RSS Feed MenuLast week I argued that conservatives should abandon their silly effort to peg Democrats as socialists.
This is a strategy to repel, not attract, new voters. It is the conservative equivalent of the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” branding the Bush Administration fascist. Regardless of their academic merit, these ideological histrionics get you nowhere with voters who do not spend every waking minute listening to talk radio, watching cable news, or thinking about politics (which would be most voters) .
Yet today we learn that calling Democrats socialists will soon be official Republican policy.
In special session next week, the RNC will approve a resolution rebranding the Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”
And the slide toward irrelevance continues.
Michael Steele, who has had a rough go of it with conservatives, should be commended for resisting this fringe effort. According to Roger Simon of Politico, Steele wrote in a memorandum last month that the resolution “will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans.”
No doubt Hannity and Levin will be pleased with this latest move from the RNC. But with this issue, the Chairman is spot on.
Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Obama is the first president to use a teleprompter at every speaking engagement. He even used it at a party! THe thing is, he doesn’t use it the way you are suppose to use one…to prompt your memory. HE just reads it, whatever the hell on the screen, he will read. He has thanked himself before b/c that was on the Teleprompter. A cruel joke on His Excellency by that mischevious Teleprompter,
Aloof means you have a cold personality, kind of standoffish. I dont’ think you can say that about Bush. Obama doesnt’ seem like the life of the party. That would be one dull party. Frum would be at that party.
krove // May 14, 2009 at 6:45 pm
You definitely have ODS, get treatment and a life. Or go do some tea-bagging it suits you.
Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Obama is the first president to use a teleprompter at every speaking engagement. He even used it at a party! THe thing is, he doesn’t use it the way you are suppose to use one…to prompt your memory. HE just reads it, whatever the hell on the screen, he will read. He has thanked himself before b/c that was on the Teleprompter. A cruel joke on His Excellency by that mischevious Teleprompter,
Aloof means you have a cold personality, kind of standoffish. I dont’ think you can say that about Bush. Obama doesnt’ seem like the life of the party. That would be one dull party. Frum would be at that party.
Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 6:47 pm
krove,It’s amusing how you attempt to insult me by calling me a teabagger…is that not a indirect insult of gays? If there’s nothing wrong with being gay, why call me a teabagger, as it’s obvious you want to hurt my feelings.
krove // May 14, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Having met Obama and spent some time in conversation with him I can assure you he has a very warm personality.People are not fools and can tell an aloof person quickly. Obama is liked by 81% of people according to a recent poll. So you are one of the 19% who hates him.
Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 6:49 pm
It is nice to see that Anderson Cooper’s ratings are in the toilet after his teabagging insults of citizens merely practiciing their right to protest.
krove // May 14, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Teabagging to me means dipping ones teabag in a cup of hot water in order to make a cup of tea. I thought you might like a cup of tea as you seem a bit wound up.
Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 6:53 pm
I don’t hate Obama…i think he is the one with some anger issues. You don’t go to a racist church like he did for 20 years if there’s not some hate and anger in your heart. YOu are not associating with J Wright and Bill Ayers if you are a man of character. A man of warm personality does not mock retarded people on Leno or laugh at jokes about wanting a radio talk show host to die from kidney failure. This guy cannot handle criticism and he does hate his political opponents.I’m sure you have not only meet Obama, but you’ve had hot sex with him too. I think all Obama cultists have.
Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 6:54 pm
I think you know what teabagging means. Anderson Cooper sure the hell does.
krove // May 14, 2009 at 6:56 pm
You are a fool as well as having an unatural way of seeing things, please, you belong at Redstate.
Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 6:59 pm
You belong at Daily Kos, so there. You know, maybe we are the beginning of a new majority. I belong at redstate, you belong daily kos, and we are both here. We dont’ agree on anything, but who cares? Parties are not about principles anymore.
palomino70 // May 16, 2009 at 1:08 am
As for the term “Democrat Socialists”, it’s petty name-calling that doesn’t even work post-Cold War and in the middle of a huge recession. You’re confused if you think the Dems are stung by this; they love it, it makes their job easier–one more weapon in the arsenal to portray the GOP as behind the times, obsessed with minutiae, and flailing about aimlessly trying to score points any way possible.Furthermore, the RNC can no more rename the Dems than I can rename you Dr. Teabag or Dr. Evil. Sure I have the “free speech” right to call you whatever I want, but there’s nothing “official” about it. It’s also silly and disrespectful to think you can REname something you didn’t name to begin with. Like it or not, the name of the Dem party is what it is, not what a group of RNCers at a special session votes on.
palomino70 // May 16, 2009 at 1:10 am
Dr. T, you must not be an MD if you think teabagging is a gay only practice (why would the “cup” that the “teabag” goes into have to be male?) Anyway, the term as used by the Left is not an insult to gays, rather to a million or so disgruntled conservatives who swallowed their tongues for 8 years of Bush debt; but then immediately post-Jan. 20 found their deficit-fearing voices in order to issue apocalyptic warnings (“Bobbie Sue, the president is selling our grandchildren into slavery” and other such hyperbolic nonsense from folks who never thought of protesting anything when the GOP ran the show).
ChristianMiller // May 16, 2009 at 5:58 am
palomino70 , I keep hearing this argument”…conservatives who swallowed their tongues for 8 years of Bush debt; but then immediately post-Jan. 20 found their deficit-fearing voices in order to issue apocalyptic warnings…”Conservatives were livid at the Bush supported TARP and getting riled up before. Then Obama quadruples down on spending and government takeover of private industry. Obama also nominates several tax cheaters for Cabinet positions, by the time April 15th rolled around conservatives and others spilled into the streets. It really isn’t that complicated. Further, the protests were not politically partisan. Taxpayer ire was directed at both parties, deservedly. But partisans like yourself can’t process that idea, or you simply want to advance your propaganda narrative.What we really could question along those lines, is why have all the war protests stopped? Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed at all, except there is another party in power. Very telling.
palomino70 // May 16, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Franco, War protests haven’t stopped. Not sure about your part of the country, but here in SoCal they continue on a regular basis. To the extent that they have slowed down, it probably has something to do with the war’s architects now being OUT OF OFFICE and a withdrawal timetable, albeit a weak one, now being in place. For all the talk of the tea parties being bipartisan, the organizers and promoters are all the usual suspects: right-wing talk radio, FNC, unreconstructed southern governors. Bush’s trillions in debt elicited no “spilling into the streets”, but Obama’s trillions in debt lead to howls that “America is over” and we now live under fascism, communism, whatever. But the turnaround in GOP fortunes in the last election played no role in fomenting this anger? Conservatives may have been livid under Bush, but there was nothing with the urgency of mass “revolutionary” protests. It’s a little strange that I’m being labeled a partisan propagandist for noting the inconsistencies and hyperbole of the teabag movement. Where were the tea parties protesting Bush’s TARP and 5 trillion in debt? Where were the cries against creeping totalitarianism BEFORE Obama’s election? Where were the comparisons of Bush and LeninStalinMussolini? And you would have us believe that party identification/loyalty played no role in this conservative muteness. Sure, shovel me some more.
sinz54 // May 17, 2009 at 7:06 am
palomino70 & Franco: The 2004 and 2006 exit polls don’t bear out this notion of conservatives being furious with Bush or the GOP.In his first term, Bush got Medicare Part D passed, which he admitted would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. But when he ran for re-election in 2004, he still got 84% of the votes of self-described conservatives.In 2006, halfway through Bush’s second term, 78% of self-described conservatives voted for GOP candidates.There was no massive defection of conservatives away from the GOP. Notice also that this means that the GOP didn’t lose in 2006 because of any conservative revolt. They lost because 57% of Independents voted for Dem candidates. The GOP’s traditional strategy had assumed that they would split the Ind vote roughly evenly with the Dems. When the Dems captured the Ind vote, the GOP’s strategy collapsed and they lost.
sinz54 // May 17, 2009 at 7:13 am
palomino70 asks: “Where were the cries against creeping totalitarianism BEFORE Obama’s election?”From what I saw back in 2004, conservatives had bonded emotionally with Bush over two issues: His strong War on Terror program (including the Iraq War) and his strong pro-life stance. Back then, to criticize ANY aspect of the War on Terror in front of conservatives was to risk being labeled treasonous. So most conservatives circled the wagons around Bush on the War on Terror at least.And for the social conservatives, advocacy of traditional values was the only reason they ever got into politics in the first place.It’s only now that the Iraq War is winding down that conservatives are coming out of the closet and admitting that Bush screwed up his economic policies. Nothing strange about this; the British people retired Churchill too, as soon as World War II was over.
ChristianMiller // May 18, 2009 at 7:28 am
“Bush’s trillions in debt elicited no “spilling into the streets”, but Obama’s trillions in debt lead to howls that “America is over” and we now live under fascism, communism, whatever. But the turnaround in GOP fortunes in the last election played no role in fomenting this anger? Conservatives may have been livid under Bush, but there was nothing with the urgency of mass “revolutionary” protests.”You ignore the degree of borrowing and the time factor I’m sure had Obama wanted to invade Pakistan to go after Osama or secure nukes, And then also decided to invade Iran and Venezuela, that many conservatives who were somewhat “for” the war in Iraq might just become activated and be against reckless military expansion despite their animus to these countries.. This is an apt analogy as to degree. It is kinda ludicrous – but then again so is quadrupling what Bush did.
ChristianMiller // May 18, 2009 at 7:33 am
palomino70,”It’s a little strange that I’m being labeled a partisan propagandist for noting the inconsistencies and hyperbole of the teabag movement.”You can start by not using that pathetically crude disparaging term to come off being less partisan. C’mon. it is clear you are a conspiracy nut who thinks Fox news arraigned the hundreds of protests.