Sunday Reading

The Kaplan Daily has the always insightful Drew Westen looking back on the mistakes made by the Obama Administration that could translate to an election day loss. (Westen has often been way ahead of the curve in advising Democrats how to position themselves policy-wise and politically; it's too bad his advice was often ignored or followed too-tepidly.) While we still believe this is Obama's election to lose, it's frustrating to know that this needn't have been such a struggle. As Westen says,

"So, beyond the anemic economy, why do the latest polls show the former Massachusetts governor in a dead heat with the president? Because Obama’s administration made three crucial errors that enabled the Republican obstructionism that has tied his hands for the past two years, with GOP leaders shooting down any idea — even if it’s one of their own — that might have helped the president strengthen the economy. And those mistakes have made possible what was unimaginable in January 2009: that a private-equity baron lacking a sense of noblesse oblige, and preaching the gospel of deregulation and lower taxes for the rich, might actually win the presidency four years after those policies led to the collapse of the U.S. economy."

Also, the Kaplan Daily has an editorial about Rethuglican voter suppression - calling it, rightly, a modern version of the old poll taxes that were meant to keep minority voters away from the polls in the Jim Crow South. We need more media outlets to shine a light on this Rethuglican attempt to pull off an election day coup.

This Really IS Good News for Dems

One of this Hackwhacker's fondest wishes has apparently come true with the report that political psychologist Drew Westen has been brought in by Congressional Democratic leaders to do for them what lying lard-ass Frank Luntz does for Rethugs: message tailoring. Had Dems followed Westen's advice in the initial stages of the health care reform debate, they might not be struggling with selling the reform now.

Better late than never, as long as they take Westen's superb advice.

"Selling Health Care"

Emory University's outstanding Drew Westen writes in today's WaPo about messaging in the health care battle, an article which should be required reading by everyone in the White House, the Congressional Democratic leadership and all health care reform activists.

Westen notes how Rethug wordsmith Fred "Dunce" Luntz circulated Rethug/ insurance industry/ AMA talking points last month telling them they needed to co-opt the language of "reform," and paint the progressive plan as a "government takeover" as the only way to scare the public, defeat Obama and not incur the wrath of 75% of Americans who want true reform. Cynical? Of course. Anti-middle class? Heh! The Rethugs have been at this for literally half a century, in league with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and the AMA.

But Westen offers good advice to the Democrats (at least those who want true health care reform, and thus the preservation of their party). Using terms such as "universal health care," "public option," "the uninsured," and "the "under-insured" plays into Rethug/ industry hands. His key advice to those wanting a strong counter-message to the Rethug/ industry scare tactics: "Advocates should counter by asking Americans whether they prefer choices dictated by the insurance industry or the range of choices that their elected representatives get, including a high-quality plan that doesn't rely on the goodwill of industry executives."

Dems, Listen to Drew Westen

The Sunday WaPo's Outlook section (sorry, no link) has an interesting, and to-the-point article by Drew Westen, Emory University professor, about why Democrats need to speak to voters from the gut and not with a dispassionate rendering of facts and figures. Westen points out that if Democrats don't connect with the emotional, gut values voters understand and relate to, they will snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in 2008. In making his case, Westen also makes some right-on observations about Dumbya:

"People vote largely with their passions, and if you jam their emotional radar, you prevent them from making emotionally informed decisions. Consider the case of George W. Bush, whose life story telegraphed everything voters needed to know about him: He had dodged the Vietnam-era draft while avidly supporting the war; he had drunk his way through much of his adulthood, even while he had young children at home; he had shown extraordinary incompetence in the business world; his campaign had smeared Sen. John McCain with stories about mental instability and an allegedly illegitimate baby to get Bush through the South Carolina primary in 2000; and he had mocked a fellow born-again Christian whom he put to death as Governor of Texas. The problem was that the Democrats wouldn't tell it."

The Rethugs have understood this now for many decades. As Westen notes, they have rendered the term "liberal" contaminated, while relentlessly going after individual candidates in the rawest emotional terms possible (Willie Horton, Swift Boaters and, as we have predicted, "traitors").

The Democrats should have all the emotion going for them in 2008, with every backward, foul, lying, unconstitutional, hypocritical, obstructionist, criminal, despicable thing the Rethugs have shoved in our faces over the past 6 -- hell, 40 years. How's that for emotions?!

So, are you listening, Democrats?