![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yesthattomThe Republicans are really good at having pundits on TV saying things that encourage Democrats to do the wrong thing. They say, “If Democrats really want to win, they should such-and-such.” They phrase it so that it sounds like sound, reasonable advice. However, it is always the wrong thing to do. It’s very smart. They sound compassionate and helpful and at the same time create “conventional wisdom” (out of thin air, no less) that favors the Republicans. During Monica-gate they got the entire country saying things like, “If Clinton would just admit he lied {about Monica}, this whole thing would go away.” At the time, the big question was “did he lie?” and they could have out there directly saying, “He lied! The bastard! Admit it!” but instead it sound very reasonable: Oh, gosh, if he’d just admit it, the whole thing would go away. How sweet.
Sweet, but wrong. What this “whole thing” that would “go away”? Away where? Anyone that’s been to traffic court knows that this is bad advice. Once you admit to doing the crime, the proceedings end and you are guilty. If you were avoiding running down a mother with a baby carriage, you better explain it without using the phrase “I went through the red light” or it doesn’t matter that you saved a life. You can say, “I was boxed in. The only thing on my mind was to avoid running down the mother with the baby carriage.” and the proceedings will continue giving you a chance to avoid the penalty. However, if you say, “I was boxed in. The only thing on my mind was to avoid running down the mother with the baby carriage, so I drove through the red light.” then the judge will stop the proceedings, say “you just admitted that you broke the law” and issue you the fine. So when the Republicans coordinated to have every conservative pundit saying, “If Clinton would just admit that he lied, this whole thing would go away”, and the newspapers and TV talking heads repeated it, they didn’t mean “it would go away”, they meant “could immediately move to impeach.” Feeling the pressure he admitted that he lied, and this “away” place that “everything would go to” evaporated. It was impeachment time.
I call this “opposite-advice”. Republicans are experts at giving “opposite-advice” to Democrats.
Currently they’re saying, “Obama should ask Hillary to be his VP.” Hillary has high negatives. They have just spent 16 years planning how to attack her, but they only have 15 months of experience with attacking Obama. Hillary unites the conservatives. Mention Hillary in a fundraising letter and everyone mails a check. Of course they want her on the ticket. Underfunded and lacking unity, they need her on the ticket.
I don’t think this technique is unethical, by the way. It should be expected and we should be able to defend against it. In fact, I think the Democrats should use the same technique.
We should be on the media talking up bad choices for McCain’s VP. What he needs is a conservative that will unify the Republicans. We should be on TV saying the opposite. “If McCain doesn’t pick a moderate, it will doom his campaign.” “McCain will lose all credibility if he picks Huckabee or anyone that the Christian Right approves.” Carville should be on TV saying that this is the one thing we fear, just like Rove goes on TV with his opposite-advice all the time.
Likewise, we should praise bad Republican decisions and demean any good decisions. In particular, no matter who McCain picks for VP, the only talking point a Democrat should have is, “OMG! He just committed campaign suicide. By selecting that man/woman he has destroyed his chances. This will go down in history as the biggest mistake ever made in a political campaign.”
(and for those of you following the Lakoff-style framing... notice I didn’t use a single positive word. “destroyed his chances” is better than “destroyed his chances of winning” because it doesn’t imply that he has a chance to win)
Likewise, when BHO announces his VP, we should all be singing from the same songbook saying that the selection cements his election and is not just perfect, but innovative, unites the entire country, etc.
Even if he picks Hillary.
Sweet, but wrong. What this “whole thing” that would “go away”? Away where? Anyone that’s been to traffic court knows that this is bad advice. Once you admit to doing the crime, the proceedings end and you are guilty. If you were avoiding running down a mother with a baby carriage, you better explain it without using the phrase “I went through the red light” or it doesn’t matter that you saved a life. You can say, “I was boxed in. The only thing on my mind was to avoid running down the mother with the baby carriage.” and the proceedings will continue giving you a chance to avoid the penalty. However, if you say, “I was boxed in. The only thing on my mind was to avoid running down the mother with the baby carriage, so I drove through the red light.” then the judge will stop the proceedings, say “you just admitted that you broke the law” and issue you the fine. So when the Republicans coordinated to have every conservative pundit saying, “If Clinton would just admit that he lied, this whole thing would go away”, and the newspapers and TV talking heads repeated it, they didn’t mean “it would go away”, they meant “could immediately move to impeach.” Feeling the pressure he admitted that he lied, and this “away” place that “everything would go to” evaporated. It was impeachment time.
I call this “opposite-advice”. Republicans are experts at giving “opposite-advice” to Democrats.
Currently they’re saying, “Obama should ask Hillary to be his VP.” Hillary has high negatives. They have just spent 16 years planning how to attack her, but they only have 15 months of experience with attacking Obama. Hillary unites the conservatives. Mention Hillary in a fundraising letter and everyone mails a check. Of course they want her on the ticket. Underfunded and lacking unity, they need her on the ticket.
I don’t think this technique is unethical, by the way. It should be expected and we should be able to defend against it. In fact, I think the Democrats should use the same technique.
We should be on the media talking up bad choices for McCain’s VP. What he needs is a conservative that will unify the Republicans. We should be on TV saying the opposite. “If McCain doesn’t pick a moderate, it will doom his campaign.” “McCain will lose all credibility if he picks Huckabee or anyone that the Christian Right approves.” Carville should be on TV saying that this is the one thing we fear, just like Rove goes on TV with his opposite-advice all the time.
Likewise, we should praise bad Republican decisions and demean any good decisions. In particular, no matter who McCain picks for VP, the only talking point a Democrat should have is, “OMG! He just committed campaign suicide. By selecting that man/woman he has destroyed his chances. This will go down in history as the biggest mistake ever made in a political campaign.”
(and for those of you following the Lakoff-style framing... notice I didn’t use a single positive word. “destroyed his chances” is better than “destroyed his chances of winning” because it doesn’t imply that he has a chance to win)
Likewise, when BHO announces his VP, we should all be singing from the same songbook saying that the selection cements his election and is not just perfect, but innovative, unites the entire country, etc.
Even if he picks Hillary.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-09 01:56 pm (UTC)Closet CaseChrist (R-FL) for the Veep position...no subject
Date: 2008-06-09 02:31 pm (UTC)Oh, the political people on both sides most certainly do! Obama's been talking about McCain in much the same way. It's sly, and amusing to see whether they can get the press to ask questions about what the other side ought to be doing, thus not only framing the issue, but creating, as you say, a conventional take on it.
Alexrod is no fool - he is as good at this as Rove.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-09 03:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-09 04:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-09 04:13 pm (UTC)If McCain is serious about allaying the Reagan Democrats' suspicions and "not just running for Bush's third term," he needs to pick someone, like Crist, who rejected Dubya's support and turned to McCain instead, back in the day.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-09 06:27 pm (UTC)Also, why the hell are people (Fox News and Newsweek) pretending that somehow Karl Rove is now worth listening to for advice for both sides?