Sane Republicans should leave the party now

[Piggy]

And what does that press release say?
"Bishop is no stranger to voters who are expressing disappointment with his record, as evidenced by a June town hall meeting where his constituents confronted him over his betrayal on the National Energy Tax, and the Democrat’s plan for a government takeover of healthcare"

Is the NRCC calling for mob action? Is it calling for the town hall meeting to be disrupted? No, it is not. What, precisely, do you find objectionable in this release? What part of the actual text constitutes incitement?

Well, press releases are intended to get stories into the news, of course.

At the bottom level you've got the ad hoc PRs. Like, say, a local restaurant that won a People's Choice award. They might hire a freelancer to write up a story and put it out for local media to pick up. Reporters love stories they don't have to write, so they stand a good chance of getting cheap advertising that way -- say, a quarter page for a fraction of what they could buy it for.

Then you have, for instance, a restaurant at a tourist destination like Las Vegas, London, or Honolulu that's hired a new celebrity chef. They'll pay an agency (who'll probably farm it out to a freelancer in their stable) to write up a story to get picked up by inter/national gourmet and travel magazines, Web sites, and blogs.

Then you have syndicators like ARA Content that are paid by companies and industries to write up faux news stories. For instance, a siding company with a new product might hire them to write a story on a new technology that's saving homeowners lots of money on energy bills -- at least that's what it's supposed to read like. The "experts" who are "interviewed" for this story on the new technology just happen to be folks from this company, whose name is mentioned several times in the piece. They're looking to get picked up by anybody who needs some space to fill and has an audience that's interested.

The Democratic and Republican parties operate on a whole nother level, because of who they are, who they can quote, and the number of eyeballs their stories can draw. Their in-house PR writers act as feeders for outlets in all media -- some partisan venues, others general news packagers -- and what they write is direct fodder for the news industry.

The purpose of the NRCC PRs on this is to portray the shout-down mobs as dissenters voicing their opinion -- basically the way you're portraying them -- while painting the Democrats as tyrants who are attempting to shut out voters who are merely looking to petition their elected officials and make their voice heard.

In doing so, they encourage this kind of behavior without having to send Steele or Boehner to a podium to cheer them on. They know that, at least, Fox and Politico and other friendly sources will pick it up and pass it on, and that the statements from Spain and others will get into the churn.

"Incite" is your word, by the way. What I've objected to is encouragement of the mobs. Some Dems have tried to blame the GOP for creating the mobs, but I think they're (wisely) backing off that language now since it's apparent that other groups are responsible.

As for the Philadelphia event, you may not see this as speakers being shouted down by folks who came with the intention to disrupt the meeting rather than rationally discuss anything....







But to me that's precisely what it looks like.

I consider it very disturbing that leadership in the GOP is encouraging this kind of behavior. It's juvenile. It's counterproductive. And it's taking the party farther down the road to marginalization.

 

[Piggy]

No, that is not the way it works. If you are making claims, it is up to you to back it up.

Bad Piggy.

I know. At least I fess up to it.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How many "sane" democrats left their party when everyone else was chanting "selected not elected"?

 

[Piggy]

Was Bishop shouted down? No, I don't think he was. The crowd was not friendly, and it was vocal, but it did not shout him down. They were, in fact, demanding answers from him.

Yeah, they shouted him down several times.



These people had no intention of listening to anything. They were there to disrupt.

 

[Piggy]

How many "sane" democrats left their party when everyone else was chanting "selected not elected"?

I have no idea. Doesn't particularly matter to me. And I don't think the Democratic Party ever got into the position the GOP is in right now.

The GOP had a choice after the election: Rebuild winning coalitions, or kowtow to the rabble factions among the "base". After some internal struggles, it has chosen the latter. As a result, there is no longer any leadership capable of steering the party back in the other direction.

I'd love to hear some suggestions as to how that can be achieved, btw. It would be the better course.

 

[Ziggurat]

The purpose of the NRCC PRs on this is to portray the shout-down mobs as dissenters voicing their opinion -- basically the way you're portraying them

And they're not? Are they voicing opinions which are not their own?

-- while painting the Democrats as tyrants

Politics as usual.

In doing so, they encourage this kind of behavior without having to send Steele or Boehner to a podium to cheer them on.

Sorry, but this is makes no sense. If the NRCC is portraying these people as simply dissenters voicing their opinions, then even if that's not what they actually are, the NRCC's audience is still only being encouraged to act as dissenters voicing their opinion. To encourage mob behavior, the NRCC would have to be telling people to act like a mob, or glorifying mob behavior as mob behavior. Which they are simply not doing, even by your own admission.

"Incite" is your word, by the way. What I've objected to is encouragement of the mobs.

And "mob" is your word. Or is it the democrat's word? Either way, it's not accurate.

As for the Philadelphia event, you may not see this as speakers being shouted down by folks who came with the intention to disrupt the meeting rather than rationally discuss anything....

If they're trying to shout down the speakers, they're doing a piss-poor job, because there are extended periods of time when the speakers are talking without any shouting going on.

 

[Piggy]

There are few relevant results. They seem to be about the same as this one
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/nrcc-celebrates-recess-roasting.php

Nowhere in that link does Spain or anyone else call for anyone to disrupt townhall meetings, or to act like a mob. Can you provide a single quote which you find objectionable? Because you keep making these claims, and every time I look into them, there's just nothing there.

Yeah, that's basically the gist of it there, albeit with a heavy partisan spin.

As for what I find objectionable, I've already stated that. Take a look at the linked PR, for instance.

It's not that any of the Republican top guns are out there telling people "Go out and bust up a town hall". I've never said they were doing that. If they did, that would be off-the-charts stupid.

What they are doing is encouraging more of this childish and destructive behavior -- not destructive to property, but destructive to any kind of political progress on issues that are quite urgent and important -- by championing these yahoos as if they were concerned voters trying to reason with their representatives but getting shut out, when the reality is that they're merely disruptive little mobs whose intention is entirely to throw a wrench into things.

You want a quote? Read that entire press release. That's what it's designed to do, as are the other stories on this matter that the NRCC is feeding to its outlets.

They're purposely egging it on, and I think some of the Democrats are, too, because they think they can make this distasteful behavior "stick" to the Republicans, which is an equally stupid and destructive tactic.

 

[Piggy]

If they're trying to shout down the speakers, they're doing a piss-poor job, because there are extended periods of time when the speakers are talking without any shouting going on.

It's time we ended this little exchange. We've both said our piece. If "shouting down" by your definition requires absolutely no letup, then we're going to disagree. I don't see it your way, and never will. So be it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, they shouted him down several times.

They shouted during a few of his answers, yes. But there were also many periods of silence as he talked. The characterization of this being a "shout-down mob" simply isn't accurate.

These people had no intention of listening to anything. They were there to disrupt.

Then why were they silent for much of the time that he was responding? Sorry, but your characterizations just don't match what I can see and hear in the video.

 

[Piggy]

Sorry, but your characterizations just don't match what I can see and hear in the video.

OK.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's time we ended this little exchange. We've both said our piece. If "shouting down" by your definition requires absolutely no letup, then we're going to disagree. I don't see it your way, and never will. So be it.

"Shouting down" requires trying to prevent the person in question from being heard. Which didn't happen here. But it has elsewhere. You want to see someone being shouted down? This (and this) is what it looks like.

 

[Distracted1]

Source? I found one (not by Dick Army) here:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/townhallactionmemo.pdf
Does it call for shouting down any discussion? No, it does not. In fact, it specifically says, "Don't carry on and make a scene".



Who has advocated doing that?



The concept of "talking points" is not new, it is not Republican, it's not intrinsically wrong, and they can indeed reflect the opinions of those who repeat them. I'm not a big fan of talking points, but THIS THREAD is an example of Democrat talking points. Oh, the irony.

I read the content you linked to. Under the heading "Inside the Hall" the author seems to clearly be encouraging the turning of the meeting into a shouting match.
He tells his readers to "Yell out" at the first opportunity, then follow up one anothers' shouts with shouts of their own.
After stating that whatever the congressperson answers with is likely an evasion, the author further instructs the reader to shout at the Rep. In order to "rock him back on his heels" with vitriol.
I cannot see this as anything OTHER than an encitment to disrupt and destroy a public meeting.
It seems the only reason no ONE MEMBER is to make "a scene" is so that the meeting can never be brought to order by the removal of that member.

 

[Brainster]

The GOP had a choice after the election: Rebuild winning coalitions, or kowtow to the rabble factions among the "base". After some internal struggles, it has chosen the latter. As a result, there is no longer any leadership capable of steering the party back in the other direction.

I'd love to hear some suggestions as to how that can be achieved, btw. It would be the better course.

If Obama screws up, the GOP will be back in force in 2010 and 2012. If he doesn't, people will get sick of him by 2014 and the GOP will be back in force in 2016.

 

[Ziggurat]

I read the content you linked to. Under the heading "Inside the Hall" the author seems to clearly be encouraging the turning of the meeting into a shouting match.
He tells his readers to "Yell out" at the first opportunity, then follow up one anothers' shouts with shouts of their own.

And he also says, "Don't carry on and make a scene - just short intermittent shout outs. The purpose is to make him uneasy early on and set the tone for the hall as clearly informal, and free-wheeling." They seem to be explicitly telling people NOT to turn it into a shouting match.

After stating that whatever the congressperson answers with is likely an evasion, the author further instructs the reader to shout at the Rep. In order to "rock him back on his heels" with vitriol.

The phrase "rock him back on his heels" appears nowhere in that link. And 'vitriol' is entirely your invention.

It seems the only reason no ONE MEMBER is to make "a scene" is so that the meeting can never be brought to order by the removal of that member.

Or it could be that they don't want to act like a mob. But hey, let's just ascribe the worst motives we can think of to them. I mean, you're willing to lie about the contents of the PDF, what's a little ascribed motives?

 

[Piggy]

If Obama screws up, the GOP will be back in force in 2010 and 2012. If he doesn't, people will get sick of him by 2014 and the GOP will be back in force in 2016.

I wish is were that simple.

And hey, if it were, the GOP wouldn't be pursuing its current strategy.

If we do get economic recovery beginning this year and jobs recovery next year, there's a good chance the GOP will make no gains in the offterm elections, especially if they continue to alienate moderates, independents, and many women and minority voters. And 2012 could be worse.

(Remember, the Carter recession worsened until well into Reagan's 2nd year, hitting its lowpoint in '82. There was a lot of working class anger at Reagan then, but all was forgotten when Reagan's vast spending and government growth plan started turning things around, and amazingly he even survived his tax raises. Of course, the situation in Congress was different then.)

If the GOP entrenches itself as the party of the Palinista faction, we could be looking at regional party status for quite some time.

 

[Drysdale]

Something I really dont get about these the GOP is in serious trouble threads.

The Dem majority congress and senate has putrid public approval ratings.
Reid and Pelosi's ratings are worse,Obama's dropping like a rock even though apparently the gameplan is to keep blaming Bush. That only works so long.

Yet only the GOP is in trouble? I think more democrats better start looking around, their party is'nt exactly flying high.

Honestly tho, I hope a good third party will take advantage of this. I'm sick and tired of both parties.

 

[Denver]

I don't think criticizing the GOP automatically means someone is praising the Dems. It can seem that way sometimes, with all the defensiveness in politics and such. But Dems have their issues too of course.

 

[Brainster]

More on those "GOP" operatives supposedly encouraging "mob rule" and "hooliganism":

Enter Think Progress, which unearthed this shocking, secret memo from the leader of a small grassroots conservative organization in Connecticut, which allegedly instructs members on "infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress."

Right Principles PAC was formed by Bob MacGuffie and four friends in 2008, and has taken in a whopping $5,017 and disbursed $1,777, according to its FEC filing.

"We're just trying to shake this state up and make a difference up here," MacGuffie told me during a telephone interview. He's surprised at his elevation to national rabble-rouser by the Left.

Right Principles has a Facebook group with 23 members and a Twitter account with five followers. MacGuffie describes himself as an "opponent of leftist thinking in America," and told me he's "never pulled a lever" for a Republican or Democrat on a federal level. Yet this Connecticut libertarian's influence over a national, orchestrated Republican health-care push-back is strong, indeed, if you listen to liberal pundits and the Democratic National Committee, who have crafted a nefarious web out of refutable evidence.

So this was Think Progress' smoking gun, a memo from a group with five followers on Twitter?

 

[tyr_13]

http://www.comedycentral.com/ and click on 'The Word: Hippie Replacement"

Funny, and pertains to this discussion.

 

[Brainster]

I wish is were that simple.

And hey, if it were, the GOP wouldn't be pursuing its current strategy.

If we do get economic recovery beginning this year and jobs recovery next year, there's a good chance the GOP will make no gains in the offterm elections, especially if they continue to alienate moderates, independents, and many women and minority voters. And 2012 could be worse.

(Remember, the Carter recession worsened until well into Reagan's 2nd year, hitting its lowpoint in '82. There was a lot of working class anger at Reagan then, but all was forgotten when Reagan's vast spending and government growth plan started turning things around, and amazingly he even survived his tax raises. Of course, the situation in Congress was different then.)

If the GOP entrenches itself as the party of the Palinista faction, we could be looking at regional party status for quite some time.

And if the sane people leave the party it will be better? Come on, you can't really believe that, can you? You say that if the economy doesn't get better, people will blame it on the GOP, and as evidence you mention that Reagan was getting a lot of anger from the working class during 1982, but isn't it Obama who's in Reagan's shoes right now? If the economy suffers during a Republican Administration, folks blame the Republicans and if the economy suffers during a Democratic Administration, folks blame the Republicans?

You're flailing here.