« Republicans Act Like "Mean Kids" in Attempts to Stop Funding PBS Altogether | Main | Is Mark Warner our Southern Star in the Democratic Party? »
June 14, 2005
Talking with Repblicans about Dean in a Red State: Must we care what they say?
I've talked with a lot of Republicans over the last few days - good Americans - such as policemen, a federal agent, businessmen and women, a councilwoman and others. As I talked with these Republicans, I kept discovering that one of their biggest problems lately is Howard Dean. Now, we must understand that they would deny that Dean bothers them or consumes them. But we must also understand that with any of these Republicans, Dean popped into the conversation not because I brought him up. They brought him up. And everyone of them did. And what did they say? They said that Dean has gone "over the top" (a phrase coming right out of the White House), that he is good for bringing more people to the Republican Party, that he is un-American, etc.
Since I never brought up Dean in these conversations, I had to ask myself, why is Howard Dean so irritating to Republicans? I mean, look, they have all branches of government right now. So why is Howard Dean at the top of their discussion? This is important, folks. Don't underestimate how important. Here's what I'm asking in effect, If Dean really is good for the GOP, why are Republicans all talking about Dean? Let's try to answer that.
Posted by wjbailes at June 14, 2005 08:12 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://chattablogs.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/22037
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Talking with Repblicans about Dean in a Red State: Must we care what they say?:
Comments
Ah, so you're one of those that buy into the whole "frame the debate" schtick. Look, the Democrats have many problems, and central to them is the idea that the way you talk about issues is more important than the issues themselves. Case in point: the Democrats get their asses handed to them in November. A sane party would ask questions like "What can we do to organize ourselves better? How did the opposition outmanuver us in key areas? How are they reaching their base more effectively than we are?" Or, most importantly, "Why are our ideals and ideas no longer appealing to the majority of Americans?"
Instead, we get "The Republicans are evil, and we need to change the way we talk about certain things." The Republicans may be the party of bad ideas, but the Democrats have proven themselves to be the party of no ideas, and thinking that "framing the debate" is the solution is exactly the kind of theraputic, self-gratifying, navel-gazing rabbit trail that has prevented the Democrats from winning any major election since 1996.
Posted by: ryan at June 14, 2005 09:27 AM
Fox news and Cheney framed the "over the top" definition for Dean. Why did they do that? Because Dean is energizing the Democrats with his grassroots and netroots base, and the Repubs are jealous. Making Dean the topic of the day is easier for Repugs instead of addressing the war in Iraq, the lies and cheating that took place to create Bush's war, the torture at Gitmo, and their unpopular Private Risk Accounts plan.
BTW, Democrats need to bring up why a homosexual hypocrite, Ken Mehlman is leader of the RNC. This is really outrage besides he is a POS of a person.
Posted by: sandy at June 14, 2005 11:13 AM
Wow, John, I think you've answered the question "What if Joseph Campbell had a political op-ed column?" I love it. I think Dean is following the pattern set by Carl's Jr. and other advertizers. It's an age old formula that says that being outrageously controversial gets publicity. And any publicity is good publicity....? Maybe? I dunno. I like your Oedipus metaphor better.
Posted by: Tyler Grisham at June 14, 2005 12:33 PM
Ryan, you've succeeded in framing the debate in terms of what it's like to frame debates. You have one thing right: Republicans have BAD ideas. E.g. war in Iraq, no child left behind, tax breaks while spending off the charts and creating deficits. What you have said is so right, but let's finish it: BAD IDEAS create BAD CONSEQUENCES and VERY BAD UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
Posted by: Bailes at June 14, 2005 02:16 PM
Sandy, Fox News attempts to frame Dean as a loony because Dean has framed them as imposters. It doesn't work if you believe that Fox News is unreal. A Republican told me the other day that Fox News must be correct since it captures the most viewers. I don't know if it really does, but let's say that it does. Big Deal! Popularity does not make a news agency right. Hitler and Stalin were popular at one time.
Posted by: Bailes at June 14, 2005 02:19 PM
wuz up Ryan,I do like this page!, I really do! ,What do you think about Michael Jackson?
Posted by: Keera at June 14, 2005 02:20 PM
ok this topic is crap..i hate bush if it want for him my dad wouldnt have to go to cuba for a year..he missed a year of my life...BUSH IS WRONG!!! i dont even give a crap if any of u like him.
Posted by: unknown at June 14, 2005 02:21 PM
Tyler, you've said one of the nicest things to me I've heard in a long time. And, yes, the Oedipus reference really was a nice sudden insight. My fear is that both houses become cursed if we don't sit and talk with each other.
Posted by: Bailes at June 14, 2005 02:21 PM
and again? this whole democratic thing is annoying!
Posted by: Keera at June 14, 2005 02:21 PM
'Ello All ... i do believe that things are going to run smoothly if ya'll stop going back and forth. "Can't we all just get along?"
Posted by: Mamie at June 14, 2005 02:21 PM
I THINK THAT THE WAR DID NOT HAVE TO CONTINUE AFTER THE IRAQI ELECTION?
WHY DOES EVERYONE HAVE TO BE SO VIOLENT?
Posted by: TINK at June 14, 2005 02:22 PM
i think the war in iraq was not a good decision. i understand that we helped the iraqis from a horrible dictator, but what other reason did we go to war. my cousin left my family for like 2 years fighting in both the war against iraq and afganistan. Now that he's home i'm so happy and i don't him to go back to war. i love all my american peps at war right now. Love you guys lots!!!!
Posted by: jerica at June 14, 2005 02:22 PM
I think that, for one, Bush is a redneck crackhead. Two, the war in Iraq was pointless, Bush just wanted a little revenge, for his poppa's sake. Too many people have died, on both sides. Bush can't solve anything, no man can, so he should give it up.
Posted by: Mariah at June 14, 2005 02:22 PM
i really cant say what my opinion is because i KNOW i am not being informed on everything that is happening so i make it a habit of not commenting about something i have little to no knowledge of....
Posted by: chief_tiff at June 14, 2005 02:23 PM
Keera, I'm not sure where you stand politically, but I'd say hurrah to your right to find out. Do you like Dean or not?
Posted by: Bailes at June 14, 2005 02:24 PM
forget trying to get along... there is no hope for you!
Posted by: Mamie at June 14, 2005 02:24 PM
Mamie, are you just a pessimist?
Posted by: Bailes at June 14, 2005 02:25 PM
Mariah. Amen. i HATE bush with FLAMING passions. aHhhhHhHh. im partly arabic so it pissed me off on BOTH sides. ahh! i hate him! hes a monkey and he needs to go stick a weapon of mass destruction up his butt and blow up.
Posted by: Jalnar at June 14, 2005 02:25 PM
this is the same person talkin about how my dad had to go to cuba for a year. newyas bush is a crazy meth addict red neck who needs HELP and so does his whole family. if it wasnt for him tryin to try to save his dad then my dad wouldnt have to go to war. i cant wait till he gets out of his position as the president cuz i swear he is makin me soo sick everytime i think of him, but thank god my dad only has 7 more months left in the military.
Posted by: someone pissed off at June 14, 2005 02:26 PM
oh c'mon little kid!
Posted by: Mamie at June 14, 2005 02:29 PM
Mariah, Bush is, unfortunately, elected. Karl Rove helped him get there despite Bush's weaknesses. So did a lot of good people, like my parents, who are fundamentalists but good people. I voted for Kerry, although I thought he ran a mediocre campaign at the end. If I had thought that Nader could win, I might have considered him. I was a Dean supporter at one time - and, yes, he goes over the top to create a certain frame of reference politically - to steal thunder from Republicans, to force them into acting like they are soooo wounded by such statements.
Posted by: Bailes at June 14, 2005 02:29 PM
You got me, Mamie!
Posted by: Bailes at June 14, 2005 02:30 PM
I agree with the way kerry ran ... but yet i dont know i rather stay indifferent
Posted by: Mamie at June 14, 2005 02:31 PM
Bailes, I'm glad u agree with me.
Posted by: Mariah at June 14, 2005 02:42 PM
Mamie, I thought Kerry did not make the Vietnam War case completely. He should have responded to the Swift Boat ads and should have stood up for his anti-Vietnam stance after the war. And done it with conviction.
Posted by: Bailes at June 14, 2005 02:43 PM
Hey should have done may things different.. but hey.. bush did something right i guess...
Posted by: Mamie at June 14, 2005 02:46 PM
i just happened to come to this page and u two r both crazy!
Posted by: wutever u 2 r crazy this is ashley by the way at June 14, 2005 02:49 PM
Bush, strangely enough, came across with more conviction than Kerry. That's what polls say. I'm guessing that's very important to voters. And it fits into the "FATHER" archetype that many wanted to sense.
Posted by: Bailes at June 14, 2005 02:50 PM
yeah.. but he has religion to back things up
Posted by: Mamie at June 14, 2005 02:51 PM
Kerry, a Roman Catholic, had a faith-based message also.
Posted by: Bailes at June 14, 2005 04:33 PM
...only because the polls said he should. ;)
Posted by: Bill at June 14, 2005 04:35 PM
Bill, how politically jaded of you.
Posted by: Bailes at June 14, 2005 04:41 PM
Don't forget, boys, that I argue with teenagers all the time at Chatt State and an eleven-year-old too.
Posted by: Bailes at June 14, 2005 04:44 PM
Hey, the polls said the same thing to Bush...
Posted by: Bill at June 14, 2005 04:46 PM
amen sister or brother, (who ever you guys are pissing me off is) you are sooo right!!!!
Posted by: someone at June 14, 2005 07:07 PM
John: one of the biggest things that has cost the Democrats in the past ten years is the American public's perception that the Democrats don't believe what they say and can't be trusted. That's why Kerry was never able to overcome the "flip-flop" label, and regardless of its accuracy, he did give the Republicans some truly choice sound-bites for their use (remember the "I voted for it before I voted against it" line? What was he thinking?). Believe what you want about the Republicans, there's little question as to whether or not they believe what they say.
This "framing the debate" is exactly the kind of euphamistic, cynical ploy that has been costing the Democrats all along. Calling trial lawyers "public protection attorneys" is disingenuous and everyone knows it. The problem isn't that Democrats don't have good ways of talking about their ideas, but that they fundamentally don't have any ideas. Once they get some that the American public can get excited about, maybe we can talk about using appropriate rhetoric to cast those ideas in a positive light. But gay and abortion rights aren't particularly popular in today's world, and though most Americans don't support banning abortions or outlawing homosexual activities, a majority of people seem to be more willing to do that than allow unrestricted abortions and gay marriage. People don't like those things because of what they are, not because the Democrats aren't skilled enough to talk about them.
Posted by: ryan at June 16, 2005 09:52 AM
First, Ryan, let me commend you on repeating what I have often repeated, that Kerry sounded the flip-flopper. But you forgot the rest of what I say. Kerry has not been a flip-flopper. And I think voters know that. They did not put him because he was and is a liberal from Mass.
Second, I'm not convinced that Democrats have a reputation of not being trusted. Look at this recent poll showing voters trust both parties with about the same amount of disfavor. However, Democrats are favored over Republicans for the 2006 elections.
Third, framing may seem cynical to you, but it is what we do every day as we talk, blog, or whatever. We frame our ideas and facts. You may put them in a conservative frame. I may put mine in a moderate frame with a progressive touch. But we still frame, whether we like it or not.
What you are correct about is whether we believe what we say or not. There, conservatives definitely have the edge. Can you explain why?
Posted by: Bailes at June 17, 2005 11:10 AM
Does Howard Dean look like a double snakes?
Posted by: bookie boo at June 20, 2005 11:21 AM