Republicans to Rebrand Democrats as "Democratic Socialist Party"

[iNow]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22445.html

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.”

 

 

 

An idea I thought was rather poignant, offered this evening by Colbert, is that the best way to get people to dislike Democrats and the Democratic party would be to instead just brand them as "Republicans." That's a poo-stinky you can't just clear up with Febreeze (it turns out that Republican support is down among EVERY major demographic group, largest among the college educated).

[Pangloss]

Thanks for bringing this up. The unfortunate thing about this is that the GOP is actually just getting out in front of what has been a popular public branding amongst the conservative talk radio crowd. CTR listeners are the same people who got so upset about the branding of President Bush by the far left, and now they're doing exactly the same thing to President Obama, and actually feel it's justified BECAUSE of what was done to Bush (in spite of the fact that they did the same thing to Clinton).

 

Around and around and around we go, where it stops nobody knows.

[Sisyphus]

So they've decided to rename their opposition? They can do that? Why not just call them the Puppy Killing Democratic Party? Or the Big Stupid Jerk Party? Or the Armies of Sauron?

[john5746]

Or the Big Stupid Jerk Party?

 

LOL

 

Southern White Evangelical American Republicans Party

 

SWEAR

 

They might even like it.

[Phi for All]

So, do the Dems spend a lot of time and effort denying it or do they turn around and embrace it, with their own spin to it? Since denying it, at best, merely nullifies the Rep efforts, I say embrace it and double your efforts at half the cost.

 

They should minimalize the social equality angle and emphasize what State ownership of some businesses can mean for us, since the taxpayers *are* the State. Use the Green Bay Packers as your example of what happens when the citizens share ownership. Use Amtrak as an example of the kind of profit and positive investment we can make by taking over failing businesses.

 

Above all, remind people that *we* are the government, the State, and that the State sells the businesses back when they can show a profit by doing so.

[GutZ]

...So I guess Obama is getting re-elected.

 

You've had, what, how many day of defeat and you come up with renaming Democrats as "Democratic Socialist Party". You do that sort of stuff when your a sore loser and you know you done for, AND you are 13 years old.

 

You don't do that as a strategy to get back into politics.

[bascule]

I wonder what the existing Democratic Socialist Party thinks about this... oh wait, they don't like it:

 

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/15/white-house-laughs-at-gop-idea-to-call-democrats-socialists/

 

I loved the White House press secretary's reaction:

 

Given the challenges that they face, that’s exactly the way I would be using my time too

 

And it would appear that the Republicans have decided that resorting to preschool-like namecalling might not be the best way to express their opinions

Edited May 20, 2009 by bascule

[Pangloss]

Apparently the GOP decided to drop the idea today. I thouht the quote below was interesting.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSnHdALg23pNqEeutIy0eicw1oHgD98A8HT01

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans on Wednesday abandoned an effort to label their opponents the "Democrat Socialist Party," ending a fight within the GOP ranks that reflected the divide between those who want a more centrist message and those seeking a more aggressive, conservative voice.

 

The initial name-changing resolution had drawn criticism from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Florida GOP Chairman James Greer called the idea "stupid" and Colorado Chairman Dick Wadhams called it "absurd." They said it made Republicans look petty during a troubling time for the nation.

 

I guess there are at least a couple of Jack Kemp's spiritual successors remaining in the ranks.

[CharonY]

So they've decided to rename their opposition? They can do that? Why not just call them the Puppy Killing Democratic Party? Or the Big Stupid Jerk Party? Or the Armies of Sauron?

 

I would go for Child-eating Communists. Short and to the point. But isn't the whole notion just outright silly. I mean, to even bring it up?

[iNow]

But isn't the whole notion just outright silly. I mean, to even bring it up?

 

Yes, as is practically every single thing in which the Republican party engages lately.

[the tree]

Strange, we've been irritated for ages about our guys claiming to be Democratic Socialists, ideally we'd rename them the Other Conservatives. I find it interesting the Socialist can still be used as a generic insult.

[bascule]

I find it interesting the Socialist can still be used as a generic insult.

 

It's par for the course in a country where even the term "liberal" is bandied about by conservatives as an insult.

[Pangloss]

Strange, we've been irritated for ages about our guys claiming to be Democratic Socialists, ideally we'd rename them the Other Conservatives.

 

The Slightly Less Conservatives?

 

How about the "Mostly Harmless" party, with a nod to Douglas Adams?

[The Bear's Key]

Slogan: "Towels for everyone"

[the tree]

"Always know where your towel is, be able to produce it on demand or face arrest, pay excessively for your towel and keep large amounts of personal information in your towel. Your towel may not be secure."

[iNow]

Just for the record, this idea is still stupid.

[CaptainPanic]

Why is socialist:

1. Spelled with a capital letter

2. An insult

 

And can anyone link to a genuine website that is written in a style that shows that Socialism is bad... I'd be very interested in that, because if Obama is already a socialist, then I guess I pretty much voted for Lenin himself at the last elections.

 

Definitions are different on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

In Europe being called "social" is a compliment... and the "socialists" are in many governments.

[iNow]

Why is socialist:

1. Spelled with a capital letter

2. An insult

 

And can anyone link to a genuine website that is written in a style that shows that Socialism is bad... I'd be very interested in that, because if Obama is already a socialist, then I guess I pretty much voted for Lenin himself at the last elections.

 

Definitions are different on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

In Europe being called "social" is a compliment... and the "socialists" are in many governments.

 

Just go to Fox News where they equate the word "socialist" with "baby eaters."

 

Or, just visit some of the Republican webpages of our congress people... It's pretty sad, really. As bascule noted above, this is the same group of people who use the term "liberal" as in insult.

[A Tripolation]

Hmm...I find it odd how we all show an incredible amount of surprise when factions withing the two major groups start up something stupid...haven't they been doing that since ya know...the beginning of politics?

 

Liberals are whiney when conservatives are in power and conservatives are whiney when liberals are in power. They ALL engage in mud slinging...one party is no better than the other.

The VAST majority of the country is in the center of the political spectrum, with a slight lean to the conservative side. Seems like the politicians would take note of that and start trying to compromise with each other.

 

Ok, rant's over. To the OP, as a conservative...I think it makes us look like Jackasses. That is the most stupid, petty, vindictive idea I have heard in a good long while.

[CharonY]

In Europe being called "social" is a compliment... and the "socialists" are in many governments.

Though it would be more accurate to call them social democratic as socialists may be interpreted in the Marxian sense (you know, dictatorship of the proletariat). In the US the terminology is often fuzzzy in that regard.

Edited September 9, 2009 by CharonY

[padren]

Liberals are whiney when conservatives are in power and conservatives are whiney when liberals are in power. They ALL engage in mud slinging...one party is no better than the other.

 

Sorry, that sounds like equivalence. I used to believe that but honestly, no - I can't anymore. While you do have some liberals calling for investigations into Bush and Cheney's activities it's nothing compared to the investigations that went into Clinton. Most notably the leadership of the Democrats aren't railing on Bush the way the leadership of the Republicans railed on Clinton.

 

We do have liberals that 'stir things up' just like there are conservatives that do, but the leadership on the left distance themselves from those liberals, whereas republican leadership actually publicly apologizes when they make comments that Rush doesn't represent the core of republican values.

 

Tell me if I am completely crazy but it seems that while a fringe left often "whines" it is disowned by the Democrats, while the fringe right (not the entire fringe, but a good portion that is both whiny and not quite wearing tinfoil and calling Obama a lizard man) is embraced.

 

What is the "left" equivalent to the tax tea parties, and which members of congress and the senate supported them? Where is the mischaracterization of Bush's policies on par with the "Death Panel" fiasco by liberals of equal equivalent weight to Palin within the party?

I just don't see the two parties as equally balanced in their strengths and faults swapping positions of power. The vitriol is very intense and much embraced by the conservative leadership - far more so than it ever has been on the left in recent times, including the Bush administration. I'd feel better if I could see examples proving me wrong but I just don't see that as the case.

[Pangloss]

You're certainly welcome to think so, and I'm sure you'll find a great deal of support for that position amongst this left-leaning crowd. I agree that the right is being more ridiculous at the moment than the left, and Republicans have done some stupid things recently. But they don't own a monopoly on the ridiculous behavior franchise. All it takes is a brief step back in time to revisit some of the anti-Bush antics of the past 8 years, or a brief look at Michael Moore's recent career, to remember what the Democrats used to embrace.

[padren]

You're certainly welcome to think so, and I'm sure you'll find a great deal of support for that position amongst this left-leaning crowd. I agree that the right is being more ridiculous at the moment than the left, and Republicans have done some stupid things recently. But they don't own a monopoly on the ridiculous behavior franchise. All it takes is a brief step back in time to revisit some of the anti-Bush antics of the past 8 years, or a brief look at Michael Moore's recent career, to remember what the Democrats used to embrace.

 

That's my point though - Michael Moore is a far fringe element that couldn't buy a photo op with any mainstream Democrat. I don't think anyone in politics today wants to be associated with him or his views. When Michael Steele simply points out that Rush isn't exactly the living pulse of the GOP he's forced to apologize.

Anti-Bush antics may have been popular with all sorts of fringers just like protesting the WTO G8 summits are - but what antics were embraced by Democrat heavyweights and leadership? Of course there is no monopoly on ridiculous behavior by either party - it'd be impossible to maintain a monopoly on such a plentiful and infinitely renewable resource - but I just don't think the scales match up against the actions and endorsements of the Democratic Party during the Bush years compared to this. In fact a lot of the whining I do recall that came from the left was directed at the left for compromising and passing bills with Bush. Even that though was nothing like what is happening today with the GOP. I hate to say it I just can't find equivalent comparisons.

 

I honestly would be happier if I didn't believe this and have been rather resistant to the idea, because I hate taking my critical queues from the choir - but I can't see any other way to add it up at this point. I do welcome evidence to the contrary though.

[Pangloss]

I agree that Michael Moore is not as directly tied with elected Democrats as Rush Limbaugh is with elected Republicans.

 

From what I've seen Michael Moore is not portrayed as an extremist by the moderate left. He's portrayed as a hero and savior, with his flawed arguments regularly glossed over and/or ignored (though not here, of course). Pretty much exactly how the moderate right views Rush, et al.

 

But yes, I agree that too many Republican elected officials are "embracing" (to a larger extent) right-wing antics and (especially) misinformation at the moment. What I don't think is that that's an unusual thing for members the opposition party to do in this country. I.E. I don't think this comparison informs us about Democrats. It only underscores what Republicans are doing.

 

And I'm not sure how useful that really is, in terms of appealing to the right for change. CTR demagoguery has become (tragically) part of the fabric of modern conservative society, in much the same way that anti-war protests and rock music were to the progressive movement in the late 1960s. Back then it was pita bread, flip-flops and long hair. Today it's church on Sunday, Rush Limbaugh on Monday, and soccer practice after school (it's no coincidence that Rush goes off the air at 3pm). The really amusing part is that it's often the exact same people.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Pangloss

[iNow]

From what I've seen Michael Moore is not portrayed as an extremist by the moderate left. He's portrayed as a hero and savior

Can you supply a single shred of evidence which reinforces/supports this assertion?