It seems the Republican marching orders have gone out: Say "Howard Dean" and "pessimism" or "pessimist" as many times as possible in the same sentence.
Of course, there really is no vast right-wing conspiracy to coordinate media messages, so we won't be seeing that focus-group-tested term repeated over and over by supposedly independent journalists and pundits. No, that would never happen.
When Up is Down, and Hope is Pessimism
Atrios senses a new meme emerging from the right-wing punditocracy, based on this morning's New York Times article on how the Bush campaign plans to distort what it is we're fighting for:
The first appearance of a talking head referring to Dean as "pessimistic" or discussing his "pessimism" was Laura Ingraham on the Friday Dec. 19 Hardball, followed by Mary Matalin on the Sunday Dec. 21 Meet the Press.
Look for it to be coming out of every Republican's mouth soon, and then it will increasingly creep into "objective" reporting. The process will go something like this. First, they'll quote Bush campaign sources describing Dean as "pessimistic." Next, they'll move onto Democratic campaign sources, often anonymous, describing Dean as "pessimistic." Next, they'll stop bothering getting the quote and just write things like, "Some have criticized Dean for his unappealing pessimism..." And, then, finally, process complete, campaign analysis pieces in print and the "objective journalists" on the roundtable shows, will just write/say things like "Dean's pessimistic rhetoric..." By the end no discussion or news story about Dean will see the light of day without the word "pessimism."
So a basic primer is due: there is nothing more optimistic than saying that the American people have the right and the responsibility of self-government. There is nothing more optimistic than running a campaign that is designed to bring people back into the political process. And there is nothing more optimistic than asserting that the American people, armed with the founding principles of our Republic, will prevail over the special interests that write our laws in the current administration.
And there's absolutely nothing more optimistic than believing that once the American people take control of their own government, we will be able to bring health care to everyone, jobs based on a new energy economy to those who are out of work, and effective environmental protection for our children and grandchildren.
This is the most optimistic presidential campaign in a generation. For Karl Rove and George Bush to say that believing in people is pessimistic-- well, that's a bit like calling the gutting of pollution controls Clear Skies, isn't it?
Article comments
1 - Al Barger
Actually, Brian us right wing extremists are currently getting our marching orders from a Democrat:
"In this campaign, I'm putting forward a strong, positive vision for America. And that stands in sharp contrast to what Howard Dean offers today. He seems to believe if you are just against everything, that's enough. Against removing Saddam Hussein. Against tax cuts. Against knocking down walls of protection around the world so we can sell more products that are made in America, by Americans. Dr. Dean has become Dr. No." - Sen. Joe Lieberman
2 - Tom Johnson
Of course, there really is no vast right-wing conspiracy to coordinate media messages, so we won't be seeing that focus-group-tested term repeated over and over by supposedly independent journalists and pundits. No, that would never happen.
"Conspiracy"? I think it's called a "tactic." You know, taking advantage of something that's already perceived about the guy?
Blogcritics: home of the dumbest of conspiracy theories.
3 - Jan Eggers
Now that is a bit pessimistic, Tom. You could see Blogcritics.org as not the home of the smartest of conspiracies. Seeing it this way could do a lot for our self esteem. Or, to be more politically correct and open to diversity, how about home of conspiracies, dumb and smart (your statement doesn't deny that great conspiracy theories also abound here).
For the best in conspiracy theory, see my blog on Chicken, Bubbles and Nanotechnology.
4 - Al Barger
Personally, I don't know what to think about any issue until I hear from Rush Limbaugh.
5 - John Mudd
Dean will likely lose because he will be seen as the attacker and his constituency is shrinking as the economy gets better and more jbs created.
If I were running Bush's campaign, and I am clearly not, I would want to run against Dean, or anyone else I could be sweet and witty with and is far-left.
The people I would not want to run against are Kerry or Edwards, as they make the best mainstream competitors.
Clark also makes a good mainstream competitor, possibly the best, but he doesn't appear to have a chance at getting the nomination (but neither did Clinton). I know I would hate to have Clark criticizing me in a debate on Iraq or the war on terror close to the election if I were Bush, and if the economy is still a bit torn, it would make a close race.
Clark could still pull a Clinton, forcing the Administration to waste its time knocking Dean down, which is what Bush, Sr. did, leading in part to his loss in 1992.
If you want to win an election, be the underdog until election day, then surprise them with a victory. It's the best way to do it. Band your people together and your funds, but don't ever let the enemy see you coming until it's too late.
For the victorious campaigns I've worked on, that's always been a successful method.
6 - Brian Flemming
What positions held by Dean qualify him as "far-left"?
7 - John Mudd
In comparison to some of his rivals he is far-left. One example: He opposes any tax cut. A middle-of-the-road Democrat (i.e., Bill Clinton, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry) would at least support targeted tax cuts. Mainstream America does like tax cuts, as long as they don't blow a hole in the deficit or take away from other government services they receive (circa 1996 election).
8 - blake
=] howard dean is cool?
9 - blake
with his yeeaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!
10 - Eric Olsen
I think Howard Dean is the opposite direction from which the Democrats should head, but on the other hand, who cares?