NRCC Does Not Plan To Unseat Shuler
By
Heath Shuler is being targeted by the anti-health care reform crowd. The Republican National Committee is running radio ads telling folks to contact Shuler. Americans For Prosperity, a conservative pro-tobacco group that denies global warming, rolled into town with an astroturf operation attacking health care reform. FreedomWorks, another astroturf group led by Republican Dick Armey joined with the local Tea People to get mad about health care reform outside Shuler’s office a couple of weeks ago. Freedom Works also appears to be behind a coming “9/12″ Tea-style march on Washington. Local Tea Party People organizer Erika Franzi, who writes under the name Jane Q. Republican, has made it clear that the local Tea People aren’t affiliated with any party.
Strangely enough, however, Shuler’s is not among the 70 representatives on the National Republican Congressional Committee’s list of seats they intend to contest in 2010. Either they see him as unassailable, or they’re pretty happy with him.
Know that the anti-health care reform folk are making their voices heard at Shuler’s office. If you want the Congressman to vote in favor of meaningful health care reform that includes a public option, you’ll need to be a voice of support. Call today at (202) 225-6401 or (828)-252-1651.
47 Comments
August 5th, 2009 at 9:28 am
If Congressman Shuler can be in any way tied to the president’s health care plan, he’s beatable in the 11th. Even by a Republican.
MM
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I blame Mumpower’s antics during the General Election in 08 for this. He refused help from them when he ran, and cost two friends of mine at the NRCC their jobs.
I’d say this seat is Shuler’s to lose only by gross misconduct on his part, and he doesn’t strike me as the type.
(I previously commented here under the name Thunder Pig until I was banned. This topic was to juicy for me to stay out of the arena.)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Hey Pig – nice lipstick.
Anyway, does anyone know what Shuler has been saying about reform up to now? Is he siding with his soon-to-be-targeted-for-ejection-from-the-party Blue Dogs?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“Local [grassroots] Tea Party People organizer Erika Franzi, who writes under the name Jane Q. Republican, has made it clear that the local Tea People aren’t affiliated with any party.”
She is correct about that. The local grassroots Tea Party is nonpartisan.
And thanks for the phone number but we will be meeting with Shuler in person.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
All this Progressive huffing and puffing about “astroturfing” seems a bit disingenuous to me, Gordon. I mean, cripes, what is move on dot org but a well-oiled astroturf machine?
Besides, making it look like everyon’es all hot and bothered is the way it’s always been done.
The techniques may be more sophisticated, but the strategy’s tried and true. It’s only “astroturfing”when the other side does it.
MM
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
The difference between grassroots and astroturf seems fairly clear to me, but I’ll use the Wiki definitions to clarify.
Grassroots: A grassroots movement (often referenced in the context of a political movement) is one driven by the politics of a community. The term implies that the creation of the movement and the group supporting it is natural and spontaneous, highlighting the differences between this and a movement that is orchestrated by traditional power structures.
Astroturf: The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt (“outreach”, “awareness”, etc.) and covert (disinformation) means.
When FreedomWorks rolls in with a bus and unloads supporters, it’s astroturfing if they portray it as grassroots. If they portray it as a corporate effort, then it’s just corporate-style activism. Same with MoveOn.
When sixteen folks show up to canvass for my campaign it’s grassroots because it’s driven by individuals’ agendas for a better political future.
The ‘spontaneous’ outbursts and riot tactics used by FreedomWorks to disrupt town hall meetings are premeditated and orchestrated by the corporate entity. Hence, astroturfing.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
A message from our president:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0809/obama_waves_off_liberals_16801e71-fac2-406f-b977-c25cfd6cdb0a.html
I’ll say it again: Go ahead and try and replace the Blue Dogs with more liberal candidates. You’ll get what you deserve.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
And yeah, I guess when a group of people who all agree over an issue organize and confront those they disagree with it’s a mob.
Except when the Left does it, then it’s a protest.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I’m not confused as to the difference, my friend. What I’m saying is that both sides do it and always have.
I’ve seen far more money being spent on mailers and slick TV commercials supporting the president’s plan than I have opposing it. And Erika Franzi and her folks are no more shills of some corporate or political lobby than are your good volunteers. It would be wrong to imply otherwise (however obliquely).
MM
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I think it’s worth stepping back from the grassroots/astroturf distinction for a minute. Can we all agree that:
When Freedom Works and Patients United roll up in a bus, it’s a speaking tour. When locals join them, it’s a protest. It’s freedom of speech, even if it’s paid for by a corporation. I don’t know that it’s grassroots, but people are talking and they’ve got a right to talk.
The local Tea Party folks are grassroots, it seems. And Erika has stated clearly on this blog that the national anti-health-care folks are not grassroots, if I remember correctly.
Where it gets dodgy is when folks with Freedom Works and Patients United, or folks allied with them, go in and shout down congresspeople and questioners at town halls. This hasn’t happened in the 11th yet, and it may not happen. But if it does, that’s a different thing than waving signs and shouting outside of such an event. It’s a threat to the first amendment rights of others attending the town hall. We can all agree on that, right?
And for my part, bobaloo, I see no moral equivalence between folks who got rowdy over a war of choice that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and folks who want to disrupt town halls because they’re opposed in principle to the government offering one among several competing insurance plans starting in 2013, or opposed to a 2.5% tax on their earnings if they refuse to contribute to a pool to help us all pay for their health care.*
Really, even if you could come up with a case in which unaccountable corporations spent millions to organize people to disrupt town hall meetings in protest over the Iraq War, I wouldn’t buy for a second that it was precedent for what seems now to be in the works. And I’m pretty sure you don’t either.
And finally, I got an e-mail this week asking me to call Martin Nesbitt in support of the multimodal transportation fund. I was grateful for the information that I could make a difference, and I called his office. Now, was that astroturf or grassroots?
———
* That’s what it’s about, right? They’re not shouting down their fellow citizens because they oppose ending recision or requiring community rating, or because they want to preserve the Medicare drug subsidy doughnut hole, right?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Who said anything about “moral equivalence”? I’m talking constitutional rights and the ability to voice your opinion without being demonized.
If you want links to liberal organizations shutting down lectures and speeches, I has them.
Oh, and when progressives do it it’s “getting rowdy”, when conservatives do it it’s “riot tactics”.
Funny thing is, I’m not even on their side. You guys are just playing the same games the cons played for years.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Good post, Doug. As ever, you are a voice of calm cogency.
But free speech is free speech, even when it gets ugly (especially so). I guess it’s the old radical in me, but it always gives me a little thrill to see the powerful shouted down, whoever they are. Think Code Pink. Think ACT-UP.
I’m interested in your take on the politics of all this. Do you think Mr. Shuler will vote to support the president? If so, do you think that it makes him more vulnerable in 2010? If not, does it open him up to a primary challenge by the progressives?
MM
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
P.S. The John Locke Foundation is having a luncheon and panel discussion on Health Care, should anyone want to do some shouting down. Just sayin
It’s Wednesday, August 12 at 11:30 am, Holiday Inn at 435 Smoky Park Highway.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Free speech is, indeed, free speech. Folks are welcome to shout their heads off whether they’re funded by FreedomWorks or not.
I just find it fascinating that Republicans (grassroots, party, and astroturf alike) are ready to go at Shuler with both barrels over health care, but the national party is not prepared to go after his seat next year.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
The claims that “everybody does it” and “they’re just like MoveOn” are pretty hollow. In this case, Americans for Prosperity, the group that is doing this bus tour, is pretty much the textbook ‘astroturf’ organization. Created with a million dollar grant from an oil oligarch, staffed by well-known lobbyist/dirty tricksters from the Abramoff/Ralph Reed wing of the Republican Party, their issues are all over the map (pro-tobacco, anti-global warming theory, anti-healthcare reform,) as one would expect from a commercial lobbying enterprise. They take industry-directed positions & spend lots of money trying to look like they are ‘grassroots’, when in fact they are well-paid professional PR folks (the President, Tim Phillips, made almost $300,000 in 2007).
MoveOn was started by a couple who were upset over a particular issue (Clinton impeachment), put out an internet petition, and signed up hundreds of thousands of Americans who agreed with them. However big and well-funded they are now, they started as the classic ‘grassroots’ organization. AFP, and all the other ‘astroturfers’ never attain the kind of genuine people-power of groups like MoveOn. They only exist because wealthy industrialists create them from whole cloth and continue to fund them in order to put forward their interests as if they were a bunch of average folks.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Who said anything about “moral equivalence� I’m talking constitutional rights and the ability to voice your opinion without being demonized.
We could have used a few more like you over the last fifteen years.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 5th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
bobaloo, I’m sorry. I guess I was having trouble interpreting your snark. It sounded to me that you were saying that people on the left were being hypocritical when they criticized the tactics of those supporting health care reform. If that’s the case, I was left wondering why you thought the Left was being hypocritical.
No one on this thread or in the original post is saying that the “hands off my healthcare” bus tour is an example of a “mob.” A couple of us are saying that there is a distinction to be drawn between corporate-sponsored protests and protests that come out of the efforts of private citizens—particularly with the aim of engaging in a debate within their own communities. It’s a fine distinction, and there are gray areas, but there’s a difference.
I’m also saying that there’s a big difference between protests and rallies on the one hand and premeditated disruption of public meetings. Far from being protected free speech, these acts seem to me to fall under the category of public disturbance, and the people engaging in such practices should be ejected from these meetings, just as folks from Code Pink or ACTUP would likely be.
As far as the health care debate goes, nobody on the left is suggesting that we go to, say, a Republican congressman’s town hall and shout and chant so as to prevent an exchange of ideas. Is it hypocritical, then, for the Left to condemn these people — and the organizations behind them? If not, what was your point?
And just as an aside, I remember a while back when someone at the Asheville Tribune wrote dismissively about the folks who packed the city council meeting to sound off about logging the reservoir watershed. The article included a riff on the whole democracy vs. republic theme – how comforting it was to know that the city council had no moral obligation to listen to those hippies. I wonder what the Tribune will say if the Patients United crowd starts screaming at a Shuler town hall? Will we suddenly become a democracy again?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 6th, 2009 at 6:03 am
Gordon writes:
Well, of course they’re going after him with both barrels. Why wouldn’t they? They know it’s a winning issue and y’all do too.
The 11th is a conservative district (remember, it voted overwhelmingly for McCain). Many of the folks on the left who voted for Mr. Shuler last time (African Americans, young people) will not be voting for him next time because a) typically they don’t vote, and b) Mr. Obama won’t be on the ticket. A vote for “socialized medicine” (or however it’s spun) on Mr. Shuler’s part would potentially create an enormous backlash among Republicans, who Mr. Shuler needs to win re-election. And, frankly, he doesn’t need the Progressive vote — and the more he pisses off the far left, the more friends he wins among moderates and conservatives.
I don’t think Mr. Shuler will be supporting the president’s health care proposals for a number of reasons, the political calculus above among them. There’s also Mr. Shuler’s strong pro-life beliefs, which would be tough to reconcile if he supported this proposal. And there’s his fiscal conservatism; I think that he knows (as does the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office) that all this talk about the president’s health care plan not adding to the deficit is a bunch of horse shit.
That said, the NRCC knows that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. They aren’t openly targeting him because right now they see no real threat. They don’t think he’ll be supporting the president on this, and everything else is comparatively irrelevant given the fact that there are currently no viable Republican challengers.
That could all change, of course, if Mr. Shuler supports the president’s reform proposals.
And please understand that not everyone who doesn’t support the president’s plan (or agree with you) is a corporate tool, a flat-earther, a global-warming denier, a birther, a redneck, a greedy capitalist, an angry mobster, a drooling imbecile, or Don Yelton. There are many thoughtful people with serious objections who resent being demonized and mocked by the media and so many folks on the left.
But why be so worried? Democrats control the government. If the plan doesn’t pass, it won’t be the fault of Republicans.
MM
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 6th, 2009 at 8:20 am
I find this discussion about grassroots v. astroturfing disheartening. The tea-bagging phenomena distressing. The whole notion that politics in America has devolved to confronting embedded displays of disingenuous ‘free speech’ is depressing.
Viz.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xlqxSRhARU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Freader%2Fview%2F&feature=player_embedded
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 6th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Michael,
It certainly won’t be the fault of Congressional Republicans if the plan doesn’t get enough votes, but the disinformation out there will be attributable almost entirely to Republicans. The conserative Dems like Shuler will have substantive objections to portions of the plan, yet it will be claims that Obama wants to kill old people that will stick in the minds of too many voters.
Back in the salad days of the campaign, Shuler’s health care policy statement was,
I don’t know how much you’re paying for insurance (if you have it at all), but let’s remember that our private insurance system is making billions of dollars in profits each year by soaking the middle class, terminating policies at their whim, and denying the care that people need. The private system is failing us. Reform opponents would have us believe it’s not and that any changes will bring certain doom.
From NCHC:
Anyway, I know it’s not enough to be right on an issue. It takes real leadership at the top to move things forward, and the Democrats don’t appear to have the spine to create a workable system with a strong public option. I’m not terribly hopeful that meaningful health care reform will pass, but I can’t stand idly by while a hysterical Sean Hannity and disingenuous Dick Armey set the terms of the health care debate.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 6th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Our own Tom Sullivan is on Huffington Post again. Go read the whole thing. Excerpt:
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 6th, 2009 at 10:52 am
I appreciate your thoughtful response, Gordon, and I respect where you’re coming from — and I think you know me well enough to know where I come from on a whole range of issues that affect the most vulnerable among us. I, too, find it immoral that so many of our citizens have no access to health care.
And you also know how I feel about the poisonous and divisive elements within the Republican Party. I’m not some rigid ideologue who claims to have all the answers or a corner on the truth.
What I can say about the specifics about the debate on health care is that I’m hopelessly lost. I first read one analysis, and I come away agreeing with it; I then read something else a few minutes later that seems to take the exact opposite view, and I seem to agree with that. I find the discussions arcane and difficult to follow; statistics are thrown around so much that they become meaningless. It’s mind-numbing. And to top it off, both sides accuse the other of the worst of motives.
What I’d like to see is a public, thoughtful, balanced analysis — in plain language, free of partisan rhetoric — that dissects and explains the legislation itself. There is no intelligent dialogue anymore…just shouting and spin from both sides — leaving the rest of us with nothing to make up our minds with but fear, ignorance, or ideology.
MM
P.S. Tom, I enjoyed reading your post on HuffPo. I’ve seen a lot of what you write about first-hand and it’s right on target.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 6th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Seven hours later…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 6th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Jeez, that went over like a wet fart in church.
I was hoping to spark some discussion — you know, actually talk about what’s in the bill — free from the syrupy propaganda and spewing bile. But I guess it’s just more fun to rant and rave.
I’ll be waiting. I have a whole mess of questions.
MM
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 6th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
As a conservative activist and a Republican, I will come forth and identify Freedom Works as an Astro Turf organization. I have had personal experience of that organization that confirms it for myself, and have received similar reports from others. I was foolish enough to let them use me once. No more.
Nearly all political “grassroots” organizations that have head quarters in either Raleigh or Washington, DC fits my definition of Astro Turf, whether they be conservative, libertarian, liberal, progressive or whatever.
Organizations like Freedom Works, AFP (Americans for Prosperity) , and the Michael Leahy faction of TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) are the main players I am familiar with who have jumped in front of the Tea Party Movement and tried to take advantage of it…possibly destroying it’s effectiveness in the process.
In my opinion, Erika’s group is in no way an Astro Turf organization.
I don’t consider it nonpartisan due the very heavy Ron Paul 2008 alumni presence on her team. I think we can agree that they are very partisan in the sense that they have their own agenda in the local Republican party. I applaud Erika’s refusal to let Freedom Works and other similar groups dictate to her who speaks at her Tea Parties.
If you’ve seen my videos of the Tea Parties in Franklin and videos of the Asheville Tea parties, you’ll notice a very significant difference between them. The speakers at the the Franklin events are the approved (and very well-dressed) political elite that include past, current or future candidates for office being given platforms to speak. At the Asheville events, the theme is that of everyman (or woman) speaking out.
I think that the Tea Party Movement has made a grave error in trying to imitate the lefty mobs that protested various things during the Bush Years. I feel that the movement would be better served by having symposiums and workshops to give these people some tools and skills that would encourage them to stay involved in local politics and actually show up at local government meetings and work their precincts.
Any fool (left or right) can pick up a sign and yell their fool head off. If they really are interested in changing things, and being far more dangerous to the status quo, they’ll join together and begin electing a whole new type of person to office…normal people who will only serve one or two terms, then go back where they came from and be replaced by another citizen-legislator who will do the same.
Sorry for the rant. I’m kinda pissed off at some of the idiots in my party right now. If we could get our act together, you guys wouldn’t stand a chance. As it is…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 7th, 2009 at 10:55 am
24 hours later…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Michael,
I started to leave you a list of links to health care reform facts but got interrupted by life.
I’ll start a fresh thread before long.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 8th, 2009 at 1:36 am
Gee, thanks Gordon. A list of links facts on the health care debate — I can’t wait.
I have a neat idea, if you’re up for it — between all those pesky patients & baby kissing photo-ops
As I mentioned up above, I’m tired of all the manufactured spin from both sides. I’m also not coming at this from an ideological perspective — which means (to me) that I’m not trying to cherry-pick the facts or fit them to suit a particular political agenda. I’m not even prepared to dismiss “single payer” out-of-hand, just because some folks cast it as “nationalized healthcare” or “socialized medicince.” I’m open to all the options.
Oh — I’m also not big on regurgitating talking points. I don’t watch Hannity or Beck or listen to Rush; I’d rather stick needles in my eyes. And in the last few months, I’ve even removed myself from all the GOP and right-wing mailing lists (well, except for Carl Mumpower’s. Old habits die hard).
So here’s the idea. Why don’t you open a thread where I would ask you a series of honest questions about health care reform and you would answer them plainly so that I and others can understand. The thread would be closed, with restricted access to just you and me, so no one else can chime in. That way, the discussion would stay on point and the level of rhetoric and decorum would be maintained.
The nature of Scrutiny Hooligans lends itself to this sort of discussion, in my opinion. We’d free ourselves of time and words limits, and knowing that you’re busy, we’d each get to it as our schedules and inclinations permit. Maybe in the back-and-forth, we’d all learn something in the process — unlike what’s going on now at these town-hall meetings.
I really want to learn about this legislation and the only way I learn is to ask questions.
How’s that sound?
MM
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 8th, 2009 at 2:05 am
To be honest, it sounds exhausting. I’d rather talk about it over a pint one night.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 8th, 2009 at 11:25 am
So would I — but that would deprive your vast audience of the opportunity to learn something.
Besides, it would probably go a long way to alleviate a lot of the fear and suspicion out there if someone smart and articulate like yourself would simply address the concerns directly, explaining plainly what’s in Mr. Obama’s plan. Who knows, you might win over some converts.
How’s about it, pal? Just you and me — mano a mano? I ask some questions, you give some answers. What’s the harm?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 8th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Bobby Coggins writes: “I don’t consider [the Asheville Tea Party] nonpartisan due the very heavy Ron Paul 2008 alumni presence on her team.”
I’m guessing that you may not understand the definition of the term “nonpartisan.”
We do not promote any organized political organization; for example, The Democrat Party or the Republican Party. The advocacy of political parties is not a concern of the Tea Parties and we welcome anyone from any party who shares our values and our mission and would like to participate in our cause.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 8th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Tim, we’re The Democratic Party.
Since the Tea Party movement officially disavowed the “teabagger” name, a lot of us have started avoiding it. If you’re going to ask us to be careful about what we call you, can we ask you to be careful about what you call us?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 8th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Okay Tim, I’ll spell it out for you. Partisan Ron Paul Supporters. You can’t be that lacking in common sense.
Here is what the Princeton WordNet says,/b> are among the definitions of “partisan”:
I dare you to say you guys aren’t partisan about Ron Paul, or that anything approaching the majority of your (‘your’ as in collective since you are being asininely narrow in interpreting what is written) ideas would be tolerated in the Democratic party. Your best bet is in the Republican party and everyone knows it. (Just as surely as Freedom Works is an organization made up primarily of, by and for Republicans, and Moveon.org is made primarily of, by and for Democrats)
And this “nonpartisan” shtick is anything but for nearly any political organizing. Nonpartisan is legal window dressing to avoid getting tangled in various Federal and/or State elections monitoring agencies.
I notice that some of the top people in the Asheville Tea Party are on the Executive Committee for the Buncombe County Republican party. Are there any Executive Committee members of the Buncombe County Democratic party who are part of the organizing team? If there were, I doubt they’d keep their position for very long.
The Tea Parties are very partisan in nature. At least be honest enough with yourself to admit that.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 8th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Meh. I didn’t hit the shift key when closing my bold tag.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 8th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Doug Gibson writes: “Tim, we’re The Democratic Party.”
Would that then make you a Democratican?
You see, a member of the Republican is a member of the Republican Party. A Democrat is a member of the Democrat Party.
And, by the way, that is not an insult.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 8th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Bobby Coggins writes: “I dare you to say you guys aren’t partisan about Ron Paul”
I am not partisan about Ron Paul.
I supported Ron Paul as a candidate for President. And I would support his candidacy again were he to run again.
I do not advocate for any particular organized political party. I am not a partisan and the Tea Parties are also nonpartisan.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 8th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
CORRECTION
A Republican is a member of the Republican Party. A Democrat is a member of the Democrat Party
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 8th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Bobby Coggins writes: “Are there any Executive Committee members of the Buncombe County Democratic party who are part of the organizing team?”
We haven’t had any sign up. I have encouraged the Tea Party to bring Democrats (from the Democrat Party) and independents to the table.
I know several Democrats who are participating, but none have risen to leadership positions; which I would encourage, were they so inclined.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 8th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
“A Democrat is a member of the Democrat Party. And, by the way, that is not an insult.”
Baloney. Sophomoric, deceitful, insulting baloney. The snarks that pretend this is just a disagreement about language – they are liars. This is about Conservatives being empty of ideas and peering over the cliff into their own irrelevancy, and this is the best they can come up with – trying to make an insult out of their opponents name, and then pretending that they aren’t. Did I say sophomoric? How about infantile…
Remember the Bush ads that had “RATS” inserted subliminally every time the word “Democrats” came onscreen? That’s the level that this whole childish game has descended to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NPKxhfFQMs
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 8th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
barry writes: “This is about Conservatives being empty of ideas”
I’m not a conservative.
And, if proper grammar is a stumbling block for you, I can’t be called to account
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 8th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
. . . oh, and “barry”? — I have ideas. I’m brimming with them.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 9th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Tim,
By your logic, it’s no biggie to refer to the country north of the United States as “Canadia,” and to make a point of continuing to do so even when a Canadian (or would that be a Canadan?) asks you to stop.
The adjective form of “republic” is “republican.” As it happens, we use “republican” to refer to those with republican political philosophies.
The adjective form of “democracy” is “democratic.” But by a twist of etymology (excerpt from the Mac Dictionary below) we don’t refer to a person with democratic leanings as a “democratic,” but as a “democrat.”
So – members of the Republican Party in the United States are Republicans. Members of the Democratic Party are Democrats. The parties aren’t named after their members, but rather the members take their proper names from their party. Since you care so much about grammar, I figured you’d appreciate being corrected.
Because you’re a reasonable person, only interested in exchanging ideas, and you wouldn’t persist in an error simply because you thought it would annoy people, right?
———————
ORIGIN late 18th cent.(originally denoting an opponent of the aristocrats in the French Revolution of 1790): from French démocrate, on the pattern of aristocrate ‘aristocrat.’
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 9th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Okay, I have a question about one aspect of the sausagefest going on in Washington (making the sausage? the legislative analogy cliche? what did you think I meant?)
Has Obama struck a deal with big pharma which essentially has them stabbing the insurance companies in the back? That’s the way it looks – they are poised to pour $150 million into ads backing healthcare reform, IF the final bill caps how much they will have to give up:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/health/policy/09lobby.html?_r=1
If so, how do we feel about it? I sort of like it – set them tearing at each other, to the public’s benefit…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 9th, 2009 at 6:01 am
It’s no wonder people think we are dorks.
MM
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 9th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Michael,
Dorks, geeks, or nerds? There’s a difference.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 9th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Enough said
MM
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 9th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Oh, well.
Rate this comment:
0 
0