Daily Kos :: Comments Roosevelt grandson blasts GOP ad

Oh, yes (4.00 / 21)

The next step:
Find footage of Ronald Reagan talking about the importance of saving social security in 1981-1982.
Cut ad.
Show ad on TV.
Wait for Republican heads to implode.

by daveweigel on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 01:23:54 PM PDT
- Great idea! (none / 1)
  
  n/t
  
  Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!
  
  by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 01:24:41 PM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - No offense, but why wasn't this the first step? (none / 0)
    Like nobody imagined Rove would use FDR as a prop for a lie?
    Where have we been for the last four years?
    Democrats have got to stop fearing these fools. They have been telegraphing their one and only strategy for years. They repeatedly use their opponents strengths against them, or assume those strengths themselves.
    I am really a political dunce. But I bet we could just sit here and predict the Firehose of Falsehood that BushCo will start spewing over Social Security . . . .
    
    BushCo starts saying that their reform scheme will pull poor Americans up the financial ladder. Oops. Cheney already did that today.
    
    BushCo starts saying that reforming Social Security will finally get the system to properly aid people with disabilities that don't allow them to work, and that "this is fundamentally compassionate." It won't matter that SS does this already.
    
    BushCo starts saying their reform measures will "pay monthly checks to the elderly and the blind who don't own much or who don't have much income." Again, SS already does this, but they grab the meme.
    
    Breathlessly, Chimpy will announce that "my administration will make sure that many widows may be eligible for SS survivors benefits." Many and may really mean, of course, that such existing benefits will be cut under his plan. But it'll sound like benefits for widowed spouses are a new thing he just thought up.
    
    See how easy this is?
    How come I can do it right here right now, but Democrats can't get ahead of exactly what we suspect will be coming at us? Or think that we've discovered the cure for cancer when we pull something like this FDR grandson thing, which any political neophyte should have seen coming?
    Take it from a complete and utter neophyte . . .
    by chrississippi on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 04:39:28 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
- Did you send this to Reid? (none / 0)
  
  Because that would be a masterstroke.
  
  Obama Everywhere!
  
  by kismet on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 01:34:14 PM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - I'll do some research (none / 1)
    
    Anyone else who has research on this should post it. We can come up with something concrete - "use this, this and this" - and send it to the war room.
    Someone posted yesterday about a letter Reagan wrote on this issue, but if there's actual footage of him speaking on it, that would be golden.
    Also, at least one member of Reagan's family - Ron - could be asked for permission on this. If he approves it, and wingers complain, they're in the position of dissing Reagan AND his son.
    
    by daveweigel on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 01:44:06 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - don't know if they need permission (none / 1)
      
      but how about Ron Jr introducing the footage in the ad?
      heheh
      
      by pitbullEmily on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:11:16 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - Everyone knows he's a liberal tho... (none / 0)
        
        I wouldn't use him except for permission if it's needed... but hey, that's the details... lets just hope they find some footage...
        
        -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb
        
        by L0kI on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:12:07 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        true enough-- (none / 0)
        
        What about Nancy? How does she feel about SS?
        
        by qwerty on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 03:23:20 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        I would suspect she supports it (none / 0)
        
        She's old enough to remember the Depression. I can't think of anybody that age who doesn't support SS.
        
        by mmacdDE on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:52:56 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
    - WaPo July 21, 1981 reference (none / 1)
      
      HEADLINE: Reagan Attacks Democrats on Social Security;
      Reagan Attacks Democrats For Social Security Moves
      BYLINE: By Helen Dewar, Washington Post Staff Writer
      The excerpt below refers to both letters and a proposed television speech. This should help narrow the search. In browsing through the articles of the time, it seems he proposed some major cuts, but was forced to back off.
      In his letters to Republican and Democratic leaders of both houses, Reagan also sought to neutralize the issue by serving notice that he will go before the country "as soon as possible" to "call on the Congress to lay aside partisan politics and join me in a constructive effort to put Social Security on a permanently sound financial basis."
      I LOVE Lexis-Nexis!
      
      by Karen in Austin on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:46:50 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - Nice one (none / 0)
        
        Throw it in the diary I set up. I'm trying to collect all such research.
        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/13/173932/954
        
        by daveweigel on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:52:25 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
- That's awesome (3.80 / 5)
  
  They bring out FDR? We bring out Reagan. We bring out Bush I. We bring out Eisenhower. We bring out every other president in the 20th century because they all supported Social Security.
  But Reagan's definitely the Big Kahuna and the way to go.
  
  by hokun on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 01:36:05 PM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - And they'll bring out... (none / 0)
    
    ...the Big Dog, who was the first President to suggest privatizing SS.
    
    Nuke Clinton Now.
    
    by maxomai on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 01:59:27 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - Nnnnope (none / 1)
      
      I'll eat my damn hat if they do that. The Republicans using Clinton? Who's still alive and can argue for himself? And who is Satan to the grand majority of their base? And whose wife they expect to run for president in three years?
      Clinton's public approval is not that high, anyway - I think it boosted after his surgery but it's usually in the 50s. Reagan, however, is a god.
      
      by daveweigel on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:08:40 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - As I recall, (none / 0)
        
        Clinton's popularity was actually higher than Reagan's for most of his presidency (not that you'd ever get the press to admit that). But you're right, though; the GOP would rather eat live worms in Hell than associate themselves with the hated Clinton.
        
        "A time comes when silence is betrayal." MLK ...... The Green Knight
        
        by greenknight on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:08:46 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        I would have thought that too (none / 0)
        
        ...until I saw the Roosevelt ad.
        
        The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
        
        by sidnora on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 07:09:38 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
    - I put nothing past the GOP (3.50 / 2)
      
      They might bring out Clinton and it's a legitimate concern, but I think it's worth the risk. And if they want to give Bill Clinton a soapbox to talk about Social Security, I think that works in our favor.
      "Hot Karl" Rove vs. Slick Willie?
      BRING IT ON
      
      by hokun on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:17:11 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
  - Bush I (none / 0)
    
    Wow ... if we could get some video or quotes of Daddy Bush on Soical Security, that might just really bake Junior's noodle!
    
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
    
    by Catriana on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:40:48 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - n/t (none / 0)
      
      SOCIAL ... aaargh .. preview is my friend, preview is my friend.
      
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
      
      by Catriana on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:41:42 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
- Drool (none / 0)
  
  You just made me drool.
  Great idea!
  With apologies for the puddle ...
  
  by Bald Peanut on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:07:12 PM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
- Video of Reagan extolling benefits of SS (4.00 / 10)
  
  I posted this below, but thought I'd put it near the top as well.
  A big file, about 8.5 Mb.
  http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/mpeg/reaganbig.mpg
  
  "Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."--PJ O'Rourke
  
  by David J on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:17:46 PM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - That's the Ticket. Have an ad with t;he GOP Icon (none / 0)
    
    badmouthing the Bush SS exsanguination plan
    
    by shumard on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 03:36:51 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
- moreover (none / 0)
  
  Bush is still framing this as "social security reform" because the "scoial security system will go flat bust" by the time younger workers retire. By bringing Reagan and his words about saving the system, it frames it for what Bush is truly trying to accomplish: destroy social security.
  We need to start ramping up the message on that front. We delay too long and the "reform" phrasing is stuck.
  
  by KevStar on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:25:47 PM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - Bush is framing the debate (none / 1)
    
    and that is the problem. We are reacting.
    What we need to do, essentially, is minimally react to his ludicrous assertions (such as comparing his proposal to FDR...) and come out with a PLAN. And when they react to our plan, we ignore them and refrain from negative speak and continue to present a more specific plan and present numbers and data to support our plan. And we continue to drive that home.
    If the Democrats can quit wasting time reacting, devote energy to presenting and deciding what the issue will be, and refrain from negative attacks - consistently - I can't imagine how we could lose.
    How long would the republican's refrain from negative reactive attacks?...eventially they'd just have to lash out. People are sick of all the negative.
    Clinton gave us hope. He was positive and he smiled and he would speak to a thousand people like he was speaking to one person, standing at a backyard bbq. And he when he was telling you that the other side was f#&%ed up, he'd be smiling. Bush does the same thing (only he sounds and looks like and idiot. apparently, body language is the seller here, folks)
    I mean, hell - Bush is in there now, ignoring both domestic and world opinion, and he's been able to do what he's done by ignoring all the negative and accentuating the positive (i.e., in his case, lying). Follow the lead, I say, if that is what the audience wants.
    Roosevelt Jr., though,..you can't buy publicity that good! The guy was (is?) a Social Security Commissioner (Associate
    Commissioner for Retirement Policy Social Security Administration.) and active in the Democratic Party. (Search Newsweek archives for his attack of our 'War President') Go James!
    
    Blogging locally, acting globally 4&20 blackbirds
    
    by jhwygirl on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:28:46 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - and.. (none / 0)
      
      Kerry lost because he didn't have a plan for Iraq.
      
      Blogging locally, acting globally 4&20 blackbirds
      
      by jhwygirl on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:33:55 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - right on both posts (none / 0)
        
        I get the sence that the point guys in the Senate, Reid and Baucus, are going to push hard to come out with a democratic alternative. We really need one, we can't just let the goons define things.
        And we need discipline. Remember Biden and Kerry tried this with the Iraq war resolution--basically a compromise that would have required a second vote authorizing a declaration of war. Gephardt deep sixed it by cooperating in the House version of the resolution. We can't have any of that this time...
        
        by KevStar on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:00:34 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
- and don't forget the taxes! (none / 0)
  
  Reagan's mechanism for saving Social Security resulted in the largest tax increase in American history, and a regressive tax at that.
  
  Hillary for veep? What is this, The West Wing?
  
  by Leggy Starlitz on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:26:11 PM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
- I found the quotes (4.00 / 2)
  
  Thanks for the encouragement, all. I set up a quick diary with some Reagan quotes arguing clearly to preserve Social Security.
  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/13/173932/954
  
  by daveweigel on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:27:10 PM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
- This Should be Done ALL THE TIME (none / 1)
  
  I typed halfway to carpal tunnel to both Dean and Kerry campaigns trying to move them to put out such "Republicans Against Bush" clips in rapid response.
  Limbaugh would be an ideal source because being such a motor-mouth, he's on track for Febr. 2007 to have finally uttered every sentence constructable in the English language.
  
  We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"
  
  by Gooserock on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 03:05:02 PM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
- I'll play Devil's Advocate (none / 0)
  
  Won't the Repubs just come back with Bush saying something like:
  
  The Democrat Party is showing ads, using Ronald Reagan in them.
  (Cue crowd: BOO, BOOOOO)
  Yes, Ronald Reagan, a True American, did want to preserve Social Security. But it's a different world today.
  9/11 changed everything.
  President Reagan was optimistic about the great promise of economic reform, and he acted to restore the reward and spirit of enterprise.
  President Reagan understood there is a fundamental duty, for those of us who have been given the honor of serving the American people, to solve problems before they become acute, and not to pass them on to future Presidents and future generations.
  I like the idea of encouraging more people to say, I own my own home, I own my own business, I own and manage my health accounts, and now I own a significant part of my retirement account. Promoting ownership in America makes sense to me to make sure people continue to have a vital stake in the future of our country.
  President Reagan understood what an ownership society was all about.
  In the spirit of President Reagan, we will strengthen and save Social Security for generations to come.
  No?
  
  Dissent Protects Democracy
  
  by cscs on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 05:51:28 PM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - We can't start second-guessing (none / 1)
    
    what the GOP's response will be. The Chimp and company might say everything you've predicted, but the thing to do is then hit them right back with something else.
    Part of our problem is that we've been too quick to go "Oh, better not say that because..." We've got to start going on the offensive. Damn the torpedoes!
    
    "A time comes when silence is betrayal." MLK ...... The Green Knight
    
    by greenknight on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:12:30 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - You HAVE to second guess!!! (none / 1)
      
      I agree, we need to be on the offensive. Just want to make sure it's effective.
      No sense putting out something that doesn't work, no?
      How many times over the campaign did they completely neutralize our offensive:
      
      Kerry as Vietnam Vet? BAM -- Swift Boats for Shit.
      
      Wrong War Wrong Time? BAM -- you can't be Commander in Chief if you think the war is wrong? What's that say to the troops?
      
      All I am saying is that Rove and Co. are GOOD. Probably better than us when it comes to marketing their cause.
      I would overanalyze everything the Dems potentially put out, figuring out as many angles as possible that the Repubs may counter with -- you know that's exactly what they do. You don't think THEY second guess before they put out an ad?
      I bet they have a staff of ten or twenty second-guessers.
      Just trying to be helpful...
      
      Dissent Protects Democracy
      
      by cscs on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:29:40 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - See your point, but (none / 0)
        
        surely part of the Kerry campaign's problem was that it wasn't effective enough at smacking BushCo back when the Swifties etc. began their attacks. Whatever you do the Republicans are going to counter it somehow. I'm not saying don't anticipate; I'm just saying that it would be a mistake to let that anticipation lead to timidity.
        
        "A time comes when silence is betrayal." MLK ...... The Green Knight
        
        by greenknight on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 07:17:23 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Agreed (none / 0)
        
        Timidity has been the Dems problem for too long.
        
        Dissent Protects Democracy
        
        by cscs on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 04:41:59 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
  - you can use 9/11 (none / 0)
    
    for national security, and for war, and for pretty much any foreign policy thing you might want.
    But I don't think the most idiotic moron out there would buy a connection with a 70 yr old, totally domestic program.
    9/11 didn't alter the population demographics, didn't change the tax structure.
    If they try that, they're more desparate then they want to admit.
    
    by mmacdDE on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 07:00:00 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
  - The Ownership Society (none / 0)
    
    That term has always struck me as a really stunning euphemism for slavery.
    But, flipness aside, it is another example of framing, in this case framing to discredit and destroy the idea of the "commons," that which is held in common by all for the public good. If "legitimate" ownership can be limited to "mine" and there's no such thing as "ours," then how can we complain when "our" forests are razed and "our" rivers are polluted and "our" Social Security is funneled into Wall Street pockets? If people can be convinced that they only have a stake in "what's mine" then the pirates can make off with "what's ours" - no problem.
    
    -8.38, -7.49
    
    by papercut on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:51:01 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]

View Story | 179 comments

Daily Kos Help

Oh, yes (4.00 / 21)

Great idea! (none / 1)

No offense, but why wasn't this the first step? (none / 0)

Did you send this to Reid? (none / 0)

I'll do some research (none / 1)

don't know if they need permission (none / 1)

Everyone knows he's a liberal tho... (none / 0)

true enough-- (none / 0)

I would suspect she supports it (none / 0)

WaPo July 21, 1981 reference (none / 1)

Nice one (none / 0)

That's awesome (3.80 / 5)

And they'll bring out... (none / 0)

Nnnnope (none / 1)

As I recall, (none / 0)

I would have thought that too (none / 0)

I put nothing past the GOP (3.50 / 2)

Bush I (none / 0)

n/t (none / 0)

Drool (none / 0)

Video of Reagan extolling benefits of SS (4.00 / 10)

That's the Ticket. Have an ad with t;he GOP Icon (none / 0)

moreover (none / 0)

Bush is framing the debate (none / 1)

and.. (none / 0)

right on both posts (none / 0)

and don't forget the taxes! (none / 0)

I found the quotes (4.00 / 2)

This Should be Done ALL THE TIME (none / 1)

I'll play Devil's Advocate (none / 0)

We can't start second-guessing (none / 1)

You HAVE to second guess!!! (none / 1)

See your point, but (none / 0)

Agreed (none / 0)

you can use 9/11 (none / 0)

The Ownership Society (none / 0)

Navigation

Menu

About