GOP seeks to Nationalize 06 House Elections

So the Dems are looking like we might take back the house, with a strong set of candidates who seem to appeal to the constituents they seek to represent.

I see now that the GOP's new strategy is to try to use speaker Pelosi as sort of an Osama in order to try to nationalize the house races so people will vote their fears and prejudices instead of their interests.

  Looking at the news today I can see they are all on message, trying to stir up the more conservative districts in the nation by trying to make them think that if they vote for a democrat that those crazy Californians are going to be setting the agenda:

First we have Newt:

"COLUMBIA, S.C. - Ex-U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that the thought of California Rep. Nancy Pelosi becoming the next leader of the House and being third in line to the presidency is frightening.

"The prospect of her bringing San Francisco values and a whole attitude on foreign policy that is, I think, an attitude of weakness and appeasement and surrender, I think, would be a disaster for the country," the outspoken Republican said."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

Then we have Hannity:

"On the August 29 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Fox News host Sean Hannity sought to encourage Republican voters and candidates to ensure a Republican victory in the November midterm elections by proclaiming that "there are things in life worth fighting and dying for, and one of 'em is making sure" that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) "doesn't become the speaker."

http://mediamatters.org/...

These guys are pretty transparent don't you think? They have made a mess of the country and they are trying to convince the voters based on fear? I don't see how anybody could eff it up more than they have!

•  This is looking more and more like 1994

  when the Dems' response to the oncoming tsunami was "look at Gingrich!  He's scary!  Scaaary!  He's put a contract out on America, heh heh."

  And we know how that one turned out.

  by Superribbie on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 02:33:23 PM PDT

  •  And what the hell is wrong

    With San Francisco values?  Contrary to Newt's assertion that they would be a disaster for the country, it's highly likely that the spread of our values would greatly benefit the country.  

    by vigilant meerkat on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 02:55:19 PM PDT

    •  Amen

      Why, why, why didn't anyone say anything remotely similar to this sentiment, but with regard to Massachusetts, when the f*cking idiot president was trashing an entire state and all its people during the '04 campaign? Can you imagine the outcry if John Kerry had said throughout New England, "Who needs George Bush trying to push his Texas values on us?"

      by jamfan on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:00:22 PM PDT

      •  Kerry should have stood up...

        ....and made Bush apologize to all the people of that commonwealth. And if Bush didn't, he should have beaten it out of that fuck.

        by metal prophet on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:20:12 PM PDT

      •  Good Point!

        by Hollowdweller on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 05:48:28 PM PDT

    •  re

      SF values are fuck all better then Newt's relationship values that for sure.

      by cookiesandmilk on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:03:31 PM PDT

      •  There is no comparison

        And we also have adopted a universal health care plan, pursuant to which all those who are without access to insurance will be automatically covered and will receive quality medical care when they need it, not after they are so sick they have to be seen in the emergency room.  

        I would say that we know what real values are and we treasure them -- they are based on diversity, acceptance and inclusiveness.  Works really well for us.

        by vigilant meerkat on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:52:07 PM PDT

    •  It's a Dog Whistle:

      " San Francisco values " = The Dreaded Homosexual Agenda to Pollute our Precious Bodily Fluids

      by xynz on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 06:38:38 PM PDT

•  Let me hear you say it!

  There is a party in this country that thinks that people are people.

  And there is a different party in this country that has become the "nannynannybooboo-there are scary people over there-give that to me it's mine-I got here first" whinyass schoolyard bullies.

  If it was your kid, you'd tell him to grow up and get some manners.  Instead, it's your congress and your president and your state.  You know what?  It's time they grew up and got some manners.

  Because, you know what?  Until they ship the queers and the Jews and the blacks and the rest of the Democrats off to some death camp, we get to call them whinyass schoolyard bullies, and we get to tell them to grow up and get some manners.

  by ultrageek on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 02:33:27 PM PDT

•  Bring it on

  The more this election is nationalized the better it is for the Democrats. Who do you think hurts their party most, Pelosi or Mr. 36% - 39% approval rating?

  by Muwarr90 on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 02:34:42 PM PDT

  •  You read my mind

    So it would seem.

    by metal prophet on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:22:26 PM PDT

    •  They're out of strategies.

      What sense does it make for Republicans nationalize the campaign if their individual candidates feel the only way they can succeed is by distancing themselves from Bush's policies?

      That's what they've been doing the last couple of months:  "I'm a loyal servant to my constituents, who just happens, heh heh, to be in the same party as that guy with the jangling spurs...whatshisname again?"

      That didn't cut the mustard, evidently, so they're back to the national level.  But that means that they have to acknowledge Mr. Miserable Failure and his assortment of clusterfucks.

      So if they want to go national...by all means, bring it on.

      by Dale on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:42:42 PM PDT

  •  Exactly Right

    Lets nationalize the elections. Go ahead and talk about Pelosi, we're going to talk about Tom Delay, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Guess who is gonna win that one.

    Bring it the fuck on.

    by JohnnyAppleseed on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:45:51 PM PDT

•  Same GOP strategy here in CO

  We've got the State Republican Party now telling their disenfrachised voters that they should vote for fellow Repubs because if they don't, the Dems will control both the State House and the Governor's mansion.

  A fairly last resort type effort, don't ya think? If that's the only reason they can offer voters in their own party to vote for their candidates, it says quite alot about just what kind of candidates Repubs are fielding statewide and nationally.

  by Pager on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 02:34:57 PM PDT

  •  They Have a Point

    they could point to the federal government and say, "see how badly things get fucked up when one party controls all five branches of government?"

    Although to suggest that the words Republican and Control should ever belong in the same sentence is a bit of a stretch.

    Maybe "see how badly things get fucked up when one party exploits all five branches of government?"

    by Deep Dark on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:33:32 PM PDT

•  Can we, please?

  I think we SHOULD nationalize the elections.  Let's get every cowardly Republican who has rubberstamped the (VERY UNPOPULAR) George W. Bush's reign of idiocy to be held aoccuntable, and booted out of office.

  Nationalize the election?  With Bush, his administration, and the GOP in general so WILDLY UNPOPULAR?  By all means.

  P.S. to Newt:  you're kidding yourself if you think that people in the U.S. think of you as anything but a pathetic neocon weenie who got his clock cleaned repeatedly by Bill Clinton.  No comeback for you!

   

  by chumley on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 02:39:53 PM PDT

  •  Another P.S. to Newt

    You said, re Nancy Pelosi:

    The prospect of her bringing San Francisco values

    ...Stop right there, dickwad!  Let's look at the record:

    Nancy Pelosi:  Married to her college sweetheart, never divorced.

    Newt Gingrich:  Divorced TWICE.  Left one wife as she recovered from cancer.  Admitted to a six-year extramarital affair.   Drummed out of House leadership because of an ethics violation.

    ...Shall we go on, you hypocritical little turd?

    by chumley on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 02:48:04 PM PDT

    •  unfortunately

      Newt is nowhere on the ballot. We have to go to election with the opponents we have.

      by Danjuma on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 04:20:33 PM PDT

•  When will Sean Hannity start fighting and dying.,

  for anything. The army in Iraq needs recruits. Step up to the plate, moron.

  by irate on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 02:40:30 PM PDT

  •  My thought exactly.

    I'm not sure who he thinks will be doing the killing, but surely, if he's volunteering to do the 'fighting and dying' somebody ought to step up to the plate.
    Perhaps he's thinking of manning barricades in Dem districts in November?

    by AWhitneyBrown on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 02:50:19 PM PDT

    •  Nah, Hannity's a cowardly chickenhawk

      He meant somebody else should do the dying.   He's too busy blowdrying his hair.

      However, I am happy to be proven wrong.  Mr. Hannity, feel free to die anytime you want to.  Then I will apologize.  

      Then I will open a bottle of champagne.

      by chumley on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:11:18 PM PDT

  •  Over Sean Hannity's dead body

    could become Nancy Pelosi's favorite path.

    by redstater on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:45:43 PM PDT

•  3rd in line

  I posted about the "pelosi tactic" a couple of weeks ago.

  The form I am hearing and seeing this take more and more lately is: "Speaker of the House is 3rd in line for the Presidency. Can you imagine President Nancy Pelosi!"

  The most effect comeback - Three words:

  President Dennis Hastert

  Which is not quite as effective as:

  President Tom Delay

  by DWSUWF on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 02:50:37 PM PDT

•  and you expected what? we know they

  are seeking to stir up the crazies. i had a right winger try and tell me today bush is good on security. i am marshalling my comment in my mind for a response. respond, respond, respond, refute, refute, refute. wring hand and express dire concerns, hell no!

  by stodghie on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 02:51:34 PM PDT

•  Can we call it mysogyny?

  Brother of racism? And paralleling the 'common wisdom' that Hillary is the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination? Brought to you by the purveyors of {{{{{FEAR}}}}}.

  by Halcyon on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 02:55:55 PM PDT

•  The Republicans Want To Nationalize The Election

  except in those places where they are running as far away from the President as they can.   They have lost the middle of the country and are in fact at risk in some places of losing their "responsible" conservative base so all they have left is to try to whip up their crazies.

  by AlanR on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 02:57:02 PM PDT

•  They are fighting yesterday's battle

  Bush was at 67% approval rating or higher when this crap would work, then they would need a useful media idiot and a weak Democrat afraid of a popular President to bite. And any weak Democratic party office holder will do, as long as it could be verified that they were who they said they were enough for an editor to run with it, to make this a story.

  It's classic Karl Rove, but they are trying it out in a world where Bush hovers at a 36% approval rating, and in a post Ned Lamont primary victory Democratic party. Classic Karl Rove has a flat under these conditions becuase even though they have the useful idiots in the media, the conditions in the Democratic party and in the country are not the same.

  In the GOP's good old days of a popular Republican President and nervous nellies and Fox News Democrats being on tap, they could target Nancy Pelosi (or Charley Rangel) with a 'this will be bad for Democrats in x' line, and then they'd wait until somebody in the media (a 'concern troll' pundit like Richard Cohen or Joe Klein) would go and write a column suggesting Pelosi 'could be a problem for the Democrats post '06 ' based soley on the GOP spin, which one of them always seems to do immediately after such a GOP meme is floated, and then they wait for a weak Democrat. Somebody quick to take a whack at his or her own party for their own short-term gain, to serve as an anonymous source to back the meme up and make it a story with legs.

  The problem is, the institutional Democratic party in DC is suddenly aghast that being seen as being a bad Democrat can have consequences. The media looks out of touch with its Bush pandering and boot licking in a post Katrina America. Bush is undeniably unpopular and an anchor around the GOP's neck. Worst still for Rove, the GOP Congress and White House have failed on such a grand scale that 'BOO! Liberal! Boooooooo!!!!' doesn't resonate.

  They are fighting yesterday's battle with yesterday's weapon. Let them nationalize the election. It will destroy them.

  If we had an honest news media, we would be greeted daily with stories about how the GOP is in disarray and the Republican party is having a civil war over Iraq, the President, and the direction of the party.

  by LeftHandedMan on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 02:58:19 PM PDT

  •  As it is...

    ....such stories about a GOP civil war do pop up now and then, but not nearly as often as it would if it were with the Democrats.

    by metal prophet on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:29:57 PM PDT

  •  Concern troll

    Is a most useful definition.  It helps to clarify a great many things about a conversation if you can Spot the Concern Troll.

    by slippytoad on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 04:03:23 PM PDT

•  This would be...

  Otherwise fantastic news.  Except appears like the Dem strategy is to just run away and hide hope that the American public will vote for them because they are a more palatable solution.  Other than Reed and Reid – who else has made a statement on the Rummy Bullshit?  Crickets...

  by RichM on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:00:23 PM PDT

•  That's rich

  Newt Gingrich is really one to talk about polarizing national figures. Look, Democrats couldn't use Gingrich to scare anyone in 1994, he won't be able to use Pelosi to scare anyone in '06. I invite them to nationalize the elections- let's make it about Mr. 36% Popularity Rating, George W. Bush.

  by metal prophet on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:06:43 PM PDT

•  I want a slogan

  It would appear that the rethugs have been effective in their pasting Dems as soft on terror.  Where they came up with that and what they have to back that up with is pure Rovian I'm sure.  but the American public in polls believes them as they have repeated it so many times.  We need to counter this as most of the Dems I know have done service and are not chicken hawks.  Help me here!

  by libbie on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:19:52 PM PDT

  •  Big Spending, Big Deficit, Big Gov't Republicans

    of course it depends on who you are trying to convince. This works with moderates, libertarians and fiscal conservatives. Just like it worked with them against Dems before Clinton.

    It has the benefit of being documented as factually true.

    by DWSUWF on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:28:03 PM PDT

    •  Debt, Bribery, Torture, Social Security

      Corruption Bribery

      Wiretapping Wiretapping and Torture and secret prisons

      Iraq Iraq has nothing to do with terror

      Tax cuts Goodbye Social Security

      Islamofacism  Open borders

      Debt  Selling our children into slavery to China

      by bernardpliers on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:49:55 PM PDT

  •  How about -

    We'll start with the truth

    Always thought that the way to answer the idiots when they ask - Well what is your plan for Iraq? And the answer to that one is we will start by telling the American people the truth. More importantly, we will not allow the American people to be lied into another unnecessary war.  

    Or we can always go with Had Enough?

    by JohnnyAppleseed on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:55:48 PM PDT

•  I think Newt may have a point.

  After all - Pelosi did say recently, about Iraq:

  It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003. We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it...

  Sound like 'an attitude of weakness and appeasement and surrender' to me. So, naturally...

  Oops! Sorry. When I said 'Pelosi' - I meant 'Newt Gingrich, during a question-and-answer session at the University of South Dakota this past April.'

  I always get them mixed up.

  by adios on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:21:58 PM PDT

•  The American people are a hell of a lot

  more scared of Bush and his GOP zombies than they are of Pelosi.

  And that is the big problem for the Repugs.

  by Naturegal on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 03:26:01 PM PDT

•  because Hastert isn't scary enough!

  Riiiight.

  by anastasia p on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 04:13:28 PM PDT