Watergate was an unnecessary mess because Nixon was winning anyway. In politics and policy, you have different layers and levels of involvement. The average American voters wants the nation to function better. Then, you have your issue activists and party enthusiasts who mean well but tend to get carried away and swear that the other side is never correct.
I am ticked-off with the Blue Dogs who supported Bush 41 and Bush 43 when these presidents were somewhat right yet those same conservative Democrats aren’t turning to the GOP members with whom they worked in the past and saying “come on fellows…not all of these ideas are bad.”
The most dramatic level of politics and policy would be the professionals who earn a living from the conflict—more mess, more money. I am one southerner who has grown weary of fighting for fighting sake.
To the people I know in the GOP, you can win in November on the issues but resorting to fear, hate and traditional ugliness is unbecoming and counterproductive. Your team should notice how Rep. Paul Ryan, Mario Rubio and even Senator Isakson debate and voice opposition constructively. The worst-case scenario would be the continue use of techniques and methods similar to the hate-baiting from our past. It is interesting that some of those “win at all cost” political leaders of the past had righteous transformation before going to glory and explain what they did for opportunistic purposes. Of course, the same can be said about folks on our side. To feed your family, a hater got to do what a hater got to do.
Earlier this year, President Obama told the both sides that they should be careful how they debate because the average Americans is going to start believing that they really hate each other. Newsflash: they don’t; it’s political theater. While they sincerely hate the issues and the growing debt, I don’t think there is a member of the Georgia congressional delegation who “hates” another member.
The wildcard factor is the successful division of the media that “stays paid” from the conflict. I want to say that I have recently learned that this division is not really journalists but some new form of political commentators for entertainment—Rush, Glenn, Michelle, Ed, Keith, Rachael. (Thank you Glenn Beck for explaining it.) Can the average American separate political entertainment from Cronkite-style journalism. Cronkite and Brinkley would turn to another camera and the words “commentary” would appear across the bottom of the screen.
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe today, they did a report about a coming RNC insider effort to drive donations with fear and boy won’t it work. But, playing this card from your sleeve is not needed when the cards in your hand are not that bad. Can you see why centrists support the few sensible people on the Right? The old Chinese proverb goes “it is better to light a single candle than curse the darkness.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/35706805#35706805
March 4: Msnbc’s Joe Scarborough offers his take on an RNC fundraising document, obtained by Politico, that encourages the use of “fear” and “negative feelings” to solicit donations.
Project Logic Ga 
GOPer Raynard Jackson is one brother who gets it. Thanks for the email Ray.
Republican fundraising document portrays Democrats as evil
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Thursday, March 4, 2010; A03
Democrats on Wednesday sharply criticized a Republican National Committee fundraising document that caricatured President Obama as the Joker, while Chairman Michael S. Steele sought to distance himself from it.
Also depicted were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), presented as Cruella de Vil and Scooby-Doo, respectively. The three Democratic leaders were gathered under the heading “The Evil Empire.”
The cartoonish images were part of a 72-page PowerPoint presentation assembled for potential campaign donors and fundraisers. The document was obtained by Politico after being left at a Florida hotel where the Republicans had gathered Feb. 18.
The presentation also outlined how donors will be encouraged to give to Republicans at a time when the party holds neither the White House nor Congress: “Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”
It cites “fear” and “extreme negative feelings toward existing administration” as reasons why donors might contribute to the GOP.
Said Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse: “If you had any doubt, any doubt whatsoever, that the Republican Party has been taken over by the fear-mongering lunatic fringe, those doubts were erased today.” He added, “Republicans across the country have cheered on crowds where these very images appeared.”
Steele did not attend the presentation in Boca Grande, Fla., and had not been aware of the document, spokesman Doug Heye said. “Fundraising documents are often controversial. Obviously, the chairman disagrees with the language and finds the use of such imagery to be unacceptable,” Heye said in a statement. “It will not be used by the Republican National Committee — in any capacity — in the future.”
Raynard Jackson, a GOP activist who has worked to attract blacks and other minority members to the party, was outraged by word of the presentation.
“This is just beyond the pale,” he said. “And the best we can get is Michael Steele issuing a statement through a spokesman? And they wonder why they can’t get minorities, especially black people, involved in the party?”
GOP aides privately said that the document might hurt the RNC because it suggested that its major donors may be “ego-driven” to give to the party and that they might be motivated by “tchotchkes.”
I think it’s time for the Black conservatives to finally get the message that the GOP really doesn’t care about Black people..If they did there would be at least ONE Black GOP member in congress..Wake up …
I have to agree with some of the comments from MSNBC, do we have children running our country in Congress or what? It’s shameful tactics such as this that causes voters to create movements like the Tea Party, Coffee Party and Independents who are growing even stronger in their efforts. Why can’t the parties stay on message. Their message of what their political party and ideology stands for. Okay Republicans want smaller government. Maybe they feel that’s not a good selling point for them since their last Republican president helped swelled the size of government in a way unbecoming to Republicans. But even so, nothing can be done about the past. But oftentimes, people who see they’re going down the wrong path will stop, reassess, reorganize and go back to the fundamentals. That is what pragmatic and sensible people do. They let their egos and pride take the back seat and focus on what’s best for the good of all. But unfortunately, that’s not happening and that’s really sad, folks.
My upcoming book, Unlikely Allies: 8 Steps to Bridging Divides that Impact Leadership, addresses these issues and much more. I almost wish my book was already published. I would be on a speaking tour sharing some proven methods and tools that some of these Republicans can embrace and incorporate. And maybe, just maybe, they will soften their hard campaign rhetoric and get back to the basics and possibly win a few seats in the upcoming elections. But we’re going to have to wait a little while. It’s slated for publication in early May.
But in the meantime, stay tuned. There are some other ideas brewing….
Is the tail wagging the dog or vice versa? To me, activist techniques used successfully by the Tea Party Movement are being adapted by the traditional parties and the results will be mixed. Those images from the power-point are simple posters from last summer rallies. Hey it happens to all of us: in college, you go to a pro-community type rally and someone real radical starts going off—time to go.
It is a two-edge sword and if you live by the sword…. Move-on.org seems similar to the Tea Party movement (not quite as radical.) Move-on helped elected a Dem President and congress but now they want their agenda enacted…any agenda that is a little to far-left for most southerners.
When Tom Foley was speaker of the House, he took to the well one day and said that any jackass could kick down a barn but it takes a carpenter to build one. Talking heads can rally on both sides and talk talk talk but at the end of the day statesmen and those with vision and diplomacy get about the people’s business.
Why are the movements and rallies so wild and uncivil? It is a reflection of the people
This a link from Peach Pundit where someone asked me about Blacks and the GOP.
http://www.peachpundit.com/2010/03/10/marshall-will-vote-against-obamacare/comment-page-1/#comment-219115
Ken: Sorry for not getting back to the PP earlier. First, Marshall is in a precarious situation because his district includes both ends of the political spectrum. The Democrat block in the Macon is happy with him because he was a good mayor back in the day. The military community in our state likes him because he knows armed forces inside out. Blacks in the district seem to appreciate his deliver on regional matters (some would say grants and pork.)
So, Democrats understand Blue Dog flexibility. Project Logic Ga is my blog and I just put an index of post at the top. The index is basically an outline on what my Black conservative friends should have done if there were an opportunity there but there isn’t. Real liberal Democrats tolerate Blue Dogs because winning the center was necessary to taking Washington back. On the other hand, real conservative don’t flex like that—hence the purity test.
The key to GOP congressional gains in November will be anger and fear. Hey, that stuff works but angry crowds are too deja vu for Black southerners. The funny thing is that the issues are there anyway so the rhetoric (which is cooked up by nerds in D.C. and talk radio/TV folks) is not needed and could be counterproductive. Bring the facts and fiscal logic with a smile on your face like Rubio and Isakson and it would be on.
When Michael Steele was running for chair, he produce a document called “The Blueprint” and it was a masterpiece for winning in November. Like the military or sports, you should study what works for the other guy and flip it back on them. To win a GOP primary in Georgia, a candidate better know the far-right agenda and be a veteran of the Tea Party Movement. However, a smoother Scott Brown-J.C. Watts type candidate would be more palatable to moderates, centrists and independents in the general election. Hey, once in office the candidate would make the single most important vote—Boehner for speaker.
Running against Obama is a two-edge sword in swing districts. Some of the new voters from 2008 are Obamacrats and not necessarily strong Democrats. They might sleep on the races in 2008 until it becomes an Obama thing….let sleeping dogs lie. If spun correctly, President Obama constantly looking for a GOP member of congress with whom to dialog is a plus. Some in my community want to send him a Black GOP MOC who will tell him what’s up and voice concerns in a civil manner.
Ken, I am all off track as usual. To answer your original question, Blacks who actually vote in the rural South are often very conservative on the issues but not eager to join a party where red meat tactics sometimes seem get mean-spirited. In my diverse group of political friends, we say that race trumps political party. A group of no-nonsense Black professional women candidates would pull women and Blacks away from the average Blue Dog yet still be 85% as conservative as any current Ga GOP member of congress.
Would Blacks vote for a conservative? They vote for Jim Marshall.
I respect the current candidates running the GOP primary against Marshall—let the chips fall where they may. But, Michael Murphy or Dr. Honeycutt could move into that district and get half the Black votes in the general election in the 8th District walking in the door after this no vote on healthcare reform. They would have made the same vote but use the pro-Obama sentiment when you can.
Cue James Brown’s the Big Payback