GOP, RNC to rebrand Democrats as 'Socialists'

[HuskyCaucasian]

From Politico-

A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”

 

When I asked if such a resolution would force RNC Chairman Michael Steele to use that label when talking about Democrats in all his speeches and press releases, the RNC member replied: “Who cares?”

 

Which pretty much sums up the attitude some members of the RNC have toward their chairman these days.

 

Steele wrote a memo last month opposing the resolution. Steele said that while he believes Democrats “are indeed marching America toward European-style socialism,” he also said in a (rare) flash of insight that officially referring to them as the Democrat Socialist Party “will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans.”

 

Steele didn’t want the special session to be held at all. The RNC will hold its regular summer meeting in July, and all matters could have waited until then. But the special session is being viewed by some in the party as a “comeuppance” for Steele and an implied criticism of his performance and behavior in his first 100 days in office.

 

Exercising a rarely used party rule that allows any 16 RNC members from 16 different states to demand a special meeting, conservatives in the party forced Steele’s hand, and now the special meeting will be tacked onto the end of a previously scheduled meeting of state party chairmen that will convene next week at National Harbor outside Washington.

 

A further comeuppance — a vote of “no confidence” in Steele — is not being contemplated, I am informed, because Steele’s opponents in the RNC have already won a major victory by forcing him to accept greater controls on how he spends party funds.

[lostfan]

Steele has said a lot of silly things lately but here, he is right. What's the point of this? What's it going to accomplish? Republicans have actually made the idea of socialism more popular somehow which I think is hilarious.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Steele has said a lot of silly things lately but here, he is right. What's the point of this? What's it going to accomplish? Republicans have actually made the idea of socialism more popular somehow which I think is hilarious.

It's only a matter of time until this ad gets rolled out:

"In a time of war... in a time of economic crisis... American's are loosing jobs. What do the republicans have to offer? Nothing but name calling. No answers. No proposals. A budget with no numbers. Just name calling"

[lostfan]

"Socialist" is a pretty ineffective pejorative anymore, also. That worked fine to label someone that when everyone was scared of the reds.

[southsider2k5]

They learned this from the Democrats who spent an entire eight years labeling every Republician as a Bush clone, and now are calling them all Rush clones. I didn't see any protests then...

[lostfan]

Not really comparable unless the DNC came out with a resolution labeling the RNC as the Republican Fascist Party. As a political strategy, it was comparable up until then.

[bmags]

no everything is =

 

 

kap: proper analogy: democrats labeling the Republicans the "Party of No"

 

athomeboy: one would hope the Republicans would proof read your ad.

Edited May 13, 2009 by bmags

[kapkomet]

no everything is =

 

 

kap: proper analogy: democrats labeling the Republicans the "Party of No"

 

athomeboy: one would hope the Republicans would proof read your ad.

Yea, I agree with your premise here. I mean, everyone pretty much knows that a party built on the "redistribution of wealth" is socialistic in nature, but to surround themselves in jingoistic vocabulary isn't going to win them elections. I do, however, think that the Republicans need to do a 180 on Obama's views, because frankly, in the long term, that will win them elections. Maybe not right away, but over time, it certainly will... because you all can label Obama a "centrist" all you want, but there's no way in hell.

 

[DukeNukeEm]

You really have to stop using that word "Socialistic", kap.

 

This will be a hit with extreme far-right base, but of course the more those guys embrace anything the more nobody else wants a part of it. Red Scare didn't work in November and it wont work now.

[Jenksismyhero]

I want to know why the Republicans can't be "classy" and disagree with Obama on his policies without bringing the debate down to a 3 year old level. I'm ready for the GOP to just start calling Obama a stupid nose picker. That makes about as much sense as this (and i'm someone who DOES believe Obama is moving this country in a socialist direction - way too much government involvement in the private sector).

 

If I were leading the Republican party I'd be hitting the American people with future projections of what Obama and the Dem leadership have signed into law and what they eventually plan to sign into law. There's nothing they can do right now to combat Obama...everyone in the country is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Until we're at a point where the GOP can show X policy was a failure, and harmful to the country, they're not going to get anywhere with name calling.

 

And anyone else tired of the "liberals" basically mocking the GOP for this (among everything else they do), all while a mere 5 years ago the Dems were doing the exact same thing? Yeah, so there wasn't an official meeting/resolution/memo regarding party directives, but please, like the Dem leadership didn't come up with their "the GOP are stupid hick gay hating cowboys" ad campaigns? Or, instead of talking about issues, lets talk about how Bush can't finish a sentence without mispeaking. Or, instead of talking about how we'd fix the country's problems, we'll just point and say "look how much they screwed up" (IMO, the main reason they lost in 2004 and why they won in 2008). The GOP is a party completely out of favor with the majority of Americans, so they're resorting to every tactic in the book. I'm pretty sure EVERY party in the same position has done the same thing. So get over it.

[Texsox]

They learned this from the Democrats who spent an entire eight years labeling every Republician as a Bush clone, and now are calling them all Rush clones. I didn't see any protests then...

 

And you won't. We've accepted labels regardless of accuracy. Liberal media, known lier, activist judges, etc. Sure does beat actually thinking

[Texsox]

I love the whole redistribution of wealth concept. Do we really want to live in a country where the budget is based on the poorest taxpayers and what they can afford? Do we really want to live in a society that allows people to starve? Stop financial aid for education? You earn more, you pay more in taxes, you live better. When we stop public health programs that target low income people, TB rebounds and guess what, the wealthy catch it also.

 

Nice phrase, but meaningless when analyzed.

[StrangeSox]

Get out of here with your complexities and nuances. I want jingoism!

[Balta1701]

"We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things."

[lostfan]

I love the whole redistribution of wealth concept. Do we really want to live in a country where the budget is based on the poorest taxpayers and what they can afford? Do we really want to live in a society that allows people to starve? Stop financial aid for education? You earn more, you pay more in taxes, you live better. When we stop public health programs that target low income people, TB rebounds and guess what, the wealthy catch it also.

 

Nice phrase, but meaningless when analyzed.

If we want to oversimplify the concept of progressive taxation like that, we might as well go all-out and say Adam Smith (the guy who basically founded modern economics and the idea of free markets) is a socialist because he supported it too.

 

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion." -Smith

Edited May 13, 2009 by lostfan

[lostfan]

And you won't. We've accepted labels regardless of accuracy. Liberal media, known lier, activist judges, etc. Sure does beat actually thinking

Last part didn't really need to be in green, since it's mostly true and it's deliberate.

[Jenksismyhero]

I love the whole redistribution of wealth concept. Do we really want to live in a country where the budget is based on the poorest taxpayers and what they can afford? Do we really want to live in a society that allows people to starve? Stop financial aid for education? You earn more, you pay more in taxes, you live better. When we stop public health programs that target low income people, TB rebounds and guess what, the wealthy catch it also.

 

Nice phrase, but meaningless when analyzed.

 

Well, I think when you start designing a system penalizing someone for having money, all while not holding any expectations to low income people that receive that money, you're effectively just taking a chunk of money from person A and giving it to person B. Thus I think the phrase is entirely accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lostfan]

Well, I think when you start designing a system penalizing someone for having money, all while not holding any expectations to low income people that receive that money, you're effectively just taking a chunk of money from person A and giving it to person B. Thus I think the phrase is entirely accurate.

My problem with that is because of this label (which may be technically accurate but is such a reckless oversimplification) I have friends who honestly think that Democrats raise taxes specifically to take money from their paycheck and give it to some woman on welfare. Also they seem to assume that everyone who is on welfare actually wants to be and is doing nothing about it. In reality this is a tiny fraction of what the federal government does, and it's just a massive red herring that prevents actual discussion from taking place.

Edited May 13, 2009 by lostfan

[Chet Lemon]

Many Republicans already use this term already, so why call a special session? Many Republicans refer to the Democratic Party as the 'Democrat Party' and many Republicans called their political opponents socialists ad infinitum last fall.

[Jenksismyhero]

My problem with that is because of this label (which may be technically accurate but is such a reckless oversimplification) I have friends who honestly think that Democrats raise taxes specifically to take money from their paycheck and give it to some woman on welfare. Also they seem to assume that everyone who is on welfare actually wants to be and is doing nothing about it. In reality this is a tiny fraction of what the federal government does, and it's just a massive red herring that prevents actual discussion from taking place.

 

Lol, see I think that's true - Democrats want to provide low income people with things. And the only way they can pay for those things is to raise taxes on people who have money. And yes, I'm sure the majority of people on welfare don't want to be on welfare, but that doesn't mean they run out and work like crazy to get out of the program. I've seen the public housing situation here in Chicago, and I firmly believe that if you get a free handout, you lose all incentive to become financially independent. The welfare system is no longer an investment in people, but a life-long cost. Which is why we need to raise taxes, because we can't afford to pay for it anymore.

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Lol, see I think that's true - Democrats want to provide low income people with things. And the only way they can pay for those things is to raise taxes on people who have money. And yes, I'm sure the majority of people on welfare don't want to be on welfare, but that doesn't mean they run out and work like crazy to get out of the program. I've seen the public housing situation here in Chicago, and I firmly believe that if you get a free handout, you lose all incentive to become financially independent. The welfare system is no longer an investment in people, but a life-long cost. Which is why we need to raise taxes, because we can't afford to pay for it anymore.

There's another way of looking at things though...not everyone who is stuck in relying on government assistance is doing so because they have no incentive to become financially independent. A lot of us would love to be in a better situation, but simply haven't had things work out correctly just yet, due to either the economy or just luck in the world, whatever.

 

The question is...what happens to people who hit the bottom or come close to it? If people lose their jobs and there is no backstop, then people are going to be in much worse shape. Things like your medical state, that goes dramatically downhill if you can't afford basic medical care...you wind up in this sh*tstorm of trying to figure out whether to pay the rent or the medical bills, you pay the rent, and you get sicker and sicker because you can't afford to go see a doctor, and there winds up being no way out because you can't save up anything.

 

People don't like being in poverty. It isn't fun. A few people who don't mind it doesn't mean that we should condemn everyone else who has trouble at some random point during their life to never having a chance to recover.

[BigSqwert]

Many Republicans refer to the Democratic Party as the 'Democrat Party'

Heck. Even we even have a DemocRAT thread in here.

[Texsox]

Well, I think when you start designing a system penalizing someone for having money, all while not holding any expectations to low income people that receive that money, you're effectively just taking a chunk of money from person A and giving it to person B. Thus I think the phrase is entirely accurate.

 

The penalty they have is living in a society with world class roads, defense, health systems, education, and much more.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Dems rise to power from 2006 to 2008 worked primarily for three reasons:

 

1. The anti-Bush push (as noted here), and just the presence of Bush and his policies

2. Dean and the DNC's 50 state effort

3. The emergence of an unusual good Prez field, led by a charismatic guy named Barack

 

Now, the GOP is on its way downhill in a hurry. So let's look at those three items above. Can the GOP do similar things?

 

1. The anti-Obama push will only succeed if Obama does pretty badly, and the economy stays in the s***ter for too long. If the economy has improved by 2011 in a noticeable way, and Obama's policies haven't sunk the country, then its a tough road for the GOP to win the Presidency OR significant moves in Congress in 2010 or 2012.

 

2. The GOP's general push has been to narrow the party, which of course as we all agree is ridiculous. This is the opposite of the 50 state strategy - its the southern state strategy, and will likely fail.

 

3. The GOP needs to find some charismatic young leadership who isn't psychotic (like Steele) and doesn't make a complete buffoon of themselves in their early appearances (Palin, Jindal). Not sure who that is.

 

I'd suggest the GOP can probably get a nice little rubber band bounce in 2010, by focusing on the insane levels of spending by the government. Not enough to regain any control, but enough to stop the bleeding.

 

But the next step from there depends on how the country looks in 2010 and 2011. If Obama is doing well and the economy is OK, I think you need to pretty much focus on Congress - focus on fiscal restraint, and the idea of not allowing the Dems to control EVERYTHING.

 

Last bit. As completely untrue as it is, the public perception is still that the Republicans are some how better at national security. Any major events that cause problems in that area for the US, especially if on US soil, will help the GOP.

[Balta1701]

I'd suggest the GOP can probably get a nice little rubber band bounce in 2010, by focusing on the insane levels of spending by the government. Not enough to regain any control, but enough to stop the bleeding.

The unusual thing about 2010 though is that despite the fact that the Dems have solid majorities...the Republicans are going to be on defense where it counts...the Senate...because the 2010 group is the same group that was elected in 2004...the last real "Bush selling hard on hating the gay and bombing the brown" election.

 

The Repubs are likely to gain some seats in the House just because the Dems will be playing defense everywhere and the Dems took virtually every contested district last time (Although the continuing demographic changes could muddy that a bit since they're all working against the GOP), but the Repubs are very likely to lose some Senate seats from their total in 2010. In 2012, the Dems have to defend the seats they won in 2006...which was the first anti-Iraq-war election...so they're going to need some help to avoid significant losses. They're going to need a strong campaign peformance out of the executive branch that year.