Seriously?
Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, a veteran smash-mouth Democratic strategist, says he is supporting Republican Ken Cuccinelli for governor, branding Democrat Terry McAuliffe a "corporatist."Yeah, I've heard of Saunders -- the nickname is memorable, and I know that his schtick impresses a lot of people:
"What these corporatists have done to us in rural America and in urban America ..." Saunders said in a telephone interview. "I can't support a corporatist. I just can't. This guy is not my kind of Democrat."
... Saunders, from the mountains outside Roanoke, is a colorful operative who has urged his party to make a play for the increasingly Republican rural vote....
Along the way, Saunders ... became a sought-after source for reporters covering the battle for the hearts and minds of so-called "NASCAR dads" -- the label pundits have attached to white, culturally conservative men who typically vote Republican in national elections....Of course, in the last two presidential elections, America elected a black guy from Chicago via Honolulu who was widely perceived as a gun-grabber and who, in the last election, was unabashedly pro-choice and pro-gay, all while Saunders's guy from 2004, John Edwards, went down in flames in '08 after losing in '04.
Saunders told them all that a Democratic presidential candidate can appeal to those voters if they show respect for gun rights and avoid letting social issues define their campaigns. If Democrats can "get through the culture," they then can get rural voters to listen to their ideas about the economy, jobs and health care, Saunders argued.
Look, I understand opposing McAuliffe. But if you're a good Democrat, stay neutral -- don't endorse an extremist like Cuccinelli. It isn't just the extreme right-wing views on abortion, gay rights, and other social issues that are the problem. It isn't just Cuccinelli's vendetta against a climate scientist. It's the notion that Cuccinelli is somehow less of a corporatist:
The gubernatorial campaign of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) raised 40 percent of its more than $1 million haul from donors giving $10,000 or more, according to a campaign finance report filed on Tuesday. These large donations came from a collection of corporations, wealthy individuals and political action committees....Oh, and here's an ALEC-posted video of Cuccinelli boasting about his anti-Obamacare campaign:
One contribution of note is the $50,000 given by Intrust Wealth Management, one of many corporations under the control of the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers. The company is a subsidiary of Intrust Bank, headed by Charles Koch. This is the second Koch contribution to Cuccinelli, who received $10,000 from Koch Industries in the first half of 2012.
Cuccinelli appeared as a featured speaker at more than one Koch-sponsored event in recent years.
In 2011, the attorney general flew to Vail, Colo., to speak at a Koch seminar titled, "Understanding and Addressing Threats to American Enterprise and Prosperity." ...
In 2012, Cuccinelli was enlisted as a speaker at a major fundraising event for the Kochs in Palm Springs, Calif....
****
I do agree with Saunders that Democrats ought to learn how to talk to heartland whites. But my attitude is: don't bend over backwards to try to pretend you're a Bubba deep down inside. Instead, lead with economics at the human, kitchen-table level -- and then actually live up to your rhetoric by fighting for the little guy. That might impress Bubba more than waving around a gun.
10 comments:
*Smack* :0
Yeah, Ol' Cooch's an anti-corporatist.
A regular populist, a real man of the people, he is.
What an @$$hole!!!
He can also kiss my fat white-former-city-now-suburbs!!!
WwO. Even I don't go there. I mean... that's like the boyz in the 'hood using the "n" word, the homies calling Mexican Mexicans... well, never mind what they call 'em. And vice to vers. Don't get me wrong, when you whities spat I not only sigh in relief but enjoy a big bowl of that truely First American delight. With lots of butter and salt.
Putting on our tin-foil hats, would this add credibility to my kool-aid drunken Stepford Clones brewed up by extra-terrestial travelers (you know - aliens) in claudistine laboratories deep under the world trade center... ahh... theory?
Sold out to "Corporatists", the projection just drips.
No fear.
Victor
["He can also kiss my fat white-former-city-now-suburbs!!!"] ALL those 'burbs now that would have to be some pucker ! :-o
If you meant ' your ass' then... kinky comes to mind : -o
and more proof that you aint no gentleman? ;-)
My mixed race fat ass is too calloused from Bicycle riding to be provide anything but embarrassment.
Every one
As for the 'smash mouth' a few points.
1. In a democracy he's entitled to speak out and present, myopic 'win at all cost' (consequence free?) thought bubbles.
2. What are you suggesting that some one from either side with a divergent opinion should only consider the party's good? From reading his 'somewhat different' views he doesn't seem to claim to speak FOR the democrats. Suppression of views is exactly that and equally repellent. I reject the notion that What makes the U.S. great is the notion that there are only two opinions... Democrat/Republican (partisan) and the wrong one?
3.Clearly Murdoch media NEWS (very)Limited is right wing because it serves their (business) interests.
4.The media in general are there to make money not educate. and the odd/sensation/conflict sells.
5. One wonders what is the point of a democracy if there are only two rigid views/ options? It assumes a choice between the arrogances of absolutes. I rather suggest that neither side has Absolute lock on Good or Bad. Good government to me is balancing the shades of grey …not choices between Two, two dimensional cartoonish absolutes (either Black or White). IMHO I support good government By and FOR PEOPLE and that by definition contextual graduations as opposed to binary boundaries and BFI (brute force and Ignorance as indicated here http://www.stonekettle.com/2013/08/red-lines.html
Do I agree with the 'smash mouth'? No but neither am I willing to having raised a topic dismiss(?) a comment in vague derisive (?) 'urban' pigeon holing terms like 'schtick'!
Schtick as defined is either a comedy action or a signature behavior: Ben Franklin's Schtick was to rale for democracy, MLK jnr's was for Human rights, Chomsky's is against hypocrisy, extremist capitalism, media bias, favouring a socialist, human rights, dignity based solution. To dismiss any of these as schtick is mentally putting fingers in saying La la la la. I guess my schtick is to examine, to me Pigeon holing merely indicates a closed mind to possible bricks to build a bridge.
It's not a matter of pretending to be a 'bubba' just address the real problems. It isn't to have guns or ban gay marriage or Abortions it's about addressing their root cause(s) they are emotional fear triggers not the issue.
Think of it like this … try curing a war vet of their PTSD by telling them to get over it or calling them stupid because hey can't see the problem is in their head... that strategy just doesn't work. So ask your self why then would it work against the emotional conditioning of a TBer or rabid Christian?
As an ex relatively successful Crisis intervention counsellor and professionally a negotiator/ marketing exec you would be amazed at how often a seemingly trivial/inane comment held the key to success.
What are you suggesting that some one from either side with a divergent opinion should only consider the party's good?
I think I make it clear that Cuccinelli doesn't represent what's good for the voters, or at least the voters Saunders claims to be championing.
"Clinging to their Bibles and their guns".
As widely mocked as that subtle misquote became, the chortling muck flingers ran right over the fact that it was made in a speech in an economically ruined area, that soundly spanked the corporatists for mishandling the economy and leaving ordinary people with nothing but the aforementioned Bibles and guns.
A statement of empathy and an offer of held was twisted into a liberal elitist attack us ordinary folks - like good old Mudcat. And he eats it up with a spoon.
As bad as it is that these things happen, it is inexcusable to help them happen at the expense of your own team.
Part1
Steve,
Sorry about the length !
Sadly (yet again) my prose (?)has let me down. I understand/understood your criticisms of the two involved.
I guess the key difference between us is our respective starting points.
I tend to focus on Root causes subsequently I have issues with starting at the party level. To me it's a bit like the 'levelling' repairs over the centuries of the leaning tower of Pisa. If one looks carefully the builders started to even up the tower by building the 3rd floor taller on one side, to even up the base for the next floor. Ultimately this was a flawed solution because the fault is with the ground on which it was constructed.
The meta point I was making was that:
Given that “freedom of speech” and supported/caveated by legality not on individual agreement (with). Both individuals can make their statements claiming that THEY REPRESENT a constituency.
Have you ever heard a shock jock, commentator actually admit his views only represent his views alone?
Ever heard a dominant party admit that a policy only benefits them and or that they don't have a mandate but are going to do it anyway?
Neither of the subject two will accept they are simply offering their opinion …. and that they are (in one way or the other) primarily seeking to ADVANCE their own personal self interests over 'others'. (Psychologically speaking this may also be read as indicative THEIR fears, concerns, ambitions etc). Maslow's hierarchy of needs (motivations) while it isn't absolute it alerts us us to motives other than altruism.
Doing what is right doesn't need fanfare or recognition that is an emotional response to deeper 'personal' motivations. Think of it like THE media … only a naïve individual would assume that they are objective. They are a BUSINESS, their first purpose is to make money by capturing an audience not to educate. Their loyalty is to their interests/ heir clients advertisers not their audience.. They avoid the end justifies the means criticism by CLAIMING to be balanced (?), giving the public what they want (well sort of) more often than not they simply create that want (aka sales/marketing 101) as opposed to need We need information but we want to have our prejudices/ fears and our solutions(?) confirmed. That in reality it is part of our 'instincts'.
Both the characters are in it for their personal wants.
Two point here to note; the first is that their approach tells us a lot about their audience THEIR wants/needs fears etc and how to reach them.
The second is as my challenge about telling a war vet that their PSTD is nonsense and a figment of their mind i.e. a neurosis and positive attitude and minor therapy will cure it (psychologist). as opposed to a psychosis that needs a psychiatrist + possibly meds.
We now return to the 3rd floor (level) of the analysis (tower of Pisa)... political party(s). Which by definition are self serving organizations. Their fist priority is to maintain its own future, that future may or may not align with the well being of its human servants to that end. One relevant point here is party image and or discipline i.e. if a party member disagrees or even acknowledges the other party might have a good idea the act is treated as heresy/ disloyalty to the party. It must protect its interests even if it is wrong.
In the political party dominated process the public is shoe horned in a polarised choice between two extremes (Dumb and Dumber). Consensus is the antipathy of political parties it is by differentiation they maintain their relevance/existence. They survive by contesting for dominance, largely by arguing over which side of the edifice (party) needs to be larger/dominant … hence the constant oscillation between the left wall and the right wall (as in the tower of Pisa).
Fundamentally neither party is about altruism or consensus because the citizens wouldn't need political parties. Think of all the careers 'public recognition seekers that might have to do something else to get their 'importance' fix. In short The foundation on which political parties were constructed /operate is fundamentally flawed and will inevitably collapse, because they are the agents of increasing inequity. Into what? History suggests a top down tyranny e.g. every civilisation since ancient Athens (the birth place of democracy, tyrannical rule and the gerrymander); The collapse of the Roman republic, the French republic (Napoleon), the Russian revolution into a tyrannical rule by Stalin (literally millions of deaths) et al. The common cause was drastic in equity (not equality) between the bottom and the elite e.g the 'halcyon' (sic) days of the 1950's are seen this way because the difference between a boss and the worker in the factory's wage was about40 times and every one could aspire to bridging the gap. Today, the gap is nearer 10000 times and clearly out of the aspiration of the factory worker (if they can find a job).
Clearly my 'schtick' if you like, is to draw attention to the futility of allowing parties to define the rules of discussion (the game) as they are both in the pay of the rich or corporations who don't have any loyalty or concern for people, as they are expendable units of production or purchase profit and they show no signs of becoming scarce.
All this boils down to me saying that by reacting to these people you are having your energy diverted from the logical solution that will not suit them........ stop playing their game, you can't win … redefine the game and its rules so people not non human organisations can regain some equity.. have some realistic hope to bridge the gap.
I'm in no position to "redefine the game," and I don't see any large band of revolutionaries on the horizon poised to redefine it, either. So I play the game as it actually exists, and (as far as I can tell) will continue to exist for the rest of my life.
Post a Comment