From “Change We Can Believe In” to “We Don’t Suck as Much as They Do” in just a couple short years:

With just six weeks to avoid a possible election catastrophe, Democrats are trying to limit the damage with a closing argument that’s more plea than platform: We know you voters are furious with us, but just let us explain why the Republicans would be worse.

The strategy requires an autumn influx of voters willing to view the election as a choice between two imperfect parties — and imperfect candidates on each ballot line — rather than as a chance to slap the Washington establishment that the public seems to dislike so deeply.

And now, it’s time to play “what friggin’ planet is this Associated Press writer on?”

Obama remains a relatively popular president, certainly compared with Congress, and he recently transferred $4.5 million from his presidential campaign account to Democratic House, Senate and gubernatorial efforts. He plans campaign stops in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, all of which have competitive Senate or gubernatorial races or both.

“A relatively popular president”?


I liked how the writer tried to justify the “relatively popular president” remark by serving it with an “at least compared to Congress” chaser, which is kind of like saying, “the fly in the customer’s soup remains relatively popular compared to the fecal matter on his toast.”

Yes, the president will be making campaign stops in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada — no word on whether or not the candidates themselves will show up though.


6 Responses to “Democrats Taking a New Approach: We Suck Less”

  1. Rick on September 18th, 2010 1:52 pm

    The GOP tried the “we suck less” approach in ’06 and ’08 with Karl Rove declaring permanent republican majorities prior to ’06.

    Have the republicans learned anything during their time in the wilderness? Will they prudently defund the insane spending spree of an out of control govt? You may have already bet your house on it.

  2. Clu Seatoe on September 18th, 2010 4:29 pm

    Part One:

    “Democrat national party officials say they will spend $50 million for on-the-ground organizing, sending out volunteers to contact voters and "persuadable" people. That includes 15 million to 20 million who voted for the first time in 2008, when Obama inspired many young and minority voters.”

    The euphemistic paragraph the Dems hope you miss.

    Here they’ve broken a population of 20 million down into five categories:

    The “first time” voter could be the one who probably came legally from another country and was raised under socialism or quasi-socialism and is used to all that that has to offer (force on the public), and is hopefully therefore comfortable with and willing to accept it in the United States because it hasn’t fully developed yet and there is still room for capitalistic gain.

    The “young” voter: these are the lemmings that do not yet have the courage or honest historical information to form their own opinions of conservatism and go their own way. Therefore they vote either the way their frat does (for social acceptance) or the way their professors tell them too to get the passing grade and thereby keep the scholarship.

  3. Clu Seatoe on September 18th, 2010 4:30 pm

    Part Two:

    The “persuadable” people: that money will be going to the New Black Panthers.

    Those “inspired by Obama” voters: those with too much air or blond hair up there or too much dependence on that monthly check, like uncle Vern and aunt Bertha over in the trailer park.

    The “minority” voter: this category leaves little to the imagination and pretty much speaks for itself. These are the ones with little or no command of the English language and includes those who only voted by skin color.

    The Dems are willing to spend $50 million on these groups, or $2.5 million per vote. But we’re spending too much on Social Security and Medicare.

    Hey, how about putting that 2.5 mil toward upgrading their quality of life?

  4. Clu Seatoe on September 18th, 2010 11:17 pm

    Hey, Doug, how about sandwiching the first half of my post in. You know, the one that wouldn’t fit in the available space provided and that your admins were so anxious to approve before posting. It’s been six hours. They should have read it by now. Thnx.

  5. Doug on September 18th, 2010 11:51 pm

    Done! My admins "aka 'me'" were busy watching football and grilling chicken and hamburgers.

    I don't know why it went into moderation though…

  6. SignPainterGuy on September 18th, 2010 8:22 pm

    "Yes We Can…SUCK !!! " From the "smart" party … The party of the two clowns, Stewart and Colbert who have planned rallies on the National Mall …( I have a very low tolerance for stupidity so I haven`t read deep into the story..I guess they think they can each or together draw more ralliers than Glenn Beck (?) )….Should be interesting !!

    The ap writer must be from a tiny planet `cause once on Earth, the added gravitational pull drew all the blood to his/her feet, starving both brains !!!!?
    42% a/r is better than congresses 11% , but still crappy ….. I wonder when it will dip into the 30`s !!?

    I`ve been hearing, "prez. a/r hits new low of 42% !!" since early summer…. how many times can it be a "New" low ?? I thought you had to change the name before it could be new again !!?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.