Stay The Course!
Tweet
I think this is the best ad the DNC has ever put out.
Add this video to your blog:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6Jq0j80UB_c"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6Jq0j80UB_c" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
38 Responses to “Stay The Course!”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
YES GODDAMMIT CALL THEM ON IT
The Donkey has testicles after all.
Let the lying begin! Que Dugger.
That is a kick-butt ad. It hits hard like a brick in the face. If it ever goes mainstream where I am, things can get very ugly this November.
I would be trembling watching that ad. But I’ve decided to “stay the course” and see what happens….nothing. Despite the hype, I don’t think the Democrats are going to be able to take Congress unless things get much worse in Iraq because the economy is booming and the national debt is shrinking.
Your HTML underwear is showing on this post, O.W..
They are running this nationally, right? I hope?
Oh dugger, BTW, that was Bush lying there at the end.
He said something he knew was false. That’s a lie, Dugger.
It’s good ad, but how effective is it going to be? I don’t know how many times I have to point out that elections are not won with, “Well, I’m not the other guy.” (See Ned Lamont)
The Democrats can criticize all they want, but they have yet to offer a cohesive strategy themselves on Iraq. And everybody is on to the ‘redeployment’ blather which is nothing but the same as saying, “Let’s leave.”
Jay – what in God’s name is the Republican strategy for Iraq? “Stay the course” and die? What is wrong with leaving. Most Americans believe we should leave. The vast majority of Democrats believe we shouldn’t have gone in in the first place.
And you might want to impart your advice about elections not being about the other guy to your GOP pals who are stuck on “OMG NANCY PELOSI IS TEH LIBRUL!!!!”
Jay – what in God’s name is the Republican strategy for Iraq? “Stay the course” and die? What is wrong with leaving. Most Americans believe we should leave. The vast majority of Democrats believe we shouldn’t have gone in in the first place.
Oliver, you’re missing the point. This is not about the GOP’s strategy. If leaving is the best option, then how come the Democrats have not said so? Where is the Democratic leadership saying, “We have to get out now.” Nowhere. Why? Because this is what it says on the DNC site:
Democrats have a plan that is comprehensive– from repairing our military, to winning the war on terror, to protecting our homeland security, to ensuring success in Iraq
Ok, ensuring success in Iraq. How?
Stop thinking like a partisan for a moment Oliver and think like a strategist. I’ve been following elections very closely for 14 years now. Incumbents lose when their opponents present a clear difference to the voters and also present concrete alternative ideas. Platitudes are only going take a campaign so far. Like I said, witness what has happened so far with Ned Lamont. He was able to convince primary voters that he was a better Democrat than Joe Lieberman, but his general election campaign is a joke because he thought he would be swept into office on the, “I’m not Joe!” train.
And you might want to impart your advice about elections not being about the other guy to your GOP pals who are stuck on “OMG NANCY PELOSI IS TEH LIBRUL!!!!”
That’s a different scenario. You don’t run with a “I’m not the other guy” approach when you’re already in office. In 1996, the DNC and the Clinton administration effectively ran ads that pretty much had people believing Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich were going to take away Medicare. The ad was total nonsense, but it was very effective.
This current ad ends, “America needs a change in policy.”
Ok. But what does the viewer get after that? Nothing. What is the change in policy?
Well actually two of the brightest Democratic stars, Hillary and Obama, are against cutting and running. And pro ‘stay the course’ Joe Lieberman is handing progressive darling Lamont his *ss on a platter – in a blue state. So its clear that what really will happen is some form of ‘stay the course’ – after 2006 and after 2008. I’ve said it many times here. It will be 1968 and LBJ all over again. I look for huge, violent excesses on the left as their party gains power (and it looks like they will), but those in power refuse outright surrender in Iraq. The leftist goons will hit the streets and riot, and the ‘oh dear’, hand-wringing Democrats in power will not have the fortitude to do anything about it. Another ‘crisis of rising expectations’.
The change in policy is something, anything, other than the policy that gets Americans killed, which is the policy that conservatives want.
Conservatives cut and run from the war on terror to slap around Saddam. In the process, conservatives have destroyed one country (Iraq) and are trying to destroy their own.
Why is it that conservatives are destroying America, Jay? Is it because you hate the idea that a country should be ruled by something other than the “right people”?
The change in policy is something, anything, other than the policy that gets Americans killed, which is the policy that conservatives want.
What something? What anything?
Why is it that conservatives are destroying America, Jay?
I don’t know Squid. I wasn’t given a copy of the playbook.
Wow.
After everything that’s come to light in recent years, Dugger’s concern is ‘huge, violent excesses on the left as their party gains power’, and an inability to clean up Bush’s mess.
No wonder our country is in such bad shape. This is what 30% of them really think.
The only way for Iraq to be succesful is for us to leave. We need to leave. Whether you call it redployment or simply leaving, it’s the same thing. This isn’t a partisan thing. I thought we break it we bought it. But the damn thing is not fixable by us sitting there and dying. And both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton favor redployment over “staying the course”.
And I think its pretty funny for any sentient being who’s been non-comatose for the last 12 years to worry about Democrats being extremists in control. The party of impeachment, hiding child predators, terrorism, Katrina and Iraq is giving us a lecture.
It is to laugh.
Ok. But what does the viewer get after that? Nothing. What is the change in policy?
Dude, at this point, I don’t care.
One thing I do know is that a Democratically-controlled Congress is not worse than Al Queeeeda.
Hey, Dugger, did you notice the lie at the end there?
Forget it, Nimrod, the best you’ll get out of him is “B-b-but the DUMMOcrats will let power go to their heads!!!one!”
Because the GOP has been so upright and responsible, you see.
Whether you call it redployment or simply leaving, it’s the same thing.
Please. The word ‘redeployment’ was carefully chosen.
I can’t count how many times you talk about conservatives not saying “pro-life” and using other terms instead. Using the term ‘redeployment’ over ‘leaving’ is the same damned thing.
And talk about laughable. “…to ensuring success in Iraq” actually means “leaving.” I’m sure that’s exactly what they want to get across to voters.
Yes, Jay, redeployment was chosen very carefully:
re·de·ploy
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: re·de·ployed, re·de·ploy·ing, re·de·ploys
1. To move (military forces) from one combat zone to another. 2. To shift (something) from one place or use to another for greater effectiveness
Idiot.
To further clarify, Murtha’s use of the term “redeployment” came in the context of creating a “quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region” in order to facilitate a diplomatic solution to the problem.
So it wasn’t leaving. It was, by definition, redeployment: the shifting of US troops “from one place or use to another for greater effectiveness.”
Only idiots such as Dugger and yourself confuse redeployment with leaving. Why? Because you’re partisan hack morons. Wanna debate that? Happy to.
“quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region”
One word.
Okinawa.
To further clarify, Murtha’s use of the term “redeployment” came in the context of creating a “quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region”
Yeah, and where exactly do you suggest we put them Frame for that “quick reaction.” Syria? Iran?
Here you are with your typical responses, calling people idiots. Basically, I’ve concluded that you do so because you’re compensating for something. Maybe you’re getting back at your father who called you an idiot all the time when you were a kid.
Oh and only a hack would attempt to separate leaving and redeployment, especially when nobody has said where the troops should be redeployed to.
“Oh and only a hack would attempt to separate leaving and redeployment …”
Hey, Jay, you’re arguing with the dictionary now. Take it up with Dugger.
“… especially when nobody has said where the troops should be redeployed to.”
And here’s another thing, you guys sure do expect a whole lot of specificity from the democrats don’t you?
But not one of self-proclaimed “serious” commentators gave one shit about what Bush’s plan was for AFTER the invasion. Not one. Nope, Cheney said we’d be greated as liberators and, well, that’s all the needed to be said for you morons to wet yourselves in giddy glee about the real men leading our country.
Bush has being saying “stay the course” for three years but now, all of a sudden, he’s saying it was never our policy to “stay the course.” And you guys cheer him for his deft tactical thinking. But what’s his new plan if we’ve changed the old one?
Of course if anyone asks Bush details about his plan he passes the buck to the “generals on the ground” who, invariably, parrot Bush’s rhetoric anyway.
There is still no plan for how to “win” in Iraq even as the word “win” loses its meaning more and more each day.
So a democrat comes up with a plan, redeployment, and the Republicans do three things:
1) Lie about the plan really calls for,
2) demand more specificity about details than they have ever asked from Bush and
3) then pretend that the Dems actually have no plan anyway.
You’ve done each one of these things in this thread, Jay, so don’t whine to me AGAIN about name calling or honest debate. You’re full of shit.
Jay’s point exactly illustrates how effective the ad is. If, as he charges, the Democrats have no plan for Iraq and the Republics like to point this out; this ad does exactly that for the Democrats by pointing out the fact the Republics have no plan in Iraq. The public has heard for 3+ years, “Stay the Course”, from the Republics, and now the public is shown their entire plan is sloganism.
Frame, you can keep getting your panties in a twist all you want. The fact of the matter is however, is that I AM RIGHT.
You don’t win elections by saying, “I’m not the other guy.”
It simply doesn’t fucking working and either you are too freaking blinded by your own partisanship or mentally retarded to see that. I don’t give a flying fuck what the Democrats plan is. All I am telling is that you is that ads like this, while effective in getting the base to break out the homer hankies or rally monkeys, is not all that effective in turning the tide of an election.
The ads don’t have to win over Republicans as they are not going to vote for Democrats anyway (for the most part). Your ads have to win over the people who don’t identify with any one particular party and in order to get them to vote FOR somebody, you have to give them more than just a reason NOT to vote for somebody else.
It’s a simple strategic issue and yet as usual, you have to start getting your fangs out and drooling in anticipation of being able to call people names because that’s about all you’re good for.
So in short, fuck off Ebert.
“I don’t give a flying fuck what the Democrats plan is.”
Awesome. Just awesome.
First you said the Dems don’t have a plan. Now you say you don’t care what the plan is. Of course you say this after actually attacking the plan by distorting what it really says and holding it to a higher standard than you hold the republican’s “plan.”
I guess it would be easier to “debate” if you constantly change your positions to avoid inconvenient facts.
I guess we can add a fourth point the conservative concept of “serious strategic” debate:
1) Lie about the Dem plan
2) Hold the Dem plan to a higher degree of scrutiny than the Repub plan
3) Pretend that the Dems actually have no plan
4) Finally, deny you give a “flying fuck” about the Dem plan anyway.
What’s the fifth point? Stay tuned for Intellectual Jay’s next “big thought.”
Isn’t that what you constantly do Jay? Say the Republicans aren’t the other guy? Isn’t that what your entire “Democrats have no plan for Iraq” bit is? Isn’t that what the entire right wing scream factory is doing? Now you don’t like it becuase the dems are showing its the Republicans have no plan, and have had no plan for the last 3 years.
It’s you, Jay, that constantly says National Security is the big voting issue. Isn’t Iraq pretty much the central front in the Republican National security strategy? And they have no plan. You follow sports, they are playing to not lose instead of playing to win. And it shows.
It’s you, Jay, that constantly says National Security is the big voting issue. Isn’t Iraq pretty much the central front in the Republican National security strategy? And they have no plan. You follow sports, they are playing to not lose instead of playing to win. And it shows.
First you said the Dems don’t have a plan.
Actually, I said no such thing. What I said was that if the Democrats have a plan, they’re not telling anybody and that goes back to why this commercial isn’t a very effective campaign spot.
Now you say you don’t care what the plan is.
I don’t. Again, go back to what I first said. My criticism of the ad wasn’t about the Democrats supposed plan. I said the ad wasn’t effective because it didn’t lay out a plan.
Of course you say this after actually attacking the plan by distorting what it really says
Distort what? How can I distort something when I don’t even know what it is? I threw out the redeployment scenario which is not the official DNC position, but is being used by some Democrats. You complaining I’m distorting that. No I’m not. I’m calling out the Democrats using the term who are just too chickenshit to say they just want to leave the region. Redeployment is a nice euphemism, but it’s a substitute for just getting the hell out.
You’re the one being a baby and making this into a partisan issue. I’m looking at it from a strategic standpoint and you’re over there blubbering about me attacking the Democratic plan and lying about it and blah blah blah blah blah. Good grief. Wear some bigger panties and loosen the hell up! Christ, you must be a fucking riot at parties.
All one has to do is go back to the futility that the GOP had in trying to capture control of the House. They couldn’t do it because members spent more time in campaigns telling the public how terrible the incumbent was, but at the same time, never giving voters a reason to vote for them.
Whether you liked it or not, ‘The Contract With America’ was a brilliant political move. Members of Congress were able to go back to their districts and say, “Here is what I’m going to do if you elect me.” It gave voters a reason to vote for somebody.
Clinton did the same thing in 1992. He didn’t go around saying, “Here’s why you shouldn’t vote for George Bush.” He ran a campaign that said, “Here’s why you should vote for me.”
I don’t understand why you people are getting so worked up because I’m pointing out a flawed election strategy.
Ok. But what does the viewer get after that? Nothing. What is the change in policy?
At the very least, the american people would see some sort of investigation into the corrupt, taxpayer dollar wasting gifts to Halliburton for work they have no intention of doing.
Why should anyone tell Republican’ts their plans? They’ll just steal them and pretend they’re the ones who thought of them (see No Child Left Behind and the Department of Homeland Security).
You don’t win elections by saying, “I’m not the other guy.”
Funny – I seem to remember PapaDoc Putsch winning an election by saying he’s not the guy who would let Willie Horton out on a weekend pass. I see a whole lot of ads from politicians of all stripes, saying that they’re not the other candidate (whatever and whoever that is).
More Republican’t spin from a Republican’t Putsch fellator, flip-flopping like a halibut on dry land.
I don’t understand why people still get worked up over Republican’ts lying their asses off in order to smear Democratic politics. Then again, I don’t understand why Republican’ts think anyone’s going to believe their horsesh!t after they’ve lied their asses off to us for, oh, all of our lives or so.
You never said the Dems don’t have a plan?
Jay you wrote:
But Jay, why are you blaming the democrats because you’re serially
misinformed?
Now if you want to have a “serious strategic” discussion about the Dems plan, you have to stop distorting it.
The plan calls for a strategic reployment of US forces out of Iraq because our presence is only aggravating the problem.
It does now, however, call for pulling all US troops out of the region. It recognizes the need for US troops to remain on alert in the region to respond to problems as they arise.
Such a redployment is a more efficient and effective use of US force as it reduces the counter productive effects of a permanent US military presencein Iraq which will give us greater space to work on a diplomatic solution.
Now since you’re so fucking intellectual and serious, why don’t you debate the merits of that plan instead of deliberately obfuscating what it’s calling for?
Of course you won’t because your “don’t give a flying fuck what the Democrats plan is.”
If the Dems produced the 30 second ad you suggest they should, you’d just come back here to dishonestly equate redployment with surrender.
Gee, I wonder why the democrats would be reluctant to fall into that trap?
The funny thing is in a debate where Jay argues the Democrats shouldn’t try to say they aren’t the other guy, he tries to make points by essentially saying Republicans aren’t the other guys. What is the Republican strategy in Iraq? “Keep it out of the headlines”?
You never said the Dems don’t have a plan?
Jay you wrote:
“The Democrats can criticize all they want, but they have yet to offer a cohesive strategy themselves on Iraq.”
Frame, get your ass off your brain ok? We’re talking CAMPAIGN STRATEGY. We’re talking ADS. Please pay attention because I am tired of explaining myself.
But Jay, why are you blaming the democrats because you’re serially
misinformed?
I’m sorry, but how exactly is a letter to the President part of a fall election campaign?
The plan calls for a strategic reployment of US forces out of Iraq because our presence is only aggravating the problem.
It does now, however, call for pulling all US troops out of the region. It recognizes the need for US troops to remain on alert in the region to respond to problems as they arise.
Such a redployment is a more efficient and effective use of US force as it reduces the counter productive effects of a permanent US military presencein Iraq which will give us greater space to work on a diplomatic solution.
Now, if the Democrats were to put THIS in an ad, it would be more effective but Nancy’s little letter doesn’t say any of this. All she says, is “they should be redeployed.” If you are going to deploy them, you have to to so somewhere, and the letter doesn’t say any of that.
And Tom, get off the meds.
“Now, if the Democrats were to put THIS in an ad, it would be more effective …”
Oh my god, are you insane? Please identify for me any ad from the RNC in this election cycle that goes into such detail on any specific policy issue?
You get bonus points if the RNC has run an ad outlining in detail the BUsh plan for success in Iraq.
“Where is the Democratic leadership saying, “We have to get out now.” Nowhere.”
Where was the Democratic leadership saying we have to get out now”? Try on the floor of the fucking
Senate.
You’re an idiot, Jay.