Republicans are now "The Dead-Beat Daddy Party"

[Pirate Smile]

Who’s Your Daddy Now?
Lost, stubborn, and surly, the GOP is rapidly rebranding itself as the bad-dad party. But can the Dems finally ditch their soft-mommy rep?

By Kurt Andersen

-snip-
But that is beginning to sound wishful. In fact, if the Democrats don’t blow it, 2008 could be the election that finishes off the pro-GOP salience of the tough-daddy-soft-mommy paradigm. Because the Republicans are being rapidly rebranded as a party of men who exemplify the least attractive, most pathetic aspects of the gender—they are the stubborn, arrogant, lazy, incompetent (Iraq, Katrina), hypocritical, crude, nasty fathers, Homer Simpson crossed with Tony Soprano, the kind of men who snarl and posture as old-fashioned patresfamilias but don’t come through when and where it counts. The GOP is becoming the deadbeat-daddy party.

Theirs is also the party of moral righteousness in which the Reverend Ted Haggard, Congressman Mark Foley, and Senators David Vitter and Larry Craig were all, only a year ago, leading lights. And consider the personal backgrounds of the top Republican presidential contenders, who seem more mack daddy than Father Knows Best. Rudy Giuliani contrived to annul his fourteen-year-long first marriage to his cousin, then publicly cheated on his second wife, and now, having married his mistress, has alienated both his children. Notoriously alley-catting Fred Thompson impregnated the mother of his children in high school and then married a babelicious, 24-years-younger second wife—and, lacking much (manly, paternal) taste for hard work, has by all accounts let the wives push him along in politics. It’s ironic, and a bit awkward, that the only GOP candidate who’s had just one wife, Mitt Romney, is the Mormon great-grandson of polygamists.

Although Hillary still has her swinger husband to worry about, she and he are still married, and indeed the three leading Democratic candidates, by comparison to most of the Republicans, are the very pictures of traditional family values—even-keeled, good providers, long marriages to just one spouse, children who evidently like them. They each ooze competence and seriousness. And indeed their party, when it has run the executive branch, has proved itself to be fiscally prudent and disciplined, the better-governing parents: Of the last seven administrations, the two with the smallest growth in federal spending were the Democratic ones, Clinton’s and Carter’s. And the biggest spendthrift? The current one.

All that needs to happen for the partisan rebranding to complete itself is for the independent-minded middle third of the electorate to be convinced, once and for all, that they can really trust Democratic leaders to do whatever’s necessary to keep us safe. Bill Clinton did okay on foreign policy, but given the peaceful slough over which he presided—after the Cold War, before 9/11—those eight years now seem like the Democrats’ national-security dress rehearsal. A majority may have come to see the old daddy party as half-assed and reckless, but in this jihadi era, they need to feel in their gut that the Democrats are Jodie Foster mommies, shrewd and steely and perfectly willing to kill bad guys.

-snip-
Thus people now say in polls that they trust the Democrats much more than Bush to manage our endgame in Iraq. (I think that even most Republicans who tell pollsters they approve of Bush’s handling of Iraq don’t really, or else they’d be supporting John McCain; they’re like members of a family who know Dad has behaved appallingly but refuse to admit it to outsiders.) But the broader, more durable shift in Americans’ confidence concerning national security is still on the bubble, according to the polls, with Americans split evenly on the question of which party’s leaders will “do a better job of protecting the country.” In other words, an ambivalent 10 percent or so trust the Democrats more on Iraq but the Republicans, still, on war and counterterrorism generally—and it’s that sliver that decides close national elections. What the Democrats say and do about Iraq—in Congress and on the campaign trail and in the White House, should they win—is what will finally rid them of the invidious part of the mommy-party image, or not.

http://nymag.com/news/imperialcity/37255/

The article contains some irritating language but I like branding the Republicans as the dead-beat dad party. It truly seems to fit.

[bunkerbuster1]

1. Decent stuff, but

I could've done without this:

"The sincerity or insincerity of her Iraq position(s) notwithstanding, her obvious appreciation of the high-stakes complexity of scaling back our military involvement in Iraq—the nuanced understanding that so infuriates the hysterical Kos wing of her party—is surely helping to convince regular, not necessarily Republican citizens that most Democrats aren’t simpleminded weenies about military power and geopolitics. As are the similarly sensible positions of the other leading Democratic candidates."

But hey, it's otherwise a good framing for us--casting the GOP as "deadbeats."

[opihimoimoi]

2. GOP....Delusional Deadbeats.....

[Pirate Smile]

4. Oh, I know. That was what I meant by "irritating language".

I still thought the descriptions of the Republicans made it worth it.

[bunkerbuster1]

6. I didn't see that before...

now I do. Fair point, well taken.

Like we seem to agree--I'm more than happy to wail away on the "deadbeat Dad" riff next time I hear someone start the usual "feminizing" crap to describe liberals.

[CTyankee]

3. "Jody Foster mommies". I love it!

I knew there was a reason I love Foster's movies.

[Romulox]

5. sexist crap...nt

[calimary]

7. Absolutely. Sexist crap that steeps the deep inner convictions and drives

of a lot of voters. A LOT of voters.

So since there absolutely is sexist crap moving under the surface of much of the electorate, there's no reason whatsoever that we can't use that to our advantage.

The meme "Deadbeat Daddy Party" is FUCKING BRILLIANT!!! MANNA FROM HEAVEN!!! EVERYONE should copy this article, bookmark this thread, and keep it handy. It's the key to debunking that damned, stupid, irrational "stern father" bullshit that's been driving most voters in uncertain times. Go for their strengths, guys. And turn that so-called "strength" FLAT ON ITS ASS. Here it is. The very thing they boast and swagger the most about proves to be the emptiest empty suit they've got in their - um - er - uh - closets. :rofl:

The DEADBEAT DADDY PARTY. Versus the Jodie Foster Moms or even Sigourney Weaver Moms. Or the Linda Hamilton Moms. The Lara Croft Moms. The Valkyrie and Amazon Moms. The Macho Moms or Matrix Moms. Wait til your momma comes home! Don't Mess with Momma.

Guys, this is "Silver Platter" time. It's being handed to us on a plate. Manna from Heaven!!! Christmas, Hannukah, Kwanza, and the Easter Bunny all rolled into one. If we exploit the bejeezus out of it, over and over and over and over and over and over, it'll sink in. The seed will be planted. And it'll take root. And then the republi-CON meme of strong stern father that "takes care of bidniss" will be THOROUGHLY and WIDELY DISCREDITED.

Oh yeah, and one other thing - we also ought to be snatching away that labeling that chris matthews inadvertently came up with the other day and MAKING IT OUR OWN: "Street-corner CONservatives." Uh-UH!!! Not on your life! It's "STREET-CORNER LIBERALS." Brings it down to the whole idea of Main Street. We should be taking all manner of positive, homey, non-threatening, comfort-food words and epoxying them to the word "liberal." "Main Street Liberals." "Neighborhood Liberals." "Hometown Liberals." "Street Corner Liberals."

And how 'bout THIS ONE for the coup de grace: "Pro-LIFE Liberals." That one will have their heads spinning and green split-pea soup coming out of their pie holes. But it goes deeper and far sneakier than it sounds. "Pro-life" is their meme, correct? Well, let's snatch it the fuck OUT of their hands, turn it upside down, and RE-DEFINE it. "Pro-LIFE" pertains directly to our troops. Our army. Our military. Our relations with the rest of the world. We're NOT for wholesale killing (reframed as TOTALLY referring to war-making) all over the world. We're not into this simplistic, false macho shoot-first-ask-questions-later crap. That's for non-thinking wimps. You know, the ones obsessed with their "other" heads? That's not what WE are about.

You use THAT framing over and over and over and gradually start peeling it away from the whole abortion mess and focus it like a lazer on the now-seriously discredited notion of wanton warmaking, so it starts taking on a different meaning, inference, and application. You start applying it to different circumstances and conditions. Soon it starts meaning something different, and you've just beaten another sword into a plow-share. You've turned one of their best weapons against them.

And on the flip side, all imaginable adjectives and nouns and phrases that are negative, threatening, troublesome, off-putting, ALL such terminology gets paired DIRECTLY with the words "CONservative" and "republi-CON." LAMINATED together with duct tape and power bolts. The better to evoke mental pictures and visceral images that go straight to the gut - of incompetence, childishness, immaturity, excess, phoniness, loud-noisy-messy, inefficient, paper-tiger, bullshit-artist, all-hat-no-cattle, trumped-up, facade, false-face, two-face, empty-suit, you get the idea.

Cheapskate CONservatives
Playground Bullies
Romper-Room republi-CONS
Weenies
Wimps
Phony-baloneys
Rubber-stamp republ-CONS
Rubber-SWORD republi-CONS
Pop-gun republi-CONS
Playstation CONservatives
Wall Street CONservatives
Country Club CONservatives
Cardboard colonels
Wuss warriors (weenie and wimp can be substituted for wuss here too)
Water pistol warriors
Reckless republi-CONS
Trainwreck CONservatives
Homer Simpson meets Mr. Burns
Just a bunch of Sideshow Bobs
Deadbeat Dad republi-CONS
Wifebeater republi-CONS
Chickenheart CONservatives
Chickenhawk CONservatives

Etc.

Etc.

Drive it and drive it and drive it and drive it until you drive it straight home.

[Romulox]

8. So it's OK to use sexist stereotypes against female candidates too?

You know, just taking advantage of "sexist crap moving under the surface of much of the electorate"?

Shrewish housewife Liberals?
Emasculating Liberals?
Manipulative, passive-aggressive Liberals?
Flighty, can't make up their minds Liberals?
Cat-fighting Liberals?

:sarcasm:

Sexism cuts every which way, and it SUCKS. It's not appropriate in your examples, and it's not appropriate in mine.

[calimary]

9. I'd rather use the tools of the game to position US to win, than let it

ride as it is.

Unfortunately, sometimes you have to cut through to people's lizard brains to make a connection that sticks. Sexism? Well, okay. In my book, whatever works. Since they've turned that on us for so long, I think it's rather delicious to turn their tables back on themselves for a change. I've never been one to pass up using Machiavelli to OUR advantage.

Besides, the phrases cited immediately here are too complicated to throw around, and most Joe/Jane Six-Packs don't go that deep.
Shrewish housewife liberals and flighty, can't make up their minds liberals aren't simplistic and bumper-sticker enough.

Besides, we're liable to have a woman as our standard bearer. That would set us up more conveniently to throw the "sexism" accusation back at our opponents, as opposed to having it stick to ourselves. Look, if these are the cards we're dealt, I say we play 'em to the hilt.

[Pirate Smile]

10. kick