GOP’s 2010 strategy revealed: Exploit donors and ‘fear’ of Obama

www.politico.com...

That link is to a leaked RNC fund raising document which mocks donors and says:

"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate?"

Answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!"



Looks like it's working on the average ATSer.

Never have I seen so many people, so scared of what is essentially a fund raising tactic.



You want real, "truth"?

This is it. The wealthy elite have NEVER cared about America (^^^ see them say, "what can you SELL..."), but instead about power and influence.

You may not agree with Obama on much (I don't either), but he's NOT a socialist. America is NOT becoming socialist. Healthcare reform is NOT about communism.

All you do by remaining ignorant and claiming such nonsense is help the RNC raise money.

That's their plan. And you're their mark.


[edit on 4-3-2010 by seethelight]

Originally posted by seethelight
You may not agree with Obama on much (I don't either), but he's NOT a socialist. America is NOT becoming socialist. Healthcare reform is NOT about communism.

All you do by remaining ignorant and claiming such nonsense is help the RNC raise money.

That's their plan. And you're their mark.

What about someone like me who DOES think Obama's policies have a stench of socialism, but wouldn't give a dime to the RNC? Am I still "ignorant" or do we just have differing views?

-E-

As I look at the proposals and programs of this administration and the Congress, I see expansion of government control and influence over health care, the energy sector, the auto industry and the banking industry.

Almost by its very definition, expansion of the government role in private industry is socialism. Its just watered down in this case. Nor is it always a bad thing and it strikes me as odd that they run from the word like the plague.

For my part, I think the man is a socialist, as is much of his party. I think what you're seeing is that they're being reigned in by political reality, however, and that they're being forced to strike a balance between what they want to do and what they actually can do from a political perspective and in the eyes of public opinion.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by vor78]

When lacking in ideas resort to fear mongering.

How GOP of them.

And no Obama's policies are not socialistic.

reply to post by vor78


You are clueless, and people like you are extremely EASY marks for people like the fundraisers at the RNC.

Socialism:

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that has transcended commodity production and wage labor, where economic activity is carried out to maximize use-value as opposed to exchange-value and thus a corresponding change in social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and resource allocation;[4] often implying advocacy for a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.


I'm certainly NOT a socialist, but I am a liberal. I think Obama couldn't be a less socialist Dem if he tried.

He basically gave away millions to businesses, he doesn't strongly advocate socialised medicine (unless you consider making people BUY something, socialism, which is ain't. You know how I know? Because the rich will still be able to buy whatever they want... and doctors won't all be paid by the government.

He doesn't favour nationalising ANY industry.

I mean, you'd just have to either not know what the word meant or be wildly misinformed to think Obama or Dems are socialist... they're HARDLY liberal.

reply to post by MysterE


Then you ALSO don't know what socialism means.

It's not like we needed a document to show us that the GOP's main message is fear and socialism. Fear of Obama and fear of Socialism. They've been pretty consistent with that message since the beginning.

I was surprised at some of the childish references in the GOP bulletin, however. Referring to Pelosi and Reid and Cruella DeVille and Scooby Doo... Complete with silly cartoon pictures and the Obama Joker poster. It looks like a third-grader with a chip on his shoulder was involved in putting this together.

People who claim Obama is socialist don't know what socialism is. Just talk to the ATS members who live in socialist countries and they will tell you that he's not even close.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

As always BH is a voice of reason on a site where many of its members are busily denying their own ignorance.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


It's funny how the responses are divided between:

Of course he's not... only ignorance would lead you to believe he's a socialist.

AND

Of course he's a socialist... like all Dems.




This country...

I would be more shocked if this was a suprise by anyone.

This is of course their agenda...this has been their agenda since the freaking 50s with the communists under your bed nonsense...its what they do
the GOP is the party of OMG! DUCK, THEY ARE BEHIND YOU!!!

they change the word communists now and again, sort of go back and forth between communists to socialists, in 2000-2008 it was radical islamic elements "turr-ists", etc...the party of flip you right the hell out fear.

Not to say that we as a nation shouldn't have any precautions and understanding that the world can be a fairly dangerous place..but dayum, how many decades can the party successfully play the same card over and over again and not be laughed at.

I think the question we ought to ask ourselves is what the proper role of government needs to be in our advancing society.

I do not want to see children or working Americans unable to afford health care. I do not want to see parents that work, have to work with injuries that are correctable merely because they cannot afford insurance. That is something I would be willing to pool our monies together to make sure everyone is covered. (I do have a problem with hospitals being for profit and insurance companies being middle men in the process).

I do not want to see Americans, and I don't care what their situation is, unable to eat. I am willing to pool monies together to make sure all of us have food.

I do not want to see Americans unable to afford to heat their homes or provide a basic form of shelter for themselves. I am willing to pool monies together for that.

Conversely, I think it is wrong for government to tax anyone or charge a fee to people starting businesses. I don't think one should pay to start a business until they start making a profit. I don't think employers should be gouged by government, and regulated with tax codes, forced to hire people to navigate the maze regulations. I don't think corporations have the right of people and they need to get out of politics, and government needs to back off taxing business to death. I do not think it is right to have ONE person covered by insurance multiple times, for multiple reasons, from many people. I say have one insurance that covers a person on and off work, on and off your own property, in or out of a place of business.

I don't think this makes me socialist. But, according to the GOP it does. I think the GOP doesn't have a clue about the average American.

Signed,

-Registered Republican

Originally posted by seethelight
You are clueless, and people like you are extremely EASY marks for people like the fundraisers at the RNC.

Believe me, that hurts coming from you. Your opinion means SO much to me.

As I said, it is not full blown socialism. Its significantly watered down due to political reality. Otherwise, read your own damned definition of socialism. This government is clearly advocating increased public administration of several major sectors of this economy through increased regulation. Still, if you're expecting European style socialism overnight, you're sadly mistaken. That's not what this is. This is incremental.

All of this reminds me of the campaign. In the same post, the die hard Obama supporters would insist until they were blue in the face that he absolutely was not a socialist, but then they'd turn right around and sing the praises of socialism in the same post. Aside from everything else I already knew about him, it seems to me that there was a common denominator.

Originally posted by seethelight
It's funny how the responses are divided between:

Of course he's not... only ignorance would lead you to believe he's a socialist.

AND

Of course he's a socialist... like all Dems.

It is funny. Funny, peculiar, not funny, ha, ha.

Thing is, when people are in fear and their leaders tell them to be afraid, there's a tendency to categorize the object of fear (in this case, Obama) as the extreme opposite of what the target audience (Republican citizens, in this case) stand for. Since the Republican Party values free market, trickle down economics, conservatism, and corporate tax cuts, etc., Obama's way of doing things can best be capitalized upon by drilling the public with scary words like socialism and communism in relation to Obama and the Democrats. So, naturally, people who tend to lean to the right are going to eat that up, just as Democrats and left-leaners ate up the fascism label when it was applied to George W. Bush. We were wrong to think that Bush had the power and intelligence to turn this country into a fascist state and these people are wrong to think that Obama has the intent or power to turn the US into a Socialist country.

But I know how they feel. I was truly afraid of Bush/Cheney. Even if we find ourselves on one side or the other, we need to remember what it was like for us.

Just my opinion.

reply to post by seethelight


You appearantly mis-understood my post. I said it "had the stench of socialism". What that means is it seems like, or resembles socialism, while not adhearing strictly to the definition.

-E-

Originally posted by vor78
This is incremental.

Nearly every presidency in the US lies SOMEWHERE along the line between pure Capitalism and pure Socialism. I think many people are just uncomfortable with where, in the continuum, this presidency lies. I'm about 98% certain that if things had been different when Obama took office and we weren't on the verge of an economic collapse, in two wars and faced with extreme job losses, Obama wouldn't look any more like a Socialist than anyone else. In fact, he's quite moderate under normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances, though. These are "interesting times".

All of this reminds me of the campaign.

And it should. This document is a GOP campaign leaflet. They may call it something else, but they are desperately campaigning for November and 2012.

One day an old Native American grandfather was talking to his grandson. He said, "There are two wolves fighting inside all of us -

the wolf of fear and hate, and the wolf of love and peace."

The grandson listened, then looked up at his grandfather and asked, "Which one will win?"

The grandfather replied, "The one we feed."

The GOP feeds the wolf of fear and hate.

reply to post by seethelight


i would think it natural for them to jump on the bandwagon at this point.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I don't disagree with that at all. I think its a very valid assessment that most (all?) politicians lie somewhere between the line of capitalism and socialism, which is why I think its a little bizarre that people run from being labeled the latter. Still, it reminds me of the '08 campaign, where you had strong advocates of socialism on this site and elsewhere who were also strongly supportive of Obama, but very hostile to the characterization of Obama himself as a socialist. Its the old 'judge me by the people I surround myself with' or in this case, I partially judge him on his supporters. Still, you and I have had the Obama argument enough times that you know that I did not vote against him 'because he's a socialist,' but because I had a number of major, specific policy concerns.

All of that said, in any event, it is my belief that indeed, he is a socialist at heart, even if his policies are not representative of a full blown, socialist revolution or some such nonsense. Besides, as I said earlier, socialistic policies are not always bad. I haven't even characterized his policies as such in this thread, although yes, I do disagree with them.

And you're right, it is campaign season. Oh joy.

I can see how the cartoon strategy would appeal to the conservative GOP base ala the caricatures of Rush, Sean and the rest of the cartoon patriots that paint reality with the broad brush of hyperbole.

But will negative campaigning still work and garner funds?

I as a voter would like to see plans and ideas; not silly posters and fear mongering. I know it's abit much to ask of the GOP as their A&R guys and steering committees, are drunk most of the time. That's how they came up with the catch phrase "less taxes, smaller government" knowing full well the GOP would never implement it.







[edit on 4-3-2010 by whaaa]

I ran across this while looking for something else.

Memo Reveals GOP Plan to Exploit Fear of Obama

The PowerPoint presentation uses the words "reactionary" and "ego-driven" on a page describing potential GOP donors.

So, they're targeting the "reactionaries" and "ego-driven" members of their party to raise funds. I hope you all heard that. Did you notice how many times the word "tchochkes" was highlighted? As if the wealthy GOP donors can be bought with "tchochkes"? Maybe it's true.

"Massaging egos and trigger points and using psychological techniques like peer-to-peer pressure -- that's Fundraising 101. But you're not supposed to tell the donors -- or anyone -- that they're being manipulated," Ambinder noted.

Seems the RNC was afraid that supporters would be jarred by the idea of Michael Steele seeing or supporting the white-faced Obama joker picture in the memo...

Even before Politico's story hit the Web, the RNC sent an e-mail assuring supporters that Steele didn't know what was in the PowerPoint presentation and didn't attend the Florida meeting.

So, "Don't worry folks. Our black leader didn't see this questionable, derogatory picture of our black president in "white face" that we put in our fund-raising memo. As long as he doesn't see it, it's not offensive to black folks."



And a final note on the Scooby Doo imagery of Harry Reid:

"Uh-oh! Somebody found the playbook, and it's full of secret, evil GOP strategies that have been obvious to any human being who's watched any half-second of any news coverage at any point in the last 30 to 200 million years," he said. "Although the Scooby-Doo imagery is new, hadn't considered that yet." (Newell wasn't the only one struck by the strategic use of the goofy cartoon dog. From Firedoglake's David Dayen: "Whoever thought of comparing Harry Reid to Scooby-Doo, unlike 10 million Americans, draws a paycheck. That's the most I can say about that.")