Skip to main content

View Diary: AK-Gov: Angry Republicans purge their party (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We need Chafee to lose badly (4+ / 0-)

    The other Interview on Hardball last night that was noteworthy was that of CT republican Senate Candidate (no the OTHER republican candidate) Schelsinger.  And while he doesn't have a prayer in the race he is a very good poltical analyst and he laid out how the current Liberman Lamont race is the perfect "Win/Win" scenario for the GOP.

    Because of the way they and the Media are painting Lamont, if he wins the GOP's line will be "You see how radical the Democractic has become?  They are captives of their extreme left wing, and can't be trusted to run the country"

    If Lieberman wins the Line is "well the voters had a referendum on the Iraq war and they clearly still support the President and staying the course, and reject the Cut-and-run Extremists who control the party"

    We need an effective Counter argument to offer up to the media when their frenzy- pendulum swings back the other way (as it inevitably will) and they start taking a skeptical look at the attacks on Lamont.  Chaffee defeat will be a tailor-made "Republican are radicalizing "storyline as well.

    Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

    by Magorn on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 08:27:00 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I saw some Virgina Republican (3+ / 0-)

      doofus on Fox yesterday (not sure who – I was channel surfing) saying that once the Americans learn what the Democratic plan was for fighting terrorism that they would turn to the Republicans. No - if all they hear is the Republican talking points version of Democratic ideas, sure. Which is all many of the media outlets are likely to give them. We've got to push hard on things like port security and other areas where the Republicans have been negligent.

      Conservatives believe evil comes from violating rules. Liberals think evil comes from violating each other.

      by tcorse on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 08:32:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the counter argument is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kos, Magorn, liberal atheist

      "The Republican candidate got 9% of the vote."

      Anybody who tries to spin that as "positive" for the GOP should be ridiculed endlessly.

    •  GREAT encapsulation of their spin. BUT (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Magorn

      Lamont, if he wins the GOP's line will be "You see how radical the Democractic has become?  They are captives of their extreme left wing, and can't be trusted to run the country." ......If Lieberman wins the Line is "well the voters had a referendum on the Iraq war and they clearly still support the President and staying the course, and reject the Cut-and-run Extremists who control the party    

      We don't need an effective "counter" line, we need to show that this is what they are doing -- blantantly lying (show it with the facts, don't say it unless its not implicitly going to target/insult their voters; when it is done, say it, but in terms of using it as a generalization to voters, don't) in lieu of substantive discussion because they dont understand the issues, and this is why they can't govern. it's all rhetorical bullshit and it needs to be exposed; IT needs to become the story.

      KOS,

      It's amazing seeing all the news stories this morning of the crazy, angry jihadists who have purged their Republican Party of Murkowski.

      Oh wait, no one is writing that...

      I forgot that booting an incumbent is fine if you are a Republican

      Maybe because prominent democrats are not spinning it that way. not focusing on effectively making the case just how extreme the republican party has become, how it has mischaracterized the issues, repeatedly, how it has undermined American principles, how it is constantly misleading voters and how it has not made America safer, not made the world safer, and again, does not know what it is doing.

      Does not know what it is doing when it comes to policy, and governing, that is.  

      Meanwhile, on the other hand, this case has not been made, because maybe, when it comes to politics, democrats dont know what thefuck they are doing. (sorry for poor 1st paragraph grammar in that very late posted comment therein.)

      And there is also another reason. while I support the emphasis on correctly characterizing Lieberman  (he is a de facto republican, who, worse, repeats some right and far right projectionist spin in mischaracterizing the democratic party, and on differences of opinion on Iraq...) there is a difference betweeen effectively making that case and playing into the right's hands by being vitriolic, rather than appear to be reasoned, or powerfully emphatic...

      It's all the name calling of Lieberman on here. it's an unnamed diary that got 2000 recommends and 250 over enthusiastic comments, that lays into Lieberman viciously, and using logic that was, frankly, sophisticated, but a decided attempt discredit (to discredit something effectively needs to appear as the opposite to non democratic eyes) that appeared to the non staunch partisan, to be a hatchet job.

      And, more importantly, there is of course this asinine notion, that mainstream democrats have not turned around, that Lamont, despite the facts, represents an extreme element, and is bad for the party; a blatant mischaracterization that democrats have not just not turned around on those making it, but, as further evidence of the pattern that they just don't understand what is going on politically, have themselves sometimes contributed to!

      ...Editor Weisberg of slate was the worst, writing a piece that mischaracterized Lamont's victory and support in a way that the rove spin doctors could not have written better themselves. Peter Hart, top democratic strategist, said Lamont's victory was bad, showed dem's were one dimensional -- and that  it detracted from what the debate should be about, when this was only the case if the right spins it this way and democrats let them get away with it (and here they were helping them....).  

      And then of course, there is the biggest reason of all. The friggin media.  this is the same sick ass media that the other day -- all two major cable news networks and the third that poses as one -- actually reported as news the details of what John Mark Kerr ate on his airplane ride.  20,000 murders, here's one from ten years ago. a suspect, and the fucking food he eats ("prawns and brocolli and rice," and other such critical news details) on a plane ride is news.

      Regarding the media, that same crappola spin machine which under the first Amendment is supposed to be serving as an independent fourth estate (and -- note to the media here -- not just merely a tube to reiterate talking points through), and under our founding father's vision was in some ways more important than the government itself in making sure that democracy works: here, all in one piece, is what it is doing, the critical (and cogently made) case about the seminal governmental issue of our times and more, and (in the almost non stop comments to the piece) an apt illustration of the correct focus on it all.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site