Democrats Need A New Political Advisor
Republicans seem to know everything about real advertising and public communications. Rule number one, taken from Al-Jazeera:
"You lie and lie until you believe it yourself."
This seems to be the greatest obstacle standing in the way of Democrats today. Everything Republicans say sounds great, but is generally not true. As Benen points out, in what world do you get away with calling a tax cut a tax increase, especially when it was you who scheduled the increase?
What can Democrats do? They can't sink to the level of the opposition. They can't just waste all their time refuting all the crazy crap that the monkeys throw. And they clearly can't just sit around and pass popular policies; we saw how well that worked out for them.
No, we need a great communicator. Not an echo chamber like Fox or MSNBC, but someone who can reach out and explain - simply and truthfully - what's going on. This is how Clinton recovered after 1994, and why he's "good old Bill" today. We need someone who comes up with talking points as sticky and memorable as (but much more honest than) "death panels" and "9/11 victory mosque." republican propaganda is powerful, and for good Orwellian reasons. Every word is loaded with emotion, and every phrase has an unforgettable rhythm. Republicans, in other words, speak the common language, whereas listening to a Democrat speak honestly is about as memorable as doing your taxes.
Democrats need to find someone capable of speaking from the heart and not the brain. The mind forgets too easily, but the heart doesn't, and that's why Republican messaging is so effective. They are capable of playing up and playing off instinctive fears of death, of "the other", and of war, and they are capable of exploiting deep family bonds - especially with children - for perverse ends.
I have never heard a Democrat say "think of the children." Instead I hear gibberish about "extending the coverage umbrella for dependents under the age of twenty-six while..." blah blah blah. Must we be so uselessly cerebral?
XKCD Wins the Day
Media, today: What Could Make The Gulf Oil Spill Worse? How About a Hurricane.
NYT, WSJ Officially At War
Frankly, there was a time when I thought the Journal was better on business/economic news than the Times. But no longer; and it’s not just things like referring to the estate tax as the “death tax” in news stories. Overall, coverage is getting cruder, with more tendency to report opinions as if they were news, and substitute prejudices for real analysis.
And this bad news is good news. There’s a pretty good chance that we will end up with only one great national newspaper. And I know which paper that should be …
A new profile of Rupert Murdoch in New York Magazine probes the depth of New York Times hatred at The Wall Street Journal. “It’s a spear-thrust right at the Times, intended to embarrass and bleed the Times,” a senior Journal editor says of the new Journal New York metro section that will launch next month.
The old fight is back on. This ought to be exciting!
Recent circulation trends, for reference:
Translating Allahpunditry
Pelosi: "We're going to do something good for America even if it costs us our jobs."
Alexander: "Screw that, I'm keeping my job and my government-provided health care."
Pelosi: "We'll do it without you then."
Allahpundit: "I think Pelosi comes across as the bad guy here."
