1
   

Dean to seek chairmanship of Democrats

 
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 03:12 pm
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 03:19 pm
It's to Obama's credit that he won so handily even with that info out there (and probably to Keyes'... opposite of credit). I don't think it means much in terms of whether he could win a presidential election, though -- the Republicans had basically conceded that election the minute Ryan's sex club thing broke (if not before.)

What you quote from Dean is not lying, it's spin. Packaging. Politics.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 03:22 pm
But "manipulative", yes. And yeah I agree - kind of arrogant to think people won't just see through it, if all you're gonna do is use a different word.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 03:29 pm
But that was in response to JW saying of Obama, "I hope he ignores the advice of the DNC, though, and continues his honesty and frankness with the public."

In that context, yeah, I'd expect it to be managed, spun, whatever you want to call it. People won't like the idea of a presidential candidate doing blow, it will need to be managed. Hopefully the method they'll use is, yep, he did it, oh well, learned from it -- pretty straightforward -- but it will still be choosing a method.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 03:39 pm
A lot can happen in twelve years. He can "handle" it himself, though. He doesn't strike me as a spinless type.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 03:44 pm
Obama? I sure hope so, just it's the kind of nugget that could go far. Especially when it's possibly the first black president. One without the other would be daunting (admitted cocaine use + white candidate, no drug use + black candidate), both together are quite possibly too much of a hurdle to overcome.

Again, sure hope not.

In terms of the larger question, I dunno what I think about Dean's suggestion. If I think it would actually work -- evidence of how "pro-choice" terminology causes people to make certain connections, whatever -- I'd say sure, if it will help, go for it. I'm not convinced that the benefits outweigh the risks there, though.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 03:45 pm
Oh yes, it might well be something they pick up to go after him for, Soz, I believe that ... I think it could be a powerful card. And I dont think it means much that it didnt work this time: this time he had such an aura of winnerdom about him that nothing would have stuck.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 03:57 pm
LOL!!! I had a "typo" in my last post. I meant to type "he doesn't strike me as the SPINELESS type"...not "spinless" LOL.

No. Obama's past drug use will not be an issue. He will not be the first black president, he will be the SECOND black president.

And yes, all this malarkey the Dems are trying will backfire...majorly. Hiring Jim Wallis to teach them how to quote scripture? Pretending they think abortion is evil? Come on!

Kerry lied to this country when he said Bush would reinstate the draft immediately after re-election. It backfired. Most everything Kerry said backfired.

If the Democratic party wants to ever be successful again, they need to develop a spine. They need to say what they mean and mean what they say.

I don't see that happening now.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:00 pm
JustWonders wrote:


As for the dishonesty, you don't think Dean coaching candidates on how to phrase certain issues is just a bit manipulative?Which do you find more obnoxious - that the candidates are being told to lie or that they think people are dumb enough to not see through them?


from Akiva Eldar of Haaretz...some quote from Republican consultant Frank Luntz to the communications people of Likud.
Quote:
"The good news is that the American people firmly believe that if the Palestinians want to demonstrate sincere commitment to peace, they must abide by the tenants of the president's soon-to-be-released road map. The not-as-good news is that they expect exactly same from Israel and they demand it immediately....
"The emergence of Mahmoud Abbas as the new Palestinian Prime Minister comes exactly at the wrong time. His ascent to power seems legitimate. He is a fresh face, and a clean-shaven one at that. He speaks well and dresses in Western garb. He may even genuinely want peace. Just as President Bush had begun to make headway in drawing attention on the need for a reformed Palestinian leadership, the Palestinians throw us this curveball....
"Link Iraqi liberation with the plight of the Palestinian people...
More

from a Luntz memo to Bush on global warming...
Quote:
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".


And then there was the memo where Luntz instructed republicans to ALWAYS bring up 9-11 when speaking of the Iraq war. Etc.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:00 pm
Quote:
No. Obama's past drug use will not be an issue


If we still know each other when that becomes an issue, I'd LOVE to make a bet on that one... ;-)
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:04 pm
sozobe wrote:
Quote:
No. Obama's past drug use will not be an issue


If we still know each other when that becomes an issue, I'd LOVE to make a bet on that one... ;-)


Done :wink:
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:17 pm
Of course they will go after Obama. With any means they conceive. They will likely push-poll as they did against McCain..."Hello, this is just a short survey question...would it influence your view of John McCain if you knew he was the father of an Asian child?" "Hello, would it influence your impression of Barack Obama if you found out he was a cocaine user?"

Remember Max Cleland. Remember that O'Neil described these people as "as ugly as they come".
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 03:15 am
JustWonders wrote:
If the Democratic party wants to ever be successful again, they need to develop a spine. They need to say what they mean and mean what they say.

I don't see that happening now.


That spine, IMHO, will come from the "Grassroots"; MoveOn, ActForChange, TrueMajority, Air America, CommonDreams, BuzzFlash(New Patriot--when I get the thing done, hopefully July 4th).

The Democrats have forgotten their base in a hunt for CEO dollars, Dean, I think represents a "Back To Basics" approach that any rebuilding organization needs to try 1st.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 08:37 am
There's certainly enough time remaining to determine whether the Dems are spotted tigers or striped leopards. They[ll be facing many, many votes which will paint truer pictures than any words from your spokesman's mouth will.

Hillary, etal, can spout all the centrist views they want, but their votes will no doubt tell us whether they've developed grown-up views on foreign policy or if they would govern like the left-wingers they really are.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 09:15 am
Personally I think some people need to get over themselves and remember their own leader when it comes grown-up views.

Dead or alive

bring em' on

evil doers...
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 09:22 am
I was going to make that point, but decided some folks just have too much fun pontificating to let that get in their way.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 12:10 pm
It's ok fellas, the lady's definition of 'center' is somewhere around John Birchland.

And surprise, surprise...a new Luntz memo (actually a 160 pager) sees the light of day... How to Lie and Win This ought to be a dilly and I'll read it all later when I have time, but here's something from Kos...http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/23/13929/4531

Quote:
In his memo on how to manipulate American perception on the economy, right-wing spinmeister Frank Luntz advises conservatives to "resist the temptation' to use facts and figures about the economy. (You know, all those pesky statistics about lower wages, unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, etc.) Instead, he advises, you can't go wrong if you continuosly remind people about the terrorist attacks of 9/11. "This is the context that explains and justifies why we have $500 billion deficits, why the stock market tanked, why unemployment climbed to 6%."
Oh, yes, he advises preying on the emotions tied to the terrorist attacks to distract Americans from the truth about the economy, writing, "Much of the public anger can be immediately pacified if they are reminded that we would not be in this situation today if 9/11 had not happened." It's also an easy way to get President Bush off the hook: Luntz points out that convincing people that the struggling economy is a consequence of 9/11 (as opposed to, say, Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy) will convince people "it is unfair to blame the current political leadership"

Finally, Luntz advises, 9/11 is the perfect way to dodge responsibility for sinking the country in red ink. In a section headed "Without the context of 9-11, you will be blamed for the deficit," he points out "supporters are inherently turned off to the idea of fiscal irresponsibility." The best way to counter that fact? "The trick then is to contextualize the deficit inside of 9/11."
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 01:44 pm
revel wrote:
Personally I think some people need to get over themselves and remember their own leader when it comes grown-up views.

Dead or alive

bring em' on

evil doers...

Your oh so grown-up point being, I suppose, that there are no evil doers in the world. I would disagree and say that they exist, and that when they do great damage in the world or pose great danger, they should be talked about and talked about as what they are - evil doers. I don't want to negotiate with Al Qaeda. They are evil doers and richly deserve simple extermination. Sure, it may be useful to understand what makes them tick, but evil doers is an excellent description of them, and using it keeps one realistic about how to deal with them.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 03:28 pm
No, Brandon - I don't think that was her oh-so-grown-up-point, at all. I think it was that the pResident thinks and speaks in all-or-nothing, black-or-white, us-vs-them, childlike, simplistic terms.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 04:02 pm
Brandon - don't waste your time. You're dealing with someone who can't imagine why Iran should not be allowed to have nukes (yeah, she actually said that). I stopped responding to her a long time ago when it became apparent she's an ABBer in the BAF club LOL.

Her little digs at me apparently entertain. What else is new?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/06/2025 at 02:08:09