One dangerous Democrat

Ishmael

Literotica Guru
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Posts
84,005
Susan Estrich gets it. Too bad it won't make any difference.



Susan Estrich
Politics of hate won't beat Bush


December 4, 2003


Anyone up for a "Hate Bush" meeting in Hollywood? Doesn't it sound like just the sort of thing conservatives would invent to make liberals look stupid and open the conservative spigots?

But this was no right-wing conspiracy. Matt Drudge may be the one selling the idea that Hollywood held a "Hate Bush" meeting, but he didn't come up with the title. This is a self-inflicted wound by another silly Hollywood liberal giving honest politics a bad name.

The meeting in question was chaired by two longtime Democratic operatives, Harold Ickes and Ellen Malcolm, who have recognized that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be at a severe financial disadvantage as compared to the president.

The Republicans have an institutional advantage when it comes to raising money, because they are the party of business, and because they have a larger small-donor base; they also have an advantage because they control the White House and both houses of Congress.

So what are Democrats to do?

Under the new campaign finance laws, neither party is allowed to raise "soft" money. But independent groups can. So longtime Democrats have created two independent groups. One, headed by Ickes, focuses on providing media cover for the nominee beginning this spring, when the president is expected to start spending heavily; one headed by Malcolm and former AFL-CIO political director Steve Rosenthal will focus on field organizing in target states for the general election.

Invitations were sent to the usual Hollywood suspects, a collection of people with an interest in politics and money to give, to attend a meeting Tuesday with Ickes, Malcolm and Rosenthal. It was titled a "Meeting to Change the Leadership in America in 2004." Hardly worthy of Drudge.

Then Laurie David sent an e-mail forwarding invites to the "Hate Bush 12-2 Event," and the right went nuts.

Who is Laurie David? In news clips, she is identified as Larry David's wife. Who is Larry David? He's the star of "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

Maybe his wife should curb hers. It is only helping Republicans.

The way to defeat Bush is not to advertise how much you hate him. Hard-core ideologues who hate Bush are not going to decide this election. They'll vote for the Democrat, as they do every four years, but there aren't enough of them to elect a Democrat. You need swing voters to do that. Hatred may motivate the left to contribute money, but it is hardly an effective talking point for public consumption if you want to win elections.

Ari Emanuel, a talent agent who represents Larry David and whose brother served in the Clinton White House and now in Congress, knew just how bad the Drudge story was for Democrats. "People are assembling over a political issue -- the 2004 election," he told the press in response to the ruckus about hating Bush. "The invite didn't say 'Hate Bush,' and I don't think (the Drudge story) was productive."

Productive? I bet it produced a lot of money for George Bush. And worse, it helps produce votes for him.

The people whose votes Democrats will need to defeat George Bush don't hate him. On a personal level, they like him. They need to be convinced not to vote for him, for reasons that have to do with the war, or special interests or the economy. "Hate Bush" headlines do just the opposite.

Enemies are one thing, but with friends like Laurie David, the Democratic nominee is going to need all the help he can get.



Dean will get the nomination based on "Hate Bush". Then he, and all the other Democrats are going to have to come up with some ideas. And that's where they lose everytime. Clinton had to run on a Republican platform to win his two terms.

But the campaign will be about "hating Bush" and they'll lose. Again.

Ishmael
 
Susan Estrich?

Oh yeah, the genius behind the success of Micheal Dukakis' campaign.
 
Estrich is brilliant and while I may or may not agree with her politics, you are correct in understanding she "gets it".

Another Democrat ass whoopin appears in the offing. These dolts have learned nothing...
 
Queersetti said:
Susan Estrich?

Oh yeah, the genius behind the success of Micheal Dukakis' campaign.

LOL, I don't think the tank photo-op was her idea. Mikey kinda did himself in. That and that really nasty ad the Reps ran about the fuloughed con.

Ishmael
 
Rex1960 said:
are you into long finger nails with french manicure ?

What ever it is, it's on ignore now.

How's it going Rex?

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
Susan Estrich gets it. Too bad it won't make any difference.

Clinton had to run on a Republican platform to win his two terms.


Ishmael

Yeah, right. As if Bush's Education and immigration platforms were consistent with Recent Republican platforms.

Despite that little slap at Clinton, I agree with the premise that Democrats have to so something other than bash Bush and propose alternatives to his policies. However, Republican's vociferous hate for Clinton did not help Dole. It was incredibly distateful and created a whole new low in political discourse. (I do find it funny that the right now complains when people slam bush, saying it is distateful, but yet were fine doing it to Clinton).

I think showing that Bush is the insidious liar that he is (or, if not a liar, an extremely uninformed president) becomes an issue worthy of public discussion. A president's credibility is always an issue.


That aside, I think that you can go too far, and perhaps this is an example of it, I don't know, time will tell.

I certainly am hopeful that someone in the Democratic field will start getting back to proposals contrasting Bush's policies with what would make sense. The dems all had health care proposals they were discussing, and that has fallen into silence with the war and economy taking the front seat.

That must turn around, and I think it will at some point in the near future. As Nixon said in Re repubs, you campaign to the right in the primary (left for dems) and move to the center in the general campaign. I suspect we will see that happen, not only with the Dems, but Bush will start to moderate as the Gen. election becomes closer.

And more porn is always welcome.
 
Ishmael said:
What ever it is, it's on ignore now.

How's it going Rex?

Ishmael

Good, ty Ish

Only two more days before I'm off to Boston.
So I'm pretty excited.

How are you ?
 
Rex1960 said:
Good, ty Ish

Only two more days before I'm off to Boston.
So I'm pretty excited.

How are you ?

Doing well ty. Just staying out of the malls. <grin>

If we don't cross threads again before your flight, "safe journey".

Ishmael
 
Hating Bush is a great way for wealthy leftcoast media democrat jews to raise soft money out of public view.

But when it comes to running attack ads and negative public campaigns...nobody, not even Hollywood, can top the Republicans.

The center may judge Bush on his popularity on election day, something I'm sure the Repubs are banking on...because if he's judged on his unimpresive lifetime track record of drinking, coke use, avoiding service, business nepotism, the dimpled chads, the popular vote, the economy, foreign relations, missing OBL, missing Saddam, 175 Billion on Iraq, etc etc etc...he's in trouble.
 
Ishmael said:
Doing well ty. Just staying out of the malls. <grin>

If we don't cross threads again before your flight, "safe journey".

Ishmael

Do you consider High Mile Clubs "safe" to a certain extend ? :D

MALLS !! Now that reminds me how lucky I am with the current exchange rate.


I'm EURO like that :D
 
Ishmael said:
Susan Estrich gets it. Too bad it won't make any difference.



Susan Estrich
Politics of hate won't beat Bush


December 4, 2003


Anyone up for a "Hate Bush" meeting in Hollywood? Doesn't it sound like just the sort of thing conservatives would invent to make liberals look stupid and open the conservative spigots?

But this was no right-wing conspiracy. Matt Drudge may be the one selling the idea that Hollywood held a "Hate Bush" meeting, but he didn't come up with the title. This is a self-inflicted wound by another silly Hollywood liberal giving honest politics a bad name.

The meeting in question was chaired by two longtime Democratic operatives, Harold Ickes and Ellen Malcolm, who have recognized that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be at a severe financial disadvantage as compared to the president.

The Republicans have an institutional advantage when it comes to raising money, because they are the party of business, and because they have a larger small-donor base; they also have an advantage because they control the White House and both houses of Congress.

So what are Democrats to do?

Under the new campaign finance laws, neither party is allowed to raise "soft" money. But independent groups can. So longtime Democrats have created two independent groups. One, headed by Ickes, focuses on providing media cover for the nominee beginning this spring, when the president is expected to start spending heavily; one headed by Malcolm and former AFL-CIO political director Steve Rosenthal will focus on field organizing in target states for the general election.

Invitations were sent to the usual Hollywood suspects, a collection of people with an interest in politics and money to give, to attend a meeting Tuesday with Ickes, Malcolm and Rosenthal. It was titled a "Meeting to Change the Leadership in America in 2004." Hardly worthy of Drudge.

Then Laurie David sent an e-mail forwarding invites to the "Hate Bush 12-2 Event," and the right went nuts.

Who is Laurie David? In news clips, she is identified as Larry David's wife. Who is Larry David? He's the star of "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

Maybe his wife should curb hers. It is only helping Republicans.

The way to defeat Bush is not to advertise how much you hate him. Hard-core ideologues who hate Bush are not going to decide this election. They'll vote for the Democrat, as they do every four years, but there aren't enough of them to elect a Democrat. You need swing voters to do that. Hatred may motivate the left to contribute money, but it is hardly an effective talking point for public consumption if you want to win elections.

Ari Emanuel, a talent agent who represents Larry David and whose brother served in the Clinton White House and now in Congress, knew just how bad the Drudge story was for Democrats. "People are assembling over a political issue -- the 2004 election," he told the press in response to the ruckus about hating Bush. "The invite didn't say 'Hate Bush,' and I don't think (the Drudge story) was productive."

Productive? I bet it produced a lot of money for George Bush. And worse, it helps produce votes for him.

The people whose votes Democrats will need to defeat George Bush don't hate him. On a personal level, they like him. They need to be convinced not to vote for him, for reasons that have to do with the war, or special interests or the economy. "Hate Bush" headlines do just the opposite.

Enemies are one thing, but with friends like Laurie David, the Democratic nominee is going to need all the help he can get.



Dean will get the nomination based on "Hate Bush". Then he, and all the other Democrats are going to have to come up with some ideas. And that's where they lose everytime. Clinton had to run on a Republican platform to win his two terms.

But the campaign will be about "hating Bush" and they'll lose. Again.

Ishmael

begs the question


we win with Bush?

gawd thats a kneeslapper



:p
 
I'm sure Estrich is correct as far as she goes. But I think there's more to it. If Ickes is involved, me thingst under orders from the Clinton's, MacAuliffe, or both. Many of Bill's old staff are starting to appear, Emmanuel, Podesta etc. The more shrill the Democrats, the larger the losses. At this time they, the Clintonista's, want to lose. Whether the presidency, senate or house seats it really doesn't matter.
I'm of the opinion that a great political coup will be attempted within the Democratic party. All the money donated by the Hollywood elite is not going to the Democratic Party but to certified slush funds. By the time the 2008 election arrives Hillary will be fat with cash and not facing an incumbent. A good portion of that fat cash will be used in an attempt to buy the Presidency via the likes of Daley. How will she plan her campaign? Good question. Repeat a lie long enough and loud enough and it will be perceived as truth. The average American, unfortunately has a low retention rate when it comes to history. It's been rewritten for years, why stop now. Whatever you have as an asset will be perceived as you were cheated and don't have what you should have had. She'll probably work a reverse Roosevelt, prompting fear. I doubt that she would do an MTV bikini or thong, but she would hit on the impressable youth. Most of the balance will be to support Democrats that are liked minded or easily handled.
I call Bill a pro-genital Socialist. If it was pro his genitals it was good.
Hillary is a different matter. I think she is a socialist megalomaniac as was Philip Dru. If she ever gains the presidency, we, the shards of a republic are history.
 
Sailbad the Sinner said:
I'm sure Estrich is correct as far as she goes. But I think there's more to it. If Ickes is involved, me thingst under orders from the Clinton's, MacAuliffe, or both. Many of Bill's old staff are starting to appear, Emmanuel, Podesta etc. The more shrill the Democrats, the larger the losses. At this time they, the Clintonista's, want to lose. Whether the presidency, senate or house seats it really doesn't matter.
I'm of the opinion that a great political coup will be attempted within the Democratic party. All the money donated by the Hollywood elite is not going to the Democratic Party but to certified slush funds. By the time the 2008 election arrives Hillary will be fat with cash and not facing an incumbent. A good portion of that fat cash will be used in an attempt to buy the Presidency via the likes of Daley. How will she plan her campaign? Good question. Repeat a lie long enough and loud enough and it will be perceived as truth. The average American, unfortunately has a low retention rate when it comes to history. It's been rewritten for years, why stop now. Whatever you have as an asset will be perceived as you were cheated and don't have what you should have had. She'll probably work a reverse Roosevelt, prompting fear. I doubt that she would do an MTV bikini or thong, but she would hit on the impressable youth. Most of the balance will be to support Democrats that are liked minded or easily handled.
I call Bill a pro-genital Socialist. If it was pro his genitals it was good.
Hillary is a different matter. I think she is a socialist megalomaniac as was Philip Dru. If she ever gains the presidency, we, the shards of a republic are history.

hmmm

so if she is voted in the WE you speak of is somehow deprived?

well, will she need the supreme court to annoint her?

laughing my frickin ass off...
 
eagleyez said:
hmmm

so if she is voted in the WE you speak of is somehow deprived?

well, will she need the supreme court to annoint her?

laughing my frickin ass off...

If she's elected, that's it. The supreme court is a discussion unto itself.

Want to play?
 
Back
Top