A little Circus music (hell, outtakes from Petrushka) would help this rather dry and inneffective attempt. Focus on one crazy then show them all as well, a list of criminals and miscreants can also blur the point that they're all insane.

Well, I suppose this is a good point to drive home except that Crazy has been mainstreamed to the point that Alan Simpson chairs a deficit reduction commission. If Democrats want to start fighting (aside from Alan Grayson, Jerold Nadler and Anthony Weiner), they might to re-examine their own tendencies to blur distinctions. Republicans are sincerely insane whereas Democrats are wanly borderline. This difference in energy levels is what keeps driving the debate ever and ever rightward. Meanwhile, Democrats twiddle their thumbs and wonder if anytime is ever a good time to fight.

Nothing will help. The SCOTS made sure that $$$will be poured into the coffers of the GOP from billionaires here and special foreign interests that want this country destroyed. It won't be pretty. The democrats , including their fearless leader Obama, haven't been able to control the message because corporate america won't let them.

So, let the Koran burnings begin, the hate and fear continue and the rich finally finish-off what remains of the middle class. By the time the poor low information voter wises up, Diebold (etc.) will have reprogrammed the machines, MSM will be completely under the thumb of "them" and we'll be left with a strong army to suppress revolt and no real way to turn it all around. Paranoia and repression, chaos and fear.

The American experiment: R.I.P.

Well, first of all, three minutes is a lifetime in today's media driven world. Who are they targeting? Not us; they had me at "hello".

Not only is it too long, it is too disjointed; too many voices, too many jump cuts. Better to have hired Rachel to make a PAIR of 30 second spots.

And that title! 'These People COULD be in charge? I bet that was run past the lawyers. Wishy washy. Better to say these people WANT to be in charge.

The average voter is not sophisticated enough to get the nuance, the unsaid theme that "these people are crazy."

Spend the money on billboards and bumper stickers, instead. Like:

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
And Won the Republican Primary.

Wow-that's really weak. I'm thinking the Dems are dead in November

The GOP goes for the jugular. This is just really weak

And dirty David Diaper Vitter has been threatening local papers (through his lawyers) to soft pedal on his knife slashing friend.

If they connected the Republican party to, say, the Brain Police, the Dems may just do well this November! -Kevo

The Democrats are missing a critical step in the syllogism:

A. Republicans are crazy.

B. Democrats will protect you from the crazy Republicans.

C. Vote Democratic.

It may seem self-evident to Democratic leaders, but more and more people are questioning what the point is of voting for Democrats. No matter how many Democrats we elect, they still can't seem to find a way to beat the crazies back.

Telling voters that more crazy Republicans are running is probably as likely to depress possible voters and suppress turnout as it is to motivate voters to come out and vote for the Democrats.

It's hard to defeat crazy - a profound disconnect from reality - if people don't see it as such. Critical thinking is rare, and large swaths of the "news" media do no meaningful reporting. See Timothy Egan's August 25th opinion column, "Building a Nation of Know-Nothings".

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/building-a-nation-of-know-nothings/

"It’s one thing to forget the past, with predictable consequences, as the favorite aphorism goes. But what about those who refuse to comprehend the present?"

I'm still in favor of Democrats blaming Republicans for the collapsed economy. While it was clear in the final months of 2008 that the economy was collapsing, and that Bush and thirty years of Republican and Republican-lite policies were responsible, that wasn't the Democrat's central theme in 2008.

The extent of the the economic disaster Republicans engineered during Reagan's administration is finally clear. The lines connecting Republicans to their economic treachery can be made now because 9 out of 10 of Americans have personally suffered from it.

Obama could have been more partisan from the beginning of his administration, but he refused then, and largely continues to refuse now, to loudly condemn Republicans for the economic collapse they caused.

I know why Democrats don't blame Republicans in starker terms: too often, Democrats have been complicit in the Republican efforts to steal from the middle class to give to the rich. But Democrats aren't just not "crazy," much of what they (we) have done over the past four years has been in service of saving and restoring the middle class in America. They have every right to blame the sh*t out of the Republicans for the blatantly obvious class war they've waged on the middle and lower classes.

What square1 said. The "strategy" of scaring voters with the bogeyman (as opposed to actually fighting on their behalf while in office) is way past its sell-by date.

"The stage is being set for the Glenn Beck "Restoring Honor" rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial."

Beck has the right to hold this rally, but I do not comment and will not comment on the wisdom of doing so.

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

NealB,

Good one.

It reminds me how many people blame the last recession on 9-11, when, in fact, the economy started tanking in June of that year.

Dems should be positive, the GOP then owns the crazy.

Republicans have been doing this to Democrats for years -- tax-and-spend liberals, etc. -- it's just another version of "These People Could Be in Charge." It all comes down to which narrative the most voters will accept.

Also, who's going to watch a 3-minute web video except political junkies, who are too small a constituency to matter (plus, this is singing to the choir)? Make some 30-second versions and stick 'em on the air, and let's see what happens with them.

I expect the 3-minute video is to test-market the message; lots of buzz, lots of airtime. Otherwise, not so much.

They might want to combine the two themes: Pick a current nutjob, find out how they're going way past a failed Bush policy, and say "If you liked how Bush handled the economy, you'll LOVE this Republican's plan..."

How can we argue that we'll protect anyone form the crazies when our own leaders will be complicit in phasing out Social Security. We have Simpson throwing a bone to the 60 + people saying no problems for you - that would work for Republicans, I guess, since their mindset is "it's all about me, to hell with you and yours". It doesn't play too well with rank and file Dems, though. We know that Social Security is a covenant forged over generations and we DO care about out kids and grandkids and want them to have its benefits.
Poor Alan. How puzzled he must be. It would explain his crankiness. And I'm sure Obama will explain how the Democrat mindset works (not that he is one - just plays one on TV.
We've been had.

Too long did not finish.

Seriously, it's too long. People won't stay with it to the end. And it's even likely to help the GOP. A lot of people, like it or not, support some of the proposals we consider crazy.

As others have said more eloquently already...yes, what we SHOULD do...but warning...never underestimate the appeal of CRAZY to the unintelligent and uneducated wingnuts...do the words SCARAH and BECK not provide a clue?

This video is another fine example of just how incompetent liberals are at political salesmanship.

First off, starting off with Rachel Maddow is questionable because, though a generally nice person, she’s also an east-coast liberal snot which makes her a terrible messenger. And it has naught to do with the fact that she’s a lesbian. Ellen Degeneris, if they could have somehow gotten her, would have been a much better choice as she is down-to-earth, is actually funny and appeals to a broad audience.

But the intro about Bill Scott is all wrong, anyhow. It’s too long for one thing and mentioning that he founded the largest hospital chain in the country makes him sound pretty competent and that would seem to contradict the idea that he’s crazy. Instead they should have cut out Maddow and the other news announcer guy and gone straight to highlighting the fact that his company was forced to pay one of the highest settlements for Medicaid fraud in history and (here’s a nice talking point that wasn’t used) this from a guy who claims to be against wasteful government spending. He seemed to like it OK when the money was going into his pocket.

As for Ron Johnson, there’s a difference between payment and a loan. A payment, you keep the money. A loan, you pay it back. The hypocrisy charge here is weak and there’s nothing really crazy at all about Johnson’s actions.

If you’re trying to make Sharon Angle look insane, you should highlight her advocacy of armed insurrection when she gets election results she doesn’t like or the fact that she thinks reporters should only ask her the questions she wants to answer. That’s crazy, man.

If you’re going to attack Daniel Webster for advocating covenant marriage, um, perhaps you should explain what covenant marriage is? And if you can’t explain graphically in one or two short sentences what’s so objectionable about it then drop it and go on. The video’s way too long anyhow.

If you want to show that Rand Paul is crazy in a way that everyone can understand say that unlike most ophthalmologists, he is certified not by the American Board of Ophthalmology but by the National Board of Ophthalmology, his own self-created organization of which he is president. Gee, now why would a doctor need to create his own organization in order to accreditate himself? Most people are not going to immediately understand what’s wrong with not supporting all aspects of the 1965 Civil Rights act or care about something stupid he did in college. They can, however, appreciate the horror of visiting a quack doctor.

As far as Ken Buck goes, most Americans are religious and there’s a good chance most of them think the separation of church and state is too strictly enforced too. If you want to make him look crazy, you’re going to need some extreme examples.

As for, Linda McMahon, if you put something on television, kids are going to watch it. That doesn’t make her crazy.

In short, this video is way too flabby and has far too many examples that simply aren’t all that scandalous. I’m sure liberals think it’s great. Last time I checked we already had their votes.

Liberals really don’t know how to grab people. But, hey Steve, why not make another Ground Zero Deli joke? That’ll get people in our corner.

Shoulda read the other comments first. I see I'm actually in the majority here. That's just weird.

Jesus Christ people. Dems can't afford to run this video on tv, so I'm sure it will be shortened.

And why is it that fear mongering is ok for republicans but when Democrats do it, its played out or wrong?

If Congress can't act, then the president should move mountains on his own. Elizabeth Warren is a winner, so why delay her appointment or stab the base in the eye by naming someone else? Dramatically respond to food safety issues. Fight vigorously and publicly for Net Neutrality. Fire Alan Simpson's sorry ass outta the Catfood Commission and shut it down. The idea that Dems will be the ones responsible for gutting Social Security-- cutting benefits they shd be raising, raising the retirement age rather than lowering it-- is disgusting and a good reason never to vote for any Dem ever again, no matter how batshit insane and overtly Fascist the opposition. If the Dems are going to bring their victory to life and grant Replicants the goal they have dreamed of since FDR walked without a cane, why bother? But instead, Obama could take action. He could force the FED to do something. He could respond to bipartisan pressure on Prison Rape. There has to be some creative way in which every spare penny cd be spent on instant infrastructure projects, or declaring a national emergency to fund firemen and police. In NoLa, he cd say their city is an example of what is wrong across America, and of what needs to be done. And if none of these ideas is any good, he cd find something else to do on mortgages, the disastrous "liberal" failure that is HAMP, and other vital economic concerns. Instead, I'm afraid all we're gonna get is speeches... and catastrophe. The world is on fire. There is no more time for shilly-shallying. We ARE doomed.

So, my choice is between the (R) DeMint and the (D) Greene. You will excuse me if I vote none of the above.

More likely, I will follow Clyburn's lead and write in Mazie Ferguson (if I remember the name in November!)