I found the following excerpt from a negative political campaign leaflet on Echidne's Blog:
Sounds nasty, doesn't it? However, there is one thing you need to know. Rose Ferlita is a Conservative candidate and the leaflet was sponsored by a Democrat.
I think it's great that finally there are some Democrats who are willing to give the Conservatives a taste of their own medicine. We've seen enough abstinence pushers whose children give birth in junior high. Promoters of family values who serve their wives with divorce papers on a hospital bed. Gay bashers who get caught with teenage male prostitutes. Let's make the Republicans live up to their avowed beliefs. If you keep preaching about family values, you better uphold them in your own life. If you are a woman who runs from a party that is in the habit of condemning female Hispanic judges as temperamentally unsuited for public office, be prepared to be judged according to the same standards.
Finally, there is a Democrat who is not afraid to make the Republicans confront their profound hypocrisy.
18 comments:
You're right.
There's no way to win battles like the Republicans want to fight by taking the high road.
I wish it weren't so, but that's just the reality. Obama apparently really believe he could sit everyone around a table and talk it out. We see how that worked.
Totalitarian types just don't respond to that sort of impetus.
-Mike
The last 2 points are relevant for candidate of any party and I am 100% for using them. However, the 1st point trades a probable short term win for sure long term loss. More than enough voters won't see it as satire and the notion that an unmarried woman's place isn't in politics will be reinforced. Unless you think only married people should run for an office, it's the opposite of wanted result. Aren't there unmarried Democrat women candidates too?
I would be for using past abortion against a woman, who wants to outlaw it for others, but not as: "She had this abortion. What a horrible person." Rather it would be "She is a hypocrite and wants to prevent other women from the choice she had." This argument doesn't make a point against abortions, unlike this leaflet that makes "unmarried woman" sound like a dirty word.
If you're married, you should "take care of" children. If unmarried - your family values are suspectful. The only conclusion I see is against any woman participating in politics at all! Enough people still think thus, why reinforce?
Btw, have you heard of the terrible terrorist attack at Israel with parents and their 3 children, including 4 months old baby, killed with a knife in their sleep by Arab terrorists? For several days all newspapers are discussing that and the government's controversial decision to publish the photos of the bodies in the attempt to counterattack pictures of Palestinian war victims. Wanted to check whether the case became well-known abroad and would be very interested in your opinion about publishing the photos.
Just saw a connection between the photos and your blog post. In both cases it's using your opponent's tactics against them.
"Rather it would be "She is a hypocrite and wants to prevent other women from the choice she had."
-This doesn't work, though. It has been tried and it doesn't work. Conservatives don't speak this language. They can only be moved by their own terminology. Unless one starts howling about slaughtered innocent babies, they will not hear.
"Btw, have you heard of the terrible terrorist attack at Israel with parents and their 3 children, including 4 months old baby, killed with a knife in their sleep by Arab terrorists"
-Everybody is concentrating on Japan right now. Nothing else makes it into the news. Why would terrorists kill this particular family?
" For several days all newspapers are discussing that and the government's controversial decision to publish the photos of the bodies in the attempt to counterattack pictures of Palestinian war victims. "
-If people haven't been convinced by evidence of the Holocaust, what would one more dead family do to change their belief that Israel is always 100% bad?
From JP:
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=211863
Isn't it likely they didn't decide to kill this particular family prior to entering? They entered the settlement despite the fence with the intention to kill somebody and for some, unknown to me reason chose their house, killed and ran away.
On March 11, 1978, Mughrabi, along with eight or nine Fatah terrorists armed with Kalashnikovs and grenades, led the Coastal Road massacre, an indiscriminate killing spree that left 38 innocent Israelis, including 13 children, dead. Mughrabi, a hero of thousands of Palestinians, had hoped to derail Israel’s peace talks with Egypt.
As Yossi Kuperwasser, director-general of the Strategic Affairs Ministry, told the cabinet Sunday, the Mughrabi death cult is just one of many examples of Palestinian incitement against Israel. The Fogel massacre, said Kuperwasser, is “in a way, an expression of the way the PA presents an attitude of hatred and demonization towards Israelis in general and especially towards settlers.”
From
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=212004
The last comment:
RE why them:
Cohen said it was not clear why the terrorists chose the Fogel home for the attack. "There is no reason for terrorists to have chosen this house, it is not closer to the [fence] than other houses," he told Army Radio.
Meanwhile, some Palestinians have been passing out sweets in celebration of the Fogel Family's demise.
I'm coming at this from a different angle than Democrats good/Republicans bad, because 1)I have always registered as an Independent and 2) both parties suck.
Tampa is also local to where I am, though I live outside the city.
It's not really about calling Ferlita on her hypocrisy, it's about using a sexist attack on her because people think that will work with the type of people who comprise most Republicans and conservative Democrats.
You're missing one important rule-- following conservative rules are for little people and Democrats; preaching them is for Republican elites. Otherwise people's heads would have exploded from the pressure of cognitive dissonance a long time ago.
Don't conflate liberals with Democrats; many liberals are Democrats, not all liberals are Democrats.
I am neutral on this because I don't think her opponent is light and goodness either.
"Meanwhile, some Palestinians have been passing out sweets in celebration of the Fogel Family's demise"
-This sounds like nothing other than some gossip aimed not at understanding what happened and why but igniting blind passions.
A terror attack that is aimed at such a small group of people with so much effort expended and nearly no results is a very strange terror attack. Are you sure you know everything there is about this story? Might there be personal motivation behind this?
"It's not really about calling Ferlita on her hypocrisy, it's about using a sexist attack on her because people think that will work with the type of people who comprise most Republicans and conservative Democrats."
-She is a sexist. Whys shouldn't be victimized by sexism? I think if anybody deserves it is a hypocrite who runs as a Republican while her very existence denies every Republican value. Let her practice what she preaches for once.
This sounds like nothing other than some gossip aimed not at understanding what happened and why but igniting blind passions.
Clarissa, Palestinians celebrating in Gaza after a successful attack is nothing new. See:
Thousands Celebrate In Streets Of Gaza Upon News Of Dimona Suicide Attacks' Success
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONkriiiiy0U
Unless you say the words of the man in the car were wrongly translated ... It happens time after time. I can't believe our newspapers are constantly lying and all the videos are manipulated.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4041106,00.html
Gaza residents from the southern city of Rafah hit the streets Saturday to celebrate the terror attack in the West Bank settlement of Itamar where five family members were murdered in their sleep, including three children.
Residents handed out candy and sweets, one resident saying the joy "is a natural response to the harm settlers inflict on the Palestinian residents in the West Bank."
This is very short wiki article about Itamar, which could explain a lot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar
A bit about its' people:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2057983.stm
"Itamar: Religious West Bank settlers"
The settlement's defense has been privatized: instead of army soldiers, they were guarded by a private security firm. May be the terrorists felt bolder due to this too.
Here’s a piece on nrg-Maariv (Hebrew). In it the Shabak and police say “there were major faults in the private security firm’s conduct”. At 22:00 the “smart security fence” around Itamar alerted an intruder. Upon arrival at the scene the security firm’s patrol found no one and decided NOT to inform the army about the intrusion for another 30 minutes.
The link you gave shows that these are religious fanatics on both sides of the conflict. This is just sad. Religious fanaticism is the scourge of this planet and has been for millenia.
Horrible.
It's also galling that people would sacrifice little children to their own insane fantasies of "pre-ordainment." Fanatics are the scariest people in the world because they have no morality at all. They'll step on anybody's corpse on their way to their "pre-ordained destiny."
Thankfully, I'm not in Tampa or like most voters, because that sure doesn't make me want to vote for her opponent, and I'd be more likely demographically to vote for Buckhorn, if you're just going by party. Mayor's races tend to have low turnout, and this is a runoff.
This strategy bets on more potential Ferlita voters switching or not voting than Buckhorn voters switching or not voting. I don't know how accurate that assumption is -- we'll find out in a week. If you notice, this is not being run by Buckhorn, but by someone else entirely.
It's obvious to me, our elections are fixed. We have electronic voting in states with no paper trail. The electoral college still elects the President of the U.S. Elected politicians no longer think they have to follow the direction of the electorate once they are in office.
I fail to see how giving nasty for nasty is going to improve matters. In my ideal world, politicians and wanna-be politicians would run on a platform of issues and their solutions to problems. Goddess save me from excessive hyperbole. It isn't enough to have to listen to the smug, hypocritical, sarcastic rantings of twisted repressed people on the right?
If all the politicians use this sort of vitriol, what could possibly be the point of voting? Reality politics where the nastiest, most inane, illogical people represent us in the government is a slow, inexorable slide to fascism. At least right now, we have Kucinich and perhaps others like him. Shall we drive everyone away from politics who has one smidgeon of intelligence and decency?
We are not, I hope, driven to bad behavior simply because others display it.
Iris
I always prefer people who fight to those who stay down while they are getting punched. I see no other way of punishing the Republicans for their hypocrisy. The country just handed them the Congress and will hand them the Presidency next year. Will we just sit there in silence afraid of sounding mean?
They bully us, let's bully right back!
I don't see it as staying down while getting punched. I see it as dancing away from those who would pull us down into their slime. Why do we have to punish the Republicans? They do just fine punishing themselves. I don't know why people voted in a republican congress. I suspect it has a lot to do with media spin and the extremely wealthy owners of those corporations.
What do you see as the outcome of bullying right back? More bullies?
Iris
I agree completely that people voted for the Republicans because of the media spin. I don't think, however, that there is a way to combat a media spin other than with a spin of one's own.
Being dragged into slime is not pleasant. But it's better than being dragged into more wars, greater penury, etc. Which is what a Republican presidency will bring for sure.
The progressives are losing the media war because they don't speak to what concerns people. They lost the 2004 elections harping on their silly "Bush lied" agenda. All of us paid dearly for the Democrats' lack of understanding that voters couldn't care less that Bush lied.
I agree the progressives do not speak to what concerns people. I think Bush won in 2004 because people could not see what an incompetent leader he was.
In my opinion we are intelligent enough to create a spin in the media that doesn't entail using exactly the same tactics we say are unacceptable.
We presently have a democrat in the White House who has upped the war in Afghanistan, threw the masses a penny while giving boatloads of cash to the rich - so I do not see the difference if we have a republican in 2012.
I don't care which party they belong to , I would prefer to vote for someone who runs on the issues and their solutions to the problems.
Taking away all civil discourse in the hope of making people see the error of their ways is not viable. Getting angry does not make people act better.
We can agree to disagree, yes?
Iris
Post a Comment