Through no fault of my own, I have found myself on a number of GOP mailing lists lately. Since they generally have business reply envelopes, I send 'em back, minus identifying information. I'll keep costing them money as long as they cooperate.
What the fascist right says when it's raising money is instructive. Here are some excerpts from Dennis Hastert's spiel in favor of KOMPAC, which is already raising money for the 2006 election cycle (emphasis mine here and below):
[W]e must ensure that the liberals cannot seize power in Congress since it is clear they would radically change America's direction.
They are going to attack us as liberals, no matter what. They will call a Democrat who opposes even civil unions but favors hospital visitation rights for domestic partners a heinous liberal. We must redeem the word. A start: "I believe in justice for all. If that makes me a liberal, so be it." Voters take our failure to join this fight as symbolic of our wishy-washiness.
The Goobers Of Projection also charge us with their own ugliness. They
have seized power and intend to radically change America, but they want to make us
sound like radicals.
Hastert's fundraising also exposes his assumptions and tactics. For example:
Question #11 - The Social Security Administration estimates that by 2018 Social Security will begin paying out more than it takes in from payroll taxes. In theory, at that time the Trust Fund will begin drawing on the surpluses that accumulated from previous years. However, for decades Congress has taken the Social Security surpluses and used them to make the deficit look smaller. Some leading Democrats are content to ignore the serious problems facing Social Security to scare senior citizens into supporting their Party and the do nothing approach. Do you think the Republicans should try to explain to the American people the dangers facing Social Security and expose the intellectual dishonesty of those who say everything is just fine?
It's pretty obvious that the Republicans want to break their promise to the American people. What they really mean is that the full faith and credit of America is null and void, that they stole the Trust Fund fair and square and gave it to their rich buddies.
The surpluses are the Trust Fund. The Republicans are going to take both `trust' and `fund' out of Trust Fund, just as they want to take `social' and `security' out of Social Security.
They use the same approach in public, accusing us of:
- scare tactics
- a do-nothing approach
- intellectual dishonesty
Two of these - fear and dishonesty - are, in fact, their tactics. More from the letter:
[W]e can build an America ... where our commitment to family is demonstrated by having the faith and values that guided our grandparents ... instead of the pervasive sex, drugs and violence that pollute our television, movies and music.
The crusade to keep social conservatives in the middle class distracted is censorship, but the unprincipled GOP doesn't care.
[W]e can build an America where the federal government gets out of our state and local affairs and out of our pockets
Classic Republican appeals to the cryptoracists and homophobes, plus the ever-present tax-cutting, for the rich, of course. More:
They opposed the President on the war, even when our troops were in harm's way. They would have given the United Nations a deciding role in deciding whether, when, where, and how to defend America.
This is just a crazy lie. But it goes on:
They are critical of how we have waged our war on terrorism.
Poor babies. Can't take a little awful criticism. And, of course, they want all the credit for every drop of American blood.
They opposed [Duhbya's] efforts for the Department of Homeland Security.
Another bald-faced lie. They have a lot of experience telling this one. Here's a possible rejoinder: "The Republicans thought it was more important to lavish port security funds on Wyoming than to ensure the government has to treat its employees fairly." Then:
[T]hese liberal Democrats have even announced their opposition to some of the President's programs even before he has announced the program and outlined the details.
Who writes this crap? It's Duhbya's fault he hasn't "outlined the details". Of course, Hastert knows that the White House never discloses details until Karl Rove has found out the limit of what he can get away and he thinks it's too late to stop him. (This is why we must make only political proposals and not careful policy-wonk proposals that contain compromises.)
So... What do we say in response?