As far as me… I’ve long described myself as “a nobody from nowhere.” Thanks for the promotion, but I’ll pass.

J.

Sarah Palin was legitimately slammed for being a fuckin’ idiot by people calling her out as a fuckin’ idiot. Because Sarah Palin is a fuckin’ idiot. Shit-all stupid, she is.

Please continue to tell us how relevant and important you perceive yourself to be. Thanks in advance.

That is monumentally stupid. Didn’t they learn ANYTHING from the way Democrats treated Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin?

Of course, you shouldn’t actually name any Democrats who engaged in sexist attacks on either. If you did, it might prevent you from adding the coup de grace:

Hillary Clinton was attacked, at various points, by both sides for very sexist reasons. Sarah Palin was also slammed on very sexist grounds — the idiots who showed up at her events wearing “SARAH PALIN IS A C**T” T-shirts,

Hillary was attacked by both sides for sexist reasons? Still forgetting to provide examples. But never mind, the real payload follows. A couple of idiots showing up “at her events” (more than one, Mr. Tea?) are the equivalent of the RNC’s attacks on Pelosi.

Stunning, Mr. Tea.

You’re also irrelevant. I wasn’t discussing WHY she was slammed, but HOW.

Try to keep up, huh?

J.

Palin was slammed because she’s a fuckin’ idiot. Well, she is.

Unfortunately eliminates anyone at the RNC.

your entire argument is “we won the last election, so neener”.

Basically, yes. It’s hard to argue that the Democrats are a bunch of weaklings in the face of Republican attacks when, well, the end effect is that the Democrats win. But, yeah, I’m sure your “arguments” against attacking Iran helped.

Bryan, don’t bother bringing reality into these kinds of discussions. Once a perception takes hold, the truth kind of becomes irrelevant. Look how the characterizations of “Uncle Tom” and “The Ugly American” have become in the public mindset, as compared with how they were truly depicted in the pages of their namesake novels.

Hillary Clinton was attacked, at various points, by both sides for very sexist reasons. Sarah Palin was also slammed on very sexist grounds — the idiots who showed up at her events wearing “SARAH PALIN IS A CUNT” T-shirts, Andrew Sullivan’s obsession with her uterus, and whatnot.

The point I was raising was that there are some very recent, some very potent examples of sexist attacks on prominent political women that were not only incredibly tasteless, but also incredibly ineffective. The GOP has no excuse for not noticing that and learning from it.

There are plenty of ways to go after Pelosi. And lord knows she deserves it. This method is just plain stupid and counterproductive.

Notice how the MasterCard parody ad against Obama’s spending was very powerful — except for the opening mention of his dog. That gave Obama apologists like Oliver the excuse to focus on that part and dismiss the entire ad.

Anyone with half a brain would have foreseen both the “GOP attacks Obama’s dog” and the “GOP makes sexist attack on Pelosi” backlashes. It looks like the people running the GOP ad campaign doesn’t qualify as having at least half a brain.

J.

A recent development that had more to do with Repubs royally fucking up and making the Dems look good that the actual gains Dems made in their campaign skills.

And campaign and win elections. How many votes did your “arguing” deliver on election day?

American Democrats are sissies in politics and Republicans will continue to attack, as long as it works.

Scoreboard! Scoreboard!

“You have to have a viable candidate before you attacks can work.”

Not really. Attacks can, in any case, bring down the approval of the other candidate.

Neither Bush nor Cheney were viable candidates if the Democrats had played their cards right. Bush was a former alcoholic and Cheney a draft-dodger (these facts are both relevant). Part of non-sissyness is that you have to make your own relevant attacks. You can hardly expect Bush-Cheney to talk about their own negatives.

Not really. You can bring down the approval of the other side.

Neither Bush nor Cheney were viable, if the Democrats had played their cards right. Bush was a former alcoholic and Cheney a draft-dodger. Only timid incompetence let Democrats not mention these facts (they are both relevant). Part of non-sissyness is to make relevant attacks of your own. You can hardly expect Bush-Cheney to talk about their own negatives.

Well, I agree with that on Obama, but now it is about Democrats in Congress, specifically Nancy Pelosi.

You don’t have to convince the electorate your guy is perfect or the other guy is awful, you just have to convince them your guy is better than the other guy.

Back then, Bush had a net positive approval rating, so any flaw in Kerry allowed the Republicans to say, ‘Do you really want change?’

Right now, there’s no one on the Republican side that they can make that claim. You have to have a viable candidate before you attacks can work.

I don’t see what attacks on a candidate has to do with the approval rating of the other candidate. It seems obvious the swift-boating hurt Kerry more than Bush.

Obama’s strategy has been to ignore the small remarks–”TelePrompter” blah blah–and react with a quick and decisive counter to the larger issues–”Dick Cheney is wrong, and I’m cleaning up his mess.”

Good fighters know the first rule–end the fight quickly.