Leaked documents reveal GOP plan to use scare tactics to raise money

Your sarcasm is way too obvious.

I wonder whether Republican donors will come to realize how their party views them.

 

How smug.

 

This doesn't appear to be getting much play, which is unfortunately. The saddest thing is that GOP supporters don't know that the RNC is simply being a puppeteer with them as puppets; I sincerely hope such a realization never has to befall me.

 

Damn, how I admire a columnist capable of trotting out a Luddite reference!

I hope, for once, my party disappoints both of our expectations.

RR, having a healthy dose of cynicism has to be a requirement in order to be a Democrat. We both qualify as far as cynicism is concerned. Seriously, one of our biggest problems of the last couple of decades has been an inability to give as good as we get from the GOP. They spew crap out the kazoo and we invariably have congressional leadership diabolically different from the leaders we had back in the day, LBJ being a wonderful example. Sure, the guy had a lot of warts to go along with a remarkable record of accomplishment, but by god, he was just as ruthless and just as effective as the DeLays and Roves who have had such a grip on the Republican Party for far too long. DeLay is no longer in power, one might say? Perhaps, but his influence lingers, as does Rove's.

Meanwhile, our leadership (mine, at least) dithers, they groan, they whine, they don't manage to effectively counter the RNC and their far-right, outright lies trotted out time and time again. They do the same thing with the president's agenda, insuring that the GOP have even more time to mount the attacks described in the RNC's own internal memoranda, in their attack strategy laid bare for the world to see. They have given time for the RNC to effectively take the initiative away from the DNC, allowing them far too much control over the spin in the media. In other words, the current congressional Democratic leadership was prodded (to be fair, by the administration) to be "bipartisan," a strategy predictably proven to be a great aid for the GOP in dragging things out long enough to allow their campaign of outright lies, wrapped in immorality, outlined in their own documented strategy, to sink into the body politic.

Time for President Obama and the Democratic leadeship, the DNC, to prove what they said during the campaign, that they would never again allow just this type of campaign by the RNC to work. That they would not sit by and allow these kinds of attacks to continue unanswered. That they would give back what they receive with interest. Time to prove it. Bipartisanship is a worthy goal, but only if the other side practices it as well. They are not. Bipartisanship isn't an effective strategy when used by only one side, unless that strategy is to lose the power that took so long to gain. To allow this to go on is to insure failure.

Take this crap published by the Republican leadership, hold it up for the world to see, use it, and use much else to hammer the Republican Party. Spend the money and resources needed to get the Democratic response out there. Some will cry out about the lack of bipartisanship by the Democrats and to them I respond, "Sorry, but we tried and you weren't interested. You weren't interested and rediculed those in your own party who were attempting to be bipartisan. We aren't going to just take it any longer. The gloves are off." That's what I would do. Maybe it's just me.

 

Just out of curiosity, because I do not watch it, is the Fox network commenting upon this story?

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i8XDeDdSPYRijVKylN_h1gsG7GNw

 

Given how obvious all this sounds, I don't see how the Democrats can use it to their advantage. Other Democrats can be outraged, while Republicans can just say they are running on fear because the Obama socialist agenda is, indeed, scary. This "evidence" only potential is for polarization; it won't win anyone over to the Democratic side.

 

You don't think referring to your constituents as visceral, reactionary, motivated by fear, and ego-driven would outrage any Republicans? Or would they just shrug their shoulders and go "That's me!"?

 

Well yeah - I mean the GOP refers to their prime movers essentially as Luddites (which is true) and decides to appeal to those instincts.

How are you going to use that to any advantage? I mean you're not going to sway the Luddites by definition. I suppose you could sway some independents but the concepts are advanced for the soundbite world, and would require the traditional media to not give credence to anti-intellectual people like Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck, whose arguments are generally just not rational in any sense. Instead the Luddites' arguments are presented as being on equal footing.

See above - when you are starting from a counterintuitive, illogical, irrational position like "Get your government hands off my Medicare" or "We need to create jobs by cutting spending!" - I dont' see how one can expect an irrational person to react the way a rational person would.

 

No, I don't they will take it personally. Go ask a Republican and find out. Either:

(1) They'll say what Obama & co are doing really is scary, so pointing that out in the campaign makes sense; or

(2) They'll assume the fear-mongering is necessary for the other conservative and independent voters, not the smart voters like themselves; or

(3) They'll feel mildly insulted about it, but forget about it in a week or two. If the Democrats keep bringing it up to keep them from forgetting, they'll get annoyed at how whiny the Democrats are being.

In the end, a conservative's allegiance to the opposition of liberalism is more important than being well-thought-of by the Republican leadership. So, when the two collide, there might be some short-term complaining, but opposing liberalism will win and the vote will go to the only vehicle for that opposition, the Republicans.

 

Excellent analysis
you would do it sir . .. because YOU SIR . . HAVE A SPINE!!!

Demos have to make a Decision

If they ;know' what is right for the country as for legislation etc
then
They have to decide
1. Push through the Legislation
or
2. Do the 'proper' thing and get BiPartisan Support


Demos are sooooo about THE SHOW of doing the right thing
that they are not effective in doing the right thing

In my community the general concensus has been
Reps and a Demos are trying to be parents
Reps = Abusive Parent
Demos = incompetent Parent

Which would you rather have?

Rocket River

Rocket River

 

Precisely. They will do a certain amount of all three of these, and people like Beck and rush will sell it. That's all it will take.

 

RNC Fundraising Presentation Upsets Tea Party

The controversial RNC fundraising presentation released earlier this week is now creating a stir among members of the Tea Party movement.

"They don't get it," Judson Phillips, the organizer of last month's National Tea Party Convention, told the Daily Beast about the RNC. "They freaking don't get it."

"Can they be any more insulting? I guess they could have called us teabaggers, but Holy Cow, I'm so blown away by the whole thing I'm just sitting here stunned," Phillips said, according to a report by the Daily Beast's Benjamin Sarlin.

The power point presentation repeated notorious depictions of President Obama painted like the Joker from Batman and described "small donors" as "reactionary" and motivated by "fear" and "extreme negative feelings toward existing administration."

 

I guess the base now knows how the RNC really feels about them.

 

I guess I continue to give Americans too much credit, despite my growing cynicism.

I would hope that someone who says (1) would realize that maybe the GOP's system of lies and control mechanisms are the reason that they believe this, and then actually look at the policies the current administration is applying and realize that we're not "marching towards socialism" (as Glenn Beck puts it).

I would hope that someone who says (2) would realize that they are victims of that fear-mongering themselves and could be succumbing to GOP mind control (of sorts).

I would hope that someone who says (3) would be insulted enough by it that they actually look into what the GOP is doing and realize that they are victims of such tactics.

But all three points above hinge on two words: "hope", and "realize". My hopes have been smashed thoroughly already by the knuckle-dragging behavior of the American people, and asking for these knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers to "realize" something is perhaps asking too much.

And the cynicism grows.

 

I'm sorry to be such a downer.

But, I also forgot to mention the cognitive dissonance working in the Republicans favor. First, a conservative who had championed the Republican Party would have to say they were wrong to have done so. Then, they would have to admit they were dumb enough to fall for Republican fear-mongering and red-scare propaganda in the past. What self-respecting person is going to admit that they were wrong and dumb over a little thing like this? The Party will do some damage control and offer some contrivance of an explanation that people can hold onto as a reason why they weren't suckers and spare their egoes, and we'll go on as before. If you want someone to really acknowledge that they've been betrayed, you need some big and irrefutable piece of evidence that will not allow for any kind of self-justification. Like a sex tape or something.

 

This story will not adversely affect the GOP supporters perception of their party.

It would be presumptuous to assume that much of the targeted GOP base would be able to fully comprehend what these documents infer about them.

 

Really? Isn't it more cliche than anything? That's the old saw. liberals give humans too much credit and conservatives give them too little.

And I don't see how saying one party is better organized than the other is smug, but then they probably don't call you Crazy for nothing.

 

dodge it if you like. and no, they don't.

 

Um, okay... [smug]a scintillating thread contribution, ConciseyDave[/smug]. I tried to get you to explain the comment, and you went from two words of insult, to the five irony-soaked, actually smug words above.

How about something that would interest the thread overall? Can you explain what you see as the primary differences in the parties?

I'll expand my comments to be even smugger, muggerfugger.
1. There's a huge difference in organization, or at least dedication to being organized. I think this stems from liberals getting more obsessed with details. When you stick with the big picture (e.g. "Obama is bad") you can overlook a lot of policy differences and unite behind an organization. Liberals like myself want to get into the details more often, to our organizational detriment. Witness some posters here who regularly contradict their stated policy views in previous threads, all just to bash Obama/liberals.

2. There's a fundamental difference in the way the parties view their fellow human beings. Conservatives can often be more charitable than liberals (stats bear this out), but I don't think that necessarily means there is much trust or belief in the innate goodness of fellow human beings. This difference gets amplified in two huge areas: foreign policy (they're all out to get us and we should just protect our turf, versus the people around the world are innately good and we should hold hands with them), and domestic social policy (if you give handouts, those lame people will do nothing and just wait for more handouts, versus if we help them just a bit, and provide resources, they will be as happy and successful as I am with my suburban background.)

3. So the element I'll add that's incredibly relevant to this thread is a simple emotional. The only psych. studies I've seen that I think have much merit in the political area are those that test fear responses to random images. When an image of a man with a spider on his face comes onto a screen, a conservative is more likely to have a fear response (e.g. measurably sweaty palms) than a liberal. And hey, fear is a useful reaction for any mammal to have! I don't think it's pejorative. But quite literally, conservatives seem more likely to have, trust, and use an emotional response. That's incredibly relevant then to exciting your base and using some emotional elements in campaigning. So, in that sense, a lot of the OP article is not very surprising, even though it was kind of crudely worded by the organizers.

Cheers.