Democrats have been searching in vain. . .

Shirley, you jest.

There is-and has been- a bumper crop of topics, easy pickings, waiting for the Dems to spend some of those War Chest millions on TeeVee ads.

None of which will run during the Stupor Bowl. . .

It’s not a “BLANKET HOLD,” it’s a GROUP HUG!!!
Kumbaya, My Lord, kumbaya…

BTW - a good audio ad would alter the catchy tune and lyric's from that great British Invasion song, "The Hippy, Hippy Shake," by the "Swinging Blue Jeans, and change it to:
"The Shelby, Shelby Shake-down!"
'Well, Shelby shakes it to the right
Then he shakes is further right,
He does the Shelby shake down
With all of his might...

The DNC attack ad is way to vague. "Playing politics with"....(fill in the blank) just rolls off people who are now desensitized to partisan attacks, so the ad may seem like playing politics itself to many people. The DNC needs to get specific. Explain that Shelby is a blackmailer or an extortionist -- use those words, one man holding up national security until he gets the pork he wants for his state, plain and simple.

I would not suggest that Democrats copy the amoral messaging techniques of the Republican Party and their ace talking point guru, the deceptive and dishonest Frank Luntz.

But the Luntz method is instructive. Here is what he does. He is a pollster, but he doesn't poll to find out what positions Republicans should take in the conventional sense. He polls to discover what underlying preconceptions the public has about matters -- including how well they have internalized the FOX NEWS and Frank Luntz lies from the past.

Once Luntz knows what people already believe, however wrong -- that Big Government is bad but Wall Street is worse, for example -- he is then able to devise for Republicans deceptive and manipulative soundbites and out and out lies and fabrications that advance the GOP agenda because these lies are at least plausible because they reinforce frames, narratives and prejudices that are already there.

Luntz relies heavily on an insight that Walter Lippmann articulated nearly a century ago in his famous book "Public Opinion" that laid out the dangers democracies face from propaganda. Said Lippmann: "People do not see first and then define. They define first and then see."

Our ability to weigh evidence and judge reality, in other words, is pretty much pre-determined, said Lippmann, by the "pictures we carry around in our heads."

In the recent case, for example, Luntz produced a 17 page memo for Republicans that allows them to oppose new regulations on Wall Street banks by pretending to attack Wall Street itself.

Here is how Luntz did it: Republicans have taken the side of Wall Street in opposing an Obama proposal for a consumer protection agency against finance industry abuse. That position is unpopular because the public is mad as hell at Wall Street with its bailouts and bonuses. Therefore, since the public hates Wall Street for all these bailouts, Luntz simply instructs Republicans that they can be on the side of the fist-shaking populists by framing their attack on the pro-populist consumer protection bill that Wall Street hates as an attack on a bailouts that Wall Street loves.

It is a complete lie of course since the bill Republicans oppose does the exact opposite of what they say it does. But apparently the politics work.

The Shelby Shakedown offers a terrific opportunity...

Wow! I can't WAIT to see how the Democratic leadership fumbles THIS one!

Ted we know how and why Republicans are doing what they are doing. Tell us how we confront the big lie in a world without real journalism?

By the way Ted, Luntz' recommended attack on Wall Street reform hasn't really succeeded because he was so open and it was so transparent.

Come on. We all know how ineffective the Dems are at politics. They rely on the better instincts of a severely unintellectual audience: The American electorate.

Think of it. People voted (more or less) for two terms of Bushit and Darth against their own best self interests. Fast forward to Massachusetts where a centerfold no-mind replaces a guy who fought his whole life for the poor with the results placing the poor into great peril. Outcome? I was surprised that Brown was wearing a shirt at his swearing in ceremony.

Lemmings beget lemmings. I wonder how the Romans felt as their empire began it's decline. I wonder when the population first began to realize that their leaders didn't give a shit about them. I wonder if the folks in Massachusetts fell like they are channeling Connecticut dorks in voting in someone who won't represent their needs.

American's are more or less, a pretty stupid lot...

The ad is way too weak. It needs a lot of work.

Umm, with no mention of "pork", "earmarks" ,"hostage","greed", "selfish",or "life and death" it is a total softball.

"hold", "partisan games"? Who the hell conducts their focus groups?

Where's the demon sheep? I agree this ad can be much tougher. Need to hit the fact he's holding up key appointees to help a foreign corporation and how he's been lining his own pockets with their endorsements. I'd say this ad is about 30% there. It needs to get much nastier to prove to the media that the Dems are serious about this.

absolutely agree that this ad is too vague and looks like just another attack ad like theirs. BE SPECIFIC and lose the menacing background music for something mocking!!!

Doesn't matter how good or bad the Democrats' ad is. Nobody outside DC and blog readers will see it because the wusses won't fight.

Steve, it's untrue that the Dem are being "aggressive" on Shelby.

I don't know how many different ways to get this into your head but regular non-political-junkies just DO NOT CLICK ON WEB BASED DNC ADS.

The average American has not heard of, nor cares about, Michael Steele. Nor do they know about Shelby and his pork.

Putting outrage on the White House blog is guaranteed only to reach .... you and other bloggers and villagers.

Normal folks know nothing about this. This is, so far, purely an "inside baseball" issue.

Until elected senior Dem officials get grow some balls and take the message to "the street" (TV) this is a big nothing.

No "red state" senators are going to be knocked off in the next election over this. No surge of TV stories will be told and this will never show up where normal non-political people watch TV such as Good Morning America.

Until someone says something to the voters. Man, you really should be embarrassed by this but I see you are not.

I don't think the 'Shelby Shakedown' offers a terrific opportunity to inform Americans about Republican obstructionism. Shelby's obstructionism is the sort everyone is already familiar with, selling one's vote for political favors, i.e., pork. This simply isn't astonishing at all. What IS astonishing is the Republican obstructionism en bloc based on a political agenda to oppose all legislation in Congress just to make governing impossible. That's what the American people need to know. Yawn for the ad.

That ad is weeeaaakkkkk tea. Just watching it made me think of some stuffy white woman in a gated community opining about how these "mean" guys are giving the president a hard time.

Shame on you DNC for producing such crap. Another slow hanging curve. Another whif. Grow a pair, spend some money, and sell this thing right.

The problem is not empty chairs but empty suits--on both sides of the aisle.

We have our own Frank Luntz, and his name is George Lakoff. The DNC is fucking up big time if they aren't consulting him on ad messaging.

In reading the threads on Klein's article, someone brought up the perfect angle to attack the GOP. Frame them as the REAL terrorists.

They both want to destroy our form of government and will do anything to achieve their goals. Fact is, they are a much bigger threat than al qaeda.

The right wing will howl, but that just serves to bring the debate into the spotlight.

We gotta shake things up to get people's attention.

Ron Byers

I am not sure enough people really do fully appreciate why right wing rhetoric is so successful. Linguist George Lakoff keeps looking for different ways to instruct liberals that genuine and successful communication occurs largely at the unconscious level. It is there where various underlying "metaphors" and "narratives" are unlocked by framing political arguments in such a way -- i.e. federal bank regulation to rein in Wall Street recklessness is really a "Big Government Wall Street bailout" -- which are successfull because they reinforce ideas that people are already pre-disposed to oppose.

But until I read Luntz memo in its entirety the other day I didn't fully appreciate his depressingly cynical but successful method.

Luntz is a "pollster." But he doesn't poll in the conventional way. He doesn't survey to find what issues are "popular" and which are not in order to help Republicans constuct a winning agenda on its merits -- which is usually the level that Democratic and liberal communication is targeted, i.e. we should adopt a health care plan because X number of Americans die each year and we could cut costs by Y amount.

What Luntz does with his polling is uncover the public's underlying beliefs or leanings so that he can then help Republicans advance their special interest agenda by constructing lies and distortions that work not because they can't be proven to be false but because they reinforce these underlying beliefs and are therefore PLAUSIBLE -- i.e. that government is corrupt or incompetent, and so is Wall Street, and so are bailouts, so the public can be made to oppose bank regulations if they are portrayed as favoring Wall Street even when they do the opposite.

It is this connection between underlying beliefs or prejudices and plausible lies and deceptions that is the real magic in right wing rhetoric, and which Lakoff is struggling to articulate with his theories about how political beliefs are connected to family upbringing (Stern Father v. Nurturent Parent model) or how subconscious metaphors are far more determinative of public opinion than Enlightenment rationalism and reason. It also helps to illustrate Lippmann's insight that we do not construct our political beliefs by connecting empiricle dots; rather, we can only see those dots that compute within the pre-existing belief system we already have.

It is not a very flattering portrait of the American electorate or its ability to judge fact from fiction. But it is precisely because Republicans treat the public as fools that their messaging is so powerful. It also has the added advantage that when liberals challenge them on their deceptions, Republicans can always cynically sasy that liberals as condescending elitists who don't have a very high opinion of the public's ability to recognize lies when they see it.

Until we understand this basic dynamic, liberal ways of communicating based on logic, evidence and reason will continue to be frustrated as it beats its head against the walls of ignorance, irrationality and the power of the subconscious mind that Luntz is deliberately and methodically helping his Republican clients to construct.

I've often thought that liberals and conservatives speak two entirely different languages and until we learn how to translate we will never get through.

I do feel your pain about the mainstream media however, because I think they've internalized far too much of the right wing's frames of reference, which gives the radical right the home field rhetorical advantage on every issue even when its been reduced to a narrow minority.

Just an observation: this is one of the most interesting, factual, actual intelligent discussion threads I have seen in many moons. Kudos to the commenters.

Well, except for the ones I disagree with, who are all poopy heads.

(I guess old habits die hard.)

Ron Byers

I am not sure enough people really do fully appreciate why right wing rhetoric is so successful. Linguist George Lakoff keeps looking for different ways to instruct liberals that genuine and successful communication occurs largely at the unconscious level. It is there where various underlying "metaphors" and "narratives" are unlocked by framing political arguments in such a way - Ted Fier

Something for those interested in such things to look into, if they haven't already, is Thomas Frank's 2004 book What's the Matter with Kansas? He explores the rise of conservative populism and how [the bitter divide between moderate and conservative Kansas Republicans (what he labels "Mods" and "Cons") [is] an archetype for the future of politics in America, in which fiscal conservatism becomes the universal norm and political war is waged over a handful of hotbutton cultural issues.] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F

Not long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers - when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings -- when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work -- you could be damned sure about what would follow.

Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.

I've often thought that liberals and conservatives speak two entirely different languages and until we learn how to translate we will never get through.

That's the way I feel, trying to get through to liberals the fact that Republicans are unpopular losers who keep getting beat by the supposedly weak Democrats. Obama enjoys majority support while Republicans haven't broken the 40% approval mark in over two years. If anyone can't get through to people, it's the minority party. And the current debate isn't over whether Democrats can beat Republicans, but whether Republicans can hold Dems to a stalemate without looking like the obstructionist losers they are.

And here we have a quickly made DNC ad and almost everyone here is insisting it's too weak and Republicans are still winning. Winning what? The Having The Shit Beat Out Of Them Before Shelby Retracts His Hold Contest? This is a lose-lose for Republicans and the only question is how much pain the Dems can inflict before it's over. Sure, I'd like to see stronger attacks too, but this Shelby situation is most definitely not anything we can lose.

And I definitely think a big part of the problem are all the liberals who think we've already lost before the battle even begins. Dems ARE hitting Shelby and the Republicans on this, Shelby WILL backdown (hopefully later than sooner), and long after this is over and Republicans have licked their wounds, we'll be assured that Republicans always win and Democrats are losers.

Being prevented from stomping your opponents isn't the same as losing.

Ron Byers,

As for your specific question on what Democrats need to do to better frame their messages, I am afraid there is no easy way around it: Liberals must regain the idea that government is good.

The entire success of conservatism for the past 40 years goes back to Ronald Reagan's assertion that "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem."

Watch FOX News or listen to Republicans and their whole argument on almost any issue distills down to an attack against Big Government. Scott Brown's election was based on that simple idea.

But the reason this attack on "Big Government" has been so successful is that Big Government means many things to many different people. The Tea Party Patriot movement has been sold as a popular movement of fiscal probity, of those against deficits and potential US bankruptcy. It may be that for some deficit hawks, but hardly the majority, as Tom Tancrado's opening racist rant at their convention illiterates.

The real difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are trying to do what no other nation in history has ever achieved -- a continent wide national community uniting hundreds of different smaller racial, ethnic, regional, religious, linguistic communities. In other words, E Pluribus Unum, from the many, one.

Conservatism is built around the idea of community as well, but a much smaller and more parochial community, which is why the right hmakes such a fetish out of group solidarity and loyalty. That is a positive thing for the most part, provided it does not become to rigid or exclusive. And if there has been a sea-change in American attitudes over the last 15 years or so, it has been the remarkable increase -- thanks to Rush Limbaugh and his caustic immitators in conservative media -- in the number of people who think it is perfectly OK to contemptuously dismiss America's famous melting pot as a politically correct "crock" pot.

Tea Party "Nation", a Republican Party whittled down to a hard-core Southern reactionary base that has always thought of the South as being a separate nation or civilization, the rising talk of secession, the abuse of the Senate filibuster signaling the reincarnation of "nullification" as an issue as well as Southern firebrand John C. Calhoun's concurrent majority ideas, talk by figures like Palin of a "Real America."

Of of these are evidence that the real split in American politics today is between those who want to build a larger national community -- and for whom vigorous national Big Government is the only effective tool -- and a right wing opposition that wants to divide this nation into its separate smaller communities and component "cultures." And for these people "Big Government" is really just a proxy for the larger national community they do not want to join and for whom the Tea Party movement is largely a vehicle for their angry protest. After all, said Barry Goldwater in 1964 in a very revealing formulation, the constitutional right that we have to freely associate implies a corresponding constitutional right NOT to associate. Too many conservatives take that right very seriously.

Liberal politics can only thrive within a community whose members think of themselves as sharing a common destiny. That is why right wing media like Rush and FOX, and fire-eaters like Ann Coulter, attempt to defeat liberal policies by coarsening public attitudes, pulverizing any sense of communtiy or common destiny and carpet bombing out of existance the sofer virtues like compassion and empathy that must be in place if people are going to make the personal sacrifices for their neighbors that underly any liberal political regime.

I don't know what the particular words are that Democrats must use to recapture this larger vision, but the basic objective is to undo the damage that Ronald Reagan's bold assertion inflicted in his very first speech as President. Liberals must restore the idea that Government IS the solution to our problem -- not because we need a government program for every problem, but because it means we are all in this together, as one nation and one people, beyond whatever particular tribe we come from.

For the record, this is a shitty ad. Deputy Undersecretary for Technology? For god's sake, hire an advertising agency or a PR company that knows what the hell they're doing. After watching that ad, most wouldn't by soap from these guys.

Dems are right on the problem, wrong on the messaging. Benen was correct yesterday. Dems have to come up with something akin to "give us an up or down vote." Not a complicated, long-winded explanation with an ad that would put most to sleep.

I'm glad Dems are finally going on attack. Now if they could just learn to shoot straight.

I agree with several people, above, that's a very weak ad.

The worst thing about it, though, is that it assumes the audience has some idea of how ONE GUY could block a president from hiring people. Nobody who isn't a political junkie understands the concept of a Senate hold (and neither do a lot of people who ARE political junkies, for that matter).

If someone sees this ad who isn't aware of how holds work, they'll assume that Shelby is the leader of a movement and has a lot of support, and that "playing politics" is just a weaselly way of saying "is engaged in principled opposition". To someone who isn't engaged in the process, this ad actually makes Shelby look good.

You want to do it right, start off by explaining the hold. Explain that it's about a single senator threatening to bring all government business to a halt by throwing a public tantrum. Talk about how these are usually only used as a last resort in extreme circumstances. (Definitely use lots of pictures of a crying baby, to imply that holds are beneath the dignity of an adult.) THEN talk about Shelby blocking every single nominee until he gets pork for Alabama. THEN talk about empty chairs--but not the undersecretary for readiness or whatever; just talk about empty chairs at the pentagon during wartime, at treasury during a financial crisis, etc. Say that Shelby is going to throw a tantrum to get his pork, and he's putting our nation at risk. THAT would be an effective ad.

Anyone remember how, when Iran was holding a group of Americans hostage, everyone was going around with yellow ribbons on their car antennae (antennas?)? Maybe we ought to start driving around with blue ribbons -- support our country, free the hostages the Red Right is holding...

Bill Maher put it well when he opined that "Democrats couldn't sell a cub scout to a pedophile".

In 2001 the MSM mantra was that GWB deserved the opportunity to put his team in place. Every appointee deserved an up-or-down vote. GWB lost the popular vote and only won the electoral vote with the help of the Supreme Court. BO won in a landslide. Certainly he deserves the opportunity to name his own team. They should have been after this six months ago.

Beautiful tough language. I was almost inspired to write President Obama a letter imploring him not to cave because the theme of jobs at stake at Boeing was something that could get through the screener. Although it is probably not necessary I may still write it.

I have to watch this ad now!? I agree it is not very good. For a DNC web ad a Dawn Johnsen reference would have been nice. Also the public responds to the idea of special favors for one's own state as we have seen with the "Cornhusker Kickback".