GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?

[Vandren]

Just a nice little "where's the money" search a friend made me aware of earlier today:

Many so-called grassroots anti-health care reform protesters are being organized by a "grassroots" organization known as ResistNet.  This organization is (openly as stated on its website) funded by another "grassroots" organization known as Grassfire.org.  This organization is in turn (not so openly) funded by Shirley & Bannister Public Affairs, a Republican PR firm.

The relevant section of this article:

    A 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Grassfire has been named as a "stealth political action committee" by Public Citizen. Its founder and president, Steve Elliott, has held up MoveOn.org as a model for where he would like to take his organization.

    ResistNet, has become a major hub for turning out hard-core right-wingers to health-care town hall meetings. The organization took in $1.5 million in 2007 (the most recent year for which information is publicly available).

    It's difficult to find out much of anything about Elliott; he manages to keep a very low profile. But SourceWatch and Public Citizen report that Grassfire is represented by the Washington public relations firm Shirley & Bannister, whose principal is Craig Shirley, the man who gave us the Willie Horton ad of the 1988 presidential election.

    Shirley promoted the movie, Stolen Honor, a Swiftboat-style smear piece made about 2004 presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Today, Shirley's clients, according to the Shirley & Bannister Web site, include the National Rifle Association, author Ann Coulter, religious right co-founder Richard Viguerie, and other religious right figures.

    But Shirley & Bannister retains ties to GOP establishment figures; its Web site bears an endorsement from William Kristol, who served in the administration of the first George Bush, who happens to be the candidate whose campaign reaped some of its victory from Shirley's Horton ad.

    The firm also promotes the books of former Rep. Joe Scarborough, R-Fla., (now of MSNBC) and former George H.W. Bush speechwriter Peggy Noonan (who promised us a "kinder, gentler nation") -- books published by Rupert Murdoch's HarperCollins.

So, basically, the GOP disseminates false information online and gets people riled up . . . said vocal minority of people appear at meetings and attempt to drown out anyone who disagrees with them rather than entering rational discussion, all the while claiming no one sent them (except that they have effectively been "sent" by the fear mongering perpetuated by Shirley, Beck, Limbaugh, and co.) . . . then the GOP claims they're just responding to a "majority" of people who are concerned.

How exactly do people still think these are really a "grassroots" movement?

People really need to read Aldous Huxley's essays on the effective use of propaganda.  Everything he wrote in the 1950s about the 1930s is even more relevant today than it was then.

P.S. On a little side note, ResistNet, despite a supposed "no tolerance policy" re: slander and personal attacks, has numerous calls for the death and/or assassination of the sitting president.  Take a look around the site, it's rather disturbing.

[Zeitgeist]

How dare those mean Republicans organize. Bastards.

[Revolverman]

Grassroot? More like Astroturf.

[Callie Del Noire]

What cracks me up is that the slant of the article makes you think it's purely a republican tactic.

Both sides do it.. the GOP got caught this time. (bout time too)

[Bayushi]

Grassroot? More like Astroturf.

Hypocrite.(Was VERY tempted to break out Jesus' little tirade about Hypocrites and Pharisees :P)

Most Dems march in lockstep to MoveOn.org and the Huffington Post. It isn't like those two sites have corporate sponsors, right? Oh wait...

So the other side isn't allowed to organize?

So if the Republicans and/or Conservatives use Facebook to organize, would we be fake then too? I mean, it isn't like Facebook has corporate sponsors, right? Oh wait...

I read what is said by sites like Grassfire and NumbersUSA, in addition to MoveOn and the Huffington Post. I also read various independent blogs and watch vLogs. I don't donate to any site or organization(I'm too damned poor to do afford donations). So I'm 'Astroturf' now?

It isn't as if the Obama campaign wasn't heavily promoted by corporate interests. I wouldn't have been surprised if his campaign was brought to us by Pepsi, etc... television show style. Not to mention, the Democrats have the majority of the media on their side. And the Unions.

[Revolverman]

Oh, I dont care, I just wanted to use that line, haha.

Both are scumbags if you ask me.

[kylie]

Most Dems march in lockstep to MoveOn.org and the Huffington Post. It isn't like those two sites have corporate sponsors, right? Oh wait...

So the other side isn't allowed to organize? 

While I'm hardly surprised that the Republican-inclined would organize on an issue, I think the OP was more pointing to a question of how their organization represents itself.  This suggestion, for example, of a "stealth political action committee."  Emphasis: Stealth.

     As I understand, MoveOn is federally registered as a Political Action Committee.  (They do have an advocacy section listed as a non-profit.)  This may put certain limits on its contributions and activities.  Grassroots.org, on the other hand, was set up as a non-profit.  Someone tell me if I'm mistaken, but I think this allows them to release less information about their structure, and may not bring the same financial rules.

     As for the Huffington Post, I've only recently noticed them myself.  But I'm skeptical...  I think if you look closely at their offerings, they may not be conservative but neither are they focused on a specific brand of liberal.  At least if you count the more op-ed format pieces, they range around quite a bit.  My initial impression is that saying all of the Democrats follow them (emphasis on plural them), could be rather like saying all the Republican voters follow either the GOP line or [insert your favorite radical Minuteman group here].  I also don't know of any mailing list based in the Huffington Post crew that asks for any particular political action.

[Bayushi]

The worst part about it all is that these few crazies protesting with stupid signs outside of these "townhalls"(re: Propaganda for those who agree. Apparently, with things like Acorn at some of these, keeping the dissenters out of the town halls, it's obvious we're not welcome. Bipartisan my ass) are making things worse for us all. These crazies are being portrayed as the 'norm' for Conservatives.

Sad part is that it's okay if the Dem Crazies(I don't believe they're all crazy, just wrong) do their crazy protests against a Conservative politician(look at all 8 years of Bush. They didn't let up a minute). But the moment any one says a thing against them... *sigh*

I don't even know if I'm making sense right now, with it being 0250 in the morning.

I guess the point of it all is that I keep reading Liberal Blogs and Columns claiming all us conservatives are crazies and wingnuts, and are 'taking our marching orders' from Rush and Glen Beck, etc.

Frankly, it is getting pretty old, the blatant hypocrisy. The far Left Media isn't even apologetic for their absurd liberal bias, having stabbed journalistic integrity in its sleep. And in the end, they all still seem to claim to be fair or balanced. (I know Fox News still claims it's fair and balanced, but we've known for years that it is anything but, and that's been admitted by Fox itself, even).

The problem, in the end, is that because Dubya didn't want to work with the Dems a whole lot(even though he might as well have been a Democrat), they're perpetuating the problem yet again, all the while alienating a LARGE portion of the citizenry.

I'm just sick and tired of being labled a racist, a radical wingnut, a conspiracy theorist. Just because I disagree does NOT mean I am crazy.

*yawns* I'll call it here for now. If I think of more after I sleep, I'll put mention it here.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Idiotic, Communist, socialist, unAmerican, unpatriotic, not supporting the troops, dreamer, unrealistic, out of touch with the working class, hippie, tree hugger, PETA supporter, etc..I think these are a few names that get flung at liberals.

Do I think the name calling is fair?  Certainly not and I do wish it would stop, but it won’t.  Both sides make these accusations and use the media to their advantage.  When a democratic Congress took office part way through Bush’s administration, their attempts to withdraw troops was meet with accusations of hating the troops and supporting terrorism. 

Republicans are accused of following Rush and Beck, liberals are accused of following John Stewart and Michael Moore.  John Stewart I can handle, but Michael Moore…please.

I don’t even know if I should address the hypocrisy of Fox News.  A saving grace that they admit they are conservative while also stating that they present the most “fair and honest” opinion.  Please, if you want unbiased then stay awake through NPR.  Every reporter, talk show host and media personality has an opinion and an agenda.  These are businesses run by multi-million dollar corporations with CEOs that have interests in Washington.

Both parties are just as scary and horrifying when let loose.  The Republicans unleashed the United States military for reasons we still can’t verify and the Democrats just ran up a massive debt for reasons we are still uncertain about.  Not sure which is worse.

[Vekseid]

What cracks me up is that the slant of the article makes you think it's purely a republican tactic.

Both sides do it.. the GOP got caught this time. (bout time too)

It's not even that they got caught. Getting caught does not and will not matter.

What matters is, one would assume the GOP would prefer to avoid such... moronically Pyrrhic tactics.

Their memo states that they don't want rational debate. At this point, that is their call, and their problem. They may very well get rid of 'death panels' (which republicans originally proposed) and the public option.

The uninsured represent a sixth of the vote in this country.

It's pretty safe to say that the republicans have alienated blacks and, with the NRA forcing the party to consider Sotomayors' nomination a black mark, a good number of hispanics. A fourth of the vote.

Their pandering to the religious right has increased, at the expense of all others. Another fourth of the vote.

They already stand at odds with America's youth, as a rule.

Where are they going to get votes if they keep this up?

[HairyHeretic]

Both parties are just as scary and horrifying when let loose.  The Republicans unleashed the United States military for reasons we still can’t verify and the Democrats just ran up a massive debt for reasons we are still uncertain about.  Not sure which is worse.

How much have those wars cost to date by the way? Just in comparison to this debt that keeps getting mentioned.

[kylie]

Sad part is that it's okay if the Dem Crazies(I don't believe they're all crazy, just wrong) do their crazy protests against a Conservative politician(look at all 8 years of Bush. They didn't let up a minute). But the moment any one says a thing against them... *sigh*

Arrests of protestors during the 2004 Republican National Convention = 1,799
http://rnc08report.org/archive/318.shtml

So lately, have you noticed anywhere that fifty or a hundred people are being arrested for right-wing agitation (and for such "disorderly" things as yelling at officials, or even carrying guns with threatening signs) at any single town hall?

     Some politicians are reportedly staying away simply due to the way that the rightists are protesting.  Which is to say encouraging people to bring guns, going extra-heavy on misinformation, and generally showing more interest in being loudest and disingenuous than being accurate.  Someone is obviously still showing up for these things, in some parts...  Those hardy politicians (some of them less radical Republicans, I must say) are handling much more direct exposure to Republican "base" claims than leading Republicans tolerated from activist lefties while they were holding the presidency.  Or at least, some are putting up with another general ventfest of Repubican ire.  I'd like to hope there are reasonable claims amongst all the hype.  The frequent reliance on merely shouting unsubstantiated warnings makes me doubly skeptical.

[Callie Del Noire]

By and far, I consider myself a MODERATE Republican. (Ironic I know) though I haven't voted straight ticket since I got the right to vote. MY vote hasn't been an issue for the republican party ever.

I am not in LOCKSTEP with the party platform so I'm NOT a republican in the party lines. Since my brother's brutal experience with the Republican party (and the laughable thing they call 'loyalty') I am firmly of the opinion that the party as a while has been hijacked by the religious rightwing types and only ONE or TWO issues matter to them. To the detriment of all others. Ironically the two big button issues (Gay Marriage/Unions and Abortion) aren't were my primary concerns are.

Of course the rampant cronyism of the last eight years has hurt my trust in the party and the last election has been truly enlightening in the regard that the party officers are more concerned about control than winning elections.

Case in point
-The change in mid-stride to a candidate for governor who literally started at the last moment. And one who was operating from a traditionally LOSING position (How many mayors of Charlotte have won the gubernatorial or senatorial races?)

-The literal abandonment of certain candidates (I'm thinking of a couple congressmen and senators) because they weren't HARD enough on certain issues.

[Vekseid]

I'm pretty sure we're going to see the current Democratic party split into Progressive and Libertarian wings over the next decade or so, probably taking a good chunk of Republicans with them. Hopefully this means we get some sanity into the Libertarian party, but still.

[Callie Del Noire]

One of my BIGGEST problems with either party is this RAMPANT desire to deregulate for the sake of doing it. Over the last 30 years that has done more damage to the economy than anything else I can think of.

Look at what the deregulation of the airlines did in the 80s.. NONE of the original big American Airlines are around anymore (the NAMES might be but the actual companies have been rolled over, merged and so on for YEARS).

California's power snafu back in the 90s is another one. Deregulated power companies sold off all sorts of stuff to out of state interests.. I remember coming back from a deployment and 3 families I knew had to actually get back into navy housing because the cost of electricity spiked literally overnight.

[Bayushi]

Arrests of protestors during the 2004 Republican National Convention = 1,799
http://rnc08report.org/archive/318.shtml

So lately, have you noticed anywhere that fifty or a hundred people are being arrested for right-wing agitation (and for such "disorderly" things as yelling at officials, or even carrying guns with threatening signs) at any single town hall?

Because carrying signs and guns and yelling is illegal, as opposed to damn near openly rioting? I honestly don't care which side you're on, if you do something violent, you should pay the penalty. A lot of protestors(or just plain old anarchists) did violent things during the 04 RNConvention.

Not to mention, the only people committing violent acts during THESE protests are the Leftist Union thugs.

Hrm....

California's power snafu back in the 90s is another one. Deregulated power companies sold off all sorts of stuff to out of state interests.. I remember coming back from a deployment and 3 families I knew had to actually get back into navy housing because the cost of electricity spiked literally overnight.

Don't I know that one! That's been going on since the 80's, unfortunately.

Dad was stationed in Japan, and when we returned to the states(San Diego), we had to stay with my grandparents. Cause there was no way in hell an E-7 paycheck was affording rent and utilities at the time.

My father was quite upset about that(not the parents part, the fact that well laid plans went to hell). Grandparents went from rather unworried about things to shrill and vindictive if you left a light on in the house without being in said room.

I will not, or ever, apologize for George W Bush's policies. I did not condone them, like them, or want them.

I didn't vote for him, either. Did I protest against him? No. Why not? Because for the majority of his presidency, I was in no position to protest. I don't even REMEMBER most of 2000 and 2001, plus the first half of 2002. The second half of 2002 saw me in a hospital bed. 2003 saw me moving cross-country, then out-of-country. 2004 I came back, and ended up homeless.

Now, I am permanently disabled and in possession of an internet-enabled PC. I have nothing BUT time.

I don't even consider myself a Republican, having voted for the candidate and not the party each time I've voted. In fact, my first presidential election saw me voting for the Clinton/Gore ticket in 1996. I helped re-elect Senators Feinstein and Boxer(WHAT WAS I THINKING?!). In addition, I could hardly call myself a Republican as a lesbian, right? It'd be counterproductive.

SO STOP THROWING 'BLAHBLAHREPUBLICANS DID THISTHATTHEOTHER' AT ME, BECAUSE I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THEM. THEY ARE NOT EVEN IN POWER RIGHT NOW!

[SleepyWei]

If you don't want to talk about what the republicans did then talk about something else on some other thread. This thread is about the republicans being behind the big rally against Obama's plans, nothing more.

And calm down woman. It's not like everyone's bombing on you or assuming you're republican.

[consortium11]

It's not even that they got caught. Getting caught does not and will not matter.

What matters is, one would assume the GOP would prefer to avoid such... moronically Pyrrhic tactics.

Their memo states that they don't want rational debate. At this point, that is their call, and their problem. They may very well get rid of 'death panels' (which republicans originally proposed) and the public option.

The uninsured represent a sixth of the vote in this country.

It's pretty safe to say that the republicans have alienated blacks and, with the NRA forcing the party to consider Sotomayors' nomination a black mark, a good number of hispanics. A fourth of the vote.

Their pandering to the religious right has increased, at the expense of all others. Another fourth of the vote.

They already stand at odds with America's youth, as a rule.

Where are they going to get votes if they keep this up?

Points like this annoy me... even though I agree with every word.

In my ideal world politics wouldn't be about each party finding the policies that they calculate will appeal to the highest number of voters in key areas with minor ideological issues seperating the two. Instead it would be different parties putting forward their view of what is right, a vision not modified to sound tempting to one key demographic... simply what they believe. If that view costs them millions of votes then so be it... but it is still their view and they should stand on it.

In the UK the current big (well... big on the blog-o-sphere) debate is based around Daniel Hannan... the mep (member of the EU parliament) who made news a while back for his excellent "the devalued prime-minister of a devalued government" attack on Gordon Brown... who appeared on Fox News recently talking about the failures of the NHS. The attack dogs were loosed on him, talking about how he'd betrayed the UK by talking bad about "our NHS" in the USA and not here (despite the fact he'd co-written a book that went into the very subject), how he wanted the US system (which for the record he doesn't) etc etc... and how he was costing the Conservatives over here votes... and risking his own seat in the upcoming EU elections. Nowhere did the serious debate that should have happened about whether our current system should be reformed or replaced.

Daniel Hannan is... for all his faults... a man of great principle... a man who had previously turned down personal advancement in favour of standing by his principles. He doesn't care if he's cost himself votes by saying what he believes to be the truth.

Yet that was all the (few) media outlets that covered it talked about...

Shouldn't we applaud a man who stands there and speaks out whether it will be popular or not? What makes it laughable is that the same commentators who decry Gordon Brown for not admitting there will have to be spending cuts in the unlikely event he gets another term... he's not saying it because it would be unpopular to say it...

(BTW it's quite funny watching the parties over here desperately try to take over the "We love the NHS" movement... and only criticse the "nasty" Republicans rather than Obama... who also says he doesn't want an NHS type system...)

...

And of course I know you'd never get the parties not pandering to the electorate... that's why it's a perfect world.

I'm pretty sure we're going to see the current Democratic party split into Progressive and Libertarian wings over the next decade or so, probably taking a good chunk of Republicans with them. Hopefully this means we get some sanity into the Libertarian party, but still.

If the Democrats were to split, I doubt it would be into Progressive and Libertarian schools. Bill Maher (I know, I know...) did an excellent (well, excellent by his standards...) piece entitled "The Democrats are the new Republicans" about the divisions within the Democratic party. There are the moderates and those who are more socialist/progressive (whatever politically loaded term we're using today)... and it's that division that would likely occur in any split. Since the reinvention of the Democratic party there's never been a strong Libertarian streak... off the top of my head you'd have to look to the turn of the last century and the Bourbon Democrats for an organised Libertarian type movement within the Democrats.

It would be the Republicans who are more likely to form the base of a "Libertarian Revolution" as they've never given up the rhetoric and their grass-roots are quite supportive (even if they never really put their weight behind a candidate with those ideas... the horrific "electability" concept is always brought up). Of course if the GOP split it would be a horrific mess... Evangelicals, Libertarians, all out Hawks, Buisness Interest types... all could go in very different directions.

And they'll never be sanity in the Libertarian party because the drugs issue will always arise... it's near impossible to construct a Libertarian arguement for the prohibition of drug taking... hell, I think you'd struggle to prevent drunk driving using Libertarian logic... and because people want to get votes (as above), they're not going to want to have people from their party terrifying the mainstream by talking about legalising heroin and crack, however logical the arguements are.

Also, if I remember correctly isn't the current Libertarian party already pretty deeply split about immigration... and the "crazy" ideas like abolishing the Federal Bank and half the federal taxes.

[kylie]

Because carrying signs and guns and yelling is illegal, as opposed to damn near openly rioting?

I'm wondering if maybe that was a mistype.  To the best of my knowledge, yelling at these things isn't generally illegal.  I suspect there might be a grey to black area where it would become illegal for shutting down the proceedings of the existing government (such that people can't even get through their scheduled speeches at all).  But that wasn't really what I had in mind.

    In at least some cases, the guns themselves have been technically legal.  It's more situations like where people manage to make a show of signs about spilling blood, or dropping their beloved firearms on the floor (makes you wonder who just might happen to pick it up and shoot the Congressperson, no? "Oops, a totally legal accident.")...  In those cases, I don't blame security for acting preemptively on the basis of any stopgap regulation they can find -- at least to get the weapons out of there.  In some cases, they have encouraged people to put the things back in their cars, which makes perfect sense to me. 

    While carrying guns to political events may not be illegal in some states...  It seems too easy to imagine a situation where people with a history of hostile agenda keep continually testing the bounds of just what sort of carrying and display of firearms is legal.  Enough of these people, and the drain on security and potential for violence over some insult becomes a real cause for alarm.  I hope no one would try to sneak this through under some reference to an 18th century "militia," but it's amazing the excuses sometimes...  Just a few people with tightly holstered pistols here and there, well that's "just" a case of petty intimidation and cause for more bad blood (the figurative kind I should hope).

I honestly don't care which side you're on, if you do something violent, you should pay the penalty. A lot of protestors(or just plain old anarchists) did violent things during the 04 RNConvention.

What few potentially violent elements were around, does not add up to anywhere near cause for 2,000 arrests in my book.  For example:  Early on, it was well documented that the police tossed nets on top of a bicycle protest known as Critical Mass -- which emphasizes space for bicycles in existing traffic laws (and environmental degradation, among other issues).  There were about 300 arrests in that operation.  A division of the same activist group appeared at the DNC, and there were only a handful of arrests.  In New York, they also detained numerous people who were just on the street (sidewalks even) at the same time, and totally unaffiliated with the nonviolent protest. 

     This was a pattern that repeated over and over throughout the convention.  I was once among a group of maybe 150 protestors doing nothing but marching on a sidewalk with signs.  The riot police formed up and threatened to trample us for blocks.  I once watched a bunch of people just sharing stories and holding a few signs in a park for a couple hours.  Vans swept in and scooped up a few, beat cop-looking uniforms with riot helmets running around just intimidating and arresting people.  The courts also ruled that hundreds of protestors arrested during that day were held on no legal grounds whatsoever, and fined the City of New York for time past the ruling they were incarcerated.       

Not to mention, the only people committing violent acts during THESE protests are the Leftist Union thugs.

I'd be interested in any documentation to back that up.  But I'm also concerned about simple intimidation and people with more steam than logic.

[Vekseid]

Shouldn't we applaud a man who stands there and speaks out whether it will be popular or not? What makes it laughable is that the same commentators who decry Gordon Brown for not admitting there will have to be spending cuts in the unlikely event he gets another term... he's not saying it because it would be unpopular to say it...

(BTW it's quite funny watching the parties over here desperately try to take over the "We love the NHS" movement... and only criticse the "nasty" Republicans rather than Obama... who also says he doesn't want an NHS type system...)

I can give Fred Phelps credit for being the most unpopular man in America. I can't give him much more than that. Just because someone shouts what they believe in at the top of their lungs, even if it is wrong, does not make them 'heroes'. At best, it makes them objects of pity. At worst, they obstruct real progress in the world while they do so.

If the Democrats were to split, I doubt it would be into Progressive and Libertarian schools. Bill Maher (I know, I know...) did an excellent (well, excellent by his standards...) piece entitled "The Democrats are the new Republicans" about the divisions within the Democratic party. There are the moderates and those who are more socialist/progressive (whatever politically loaded term we're using today)... and it's that division that would likely occur in any split. Since the reinvention of the Democratic party there's never been a strong Libertarian streak... off the top of my head you'd have to look to the turn of the last century and the Bourbon Democrats for an organised Libertarian type movement within the Democrats.

It would be the Republicans who are more likely to form the base of a "Libertarian Revolution" as they've never given up the rhetoric and their grass-roots are quite supportive (even if they never really put their weight behind a candidate with those ideas... the horrific "electability" concept is always brought up). Of course if the GOP split it would be a horrific mess... Evangelicals, Libertarians, all out Hawks, Buisness Interest types... all could go in very different directions.

And they'll never be sanity in the Libertarian party because the drugs issue will always arise... it's near impossible to construct a Libertarian arguement for the prohibition of drug taking... hell, I think you'd struggle to prevent drunk driving using Libertarian logic... and because people want to get votes (as above), they're not going to want to have people from their party terrifying the mainstream by talking about legalising heroin and crack, however logical the arguements are.

Also, if I remember correctly isn't the current Libertarian party already pretty deeply split about immigration... and the "crazy" ideas like abolishing the Federal Bank and half the federal taxes.

I said the democrats would because the implosion of the Republican party will be just that - a horrific mess. You have a bunch of splintered parties and if the Democrats don't start unfunding huge parts of the budget - like say, the entire DEA - then someone is going to start carrying that mantle. Drug laws may actually be the catalyst, even. The abolition of drug laws is not exactly an unpopular stance, and taking a position against them only angers some of the elderly.

Fun fact: The Libertarian candidate for South Dakota governor in the 1998 race was arrested for drunk driving.

[Zeitgeist]

I just find it rather amusing, when the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats cry foul. Truth is, it works both ways. Deal with it.

The people protesting and organizing against the proposed health care insurance reform is not any less legit than any liberal protest organization, be it Move On, Acorn or what have you. Yes there are people on the fringes, on both sides that make most people cringe. And of course those fringe elements are used to castigate the whole movement as something nutty and crazy.

Frankly I could care less how much or not the protesters are organized or funded by groups. Here in America we hold the right to protest actively as sacrosanct. I really don't give a damn if some corporation is behind it, because corporations are ran by people and tax payers too.

So boo hoo. If Obama is the fabulous speaker and uniter than how is it he's lost control of the message and is unable to bring the masses together?

I predict a rather dramatic shift in party votes come mid term elections. If indeed that transpires I can only imagine the Democrats will blame it on the nefarious 'Right Wing' machine. The same machine they believed to be in deep disarray. We shall see I guess.

[Vekseid]

I just find it rather amusing, when the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats cry foul. Truth is, it works both ways. Deal with it.

Like the Republican party did in the 2004 and 2008 conventions, perhaps?

Would you prefer for Democrats to deal with it that way? Arrest and beat people into submission?

[Bayushi]

Like the Republican party did in the 2004 and 2008 conventions, perhaps?

Would you prefer for Democrats to deal with it that way? Arrest and beat people into submission?

Except the Republican crazies aren't rioting?

[kylie]

Yes there are people on the fringes, on both sides that make most people cringe. And of course those fringe elements are used to castigate the whole movement as something nutty and crazy.

I don't know that anyone here has said the entire Republican votership is precisely "nutty."  I certainly haven't.  However, I wish I could hear some actual points of fact and reason through all the smoke and shouting the party's current big figures (Gingrich, Limbaugh) seem to be relying upon.  I also believe they lost the national election largely because their more distinctive positions are, in the main, going against the historical trend and they have little else to offer except dissent.  The reliance on volume rather than substance as a strategy in these meetings -- institutionally encouraging specifically the most noisy to show up and make a stink, and centrally financing/organizing them to do so -- is doing little to show me otherwise.   

So boo hoo. If Obama is the fabulous speaker and uniter than how is it he's lost control of the message and is unable to bring the masses together?

Of course, one can be a fabulous speaker and still be spurned or denied.  Or even have your points refused precisely for drawing attention to things people are too attached to. Some people would just rather not change their ways in the face of obvious problems.  Especially if they/their favorite political figures had an obvious stake in creating and sustaining said problems.

     After 8 years of Bush-Cheney playing the "decider" card, I'm actually a little impatient with Obama trying to play it low-key and wave the "bipartisan" flags myself.  I'm hoping this will go somewhat the way of the first economic stimulus: After the right has shown it has little to contribute but nay-saying, perhaps it will be easier to push on and actually get something done.  At the same time, it's awfully obvious when all the opposition seems to do is rant and complain about how popular the president actually is.  Bush was hardly open to that flavor of "criticism" even when he first took office.  And this is done while also demanding Obama "listened" to opposition so much as to act like it. 

[kylie]

Except the Republican crazies aren't rioting?

I really think you have the RNC confused with something else.  Try the Seattle WTO talks.  Maybe then you could have your tiny sample of actual lefty violence, which you seem very interested in finding and magnifying a thousand times to supposedly make up for the pervasive right-sponsored threats (threats upon individual politicians, not just upon "the System" since you seem fixated on discovering riots).  We could discuss which came first, the tear gas or the riot-style behavior by a few.  And whether occasional behavior by a few was used as a flimsy police excuse to attack the masses for days on end.

     I was on the streets around the RNC '04 for most of the convention.  There was so much paramilitary and police presence there before the thing even started, there was no opportunity for anyone to think about rioting.  And again, gatherings that were entirely peaceful were the vast majority of the arrests.   It's a dated site, but you can get some idea what little-to-none people were being arrested for (and often detained illegally) from this CNN report:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/02/convention.protests/

     While this is partly about police behavior as well as the political leadership, I sense a pattern where a Republican administration deploys hugely excessive and preemptive force to shut down domestic dissent, as well as to wage a war over false premises abroad...  And now the same party's leading figures are encouraging the more virulent and destructive elements to get out there and make a disruptive public display of themselves where standing Congresspeople and the President are trying to hold a policy discussion. 

     Show me that this Party, as an institution, really has anything to offer.  That is, anything beyond threats of direct violence -- not "rioting" as you put it, but rather: assassination or "making their point" with encouragement toward assault and shooting -- and demands to erase Washington from the whole political map (so that the right can then take it back after railing about how bad it is, after they led it for the last 8 years).