Skip to main content

2014 is going to go down in history as the Year of the Woman. I'm not usually into making predictions, but it seems pretty clear that the women of America have concluded that enough is enough and the election of Nunn in Georgia, Davis in Texas, Bellows in Maine, Shaheen in New Hampshire and Grimes in Kentucky, among others, will show what that means.

Meanwhile, if the message is to be well delivered, money is needed and the citizenry is going to be asked to cough some up. And, for some inexplicable reason (professional propagandists?) candidates flying the democratic banner have taken to touting doom and gloom scenarios to loose the purse strings. "Catastrophic" seems to be one of the words du jour.

Thankfully, Michelle Nunn, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Georgia has not gone that route. Her latest missive comes with the subject line "What you need to know." After that comes what the GOP considers an attack, but you be the judge.

The GOP is in full-on attack mode.

Over the air, outside special interest groups are running misleading, negative ads against someone who has dedicated her life to trying to make a difference for others.

And the mischaracterizations don't end there. One of the first things our opponent, David Perdue, did as the GOP nominee was to attack Michelle's record of service and attempt to belittle her lifetime of helping others.

...
In a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to discredit Michelle’s decades of service and leadership, Perdue said:

“Who brings more value to the debate?  Someone who has been running a philanthropy for 15 years -- or whatever -- or someone who has been out here – not to go bragging, competing in the real world!”

Let's take a minute to think about what Perdue’s “real world,” looks like: his real world includes shipping thousands of jobs overseas while his company shut down plants here in Georgia, leading a company that went bankrupt, costing over 7 thousand people their jobs while Perdue walked away with millions, and running another company that paid 20 million dollars to 2,100 women for not paying them fairly or treating them equally.

Washington doesn't need more of the same -- politicians putting their own gains above the needs of the people.

That's the last thing those of us living in the, ahem, real world want or need.

While I'm not sure I'd use the word "paid" in connection with a penalty for unfair treatment, Purdue is the obvious master when it comes to weasel words.

"Philanthropy" and "competition" are weasel words. One is reminded of the long ago effort to disparage a candidate's relative with the word "thespian."

There is something to be said for employing simple language. In this case, the appropriate comparison is between a "caring" Nunn and a "predatory" Perdue.  This David seems to have lost his way and wandered into an unfamiliar arena.

As our Democratic candidate for the House seat from the first District in Georgia, Brian Reese, has clearly laid out, "politics is not a spectator sport." Elections aren't contests; they're a hiring process and the important actors are the voters.
Want to be important? Be a voter!

Finally, I'm not sure what I think about the word "collaborator" that's being deployed by Democrats talking about working together. It's an entirely appropriate word and definitely in need of rehabilitation from its conservative usage as a dysphemism.

dys·phe·mism
ˈdisfəˌmizəm
noun
noun: dysphemism; plural noun: dysphemisms

    a derogatory or unpleasant term used instead of a pleasant or neutral one, such as “loony bin” for “mental hospital.”

On the other hand, dissing the fem is a conservative constant, don't you know?

But, "enough is enough!"

Originally posted to hannah on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 03:03 AM PDT.

Also republished by Kos Georgia.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree 100% (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hannah

    and have been telling my friends that we are going to keep the Senate and take back the House, in large part because women have had enough.

    Along with the fact that the ACA is working, and Republicans have spent the last 6 years letting the economy go down the tubes.

    Michelle is a great candidate, and can use all our help.
    Here is her website.

  •  Amanda Kurtis (0+ / 0-)

    in Montana offers another opportunity for Democratic women to gain more seats in the Senate, as well.

    Hopefully, she'll be able to emphasize to voters exactly why it is that, after one term in the House of Misrepresentatives, Steve Daines has very mediocre favorability ratings. If she can do that, she will be able to make herself competitive, in my opinion. And the next step after that is to excite women voters in Montana with the prospect of the first female senator from that state ever, by exploiting the gender gap between Republicans and Democrats, and, hopefully, turning it into a gender canyon.

  •  Translating (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeeDee001, hannah, HeyMikey

    "We have one candidate who has been out there helping people, and another who has been helping corporations and the rich steal from them. Elect the thief; philanthropy's for wimps."

  •  Heh (0+ / 0-)

    Trouble is, half of those candidates on your list just aren't going to win. Shenna Bellows is not going to win. Wendy Davis is not going to win. Alison Lundergan Grimes is 50/50 at best. And to the person above who believes Amanda Curtis will win: She won't.

    We're the reality-based community, guys. Get serious and get real about who's going to win and who isn't. Michelle Nunn and Alison Lundergan Grimes are excellent candidates and they do have a good shot, but we have to be realistic about their chances too. One is running in a state that has turned hard-right of late, where whites and blacks are polarized along racial lines. Another is running against a long-time incumbent who's always managed to sneak by, and who has an epic amount of money, and all this in a state that, again, has turned hard-right of late. These races are going to be extremely difficult to pull off.

    •  Do you mean they are not going to get hired? (0+ / 0-)

      That's possible. But, it is not a foregone conclusion.

      Making predictions of failure is both easy and rewarding. If the prediction turns out wrong, only the oracle will be disappointed and, if it turns out to have been right, the oracle gets to brag "I told you so."

      In any event, at this point in time, predictions merely serve to prepare the ground.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site