In a classic example of what is either near-terminal naivete or a clueless attempt to stir up outrage and make news of a non-story, Politico revealed yesterday that they had documents and comments from the Republican National Committee that suggested that they planned to use "fear tactics" in their fundraising efforts during this year's campaign. Yahoo News and other outlets quickly jumped on the bandwagon, amping up the outrage over this blatant manipulation and disrespect for potential contributors.
While stifling a series of yawns I read the articles, and I'm left wondering what desert island the authors lived on for the last 50 years. The use of irrational fear to get money or votes is not just an old tactic, it's been the standard tactic of fundraisers and campaign tacticians on both sides of the political divide since politics was invented. I know, I used to have a job where I would call old people up and tell them that if they didn't give us money the Democrats were going to take away their guns and their pensions and make them learn Spanish.
These tactics literally go back forever. The Romans convinced citizens that the Carthaginians wanted to roast their babies alive in religious rituals to stir up popular support for the Punic Wars. Edward III convinced everyone that the Jews were responsible for the plague so that he could seize their assets to pay to get the crown jewels out of hock. The Sons of Liberty convinced Americans that the Quartering Act would put British soldiers in their daughters bedrooms. Lyndon Johnson won election to the presidency with a commercial which implied that Barry Goldwater wanted to nuke our children.
Anyone who has a job as a reporter or a political columnist and has only just discovered this or thinks that anything in these RNC documents is shocking, is too ignorant and clueless to be taken seriously. It would be more shocking if a political organization like the RNC was going to decide not to use fear to motivate contributors. Fear works. Fear motivates. This is because sometimes that fear is justified and it's easy to supply evidence that people of an opposing political philosophy are up to no good.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jose Awesome
Is it safe to assume that this stuff has been going on all along? Yep. Do Dems use similar tactics? Most likely. Do we have physical proof that THE ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY has used crude caricatures and appeals to fear for fund raising purposes? Nope.
And it's because of this last one that your whole argument falls apart. You can talk and talk as much as you want, but no matter how much you try to muddy the waters, the fact remains that there now exists a document which exposes the cynicism of the GOP. Find proof that the Democratic party is doing the same things, and you've got yourself a point. Otherwise you're just stinking up the room with your brainfarts.
2 - Clavos
Jose,
If you don't think the Democraps are doing exactly the same things the Repukes are, you're even more naive than Dave says peeps like you are.
Despiertate, 'mano...
3 - Dave Nalle
Do we have physical proof that THE ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY has used crude caricatures and appeals to fear for fund raising purposes? Nope.
I have proof every day, because I'm on the email lists of both MoveOn.org and change.org. Change.org engages in more fearmongering, but moveon.org associates their fear and hatemongering with fundraising more.
Dave
4 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
I would agree with you that the Republicans and the Democrats are two sides of the same coin, except...
...except that (as I've shown you before) since at least the Nixon administration, more Republican legislators have been indicted for criminal acts than the Democrats in every administration since then, even when the Republicans were in the minority...and this isn't even counting the plethora of Republican sex scandals (which you yourself have addressed) that are beyond anything you can find among the Democrats. It's as if the Republicans stand strictly by the worldview that government is the most corrupt organization in all creation...and then they do their utmost to make it so.
See, that's the funny thing, Dave - either Republicans ARE generally more corrupt than the Democrats...or the Democrats as a whole are generally more adept than the Republicans at hiding their sins. It's one or the other, Dave, and neither are very palatable.
So the burden of PROOF is on you to show that the Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans - which would be done by providing proof that just as many Democratic politicians have been indicted for felonies as have Republicans.
One last thing - the reason conservatives assume that the Democrats are as corrupt as their fellow conservatives are lay in something I learned a long time ago: a man generally assumes that someone else would do what he himself would do in the same situation.
THAT, Dave, is why the Republicans howled to the rooftops about Democratic voter fraud (for which there is absolutely NO evidence) while they themselves DID wrongfully disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters.
5 - Clavos
Didn't you read the article, Glenn?
It doesn't address corruption at all; it's about using fear tactics for fund raising, and Dave never once uses the word "corruption" in it.
Sheesh!
6 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, Clavos has a point, but to further disagree, Republicans are in fact NOT more corrupt. They are differently corrupt.
Republicans are more personally corrupt in their behavior and in their relationships, while Democrats are more politically corrupt in the sense of letting groups and money influence their political decisions.
As for the rest of your assertions about corruption and where it does and doesn't exist, it's all bungscrapings, because you have no evidence to support it.
Plus, as Clavos points out, this article has ZERO to do with the issue of corruption.
Dave
7 - Silas Kain
Politics is like making sausage and quite often the process is even uglier than the results.
And you would think they'd give us kielbasa instead of cocktail franks in Washington. But, then again, there's more potatoes than meat amongst the male members of Congress.
Instead of Federal financing, Dave, what about changing the dynamics of the Presidential elections?
I think we should have one national Primary Day for the parties. Let each party select their repsective candidates on the same day. Then, come November, we have a general election. He/She who gets 50% +1 wins. Otherwise a run-off. Basically, I would model it after the Argentine Constitution:
CHAPTER II - Procedure and time of the election of President and Vice-President of the Nation
Section 94.- The President and Vice-President of the Nation shall be directly elected by the people, by second ballot, according to this Constitution. To this end, the national territory shall be a single constituency.
Section 95.- The election shall be held within the two months previous to the
expiration of the term of the President in office.
Section 96.- The second ballot, when appropriate, shall be held between the two
voting formulas of the most voted candidates, within thirty days of the previous election.
Section 97.- If in the first ballot the most voted formula obtains more than fortyfive per cent of the affirmative votes validly cast, its members shall be proclaimed President and Vice-President of the Nation.
Section 98.- If in the first ballot the most voted formula obtains at least forty per cent of the affirmative votes validly cast, and there is a difference of more than ten per cent regarding all the affirmative votes validly cast for the formula following in number of votes, its members shall be proclaimed President and Vice-President of the Nation.
Election seasons would be shrunk to 8 weeks in the Fall of every fourth year - September through November. This way farmers in Iowa, Yankees in NH and Rebels in SC don't get to call the shots for the rest of us.
8 - Matthew T. Sussman
"This way farmers in Iowa, Yankees in NH and Rebels in SC don't get to call the shots for the rest of us."
Then what's the point of living there?
9 - Baritone
The material in question also included what amounted to cynical characterizations of their own donors casting small donors as "reactionaries" and large donors as egotists, opportunists and/or those expecting recompense from the party should they win.
While Dave is certainly correct that such things have long been the meat of any political effort, the cynicism and audacity of the Republicans to codify all this in print - spelling it out in garish detail - is telling of both their stupidity and arrogance. Hearing of this may well damage the tender sensibilities of their fearful constituents.
As I see it, Reps have been licking their chops for several months now in the expectation of retaking both houses of congress come November. That certainly could happen. Most certainly, they will gain ground on the Dems as is typical for mid-term elections.
However, it is just that stupidity and arrogance which may well render their efforts far less effective and their gains disappointingly small.
"... a man generally assumes that someone else would do what he himself would do in the same situation."
Quoted for truth as some here love to say. And that is the root of Republican stupidity and arrogance.
B
10 - Dave Nalle
The material in question also included what amounted to cynical characterizations of their own donors casting small donors as "reactionaries" and large donors as egotists, opportunists and/or those expecting recompense from the party should they win.
So, your objection would be to the naked honesty, then?
The great irony is that the people who might be offended by these characterizations will probably never hear about them because they take in only a very limited amount of highly filtered information which is unlikely to include anything on Politico or Yahoo.
Dave
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Republicans are more personally corrupt in their behavior and in their relationships, while Democrats are more politically corrupt in the sense of letting groups and money influence their political decisions.
Prove it. That's a blanket statement that you cannot prove, whereas I CAN prove by the numbers that Republican congressmen have been indicted for felonies more often than Democrats in EVERY administration since Nixon took office. Perhaps you missed it the time I posted it before...but with a couple hours of effort, I can post you the numbers once more.
You know why you made the accusation about Democratic congressmen and money and influence? Because that's what you WANT to believe...but I strongly suspect that - just like with your accusations about ACORN - your accusations are all you have.
In fact, considering the record number of filibusters by the Republicans, considering their voting in lockstep against almost all bills put in front of them - even against bills they co-authored or co-sponsored, and even against positions they strongly supported in the past...I think I could honestly argue that it is the Republicans and NOT the Democrats who are more corrupted by money and influence.
Why? When a group of legislators vote in lockstep again and again and again and again even against bills they've strongly supported in the past...then something stinks in the state of Denmark. The members of one group are afraid - literally afraid - to go against their own leadership, whereas the members of the other group aren't afraid at all to stand for what they believe in.
Wishing the other side was as corrupt as your own won't make it so, Dave.
12 - zingzing
always fun to see the other side crawl under "did you expect anything else?"
come on, dave. whip it out. let's see some of your condemnations of the republican party.
please.
not that i don't think you're right in a lot of ways, but shit... this is pretty blatant shit coming right at you from your own party. they're telling you that you're a manipulated, ego-driven, fearful bit of shit that they can fuck all night.
if the dems do this, they're at least subtle(r) about it. don't just let them fuck you while telling all about how hard they're fucking you. it's pathetic.
13 - Ruvy
Let's see if I have this straight, Dave. You passed a kidney stone and underwent pain from it in Texas while yowling at Republican conventions there. Then you came back here, noticed that Politico had published a non-story about the use of fear to stimulate donations, which Yahoo! News jumped all over and blew into a farty balloon.
Now along comes history prof Dave Nalle with his pointy liddle needle to pop the farty balloon and we all get to smell the stink.
A non-commentary about a non-story, both of which stink from fart (or swamp) gas from the rotting swamps of Stinkemup, Texas, just down the road from Roaches in Nagadoches, along the Rio Pequeno.
Now we have this non-commentary on a non-story graced with the comments from fools who can't stay away from a party fight, no matter how much it makes them stink from fart gas.
It's enough to make me blow it all out of my rear end. You'll excuse me while nature calls....
14 - zingzing
ruvy, you just made the longest fart joke that should ever be allowed anywhere, even if it is dissipated on the net. i'm sure you meant it to be that way, but i DON'T KNOW WHY.
seriously. do you think dave (or you) would dismiss this story if it came from the dnc?
no. and don't even act like you would.
if you try, all we'll hear is a squeal from your tight, bullshit, fucked up assholes. ugly things. i've looked at them, you assholes, and i'm ready to tell you.
15 - Ruvy
Intestinal relief!!! Ahhhh!!! It feels sooo goood!
Oh, you were commenting, zing?
I don't know about Dave, but having survived the excessive fart gas of the politically correct cows of the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota for quite a number of years, I'm rather glad not to pay attention to most of this garbage.
As I said, this is a non-commentary about a non-story. You do have trouble reading, don't you?
As for staring at assholes (and sniffing them), if it turns your crank, go right ahead. But after relieving myself, I pulled up my pants and washed my hands. So, you'll just have to look (and sniff) elsewhere....
16 - roger nowosielski
You both deserve each other.
17 - zingzing
meh. if you don't want to admit to getting raped, go ahead. it just means it will happen again.
this isn't a non-story. it's truth shoved in your eyes and yet you still don't want to see it.
it's not a story that this goes on, for sure. but to have it so blatantly, and on powerpoint, thrust in your face... oh the humility, oh the shame.
please stop acting like this means nothing. it's like watching an old dog licking its own poop.
i don't have trouble reading, but i do have trouble figuring out why you feel you, as a syndicalist, agree that fucking over people is the way to go. trick them with fear and feed their ego? what appeals?
18 - zingzing
roger, you're right... but i think we both like it this way. i think ruvy's an idiot. so he does i, comma, somewhere. such is life. i'll win one day, i'm sure.
19 - Ruvy
i don't have trouble reading, but i do have trouble figuring out why you feel you, as a syndicalist, agree that fucking over people is the way to go. trick them with fear and feed their ego? what appeals?
I believe in syndicalism - but I am not so stupid that I cannot see what works as a motivator for people donating money to political causes that generally do not deserve them. You can bury your head in the sand, zing - or sniff at anuses - it matters little to me. But I'm used to staring ugly realities in the face. One of those ugly realities is that fear is a powerful motivator for getting people to do things. I generally do not waste my time whining about what should be - like you do. I spend my time on what is.
The only decent thing about this comment thread is that is hasn't been hijacked (yet) for yet another useless discussion of "health care reform" in the United States. I have other things that concern me.
20 - Dave Nalle
come on, dave. whip it out. let's see some of your condemnations of the republican party.
I'll give you the standard response on this, Zing. Go through my list of articles back to when Bush was in power and the Republicans controlled the Congress. You'll find plenty of criticism there.
not that i don't think you're right in a lot of ways, but shit... this is pretty blatant shit coming right at you from your own party. they're telling you that you're a manipulated, ego-driven, fearful bit of shit that they can fuck all night.
You seem to have missed the part of the article where I pointed out that I used to be on the other side of this, working in fundraising. And as I also pointed out in the article, the groups they are exploiting don't include the politically informed element of their constituency. Overwhelmingly they play on the fears of the elderly and the ignorant, neither of which class I fall into (yet).
Dave
21 - Dave Nalle
Prove it. That's a blanket statement that you cannot prove, whereas I CAN prove by the numbers that Republican congressmen have been indicted for felonies more often than Democrats in EVERY administration since Nixon took office. Perhaps you missed it the time I posted it before...but with a couple hours of effort, I can post you the numbers once more.
We've gone over this before. If you go below the federal level the balance of corruption tilts overwhelmingly to the Democrats. Illinois alone has had over 100 Democrat office holders indicted in the last decade. And if you compare south and north the difference becomes even more striking.
You know why you made the accusation about Democratic congressmen and money and influence? Because that's what you WANT to believe...but I strongly suspect that - just like with your accusations about ACORN - your accusations are all you have.
Because it's true. Look at Chris Dodd and his countrywide deal. Look at Charles Rangel. Look at William Jefferson. In the last 5 years the two major Republican scandals have been about sexual misconduct (Craig and Foley) while the Democrat scandals have been about money. That was my point. Republicans have problems in their personal lives. Democrats have problems with money. And it's not just about indictments. The many unindicted influence peddlers on the left are the real problem.
In fact, considering the record number of filibusters by the Republicans,
What filibusters? All we've had are threats of filibusters and discussions of filibusters. By my count there has been one actuall filibuster since Obama took office, but I may have missed a minor one.
considering their voting in lockstep against almost all bills put in front of them - even against bills they co-authored or co-sponsored, and even against positions they strongly supported in the past...I think I could honestly argue that it is the Republicans and NOT the Democrats who are more corrupted by money and influence.
They are listening to the people, Glenn. I don't have a problem with that. It's better than Obama looking for ways to impose health care against the will of the people.
Why? When a group of legislators vote in lockstep again and again and again and again even against bills they've strongly supported in the past...then something stinks in the state of Denmark. The members of one group are afraid - literally afraid - to go against their own leadership, whereas the members of the other group aren't afraid at all to stand for what they believe in.
No, Glenn. We've made it very clear we will vote them out of office if they cooperate. The leadership is too weak to control them. It's the grassroots which scare them, and should.
Wishing the other side was as corrupt as your own won't make it so, Dave.
And again, this article isn't about corruption.
Dave
22 - jeannie danna
Ruvy,
I've got a bridge for sale, I'm trying to raise money for America, want to buy it?
The only decent thing about this comment thread is that is hasn't been hijacked (yet) for yet another useless discussion of "health care reform" in the United States.
That's because I haven't read the article yet, and it sounds as though you haven't either.
23 - jeannie danna
Dave,
I will read it tonight, it looks like an interesting article. :)
24 - jeannie danna
Health Care Reform is the will of the people! I just couldn't resist, bye. :)
25 - Ruvy
Jeannie,
it sounds as though you haven't either.
I read a lot faster than you do (no dyslexia to slow me down) and I remember what I read a hell of a lot better than most people do. And I don't get anywhere near as upset as you do reading things.
But I do have a healthy streak of sarcastic nastiness always at the ready - kind of like a light sabre.
When you read this article, you'll see the truth of what I say about it. Like Dave, I've worked as a political fundraiser, though probably not at the level he has. So, I know that fear is used frequently by all sides of the political debate to motivate financial contributions and other kinds of support. Heck, Jeannie, read your own articles and comments. You use fear also. So do I.
So Dave's article is a non-commentary on what he pointed out as a non-story. Except as a vehicle for us to toss about nasty comments, it need not exist.