How the Democrats can take the offensive against the Republicans?

[kentuck]

As we know, the Republicans are dependent on the votes of the "tea-baggers" to win the election in November. That is the weak link in their strategy.

The Democrats do not need to attack the Tea Party. That only drives them into the Republican camp.

Instead, they need to plant seeds of doubt in the "Tea Party" population. They need to persuade them, in not too critical terms, that the Republicans are using them once again to pull the same trick on them and the rest of America, including Democrats. As many of their supporters have noted in the last couple of days, the "Pledge to America" does not add up. It is a gimmick.

Democrats need to act as the "protector" of the Tea Party and average Americans, not mount an attack on their ignorance. The goal is to stop them from voting for the Republican Party. There is an old saying that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. In this instance, it holds true.

The Republicans want you to criticize the stupid, ignorant "Tea-baggers" because that drives them directly into their arms. Don't fall for it. Our strategy should be to convince enough of these folks that the Republican Party is using them, which they are, for their own political advantage and the direction they are headed is the wrong direction.

This would be a more effective strategy for the Democrats, in my opinion. Obviously, I am no Karl Rove.

[gateley]

1. "Obvioulsy, I am no Karl Rove."

:rofl:

Good points, kentuck!

[Botany]

2. the tea party is a 100% republican invention .... and the old white people ...

... who go to their rallies and identify themselves as tea party patriots voted republican
in all the last elections ...... they are bought and paid for by the same people who brought
us republican / corporate power in the past. So I respectively disagree with you and urge that
we should go on the attack against the teabaggers and the republicans and we should use the
best weapon we have, "the truth."

Media Spreads Tea Party Leaders as “Anti-Establishment” Myth




Let’s call the Tea Party by its true name – The Republican Party.

.... the media – both corporate and independent – has unreflectively spread the manufactured myth that Tea Party
candidates are outside of the political establishment. In simply reporting the Tea Party as a separate entity from the
Republican Party, many media sources have helped perpetuate the false notion that its leaders represent a new political
movement.


In even using the brand “Tea Party” we perpetuate the idea that it is not the same old Republican party.

snip

And we can’t doubt that there are grassroots members of the Tea Party, the Republican establishment and major corporations,
deliberately hidden from scrutiny behind layers of non-profits and think-tanks, have provided it extensive support and sponsorship.
The April 2009 Tea Party protests were subsidized in part by FreedomWorks, which former Texas Republican Dick Armey chairs.
Of FreedomWorks, Former President George W. Bush said “they have been doing a great job all over the country of educating people”
about basic Republican philosophy: “Lower Taxes, Less Government, More Freedom.”

snip


As Contenetti shows us, the Tea Party, in its core values, is the Republican Party. It is like Coke in a new bottle, re-branded, re-packaged
with new logos and slogans, but with the same essential ingredients – small government and support of big business.

http://dailycensored.com/2010/09/16/media-spreads-tea-p... -

[depakid]

3. Unfortunately, most traditional Democratic constituencies have been show that they were used, too

and any member of those constituencies can see the contempt in which they're held right here on this website on any given day.

[Mortos]

4. I disagree

These folks are just republicans in founding father costumes. They are stupid, willfully ignorant or both. They don't believe you. They don't trust you and all your sugar smells of vinegar to them. We need to play hardball and let them vote for their crazy candidates. Encourage the crazy and put a spotlight on them. The bare majority of Americans are reasonable and will not vote for crazy...I hope.

[BeFree]

7. right

these tea people are bush people thru and thru.

There is no convincing them to change their minds.

And they can't be attacked individually so the target is the 'party'.

All we need to do is keep showing the truth of the bush from which the tea is made.

[kentuck]

8. Why do they call themselves "Tea Partiers" and not Republicans?

They split from the Republican Party for a reason. Whether or not that was for show or just a temporary separation, they were not happy with the Republican Party. No doubt, most of them are "conservative".

[Botany]

9. it was a campaign led by Dick Armey and others to try to "re-brand" ....

... the republicans because W had made the party so toxic.

[Bigmack]

5. How? Hire Jon Stewart as media consultant. nt

[woo me with science]

6. You do that by actual action to improve people's lives.

Rhetoric is not going to save anyone, because people have been disappointed again and again.

They need something concrete to vote FOR.

The 67.3 MILLION people who came out and voted for Barack Obama did so because he promised he would make their lives better. They thought he would give them health care reform that actually made health care affordable and accessible to them. They thought he would take on the economic spiral and rein in the corporate interests that are bleeding them to death and forcing them out of the middle class into poverty.

You are right that the answer to this election lies in convincing the disillusioned that Obama has more to offer them than the teabaggers do. But doing that is not a rhetorical exercise. Proof of actual steps in that direction, even at this late date, is the key to winning back his support.

[Edweird]

10. That is it exactly. Instead they are trying to spin their RW policy as somehow 'progressive'.

When tht fails they resort to "Shut up an like it" or "You want president Palin". Had he kept his word he would be immensely popular.

[DonCoquixote]

11. You really think so?

If he "kept his word" and let's say, tried to push through single payer, then single player would still be hung on the tree, and you would be mad that Obama kept trying to pass a bull that would never pass.