________________________________________ | | | ANTISOCIAL | | ________________________________ | | | | | | | ANTI-SOCIALIST | | | |________________________________| | |________________________________________|
That is such a dreadful argument! "The Republicans are doing a bad thing but I'm sure the Democrats are secretly doing the same."I'm saying that the presentation is not a bad thing. It is a neutral thing, a record of internal discussions had by GOP fund-raising leads. It is embarrassing for them, yes. It demonstrates that they are very clear-eyed about the fact that fear and anger motivate the grass-roots. It demonstrates that they know major donors need their egos stroked. And it demonstrates that at the end of the day, they realize they are selling product.
I'm no great fan of the Democrats but in fact they haven't gotten anywhere down to the depths that the Republicans seem to be happy to plumb.The Democrats have money. The Democrats are organized, or at least Obama's campaign was. That means that -- to some extent at least -- they are doing the same planning, analysis of their base, and crafting of their internal message to appeal to those donors. That's my point.
If you have evidence that the Democrats are doing the same thing, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, you're in the category of "simply making things up."
What would the Dem equivalent of the joker-Obama picture be? Giuliani in drag? Oh wait, been done.Is "They laughed at a mean picture" really supposed to be the tipping point for outrage? That's all I'm trying to ask.
First of all, who said being a socialist is evil?posted by mccarty.tim at 7:59 AM on March 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
If you think the image of a white-faced Obama is merely "mean" I' don't think we have anything to discuss.Okay, it's repugnant and vile and unacceptable for public discourse! Better?
And that the way they depict their fundraising is explicitly grossly insulting as shallow dupes that can be easily manipulated by preying on their fears or playing to their massive egos.To summarize the "Motivation to Give" slide:
You're a Tea Partier.Really? That's where this is going? If I don't jump onto the masturbatory OutrageFilter, I'm One Of The Other? The irony is awesome.
Verb, though I appreciate your attempt to be neutral and balanced, I think there is something more to this than the imcompetence of the RNC.Well, sure. We believe they're fearmongers, and the powerpoint says that their donors are motivated by fear. Game, set, match. Is there something more? I'm not being antagonistic, though I have to admit some of the "Traitor! You're a tea partier!" responses are frustrating and annoying.
To me the ppt seems to be clear that fear, not in any real context but just simply scaring the shit out of people is a major aim of their marketing strategy. Whether its racism or creeping socialism or whatever doesn't really matter as long as people are scared and not making decisions based rational premises.And that's the part that I'm not sure the folks who are pointing at this and shouting get. The people the GOP is marketing to know they are afraid and angry. They are self-consciously afraid and angry. They are telling others they should be afraid and angry. Anyone who needed a leaked powerpoint to determine that they are afraid and angry, and that the GOP recognizes it and plays on it when fundraising, well... They haven't been listening since the Daisy ad.
No, if you believe things without any shred of evidence, then you're as stupid as those people with their Obama=Hitler posters. And in the same direction.So, you're saying that there isn't a presentation sitting on some DNC staffer's hard drive that makes a reference to idealistic hippies? That no one in the DNC has ever said, "Our major donors want to have their egos stroked?" For crying out loud, Rahm just caused a controversy by insulting the activist left publicly. And that's the president's Chief of Staff!
"Everyone does it" isn't sophisticated anti-naivete, it's lazy cynicism.
I'm saying that you are assuming things that are not in evidence. Sure, this can be looked at as business as usual...if you choose not to look at the attitude that's being displayed toward the RNC's victims.Yeah, but that 'assuming things not in evidence' bit cuts both ways. This presentation "displays" contempt towards one and only one group of people: major donors who want "access" and "ego stroking." That's newsworthy, perhaps, because it is a fundraising etiquette gaffe. But the comments about the mass-mailing targeted small donors? Saying that they're motivated by "Fear" and "Negative feelings about the administration?" Putting that on a powerpoint slide implies condescension? It doesn't. It's perhaps slightly embarassing because it's not how all of them see themselves, but it is only "evidence" of contempt for those of us who already believe that the GOP holds its base in contempt.
To be fully fair and balanced we must pretend the existence of gun-totting racist Democratic mobs.Don't worry, you can have the circle-jerk no matter what I say.
Or, it may have something to do with the fact that you rather vehemently deride folks' interest in this as "masturbatory OutrageFilter". But whatev.I'm sorry if my comments have implied that interest in the document, amusement at it, or curiousity about how it will be received by the GOP's base is in any way "outragefilter".
Clue number one that you should shut up: The thread becomes about you.Respectfully, all you've contributed to the thread is a link and snark. Snark that fundamentally misrepresented the arguments being made, no less. If you're going to be an ass, at least be interesting.
« Older Behind the decks at Queen, the biggest and brashes... | SFPD's new chief, George Gasco... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tmt at 2:34 PM on March 4, 2010 [5 favorites]