Democrats Brand Republicans as Crazy

Democrats Brand Republicans as Crazy

The Week magazine, April 22, 2011

The story: Obama’s long-term deficit plan

President Obama, referring to Paul Ryan’s budget blueprint, said, “There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.”

  • “At last Obama is challenging the ridiculous Republican idea that tax cuts can shrink federal deficits, said the New York Times.”
  • Jonathan Chait in The New Republic wrote, “The sanity of the Republican Party is at a nadir,” and Obama has given it leverage to use the loony Ryan plan as a baseline for negotiations. After Obama’s (hoped-for) reelection in 2012, the GOP will be in a “less insanely triumphal” mood.

Democrat politicians are unified. Republicans are ridiculous, loony, insane and “nothing serious.” It looks like the same spin doctors are calling the shots at the White House and the governor’s mansion.

The same labels obtained in Helena.

APHELENA- The governor’s office is lambasting Republican legislators’ budget proposal as “unacceptable,” “absurd,” and “ridiculous” at the start of Senate hearings on the spending plan.

Huffington Post: Brian Schweitzer, Democratic Governor of Montana, took some shots at his state’s Republican lawmakers Wednesday, telling Fox News in an interview that some of their legislative proposals made them look “bat-crap crazy.”

AP Billings Gazette: Schweitzer is watching, describing many of the proposals from the new majority as simply “kooky,”…

Not so long ago “crazy” and “loony” were politically incorrect.

Watch the media for instances of branding.


10 Responses

  1. Come on Tom. You have to admit, that whole “nullification” bill was bat-crap crazy. Not to mention the bill to repeal DUI laws. Oh, and the “code of the west.” How dorky was that.

    And once again, it is “democratic politicians,” not “democrat politicians.”

    • Hey Greg:
      I agree, the “code of the West” was dorky as a moral compass. It almost was written into a bill. I would have voted against it. Fine sentiments; no place in law. Better formulations of moral guidance exist.
      I think Democrat is proper. Cite authority.

      • From the Wikipedia:

        “Democrat Party” is a political epithet used in the United States instead of “Democratic Party” when talking about the Democratic Party. The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.

        It should also be pointed out that NPR has banned the use of “Democrat” as an adjective. Of course, NPR is just the propaganda arm of the godless democrat hoard. But that is the point. We don’t like the term, and you are using the term to refer to us.

  2. I will even go further than “crazy’ and “loony.” The fact that half of all tea-partiers believed that President Obama was not a natural-born citizen of the USA suggests that there is a racist element to the movement as well. Or is it just a coincidence that the 43 white presidents didn’t get treated as “other?”

    • I must say I’m suprised at some of your comments Greg. Heated comments, mixed in with criticisms of word choice (democratic vs democrat?? REALLY?)really do nothing to promote your cause. Especially when you claim Tom as being irrational etc. I see no lashing out from Tom when he replys to your comments. Hum..

      • Hello Parley,

        Your dad is my representative in Helena. I am just trying to move the Overton window back in the right (left) direction by letting him know that some of us are appalled by the positions taken by the tea party. I agree that your father always takes a very mild tone in his responses. He is Tom. His original comments, however, attack the idea of spending for the “common good,” particularly public schools. I feel a need to respond, and I am not Tom. When I feel strongly about something, it comes out strongly. Sorry if I offended.

      • Tom doesn’t lash out at comments he doesn’t like, he just deletes them. Hum..

        Or, he just ignores the question, as in the case of Gregory’s question about the tea party and racism.

  3. If Democratic Party is official, that’s what I’ll go with. I learn something new everyday!

  4. Hello Tom,

    In a private email this morning you asked me:
    What are you referring to in this phrase: spending for the “common good,” particularly public schools? Which post?

    I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond. It has been a hectic day.

    I believe it is obvious that you object to most public spending. This is a constant theme in your posts. The latest example entitled, “Green Buildings Costly,” illustrates the general strategy used in your posts. You take one extreme example and use it to make general statements that are unsupported by fact. Your post suggests that ALL green buildings are costly, yet you only tell us about one building, a building that costs an outrageous 12% premium (a claim that cannot be documented). Studies show that typical green buildings cost less than a 2% premium, but that doesn’t make your point, so you go with the extreme example. I suspect that you think the 2% premium is still an outrageous amount to pay for “saving the planet.” I gather from some of your other posts that global warming is just a grand hoax perpetrated by all scientists. Well, that’s over-stating it. Not all scientists believe that global warming is real, just all of the scientists that are not receiving large amounts of money from the oil industry.

    This same approach is taken on your blog with public education. In your post entitled, “Does Oil Money Make Smart Kids,” you take one small school in a tiny town and twist the statistics to imply that spending more money per student gives no gain in performance. The implication is clear. If increasing spending does not help education, then cutting spending does not hurt. The money is being wasted by the public schools. Your post entitled, “Fantasy Education,” suggests that teachers are the problem, not the solution. You advocate putting teachers under a microscope and punishing them if their students do not perform. This is the basic philosophy behind NCLB, or as we in the business refer to it, “No Teacher Left Standing.” I am now seeing the results of this grand experiment entering my physics classes at MSU. We have traded critical thinking skills for memorization of facts.

    You will argue that you are a great believer in public schools, but that is not true. We have been friends for nineteen years, and on one of our many trips to Billings you shared with me your dream for the public schools. You told me that schools should be local. Every neighborhood should be responsible for building their own school, hiring their own teachers, setting school policy, and determining acceptable curriculum. (I took this last part to mean that neighborhoods would not have to allow the teaching of evolution, just because it is the foundation of all biological sciences.) I pointed out on that day that your plan would work great for wealthy neighborhoods like yours and mine, but the less affluent would not be able to afford good schools. If rich neighborhoods have good schools and poor neighborhoods have crummy schools, the basic concept of public education – that all citizens should have access to quality education – falls apart. This is a bad memory, but it is not a wrong memory.

    I believe in public education. I have never in my life voted against a school levy. Can you make the same claim, publicly here on your blog?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: