God, these Dem strategists are pathetic! But at least MSNBC was covering the McCain screw up

[ErinBerin84]

David Shuster just covered the CBS McCain screw up about the Iraq time line, even though they did not mention the part about CBS's cut and paste editing. The lead in to the story was "Does McCain have the facts of the surge wrong, or was this just a misstatement?" They played the clip, and then Shuster asked the Repuke strategist (Andrea...you know the one. No, not Mitchell, though that is the first Republican Andrea that comes to my mind when I hear the name) where Obama had EVER minimized the work of the troops (after reading the McCain campaign statement about how this is a "distraction" meant to minimize the troops efforts on the ground"). Andrea said that he did it in saying he wouldn't listen to commanders on the field, and then tried to say he had waffled on Iraq. Um....you can't have it both ways ,Sweetheart. The manufactured media outrage was over him saying that he would listen to commanders on the field. The Dem strategist was incompetent as always (I'm not familar with this one, so I don't remember his name), and didn't correct the Republican strategist and instead focused on the Malaki statement and the NBC poll coming out tonight saying that most people are for a withdawal deadline. Shuster then asked the Pub is she thought Obama "wanted to lose the war". The pub said that she thought that in his "heart of hearts, he didn't, but he has proven he will say things that are politically expedient." She then launched into a thing about how McCain needed to focus on the bogus offshore drilling. The Dem strategist didn't counter that either, but at least this was covered. Was this covered throughout the day as well, or just on Shuster?

[Youphemism]

1. Morning Joe was repeating the "surge enabled the Awakening" lie...

I only saw a few moments, but during those moment Joe twice repeated the lie that the surge led to the Awakening movement -- even though he was doing it from the station that debunked that McCainian invention.

Either Joe isn't very well plugged in to his own network, or he doesn't mind promoting misinformation to support McCain. At least McCain has the excuse of being easily confused. They also promoted the notion that Obama is disrespecting the troops by suggesting the surge was not the only factor behind reduced violence -- in spite of the fact that Obama obviously guessed that strategy and specifically addressed it in his original comments.

[Cha]

3. Well, joe scarborough is either being

told to do this by someone unseen producer or he's too dense to keep up with the real news.

My son on Kauai mentioned how much of a mediawhore Joe is when we were discussing mediawhores like andrea mitchell, last night.

[GalleryGod]

4. How's Lori, Joe-Joe ???

another Douchebag for Liberty

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. The reason why the Repukes are so effective is that they are fed

talking points every morning. This was something started by Newt Gingrich and perfected by Frank Luntz. Every morning, Newtie would fax the Repuke leadership a set of talking points on 3X5 index cards. Tom DeLay (the Whip) was responsible for "whipping" the party in shape, making sure they knew what the latest talking points were and how to repeat and repeat often for effectiveness.

Notice that all the Repukes say the same thing over and over again. The rule of thumb is that they are never to stray from those prescribed talking points; rather, repeat them over and over again, no matter how wrong, no matter how fallacious...keep repeating. And get the M$M to do their bidding by repeating them as well!

This tactic has been incredibly effective for Repukes for the past 30 years! Their command of the English language, use of symbolism (a la, the Welfare Queen, "latte liberals," and being "pro-life" as opposed to "pro-choice"), have proven brilliant effective at encouraging Americans to vote against their best interests. In Repuke World, everything is viewed in terms of absolutes: you're either with us or against us; you're wither pro-life or pro-choice (i.e., pro-death); you either drill offshore or lose the energy/oil wars. Their effective control of political language and symbolism has been co-opted by the M$M for whom they serve.

The Dems have failed miserably to create a narrative that works. The mistake that we make over and over again is to assume that people vote according to the facts and issues. They don't. They vote based on their baser instincts, i.e., fear, anger, hatred, prejudice. Emotion, NOT facts rule elections. Until the Dems realize this, we run the risk of giving the Repukes the opportunity to control the rules of the game, defining our candidates and controlling the narrative.

[bluethruandthru]

5. Too bad we can't recommend a post!

You're absolutely right. The has been the Dems biggest failing for years. I can't understand why we don't counter their talking points with our own. I know most people would say that it's because Dems can think for themselves and don't need 3X5 cards. While that's true...there's nothing wrong with a consistent, clear message.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

6. Yep, start a thread with this...you summed it up well.

[Bonn1997]

7. You read Drew Westen's book?

Or did you just coincidentally come to the same conclusion he did?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. Interesting you pointed this out. Westen is brilliant. I'm a political scientist and he

was a professor in the Psychology Department at Emory University (Atlanta) when I was in college there. I actually learned the story of Newtie and the power of political language and symbols when one of my professors taught a course on Congress, focusing primarily on the Repuke takeover of Congress in 1995. He was most fascinated by Newt Gingrich's life story and experiences. Seems like some of the most despicable Repukes come from broken homes where the father, in particular, was abusive. Newtie, Tom DeLay, KKKarl Rove, etc. They all have one thing in common: their abusive fathers; the impact on how they treat women. Newtie was a known womanizer, as was Bob Barr. Their stories were particularly interesting because they were Georgia congressmen.

Westen's book is brilliant! Everyone should read because he goes into great detail about how and why Repukes are able to win elections by appealing to voters' baser instincts. He relies on psychological explanations to build his arguments. And he is so right...

[Bonn1997]

12. It is a brilliant book

I'm a psych prof at a small liberal arts college who does emotion research (not specifically emotion in politics but the topic does interest me). Westen's book is one of the best I've ever read and I wish all Democrats would read it. I'm convinced the Democratic party would win more elections if their strategists and candidates read his book. I'm glad to hear that you, as a political scientist, like his book. I wasn't sure how much interest most political scientists had in the psychological aspects of politics.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. Oh, yes. Very much so. Most liberal arts colleges offer courses in

political psychology and many of my students who want to understand the political mind find themselves drawn to this discipline. I have also been quite interested in the psychological impact that the M$M has on public opinion. What sparked my interest was how Gore was treated during the presidential election when he ran against Bush in 2000. The first debate was particularly telling. Gore won that debate hands down. Intial opinion polls showed that most Americans believed that Bush was no contest and that Gore demonstreated a strong command of the issues. However, the punditry (unfriendly to Clinton/Gore), complained that Gore keep sighing, rolling his eyes, shifting his weight, and came off as haughty and "cerebral."

Opinion polls taken a week later demonstrated that most Americans had changed their views and that Bush actually won the debate. According to the surveys, the voters felt that Bush was "one of them," a person "you could have a beer with." Gore was the elitist, too self-righteous and not folksy enough. And that's the narrative that the Republicans, with the aid of the M$M, have been able to use to defeat Democrats for years now. Dems are flip-floppers. They are "latte liberals" who will raise your taxes for social welfare programs that benefit those who don't work. They are "baby-killers" and "Nazi appeasers."

How in the world did the Democratic party, liberals, and good progressives allow the Repukes to have such mind control over voters? Even to the extent that most Democrats run away from the "liberal" label? How in the world did we allow them to manipulate language to give their side the winning advantage? While we mistakingly believe that we can win on the issues, the Repugs know how to win by exploiting people's inherent racist tendencies, fears, etc. They've been doing so successfully every since the Dixiecrats in the South became Republicans because they were opposed to civil rights legislation and court decisions. The courts became a haven for "activist judges," and we continue to allow them to get away with this abusive language to our detriment.

Like Frank Luntz, the Democrats should have their own pollsters who conduct focus groups, testing out effective use of words and language, slogans that work. Democrats should be testing ads and slogans that define who the Democrats are. The one advantage that the Repukes have is that because they have such party discipline, they are able to speak as one and stay on a unified message that they repeat over and over again. As we have seen with the Democrats most recently during the primaries, getting us to unify fully behind a candidate or a cohesive message is like pulling teeth! It's so frustrating!!

[ErinBerin84]

8. yup. Pubs get to parrot out their talking points.

But it's just so incredibly frustrating to think that these Dems should NEED these talking points, when there is so much stuff to hit McCain on.

[Bonn1997]

13. You always need talking points

It doesn't mean your case is weak or shallow. It just means that it's hard to find the best words and most concise message if you're thinking on your feet (and even more so if it's on TV in front of millions of people).

[cbc5g]

9. Please please forward your thoughts to the Obama campaign on their website

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/contact/



We can't cede the media to McCain this time or it's Kerry all over again.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. I hope they'd listen to political scientists. We are academics but I think we have something valuabl

to contribute.

"What's the Matter With Kansas" is required reading in my political science classes. I also love Dean's "The Conscience of a Conservative." The mind control that Repukes have over their supporters is...well...mind-boggling.

I often wonder where our Frank Luntz is. It's so frustrating, especially during 2004 when the DNC should have been running ads containing Bush's flip-flopping sound bites re: bin Laden and how he doesn't think about him and is not concerned. They should have been running ads with Condi and Colin stating as late as the Summer of 1991 that Saddam Hussein was "contained" and posed no threat. Those DNC ads were very ineffective while the Repukes were able to capitalize on the narrative that Kerry flip-flopped on the $87 billion, knowing fully well that the average American voter doesn't fully understand how a bill becomes law and the amendment process. To this day, I hear Dems referring to Kerry as an ineffective flip-flopper. Was he ineffective? Yes. But was he a flip-flopper? Absolutely not!

I see similar happening with Obama to a lesser extent and Dems to a larger extent. Of course the most recent example of blaming the "Pelosi Premium" for high gas prices; continuing the talking point that Dems are "elitists" and "tax and spend liberals." How are they able to get away with this? The party of and for the rich? The true party of elitists who don't give a damn about the working and middle classes? How do they do it? They create a narrative and repeat, repeat, and repeat...staying on message and hammering away without budging, no matter how wrong or misguided.

So I ask again, where is our Frank Luntz and why aren't we holding focus groups to pilot test our ads? Why can't we create our own narrative? And why do we continue to allow the Repukes (aided by the complicit M$M), to define our candidates and our party?

These questions are baffling for many political scientists who don't understand why Dems have allowed the Repukes to control the political landscape for the last 30 years, making us eschew and reject our true liberal/progressive roots.

[Bonn1997]

15. I was hoping the Obama team would hire Westen

after his book came out, but it's clear from how the campaign is being run that they haven't. I think Clinton (Bill), Carville, and Begala are the only Democrats who understand the psychology of politics. Fortunately, the country is so sick of Republican rule of Washington that Obama and the rest of the Dems may be able to get away with running the campaigns they're running now and still do OK, although I think they'd make bigger gains if they understood political psychology or had consultants who do.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. Correction: I meant to say that Condi and Colin announced that Saddam was

contained as late as Spring 2001, not 1991! Oops...

[Whisp]

14. dem strategists are usually always spineless against repugs

i've noticed that for years now and have no idea what the hell is up with that.

they have fire in the belly and darts shooting from their eyes during the dem primary, but when it comes to acting with such fervor against the devils themselves repugs they cave like wet toilet paper.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. That drives me nuts