Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

[Rapunzel]

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

I agree with Princess Fiona's post. I *think* in its entirety. I'll have to go back and reread it just to make sure.

There has been no shortage of dirty stuff coming from both left and right. The stuff at Democratic Underground about Palin's baby being nothing more than a prop (accompanied by a fake ebay ad for a "used special needs baby" :tsk: ) has been pretty bad, for example.

I had the same reasons for not wanting Palin.

However, in the end, what has made up my mind in the last week is the research I've done has led me to believe that I would rather have a president I dislike than a president whom I believe is actually dangerous for the country.

Otherwise, Kris, I think I agree completely with you?

[Rapunzel]

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

In other news, Princess Fiona and I are having an ice skating party in hades. j/k

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

Angie - I loved your post. I think the sentence that hit home the most for me is

But.....if he loses because he was "too nice" and didn't "hit hard" - what does that teach them?

, and that is where my fear comes from.

Just a couple points to what Kris said re: it not being a race between Obama and Palin - of course it isn't. However, she drew those parallels in her acceptance speech. She would also be one melanoma (he's had four) away from the presidency, so her qualifications for the top job are very much at point.

And then to the mention of McCain not bringing religion into this. No - he hasn't not to my knowledge. But at the RNC, much was made of he & Cindy's love story, and referring to them as a "traditional American family". The truth is that McCain cheated on his wife (that had waited and stood by him, and been seriously injured and disfigured in a car accident while he was a POW) with Cindy, and married her 1 month after the divorce was final. The idea of the "Family Values" brigade embracing him makes my stomach turn.

[PrincessFiona]

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

Not to defend the republicans (ummm...how did THIS happen?) but didn't McCain have treatable melanoma's each time? Aren't they the kind that can be removed and then that's that? I don't necessarily think that he has a foot in the grave. :huh:

I think both sides have been equally nasty...and I'm not crazy about either team.

:huh:

[PrincessFiona]

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

In other news, Princess Fiona and I are having an ice skating party in hades. j/k

The earth has shifted on its' axis!

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?


po·lar·ize
Pronunciation:
\?p?-l?-?r?z\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
po·lar·ized; po·lar·iz·ing
Etymology:
French polariser, from New Latin polaris polar
Date:
1811
transitive verb
1 : to cause (as light waves) to vibrate in a definite pattern
2 : to give physical polarity to
3 : to break up into opposing factions or groupings <a campaign that polarized the electorate>
4 : concentrate 1 <recreate a cohesive rock community by polarizing…an amorphous, fragmented audience — Ellen Willis>
intransitive verb
: to become polarized


It's all in the eye of the beholder and all can be twisted because everything holds a small ounce of truth, and keeps people from reaching out to each other.

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

Tit for Tat

This was e-mailed to me from a family member. I was totally annoyed. But... nevertheless, an ounce of truth... but should any of these two hold real weight for anyone? Where is the "change" everyone is talking about?... :huh:

Subject: Why I am voting Democrat

> I'm voting Democrat because I believe the
> government will do a
> better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
>
> I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is
> fine as long as
> nobody is offended by it.
>
> I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of
> Iraq I trust
> that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because
> they now think
> we're good people.
>
> I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people
> who can't tell
> us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice
> caps will
> melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a
> Prius.
>
> I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned
> about the
> slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all
> death row
> inmates alive.
>
> I'm voting Democrat because I believe that
> business should not
> be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to
> break even and
> give the rest away to the government for redistribution
> as THEY see
> fit.
>
> I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or
> four pointy
> headed elitist liberals need to rewrite the Constitution
> every few
> days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their
> agendas past
> the voters.
>
> I'm voting Democrat because I believe that when
> the terrorists
> don't have to hide from us over there, when they come
> over here I
> don't want to have any guns in the house to fight them
> off with.
>
> I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that
> I can now marry
> whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.
>
> I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil
> companies' profits of
> 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing
> the same
> gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
>
> Makes ya wonder why anyone would EVER vote
> Republican, now doesn't it?

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

Honestly, there are better ways to be productive.

[DCJenn]

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

Well, any hope anyone had of actually pulling people together has been successfully undone by the Evil Rove.

There's a special circle of hell for him.

Seriously, as I just posted in the other forum- can we please stop w. the back and forth bullshit of dragging up crap taken out of context, taken from 50 million years ago, and/or exaggerations based on political gain.

When do we get to talk about the issues? I don't care if lipsticks are on pigs or cows and I don't care if Sarah Palins daughter is knocked up or if Cindy McCain's acceptance night ensemble did cost 300k. (Ok, that just freaks me out, I can't imagine ever wearing an outfit that is five digits, let alone six)

I want to hear the Senators Obama, Biden, McCain and especially the as yet unknown Gov. Palin tell me what they want to do for ME.

Jenn

[PrincessFiona]

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

can we please stop w. the back and forth bullshit of dragging up crap taken out of context, taken from 50 million years ago, and/or exaggerations based on political gain.

But...what fun would that be? :> Things have been so interesting here lately!!!! :>

I know, I know...issues....issues.....but did you see McCain's tie tonight?...Clearly, the color choice indicates that he has no respect for women!

Kris

[DCJenn]

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

and it just keeps coming:

"The attacks on Governor Palin have been called 'completely false, misleading.' And, they've just begun. The [Wall Street] Journal reports Obama 'air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers' into Alaska to dig dirt on Governor Palin. As Obama drops in the polls, he will try to destroy her."
--McCain "Fact Check" Ad, September 10, 2008.

A McCain ad earlier this week twisted newpaper quotes to ridicule Barack Obama's record on education reform. The McCainites are using a similar technique to claim that Obama has "air-dropped a mini-army" of lawyers and opposition researchers into Alaska in an attempt to "destroy" the reputation of Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin.



The Facts

Titled "Fact Check," the latest McCain ad uses unsubtle imagery to deliver a very unsubtle message. A photograph of Obama flashes across the screen as a woman's voice denounces recent attacks on the Alaska Governor as "completely false." A light airplane is shown flying across a mountainous wilderness. (Opposition researchers being airdropped?) A pack of wolves moves through the pristine forest (Alaska?) in pursuit of its prey. (Sarah Palin?)

There are a number of serious problems with the ad.

First, while it is clear that the Democrats have been conducting what is politely known as "opposition research" on Palin, the claim that "a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers" has been "air-lifted" into the state rests on very flimsy sourcing. The Wall Street Journal opinion piece in question was written by a conservative commentator named John Fund and appeared on September 9. It has been flatly denied by both the Democratic National Committee and the Obama campaign. Fund has not produced any evidence to support his claim beyond his unnamed "sources."

"We have zero people who have gone up to Alaska to research Sarah Palin," said DNC research director Mike Gehrke. He adds that the DNC has used "local volunteers" to research Palin's background as well as "help from people who have run against her in the past." Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor says that the Obama campaign has not sent anybody to Alaska to research Palin's background, and refuses to comment on the activities of campaign staffers and volunteers already in the state.

If the McCain campaign, or John Fund, has evidence that Gehrke and Vietor are lying, they should produce it. Anonymous sources lack credibility.

Contacted yesterday, Fund said he still believes his story to be true, but did not provide supporting evidence. He complained that the McCain campaign had twisted his story by saying that "Obama" had sent the "mini-army" of lawyers and opposition researchers into Alaska, when he used the term "Democrats." He also pointed out that he did not use the term "dig dirt" against Sarah Palin. Instead, he used the more neutral expression "dig into her record and background."

The McCain campaign also misquoted the website, Factcheck.org, in suggesting that Obama had been responsible for the "false attacks" on Palin. Factcheck.org had earlier debunked a number of false and misleading claims about Palin that appeared in chain e-mails and Internet postings, but found "no evidence" that Obama was behind the "wild accusations." The non-partisan fact-checking organization says that the McCain-Palin campaign "altered our message in a fashion that we considered less than honest."




The Pinocchio Test

For the second time in less than a week, the McCain campaign has strung together a series of media quotes to create a fundamentally dishonest ad. The ad creates the erroneous impression that Obama was behind the false attacks on Palin. It repeats an unsubstantiated claim by a conservative commentator as if it is proven fact. The overall result is an untruthful, misleading ad.

[Rapunzel]

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

Oh man.

I just saw that Jill Greenburg was commissioned to do the McCain cover for Atlantic Monthly and she not only didn't send back all the film she took for the magazine - she tricked McCain into some shots that are now doctored to be quite repulsive. And, she's thrilled with her fraud. And, it is fraud, most certainly - Atlantic Monthly (which is definitely left-leaning) is apparently going to sue her now. Her response is something along the lines of, "What did they expect? I'm a committed Democrat." She says something to the effect of she saw her chance to humiliate a presidential candidate and she took it.

Wow.

I'd say the Democrats don't need to learn how to "fight dirty". In fact, this type of fighting dirty is going to cause a serious backlash - if it hasn't already.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

I have no comment on the various partisan "Why I am a Dem/Rep"-type stuff. Not really my bag. Most of them, while amusing, are generally overly simplistic. Probably designed to "preach to the choir" as versus actually convert anyone by their internal logic.

On the issue posted pursuant to the thread's title: "Do the Dems need to learn how to fight dirty?"

Yes. They have been stunningly inept at their responses over the past month. They have gotten about a billion chances to be pithy, intelligent, factually correct and good humored in their response to something the Reps have said or done, but have managed to drop the ball each time. Obama, a fabulous orator, needs to learn the art of the pithiness and conciseness...immediately.

But, far more than that, the urgency isn't in learning to "fight dirty"--it's learning to recognize the REAL enemy, how to address it, and how to be effective in doing so. That's not dirtiness. It's connectedness. If you don't "get" why something your adversary does really works, you can't effectively respond to it. For example, it baffles and befuddles many on the as to HOW anyone, in their right mind, could support somebody like Palin because they just couldn't, in a million years, imagine ever supporting her. So they had about a dozen misfires in attacking her, before finally settling on...calling her inexperienced--the WORST possible tact to take because of the inherent problem of Obama calling a Governor inexperienced. Seriously, if what you really want to make experience the issue, you're going to make yourself look foolish when your words are turned on you.

1. The response to Palin should have been: "Who? Is that spelled with an 'i' or an 'e'? An 'i'? Oh, ok. Thanks. Well, welcome to the table. See you on the trails" and IGNORED her. Get it off the front pages and stop causing your sycophantic main stream commentators from endlessly talking about her. That just annoys the sh*t out of everyone who isn't a hard-core Dem--notably, the independents. No independent (the voters you need) makes his decision by what that gaseous, anti-intellectual Maureen Dowd writes about in predictable vitrol. She's NOT helping you by explaining what she thinks of Palin. The Dem response to Palin made them look completely shocked and utterly disorganized. (I certainly hope, by the way, if the Dems win the White House, they can manage more agility in the face of an actual, real crisis. Yikes.) Geez...she's a one-term governor from a state that no one thinks about other than to wonder if those 7-day, 6-night cruises up the coast are really worth the expense of a plane ticket to Juneau. Pull your crap together! Like she was really going to hijack your uncommitted Clinton supporters. How could you, as an entire party, so deeply and profoundly missed why she got the nod? It's not because she's a woman (they could've pick Kay Bailey Hutchison). She said that nice stuff about HRC just to get on your nerves, people! And it's funny as hell that you took it as though it might WORK to grab HRC votes. And she didn't get the nod because she's such a maverick herself (they could've picked Lieberman). It is because she is a conservative Christian with a pro-life record. Period. It was a blatant, obvious and effective play to the section of the base that desperately needed to be sewn up. A portion of the population, by the way, that Obama doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of capturing in any significant way. So write off those voters and move on. Why did Obama himself, personally, spend the next two weeks talking about her and responding to her nomination? Good grief. If you think she's so lacking in credentials, treat her as such.

2. STOP comparing McCain to Bush. The only people who believe that this is a valid comparison are members of your hard-core base. To the rest of us, it's an eyeroll. This stuff about "another four years of Bush" and the "McCain/Palin/Bush ticket" isn't working, primarily because it isn't true. Who cares that he voted 90% of the time "with Bush"?--everyone knows that the vast majority of all votes are on non-controversial issues--MOST of the Senate votes with Bush MOST of the time, if you want to play that game. And McCain has not agreed with Bush on numerous things or was further afield that Bush was (including on issues such as immigration and taxes--irritating the conservative base), and everyone knows this. We all remember how completely lukewarm (at best) Bush was on McCain during the primaries. Dems...know your audience: the independents. Your slogan shouldn't be "McCain is Bush and Bush is bad"--it should be more dramatic. Accept McCain at his word--he wants change (and don't be petty about him "stealing your theme"--that is a dumb response. No one is confusing McCain's "change" message with yours...believe me). Your message should be: "McCain is change that is even more dangerous than the Bush we know." The fear of many noncommitted voters isn't more Bush; it's what is worse than Bush? Fact of the matter is, many people think that an unknown super-leftie with a political record that includes hints of radicalism and East Coast snobbery may be perceived as the greater risk. So they will vote for McCain not because they like Bush but because they don't want Obama's change. So, accept McCain's promise to bring "change" and make McCain's change look WORSE than the change brought by Obama. That is, get off the "hope" platform--you've milked that feel-good mantra as far as it will go to excite your base. It's not about hope with the undecideds. It's about fear. Make them fear you less than they fear McCain.

[Rapunzel]

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

The response to Palin by the Democrats is to use the media as their surrogate.

I just read a piece by a man who has found that the vast majority of media headlines on Palin are overwhelmingly negative in their choice of words and angle of coverage.

I don't think the Democrats have been inept in the slightest. They have used the tools at their disposal - which has been the media primarily. We get to experience a whole new set of propaganda because we're not following the Obama cult of personality as we should. Just a few months ago there was a "Progressives in Media" event that included some well-known and high-powered media personalities and leaders in the industry. The individuals at that event were taught how to place Obama as the candidate/product of choice to the consumer.

It's not even a thinly-veiled "conspiracy" we're talking about - it's a pretty open reality that most of the media is openly rooting for Barack Obama and have done what they can to help him.

So, do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

No, they already are. And, they are using almost the entire American media to do so. What I find baffling is that the American public is still largely too intelligent and individualistic to fall for what the media is dishing. I think that is a testament to the American spirit and gives me hope that we haven't completely entered into "Ideocracy" (great movie, btw).

[houseelf]

Re: Do the Democrats need to learn how to fight dirty?

I have no thoughts about Politics, Palin, Moose Hunting, or lipstick, but I totally agree with Rapunzel's assessment that "Idiocracy" was one of the most subtley profound movies of our time, kind of a comedic take off of The Bell curve.

Return to debating about dirty politics.


Kelly