nativist grounds. Failure to do so cedes the field to the aristos and their Republican handmaidens.

    * Since NAFTA (and its progeny) and TARP (and its progeny) were Democratic programs, it is hard to see what Democrats can offer as a substitute for nativist populism -- but they can't run away from the necessity to try.


    by Ellen (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 7:59pm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_Robespierre

    That is how I feel about you, but thankfully you haven't an ounce of actual charisma or passion outside of your boundless narcissism to be anything other than a low level Jacobin thug.


    by Zipperupus (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 8:03pm

    Look zippy boy, after you grow up you might actually have something to say. But you've clearly got quite a ways to go. I'm sorry I hurt your wittle feelings pointing out you don't know jack about Harry Truman, but ya know what, I don't care particularly since you're one of the most consistently rude posters here and not just to me. You have basic social skill difficulties. Since that first encounter you have revealed quite thoroughly that you don't know much at all about anything regarding politics and government. But making a fool of ones self is your right. Feel free. You're nothing but a half witted nuisance who, instead of showing any discretion goes out of his way to make idiotic and quite pointless personal attacks whenever I post something. That's pretty pathetic behavior little zippo! Pretty petty too. You've made not one single substantive comment about the post I put up today. Not one. What you've written is the equivalent of stamping your feel and whining ont he playground. Nothing you've written has the slightest thing to do with what my post is about which is a very discreet and simple tactical political problem. You know nothing about this subject as is the case with most subjects you comment on but it makes you mad that I have something to say about it so you attack me personally. Pretty childish stuff zippitydooda! All you are doing with what you've written here is harranguing me personally. You have not one point to make other than you don't like me which is fine but why go out of your way just to be a rude, ignornant pest? It's certainly not a sign of adult behavior. Boring lil zippio! Really, really boring. And quite immature to boot! Now pin your diapers back up and run along and don't forget to take your small psuedo intellect with ya! Thanks little zipper!


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 8:18pm

    The focus of my comments has to do very narrowly with the political contest that is underway and how the strategy of both parties will impact the outcome of the election, not the substance of anything relating to the whole fabricated Mosque nonissue. There are only a limited number of days before the election. If there is something greater that needs to be addressed that isn't what we need to focus the electorate's attention on (jobs and the economy) it can wait. Right now, the focus needs to be on keeping the electorate and media focused on the issues that are real, and that are really important for the country. Instead of constantly playing defense which allows the opposition to define the terms of the debate we need to punch back and regain the initiative by keeping the focus where it should be: jobs, the economy and how the Republicans caused the mess we're in. After the election there will be plenty of time for other topics. Until then, spending time on anything else is an unproductive waste. Remember, that during election time it's a game and if you don't win it doesn't matter if you were right or wrong because you lost and if you lose badly enough you lose power altogether.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 8:29pm

    Nope, you were wrong about Truman because you posted a tiresome little hagiography about his courage, neglecting his administration's shameful creation of the national security state and abuse of the espionage act. Truman's administration has quite a bit to do with today's military industrial complex, but he talked tough so that means you get to wave him around like some kind of shillelagh to beat "lesser" presidents over the head.

    It was an abuse of history. You (I believe) deliberately distorted the truth in order to criticise the president. I aired my (valid) criticism, and you shit all over me, just like you are doing here. I didn't cast the first stone. You did. And then you had the temerity to write about the authoritarian personality. What a brazen hypocrite you are!

    You can continue to peddle your schtick and get your handul of true-believer reccomends and feel like you are better than people like me. But I see right through you, your bad writing, and your narrow mind with its absurd pride.


    by Zipperupus (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 8:38pm

    Well I see your point on the issues and agree that is a huge problem. But purely on the tactical point Democrats famously "lack message discipline". That's kind of a code for the Democratic elected officials refusing to come to any sort of consensus on message. The Blue Dogs happen to be a a huge contributor to this problem because of their frequent refusal to adopt Demcoratic positions on major issues. But there is no paucity of Democratic members of Congress who simply will not agree to literally following the party line. Republicans do it all the time because they not only havea coherent albeit very bad set of positions, but they also fundamentally see both the wisdom and the benefits of having a unified message and so they stick together. It helps that they have absolutely no ethical or moral boundaries about lying about their positions and those of the opposition. But the bottom line is that when they all need to respond in unison they do. When Democrats need to respond in unison they don't because they are a fundamentally cowardly lot of folks who would rather go it alone and make sure that they themselves feel safe than to stick together and keep everyone safe. This is a phenomenon we see frequently whenever the going gets politically tough and that we have seen up and down the line in this particular case of the Mosque that isn't a Mosque diversionary move. Democrats can and should do a much better job of this but the don't because of the weak leaders they choose who will not even attempt to maintain party discipline if members show the slightest sign of resistance or fear. This huge failing has repeatedly caused major problems for Democrats yet they continue to do nothing about it as is so evident in the present case.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 8:53pm

    jeez, liked your rant but responses were poor.


    by Joe (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 8:54pm

    Waaaaaaaa!!!! Waaaaaa!!!! Waaaaaa!!!


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 8:54pm

    Sorry, but I've lost patience with my personal troll.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 8:56pm

    You're nothing but a half witted nuisance who, instead of showing any discretion goes out of his way to make idiotic and quite pointless personal attacks whenever I post something.

    And that is a bunch of crap. I haven't commented on your blogs or your comments in a good long while. But this latest post is simply stupid and deserved the snark. You actually sound like a parody of yourself.

    Nevertheless, if it makes you feel better to characterize me in the most garish matter, then please do. I've survived worse than anything you could muster. Especially since your English is so substandard.


    by Zipperupus (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 9:01pm

    I understand your point about message discipline and I thought about this too. It's true that Republicans are able to unite more often and to stay on message with better discipline.

    However, I also think it's possible that message discipline is a device that simply doesn't fit Democrats organically. The concept of a Democratic base is an inclusive big tent where many different and sometimes conflicting voices can find a home. From an electoral point of view, it's a great platform, but the trade-off comes when they need to close the ranks and stand as one.

    Alternatively, it could be that when "message discipline" as a concept needs to be redefined. If "message discipline" refers to sticking to the tactical talking points, then I doubt Democrats can easily change they way they handle this. If "message discipline" refers to ignoring the tactics altogether and speaking only to the core issues (labor, education, etc), then the more voices the better.

    In a way, I'm sort of saying something similar to what you wish for in the OP, except that I'm trying to redefine what the game is or should be.


    by Lalo35adm (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 9:13pm

    There are only a limited number of days before the election. If there is something greater that needs to be addressed that isn't what we need to focus the electorate's attention on (jobs and the economy) it can wait.

    The news is all bad news for the administration. An increase in people filing for unemployment and being caught in a lie about the oil left remaining in the Gulf doesn't provide anything to hang their hats on going into the midterms. They are failing on all of the fronts that matter the most to the voters. I am getting the feeling that even though, obviously, the R's are orchestrating this whole controversy for their gain all things considered the Obama administration probably welcomes this distraction. It's a negative but it is the least negative of the negative news about the job Team Obama has done.


    by Libertine (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 9:14pm

    People said that Obama wasn't ready for this job. They were right.


    by Kali Star (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 9:25pm

    Yikes! I hate it when two commenters that I respect and admire, like oleeb and Zipperupus, somehow fall into a quagmire of mutual animosity!

    It's time for a reset! Forget all that came before! Cut it out, both of you!

    Or else there's no cookies and milk after nap!

    And since you're apparently a little older, oleeb, and you're a big boy now, it's up to you to work this out!

    If a time-bomb like me can put up with Zip's occasional apologetics for Obama without going off on him, so can you!

    Good guys got to hang together, or we will all hang separately!


    by Rutabaga Ridgepole (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 9:34pm

    Well, in the end it's unlikely (though possible) that Dems will lose the House, Obama has the least to lose with this distraction going on because it's another two years before he's up.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 10:17pm

    i have been watching repubs do this for fifty years.


    by dickday (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 10:19pm

    I've avoided the mosque "debate" because it was misstated from the beginning (mosque on Ground Zero) by the so-called press to gin up the story. As with the Swift-boaters, the media is happy to oblige when card-carrying liberals are being questioned about their national security bona fides. Call Democrats out concerning their military prowess, and they become apoplectic. Just hint that they don't really support the troops, or that they want to coddle terrorists, commies, whatever, and watch them jump. It's been working for many years.


    by Don Key (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 10:39pm

    I think the D's will hold onto the House but their majority will prbably be down to single digits. They should fare better in the Senate with weak R nominess like Angle and McMahon on their respective tickets but will probably still lose some seats.

    The mosque issue is very indicative of the way Team Obama works. Almost always reactive in actions and message as opposed to being proactive. They have chosen to sit back and hope that the economy would start on another boom in the bust-boom cycle it has been on. They gambled it would improve by midterms and they lost that bet and there is a political price to pay for ignoring the political truism of "it's the economy stupid".


    by Libertine (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 10:54pm

    My point is that the Mosque nonsense is an indicator of the central theme of this election and it isn't "jobs, jobs, jobs" -- for the simple reason that the Democrats don't have a plan to create "jobs, jobs, jobs" which anyone takes seriously and the Republicans don't care.

    The election will be won by whichever party appears to exemplify the American Dream. The question for pols is what is the American Dream and who gets to define it -- Democrats (liberals and centrists) or Republicans (conservatives).

    The Mosquerade is a marker, and pols better turn it into one that reflects their definition of the American Dream.


    by Ellen (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 10:58pm

    Momma! Momma! Waaaaaaaaa!!!


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 11:30pm

    Yes, very indicative of Obama but also of the Congressional Democrats for many, many years and he is one of them. He proceeds more as chief legislator than Chief Executive. I think he finds that a comfortable role. Too bad it doesn't help to forward the political agenda he got elected to implement.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 11:32pm

    Me too DD. Wouldn't it be nice if our side didn't fall for it every time Lucy says she'll hold the ball for us while we kick?


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 11:33pm

    No doubt, but only because the Democrats allow it to happen. It was not always that way and it need not continue to be that way. But it will take a different approach and the alternative tactic I've offered is one effective means of changing the political dynamics and it is one we know works. Unfortunately, many if not most DC Democrats are afraid to change even though it's so clear that the way they handle these matters doesn't work at all for our side. It always leads to people like Kerry saying they should have fought back sooner and all, but then the next guy makes the same damn mistake and then comes to the same realization too late and the repetition never ends.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 11:38pm

    True about the Big O but there's one little Dem in all the Mooslim Mosque Madness that showed a flash of brilliance and great foot work- Harry Reid. Has a bit to do with your original rant. Harry was able to get out front of the Mosques Madness, essentially beating Sharron to the punch - and stealing the Republican line - move the mosque - leaving Sharron stuck with her eliminating social security TP. Great move Harry! Reminded me of Clinton when he went after Queen Latefa and swooped up a signature Republican TP - the Welfare Queens. Hard to find Oleeb but more moves like this would make a difference.


    by Clarance Vine (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:14am

    Absolutely. I wonder if it's less a misunderstanding of the Republican play-book than how the media works (or how to work the media).


    by Don Key (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:54am

    It's a criticism without substance. Really, who here could not be characterized that way?

    That is not a particularly strong defense.

    Here's a particular zinger from Oleeb's opus:

    The leadership of the party should have instantly communicated that message discipline is absolutely essential on this matter and that all Democrats from the White House on down should respond with one voice. They should have literally written it down and handed it to them, distributed it to their staffers, made copies available to everyone in the media and never depart from that message.

    The message that Oleeb wanted to send was not politically sound. By citing the unemployment and focusing on the issues while blaming Bush, all you are doing is highlighting how poor the domestic economy is performing. You are reminding the voters that you suck, but it's not your fault.

    The mosque nontroversy is a perfect political distraction for both parties from the situation. Now, it is a framing contest. The short term contest has been won by the Republicans. The long term contest will likely be won by Democrats because once the fervor dies down and the Cordoba project is built or not built, the ideals of the Constitution will start to reassert themselves.

    Ellen downthread had it perfectly right. Neither side wants to focus on the economy because the public overwhelmingly blames Congress for the failure. Therefore, trying to say "it's Bush's fault that you're unemployed" is rubbing salt in the wound. They don't want to hear that. They want results. In lieu of results, controversies that are carefully messaged by the two parties in a Checkers match of third grade level intellect and infantile emotion will have to do.

    Good politics is keeping the people distracted right now. A good challenging politician would rightly hammer this the way Oleeb is describing (minus blaming Bush). But the left has fielded very few challengers this cycle. Instead, the left is largely donating to safe seats for favored incumbents. This is the tactical failure that the left should be focusing upon. Deep thinkers like oleeb are too busy erecting narrative fantasies about "should have been" instead of "what could be."

    Now, local party workers like myself get to enjoy volunteering for incumbents in places like California that would be RIPE for challengers. A Senator like Boxer could tie herself into an insurgent candidate's platform and really start to create a bit of liberal excitement. Now, Boxer would be a fool to stick her neck out as an incumbent against Fiorina.

    If I were to put on my Criswell cap (and probably be wrong), I think oleeb has probably worked on grassroots insurgent campaigns where the rhetoric has to be hard, aggressive, and designed to exploit weaknesses while developing a narrative of outsider competence/reform.

    I know the Dems are largely corporate whores, up to and including Obama. But this has to be changed, not by "advising" Dems how to do their jobs in a pie in the sky rant, but by being active in the civic process. The more energy that is poured into making democracy work, and the more energy you pour into outreach without getting distracted by the bipartisan/media head games, the more that we the people (IMO) can take this country back from the abyss.

    The only reason I am writing this here is for you, because I believe you misunderstood my snark. I would rather not be mischaracterised as someone who simply throws spitballs--I'm not a troll. Oleeb's posts, along with a couple other posters here, bring out the more churlish side of my personality. But I do know what I am talking about and I am not as young as Oleeb would like to think I am. I've been through a hell of a lot, and have been active in San Diego and Bay Area politics for roughly fifteen years.


    by Zipperupus (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 1:08am

    I partially disagree - I think often the Democrats choose the wrong message.

    As I just responded on another post, the Dems have been churning "the mosque doesn't matter, stuff your feelings, be tolerant, anyone who disagrees is a bigot" as their response. Wow. That's a loser politically - "you're wrong now shut up".

    Don't the Dems realize when they're suckered into choosing a swamp to fight from?

    Bernard Avishai's response was to make Ground Zero more multi-cultural, multi-religious (and tolerant of atheism I would hope). Which would make anything 600 feet or 5 miles away irrelevant - the message at Ground Zero is stronger. Even the historical precedent is then irrelevant - the invading Moors built their city and structures for medieval Cordoba. In this case, the Americans put up their own as a solid statement of what they believe in - all the difference in the world.

    I kind of hoped post-9/11 that we would push our all-embracing Democracy and economic growth message more than the "hunker down for security" side that's necessary but not our strength. Instead we pushed overbearing security, lack of individual rights and economic irresponsibility.

    For some reason Democrats including Obama haven't been able to break out of that disastrous message.


    by Desidero (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 1:23am

    Hello...as a matter of curiousity, what is your political background, as you describe 30 years experience. That's quite a substantial amount of time. Did you work local, naational or both?


    by Ray Hicks (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 1:39am

    Now, suddenly, today the networks decided that it would be exciting for Obama's religion to be the hot story of the month; whether people believe he's truly a Christian.... Lordy Jesus. Do they think we are solid wood?


    by Joe Wood (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 2:05am

    First, Oleeb is saying, "Get a message and get message discipline". Then you decide what message is appropriate and effective.

    Your criticism of Oleeb's message? Only partially correct - summarize situation, mission, actions.

    "This is a distraction - we all know the economy sucks, that the Republicans got us stuck here, and my job is to help get us out. To do that, I'm doing X, Y, Z especially in my local community, because that's who I'm elected to represent".


    by Desidero (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 3:13am

    Thank you.

    You made a lot of good point and I'll have to think about them a bit. Some things that stuck out for me:

    The mosque nontroversy is a perfect political distraction for both parties from the situation. Now, it is a framing contest. The short term contest has been won by the Republicans. The long term contest will likely be won by Democrats because once the fervor dies down and the Cordoba project is built or not built, the ideals of the Constitution will start to reassert themselves.

    Ultimately the position (most) Democrats are supporting will prevail, (because its rooted in the law) but it won't redound to the Democrats' benefit, other than driving a few Moderate-Conservative Muslims out of the Republican Party. Very few people will look back on this in say 2012, and vote for Obama because of it. The Republicans get a political win out of losing this, but the Democrats get no political win out of prevailing.

    [big snip]

    I know the Dems are largely corporate whores, up to and including Obama. But this has to be changed, not by "advising" Dems how to do their jobs in a pie in the sky rant, but by being active in the civic process. The more energy that is poured into making democracy work, and the more energy you pour into outreach without getting distracted by the bipartisan/media head games, the more that we the people (IMO) can take this country back from the abyss.

    I think at some point we Democrats need to start turning this kind of political circus to our benefit. I think we need the political equivalent of a Letterman list, like an ongoing "Top Ten List of Stupid Republican Political Stunts" or something like that. In other words, we need to equate whatever the lattest stupid stunt is to others that most people recognize, like the phony "Pledge of Allegiance" stunt, the "American Flag Lapel Pin" stunt, and the Swiftboat stunt. We have to get the public laughing at the Republican Bullshit Machine before they get out of the gate and get people to be lookout for the next stunt. Maybe even have a contest to see who spot the next stupid stunt first. In other words, innoculate the public.

    We're always playing defense on this crap; we need to play offense. I mean, we're smarter and we have all the good comedians. It shouldn't be difficult.


    by Dave Adams (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 4:50am

    Ah, so it is my fault that you aren't mature enough to make adult comments as opposed to the pointless personal attacks you like to engage in? What a pathetic, juvenile excuse.

    As usual you are too dim to grasp the simple point I made in the post and you demonstrate your lack of understanding quite well here. It wasn't the particulars of my example that matter it's the general thrust you dimwit. I thought I made that clear enough even for the likes of you. And the political stripe of the candidate is of no consequence. This tactical response can be used by any kind of Democrat left, center or right. The tactical point is to turn it back on the other side instead of wasting time and effort talking about the diversion. The entire post is solely about tactics in case you didn't realize that and it's pretty obvious that you didn't. Your attempts to prove how smart you are only reveal your lack of understanding. The point here is to be effective and to turn the tables on the opposition. The way Democrats respond to these situations is most definitely not effective. You don't know anything about that of course but you blow a lot of hot air around as though you do. It's startling how a genius like lil zippy can miss such an obvious point.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 5:16am

    I've worked at every level top to bottom but primarily state and local level campaigns in the east and midwest.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 5:20am

    No, I don't think they think that Joe. I think they are solid wood and that's why they waste their time on such crap. Truly pitiful and a national disgrace but that's the way it is.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 5:24am

    If Oleeb had been responding to an intellectual challenge to his premise, I might agree with this as a truism. However, in this case Oleeb isn't speaking to his post so much as he's going off on someone who didn't offer a real criticism of any sort whatsoever besides tossing up an "armchair quarterback" diss.

    Under the circumstances, I think it's fair to say "fuck you! I'm a professional athlete who knows what goes into winning and losing a political campaign." That is totally appropriate considering what he was responding to. Zip is a fucking idiot, and certainly doesn't have a lick of genuine political experience. IMO, he is not intellectually capable of debating Oleeb on an equal footing.

    So, what specific weakness do you see in Oleeb's overall premise? I think he's generally correct - however Lalo, Desi and Libertine make some pretty good qualifying observations as well. Compare the discussion beneath the Lalo sub-thread to this one and you'll see the difference between intelligent discussion and Zipper-troll bullshit.


    by kgb999 (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 5:39am

    Me three. What I have noticed that average voter is tired of the mosque bashing at ground zero and really don't care where it is being built. Can't wait until the MSM moves on to something else. In the mean time they are "channel surfing" and turning off cable news. I know this because I am working with a grass roots campaign to get out the vote.


    by trkingmomoe (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 5:53am

    The average Joe has turned off to Muslin hate talk and looking for some real news. There is many dem voters that are seeing through the repub echo news that cable is focused on.


    by trkingmomoe (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 6:17am

    Wasn't that Sister Souljah, whom Clinton went after?


    by Ellen (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 9:39am

    If you have to claim "experience of 30 years running campaigns" then your argument is weak. Who knows if in fact you do have 30 years experience? It is irrelevant anyway. Experience being wrong is experience, it is just not good experience.

    This is the internet. If I want to claim that I am Abraham Lincoln returned from the dead, I can do so. In this forum such claims are of little worth, even if I am Lincoln returned from the dead. It is not who I am or what I have done that is important, it is what I say here.

    Expression of opinion or fact here must stand on their own as being valid or not valid.

    You could have an IQ right off the charts, and been responsible for electing hundreds of public office holders, but if your what you say does not make sense or has serious flaws, what difference does it make?


    by wildbluffalo (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:03am

    You are correct - and you win the prize - your own personal stimulus package. It is a personal spending spree in upscale only fashion houses - HR 5327 Shop Till You Drop Bill - creating demand, resulting in new retail hires, manufacturing jobs, building new inventories, and TV appearances selling optimism in 'The New American Sunrise' - exclusively for one week on NBC with Morning Joe & Mika!


    by Clarance Vine (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:54am

    It wasn't the particulars of my example that matter it's the general thrust you dimwit.

    I have no pretense towards genius, oleeb.

    I grasp your "general thrust," because it is always the same. You have the same tired advice couched in the same redundant criticisms.

    The Dems aren't doing a good job of messaging, but you're advice on how they can achieve a tactical advantage is wrong. Dems would do well to behave more like Franken and Feingold in this matter, and like Obama's speech. It is important to express an opinion, even on a media-driven controversy. There needs to be the presence of sanity, a voice against the exploitation of a minority based on irrational fear and prejudice.

    Once people start getting hurt, and once the issue starts to extend to politicians making the case that all "mosques" should be illegal, the issue is no longer meaningless. But you don't want to understand that. You want to understand the world from your very specific and manichean perspective so that what you have to say is de facto valid. The proverbial hammer in search of a nail.

    And examples always matter when bolstering the case of a general thrust. You can't just say they don't matter and wave off a poor example. And doing that while continuing to berate me as a dimwit doesn't obfuscate that. If a General discusses tactics but illustrates a poor tactical example (as McChrystal did when he spoke about COIN), then it fails the credibility test.

    And, if you had integrity, you would see that your one size fits all approach to making politics radical is a top-down fantasy.


    by Zipperupus (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:45am

    Dear customers, thank you for your support of our company.
    Here, there's good news to tell you: The company recently
    launched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionable
    and welcome everyone to come buy. If necessary, please
    input:

    http://www.newgoing.com/

    T-shirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $14

    New era cap $10

    Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30

    Handbags(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) $35

    Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $35

    Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini)$14

    Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18

    http://www.newgoing.com
    FDAB


    by cha (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:52am

    I agree that Democrats often chose the wrong message - that's why I was suggesting it might be a good idea to redefine what "message discipline" should mean for a party that's based on a big-tent inclusion.

    And yes, on the mosque Democrats were suckered into fighting from a swamp.

    However, I think Avishai's solution is based on the premise of accepting you're in a swamp and then making the best play possible in that situation.

    His argument about multiculturalism is driven by two reasons:
    - his general views on majority religion (consistent, with his views in his book in the tragedy of Zionism)
    - his implication that the issue of how the world Muslims see America being more important than how Americans see Islam and American Muslims

    Because of these two reasons, his argument will not gain any traction. His trying to find a way out the swamp but while he recognizes Democrats are in the swamp, he doesn't understand why it is a swamp in the first place.


    by Lalo35adm (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:59pm

    I don't believe for a minute that this moron has any political experience whatsoever. His entire argument consists of calling out the Democrats as weak for their willingness to compromise. Well, politics is compromise; and anyone remotely involved with politics as it's practiced knows that progressive interests are contantly forced into less-than-satisfactory agreements with more powerful, monied interests. oleeb's overarching criticism of Democrats is so lacking in understanding of politics as it is (and often must be) practiced that it's extremely difficult to take his claims of vast, direct experience with politics seriously.

    So, no. Either oleeb is a lying about his political experience, or he is the worst political operative ever.


    by brewmn61 (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 1:22pm

    Yeah; lay off Latifah! She IS a queen:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKXFeMnCQAI

    ;-)


    by wendy davis (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 1:49pm

    Some Good points but too wordy for this forum! Calling names is stooping to their level!


    by Docb (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 1:54pm

    Don, what do you think of the White House responding to the Obama-is-a-Muslim poll numbers?

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/19/white-house-strikes-back-at-muslim-tag/

    I hear a man from Time (assumedly Muslim) say what Obama was saying is "I'm not a Muslim" rather than "I'm a devout Christian".


    by wendy davis (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 2:04pm

    You certainly have the right to your opinion. I am a firm believer that I can keep my mouth shut and let people think I am stupid, or open it and confirm the fact.

    Disagreement is not a suitable criteria for calling people stupid, ignorant, or a moron. My point was, who a person is or what they have done - or not done - is not material on the internet when they speak/write. If what is being said is stupid fine, but the person may not be stupid and we have no way of knowing if they are.

    Civility has to return to our dialogue. If I am a moron, I have a right to be that, and what I say has just as much validity as what anyone else says. The idea should be to discuss and learn in the process.


    by wildbluffalo (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 2:29pm

    Why would you even bother offering up this advice for a group of people you've spent the last 2 years labeling as hopeless sellouts devoid of principle?


    by dorn76 (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 2:33pm

    With a gracious title like "Note to Dumbass Democrats", it's sure to get wide play among those that you want to influence.


    by dorn76 (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 2:36pm

    As though it matters one iota what a pitiful troll like you thinks.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 3:07pm

    Do you have anything to say about the post? No.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 3:08pm

    Agreed. The nonissue is dominating and it is serving the purposes of the Republicans as I pointed out in my post. You are quite correct in this. I think it isn't so much who is representing the American Dream so much as it is who is able to dominate the conversation of election season to their advantage and that is what my post is trying to address. It might be the American Dream one cycle. It might be something else. What counts is who is calling the tune. If the tune is all about whether or not we like Muslims you can pretty well count on Democrats have a bad election night. If the tune is about how the Republicans destroyed prosperity and economic stability and caused economic disaster then the Democrats are going to have a pretty good night. The cowering reactive position of the Democrats who certainly have a story to tell and a "narrative" (though I hate that over used description)to offer the public is extremely ineffective and they refuse to change the approach. They fail on nearly every level to either plan for what everyone with half a lick of sense knows is going to come out of the Republican shop or even plan for putting out their own message. It happens every two years like clockwork. It's incredible incompetence really.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 3:16pm

    You may be right about how the public feels about it, but the thing is this trick keeps working for the Republicans and against Democrats even if the public is tired of it or perhaps it works even better because the public is tired of it. Republicans WANT people to be tuned out and turned off. They want people to disengage and to feel alienated. All that works in their favor. The fewer people voting them more power their diminishing bloc of voters has. They particularly want to turn off the lower income levels and they are good at doing. It's just too damn bad the Democrats are so good at helping them do it. But no matter what happens with the nonissue of the moment, the Republicans, you can be quite sure, will be rolling out a whole series of them for the very same reasons between now and election day. And you will see the Democrats fumble and stumble and mishandle those as well just like we're seeing with this diversionary nonissue.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 3:20pm

    Lots of DC Democrats and their consultant leeches don't actually believe in Democratic policies. That makes it extremely difficult to formulate and adopt a solid strategy for dealing with either the Republicans or the media. I think DC Democrats have problems understanding both of them in significant part because to have a coherent approach you have to make a committment to stand for something. DC Democrats have a very, very difficult time with that.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 3:23pm

    I've heard he wants to build a mosque in the West Wing!

    I think the numbers believing this have gone up in proportion to the Limbaugh/teabag propaganda. I imagine if they polled voters (who are presumably more informed), it would be less than 10%, rather than the 20% who think he's Muslim or the 40% who don't know his religion. If the WH lets another weak-on-terror meme become the word of the day (it just led on our local news here) it will play right into republican hands. I imagine Obama has downplayed his religion because it's a reminder of Reverend Wright. You can be sure we'll see him in church often from now on though.

    How does he answer? 'I'm not a Muslim- not that there's anything wrong with it'. The campaign was rife with these attacks, and Obama slipped at first by not asking the obvious- why is being Muslim a slur? Later, he added that, but in a world of gotcha sound-bites, it's hard to have a long rational explanation about emotional, distorted issues like this. Obama is caught in a quandary in that he's still following the Bush WOT strategy and fighting what is understood without saying, a war against Islam (meaning large swaths of Muslim people are demonized to some degree in order to stoke the war fires).


    by Don Key (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 4:45pm

    ;-)
    The communications aid said "Obama Christian...Christian this...Christian that..."

    What the writer from Time said was that what she was really saying (for Obama) was that "The President isn't Muslim."

    Too bad he sold out Rev. Wright, too bad he can't/won't say, "If I were Muslim, I would have told you; some day there will be a Jewish President; some day there will be a Muslim President; that day is not now" or something.


    by wendy davis (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 5:12pm

    Yes, as a rule when someone starts name calling like "Dumbass Democrats" I don't read much further. I do look at the comments to see how that goes. In this case it was more name calling.

    I do think that the whole Mosque thing is a diversion, but the opposition to the Mosque being built near "Ground Zero" is part of the whole break down in civil and rational political discussion in our country.

    We should have a discussion about why we as a nation want to nationalize what is effectively a local issue.

    The decisions about the Mosque in New York are none of our business, the reason we want to nationalize it is.

    I hope we can continue the discussion with out resorting to personal attack.


    by wildbluffalo (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 6:28pm

    I got that, but I just wish we could discuss ideas without the personal attacks. It is the idea not the messenger that is important. :)


    by wildbluffalo (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 6:39pm

    If he can say, let them build their mosque because this is America, a nation founded on freedom of religion, he could have went the same route here. That he doesn't fight back by calling his critics out on their bigotry which can be inferred from this organized campaign to paint him as Muslim is dangerous. It concedes the point that being Muslim is bad (how Christian is that meme?) and forces him to wiggle and writhe after every new poll or slight from the right.

    Most know Obama is of mixed heritage. Let's say he looked more like his mother and identified as white. What would it sound like if Republicans tried to "smear" him with a "President Obama is really black" campaign? The whole country would cringe. But, somehow, using a Muslim label as a slur is PC? He should be shaming the media, too, who further the prejudice by taking it seriously and never questioning it either.

    Honestly, I thought the Right would hit Obama hard with this stuff (Wright, socialist, terrorist buddies, etc.) during the campaign, but they held back (Palin floated a few Obama=terrist balloons). I really wonder if they had conceded the presidency to him and saved these attacks to demonize him to a growing discontented electorate.


    by Don Key (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:59pm

    Thank you for that, Don; it was exactlywhat I was alluding to. He didn't say the right thing, the brave thing...he equivocated again. Damn it.


    by wendy davis (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:28pm

    cha (do you mind if I name my guinea pig after you?),

    I wonder why the Democrats keep going around selling crap like this to the Professional Left, their real base, on sites like this. I mean, Nike shoes for $30?! Any idiot, even a Republican, realizes that those are cheap knock-offs! Still, for the money (and my cousin's nephew's birthday is coming up)...

    Do you peddle your (so-called liberal) wares to the Freepers? If not, I think you might find a large, wealthy (or wannabe wealthy) untapped market segment. Just tell them these products are tax-free! Good luck in your endeavors. If you decide to take on this mission, know that you will never be the same upon your return from Freeperlandia.

    Oh, I almost forgot, do you know what grits are?


    by Don Key (not verified) on Sat, 08/21/2010 - 1:11am

    And tell me brewmn61 who never has anything valuable to contribute: what is that qualifies you to comment on me... other than nothing? I have a proposal, you stay out of my posts and I'll stay out of yours. Oh, that's right, you never post, you're just a troll who fouls other people's posts. Pitiful.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Sat, 08/21/2010 - 1:30am

    Oh, and by the way nitiwt, those who work for political campaigns, movements, initiatives, candidates quite often do not share the politics of those they work for. But since you have no knowledge of that realm you wouldn't know that now would ya?


    by oleeb (not verified) on Sat, 08/21/2010 - 1:33am

    Who says I'm offering it up to them? I offer it as a critique of their losing strategy. I don't expect "them" to read it nor do I care if they do. They are a lost cause.


    by oleeb (not verified) on Sat, 08/21/2010 - 1:39am

    Should say "not" obviously.


    by tlees2 (not verified) on Sun, 08/22/2010 - 9:01pm

    TARP was signed by Bush in October 2008. His cabinet formulated it.


    by tlees2 (not verified) on Sun, 08/22/2010 - 9:05pm

    The original bank bailout idea -- Paulson's three page get-out-of-jail card -- was designed by Treasury.

    But TARP (otherwise known as "porkulus") was designed by the Democratic leadership after the people through their legislative representatives had rejected something similar to the original idea on 9/29/2008. TARP is an albatross owned by the Democratic Party and properly hung around its neck.


    by Ellen (not verified) on Mon, 08/23/2010 - 10:36pm

    Well, I'd say they share some of the blame, but I can't see exonerating the GOP.


    by tlees2 (not verified) on Wed, 08/25/2010 - 11:12pm

    Latest Comments