Monday, July 07, 2008

The Bumper-Sticker Wars: How Democrats Can Effectively Disarm the Right of its Most Powerful Rhetoric

In the wake of the Karl Rove era of divisive labeling and framing where, for example, only Republicans are patriots and people of faith, Democrats should co-opt this very effective GOP strategy as we head towards the November election.

Very simply, every Lefty across the country should immediately place three bumper stickers on their cars. In the middle should be "Obama for President." To the left should be "Praise the Lord" and to the right "Support the Troops." That'll show 'em! We love God too, even if some of us are atheists. And while this may sound shocking, we can get behind a good war every now and then as in point Afghanistan. Yes, let's fight fire with fire and pull the rug right out from under the Rovians. Beat 'em at their own game. Just think how effectively this could shift perceptions and disarm Republicans of some of their most powerful rhetoric.

C'mon, Democrats, it's time to level the playing field. Time to take back faith. Time to reclaim ourselves as Patriots. Time to out-frame the framers. Volvo's unite!


Unknown said...

America, Love it and Levee it.

Anonymous said...

Sorry. Americans just aren't that dumb anymore about Obama.

Anonymous said...

Only a Democrat trying to be tough would call a war "a good war".

Democrats have streamlined their bumper sticker ideas:

* George Bush
* Fox News
* Global Warming

And in some other interesting news:

July 7, 2008, 10:21 pm
A Clintonian at Fox

Howard Wolfson, top, will join Karl Rove as a contributor on the Fox News Channel. (Photos: Top, Karin Cooper, CBS’s “Face the Nation,” via Associated Press; Jennifer Simonson/Star Tribune, via Associated Press)
Howard Wolfson, who was a top strategist for the presidential campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, is going where some Democrats were unwilling to go during the early days of the election season: the Fox News Channel.

The network is expected to announce as early as Tuesday that it has signed Mr. Wolfson as a contributor who will appear regularly on its programs.

Mr. Wolfson is joining a network that Democrats shunned for a time, complaining that its coverage was unfair. But aides to Mrs. Clinton came to view Fox News as distinctly fair to her in a news media climate that they believed favored Senator Barack Obama.

Anonymous said...

Thought you all might like to see this video of the McCain campaign removing a 61-year old woman from a public venue:

Anonymous said...


To the surprise of absolutely nobody, Barack Obama launched several attacks on achievement yesterday, slamming John McCain's tax proposals. Obama absolutely cannot stand the idea of successful people being allowed to keep more of the money they earn. After all, as Obama would tell you, those people don't actually need that money, so it is perfectly OK for the government to seize that excess cash and use it for various vote-buying schemes.

Obama likes to say that nobody earning less than $250,000 a year would have their taxes increased under his plan. Well, isn't that special. I know that many of you really don't give a damn about those wicked people earning more than $250,000 a year. They're rich, to hell with them. Take their money and spend it on you, right? After all, they were just lucky, or they got that money by relying on their crooked lawyers and cheating ordinary working American. Oh, I can hear the moans in the Democrat coffee klatches now.

How about a dose of reality? And trust me, reality isn't friendly to either The Messiah or his supporters.

Unless you work for a very large corporation (or the government), and that would cover about 20 percent of you, and if you do, in fact, work ... then you probably work for one of these evil rich people. Think about it ... do you think that someone who runs a business with less than $250,000 in income is going to be out there hiring people?

There are 23 million small business owners in America who file their business income taxes as an individual taxpayer. These small business owners employ people ... tens of millions of people. In fact, the small business owners of this country provide way more than 70% of the private sector jobs out there. When Obama talks about raising taxes on people who make more than $250,000 a year he's talking about raising taxes on the man or woman who writes your paycheck. Now ... would you care to spend a few of your precious minutes thinking about the logical consequences of raising taxes on your employer? Do you think they're just going to cut back on the money they take from their business operation? Oh yeah, sure they will. Now I know that you're government educated, but surely you can see that these people are going to adjust to their increased tax load by cutting back on business expenses. You don't expect them to cut their own pay, do you? Hey! It's their business! They started this thing, and they don't intend to see the lives they've built for themselves be diminished by some Democrats tax dreams – so expenses get cut. Now --- guess what you are? There, that wasn't so hard, was it? You, my friend, are a business expense. Are you going to be the business expense that gets cut? Perhaps so ... and then what happens? The evil rich have now they have taken away YOUR job, and you hate them even more. Hint: It wasn't your job, it was theirs.. when it became a financial burden, they dumped it.

Any way you look at it, a winning formula for the Democrats --- a winning formula until, that is, American voters start to smarten up.

Anonymous said...

8:50 I learned the hard way not to go to unfamiliar websites. Tell me -- was the woman removed by McCain because she had on a Muslim headscarf? If, so, remember it was OK when Obama did it.

Anonymous said...

Boortz, you are insufferable and little more than a propagandist of the worst kind.

Less than 3% of the household IRS returns each year reflect an income of $250,000 or more. These wealthy people are not wicked. I don't know anyone who says they are.

What we in the middle class have seen is that over the last 7.5 years your tax burden (you are clearly in the top 1% of income earners) has decreased substantially and, like most in your income bracket, your wealth has increased dramatically while the vast majority, 90+% of us Americans, have seen our income flat-line and our overall wealth decline.

"Smart", to me, is a return to something closer to fiscal sanity - which was much more a reality under a Democratic administration (Clinton) than under any of the last three Republicans (whose policies would be continued under McCain).

Let's remember, Clinton supporters, this is the man who refers to Hillary as "Hildabeast".

Anonymous said...


How then did you become familiar with this site?

It was NOT OK to move the ladies with Muslim attire. That's why Obama apologized directly to them.

A 61-year old librarian was outside a McCain townhall meeting that was "open to the public". She held up a sign that read: McCain = Bush. For this she was ticketed for trespassing and escorted from the public facility.

My guess is that she is still waiting for an apology.

Anonymous said...

10:05 In answer to your question: None of your business.

You've just described Obama's MO. His "lackies" do the dirty work, and then he, with raised eyebrows in utter shock, denies that he had anything to do with it, denies that he knows anything about it, promises to "fix it" and then apologies. He has his cake and eats it too.

He's all "smoke and mirrors"

Anonymous said...

anonymous 10:01,
Your attack on Neal is baseless. One can easily disprove your claim that the tax burden of the top 1% of earners has "decreased substantially" during the Bush administration.

Simply go to the Congressional Budget Office ( and look at the real data.

* The tax burden for the top 25% of earners is at a 68.7% share of the total federal tax liabilities. The Clinton administration peaked the tax burden at 66.6% (2000).

* The tax burden for the top 10% of earners is at 54.7% share of the total federal tax liabilities. The Clinton administration peaked the tax burden on this subset of Americans at 52.2% (2000)

* The tax burden for the top 1% of earners is at 27.6% share of the total federal tax liabilities. The Clinton administration peaked the tax burden on this subset of Americans at 25.5% (2000)

Anonymous said...

Obama's political trip overseas is being paid for by taxpayers and not coming out of his campaign fortune. He's going as a senator and not as a presidential wannaabe. So much for integrity.

Anonymous said...

I was surprised that so many Letters to the Editor in response to the NY Times editorial criticizing Omaba's run to the right agreed with the Times. We are not pleased that our Democratic candidate is joining the opposition.

Anonymous said...

Obama == Bush's 3rd Term

Anonymous said...


It wasn't a literal question. It exposed your "fear".

Ascribe whatever motive you wish to Obama. He apologized directly to the wronged party.

A McCain supporter asked him directly how they were going to keep "the bitch" out of the White House. McCain did not reprimand the supporter, nor did he apologize to Mrs. Clinton. Now McCain surrogates apparently won't allow mild protesters who occupy public space at open meetings without charging them with trespassing.

Ticketing a 61-year old librarian holding a sign that reads "McCain = Bush"...

That'll play well in Peoria.

Anonymous said...

"So it’s not surprising then that they [people in small towns in PA and the Midwest] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
-- Barack Obama

That'll play well in Peoria as well.

Anonymous said...


Baseless, my ass. If you want to look at your "burden" as total outlay you are as disingenuous as Neal.

You likely know as well as I do that the marginal and effective rates of taxation since Bush became president have decreased, and moreso as you climb up the income ladder. Meanwhile, the wealthiest wage earners have seen their incomes go up while income for the other 95% has stagnated or gone down.

Anonymous said...

The quote is far worse than I'd remembered it. The only part that got any "play" in the news was the "bitter, they cling to guns or religion" whereas, "or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment . . . " is far worse. Obama was accusing all of those people of being racists. That takes a lot of nerve after he sat in a racist church for twenty-one years.

Anonymous said...

The solution for our salvation is simple: McCain for four years and then Hillary w/Bill for the next eight. Let the good times roll.

Anonymous said...

If we elect another Democratic president who messes up like Carter, we won't have another Dem inthe White House for decades.

Anonymous said...

The whole bumper sticker thing would be fine if I were to stoop to putting a bumper sticker on my car. But I have a nice car. No one has purchased advertising space on my car and I don't advertise for free even if I do support Obama. I can't think of a single issue in this whole world that would be worth marring my car with an unsightly bumper sticker if I am not being adequately compensated for same. The compensation would have to be generous enough to include removal of the bumper sticker such that no one could ever tell that a bumper sticker had ever been applied. If I had a cheap car it wouldn't matter as much. I don't have a cheap car.

Anonymous said...

Obama is a racist
His wife is a racist
His church is full of racists
His former preacher is a racist
His neighborhood friend is an admitted terrorist

Obama is the worst choice someone could make. I'm voting write-in for Hillary or maybe for McCain. I'm definitely not voting for Obama the Racist.

Anonymous said...

McCain is an adulterer (many times over)
His wife is an adulterer and a drug addict
He has no church
He won't release his military records
His top campaign advisors worked for terrorists and against US national interests

McCain is the worst choice someone could make. I'd vote for either Obama or Hillary. I'm definitely not voting for McCain the Adulterer.

Anonymous said...

Obama said that those of us who are angry and upset over his changing positions just weren't listening to him. He hasn't changed at all, he said. I wonder if his strong supporter Bob Herbert knew that when he wrote his column in the NY Times.

Anonymous said...

In the tradition of the warmonger, McCain continues to show he's not suited to have his finger on the button (so sayeth his old friend and fellow Senator Thad Cochran R-MS). First, as we all know, it was "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran". Now he ponders if the increased importation of cigarettes into Iran "may be the way to kill them."

I think he's lived in such a pitiful shadow of his father and grandfather that his inferiority complex makes him irrational, petulant and a danger to himself and others.

He needs help, not the most powerful job in the world, and should heed his own word from 2000 when he said he'd be too old to run for president in 2008.

Anonymous said...



Obama is a big mistake.

Anonymous said...

McCain even lies in Spanish...

Anonymous said...

Let's keep a sense of what's important - the Supreme Court. With the Roberts and Alito appointments, it has moved even farther to the right than it was when they chose the president in 2000.

Any more appointments by a republican administration and they will be trading their black robes for brown shirts and monocles.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

12:10 The Supreme Court is one of the reasons not to vote for Obama. Who knows now how he will choose? He's as likely to pick conservative judges as not. Suddenly, he's for guns, the death penalty and extending the stay in Iraq. And he voted to the far right position on spying on American citizens. He's become at least a consevative (southern)Democrat.

Anonymous said...

Obama == 3rd Bush Term


Anonymous said...


Let's see... one candidate was a constitutional law professor who supports Roe v. Wade and restoration of habeas corpus. The other helped craft legislation that gutted habeas corpus (voted against by Obama and recently slapped down by the Supreme Court) and now panders to the right in hinting he'd like to see Roe overturned.

The last centrist Southern Democrat who was president appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, who are both fine by me if Obama wants to use them as models for his appointees.

Anonymous said...

9:13 The operative word with Obama is one you use effectively: IF. We no longer know what he thinks, feels, agrees with or would do. That's the problem with supporting him. We don't know what motivates him. He has no core beliefs that we can track.


Anonymous said...


The "operative word" was used only because the poster I responded to made the claim Obama was becoming a Southern (conservative) Democrat.

It was his or her contention, not mine, and I used the example of the last Southern Democrat who appointed justices in response.

Want a small list of policy shifts from Hillary in the last 4 years?

Hillary was cool with torture before she wasn't. She was fine with meetings with Iran without preconditions before she wasn't. She was for military action in Iraq before she wasn't. She justified attacks on Israel by Hamas and Palestinian militants before she didn't. She was for use of nukes against terrorists before she wasn't. She was for NAFTA before she was against it.

Now, don't read this as a knock againt Hillary. I'd vote for her over McCain. But don't pretend she's completely rock-solid in her beliefs. At her very core, she's a political survivor.

Anonymous said...

10:12 Your evaulation of Hillary's position on issues is not true. You have twisted it.

Obama's about-face positions are strikingly clear. That's why on TV a former staunch supporter of his, speaking for a group, said "We always have Nader." They are deserting Obama because he has deserted them. Obama doesn't even have the "core of a poltical survivor" or he woudln't make so many costly mistakes.

Anonymous said...

Obama has no track record except for breaking his promises. Nobody knows what Obama will bring.

He is just an ordinary politician, he is not what he wants you to think he is. Ever hear him define 'change' ? I don't know about any of you, but I don't want undefined change.

Obama has shown with his about face on public financing that he is in it just to win and he will do whatever it takes, break whatever promises he makes, to get into the White House.

I also want to push to have Hillary get the nomination in Denver.

Anonymous said...

I have been for Hillary from the beginning and will not vote for Obama because of his recent behavior. How do we become a "grassroots movement" that can get results?

Anonymous said...

I will write-in "Hillary Clinton" in November if I must.

Anonymous said...


That's the same response you'd get from an Obama supporter, that you've just provided your own opinion and have twisted his views.

Clintonistas crack me up. As much as they want to brand Obama supporters as disciples of a Messiah, the same claim can easily be made you all deify Hillary as some sort of modern day Virgin of Chappaqua.

Let's be real, here. If you are a Democrat and want to win, the signs are all good. According to the latest polls, in every state won by John Kerry the advantage Obama has over McCain is larger than the winning margin Kerry had over Bush. That gives Obama a pretty solid start of 252 of the 270 electoral votes needed.

The following states were all won by Bush but now Obama has nice leads over McCain: Colorado, Ohio and Iowa. If he wins Ohio alone, he will be President.

The following states were all won by Bush by 20% or more over Kerry but are within solid reach for Obama: Indiana, Montana, Alaska.

The following states were all won by Bush by 7-16% over Kerry and are now either being led by Obama or within a few points: North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, Georgia.

Nevada and New Mexico were squeakers for Bush and are ripe for Obama. But, of course, the big prize would be Florida or Texas. Florida is doable but Texas probably not. Still, Obama could force McCain to spend money in Texas and that's been unnecessary for the GOP for the last 12 years or so.

Personally I think Clinton could beat McCain, too, but it sure looks like Obama is not only well on his way to winning - it looks like he could win by 100+ electoral votes.

Anonymous said...

Hillary supporters do not idealize or idolize her. It's just we know what her values are, what her strengths are, what her weaknesses are, what to expect. We know nothing for sure about Obama, and what has been revealed does not bode well for his presidency.

His two point lead over MCCain does not sound like Obama is sure to win.

Anonymous said...

Obama supporters do not idealize or idolize him. They know what his values are, what his strengths are, what his weaknesses are, what to expect - same as Clinton supporters, same as McCain supporters.

If you know what Clinton's values are and respect them, then it really should not be much of a problem for you to take her word that Obama is the better choice than McCain.

National numbers don't elect a president (see Gore, Al). Electoral votes as determined by states elect the president, and by any reasonable measure Obama enjoys a substantial advantage right now over McCain.

Anonymous said...

Ralph Nader was right. Obama hasn't been talking about the issues that concern black people and Jesse Jackson is furious. Obama said that black men had to become better fathers and take responsibility for supporting and caring for their children. Jackson, and others writing and speaking on the subject, claim that Obama is wrong and that the problem is not that black men are irresponsible but that this country does not provide good jobs and equal opporunitites for them so they can care for their children.

So there we get a glimpse of what is to come if Obama ie President. The black community will watch his every move and hear his every word to make sure he is acting and speaking on behalf of the interests of the black community. Never will a President have been so beholden to one group of people, unless it's George Bush's obligation to the Religious Right.

Anonymous said...

Obama voted yes to let the spys off the hook. Hillary voted against it.

Anonymous said...


Have you had your meds checked lately?


Let's be honest about this issue and not swallow whole the talking points, OK?

1. Both the Clinton and Bush Administrations violated FISA laws and had the law revised by Congress after the fact.
2. What people see as "telecom immunity" pales mightily compared to the real issue: accountability of the Executive Branch to the Fourth Amendment.
3. This FISA legislation IN NO WAY precludes criminal prosecution against ANYONE, only civil litigation. No one is "off the hook" if it can be proven they broke criminal statutes and if there is the political will to actually prosecute them.

Anonymous said...

5:03 AM Whoever you are and what ever your credentials, you are wrong according to the Constitutional Law Professors and other scholars who have written about this and appeared on TV. Jeffery Toobin was almost in tears when he reported on this on MSNBC. A huge part of the Fourth Amendment was destroyed by this vote. This decision was an assault on our rights.

Anonymous said...

Obama says forget about English - teach our childrn Spanish and a second language.

He is so out of touch. Children are dropping out of school because they are frustrated that they can't read Enhlish above third grade level.

The public schools need overhauling and real educators consulted. Yet, Obama is so upset that Americans who travel can't speak the language of the country they visit. "It's embarrassing" he said. He is so out of touch with Americans and their real problems. He never had to go to public school.

Anonymous said...

Gail Collins has advice and a slight reprimand for all of us in her NY Times column today. We just weren't listening to Obama when we fell in love with him and it's time to realize that. He said all along he would compromise and that would mean leaning toward the other side. So it's out fault for not hearing what he was telling us.

The NY Times article also told us that months before the heavy campaigning. Obama's way to bring people together is most times to give in to the opposition.

Now we're stuck with him and his ways with no way out. We're the "dumb Americans" Obama so dislikes. He even said that if we think he's changed positions, we havn't been listening to what he said.

Anonymous said...


Jeffrey Toobin works for CNN. It's not real likely you saw him on MSNBC.

This outcome was predetermined when last year Harry Reid's procedural moves dictated that it would take 60 votes to defeat the measure. That was NEVER going to happen, so this is all much ado about what's been known would happen for 8 months.

BTW, Barack Obama was a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago so he's pretty well versed on the subject at hand. As other court followers who have also written about this issue.

Anonymous said...

Toobin ought to cry. During the primary when he was on the endless CNN panels discussing the race, Toobin always supported Obama and bashed Hillary. Sexism got in the way of his intellect and education and probably his intuition.

Anonymous said...

9:17 You're as arrogant as Obama. I saw the same program on MSNBC. We all know Toobin works for CNN which made his distress all the more meaningful and authentic when he appeared on MSNBC when Rachel Maddow was sitting in for Keith Olbermann. When Maddow asked him, Toobin said that he would be very much surprised and disappointed in Obama if he voted in opposition to the Constitution. Then he teared up and said the Fourth Amendment would be eroded and the Constitution devalued.

What is your idiotic point? Hillary's vote showed where she stands and Obama's revealed a great deal about what he stands for. She stands for our freedoms, the Constitution and the Fourth Admendment.

What is your other idiotic point about Obama's Consitutional education. Many don't act on the principles they know and are well-versed in. Obama is more interested in directions from his super-sized ego which is telling him: "Win mo matter what you have to do." His intelligence should tell him he can't win by joining the other side.

Anonymous said...


The person you saw with Rachel Maddow on Countdown last night was Jonathan Turley, not Jeffrey Toobin, and calling someone who points out an error as arrogant only shows you to be thoroughly juvenile. It was your (or the other poster you defend's) mistake, not mine.

Point 1: The outcome of this vote was predetermined based on the procedural moves of Harry Reid. It should not have come as a surprise to anyone.

Point 2: 9:16 declared that ConLaw professors did not agree with what I had written. I replied that, yes, some ConLaw professors, including Obama, and other lawyers with a thorough understanding of ConLaw agree with what I wrote.

None of what I wrote is idiotic, it's all based in easily verifiable fact. It is also worth mentioning that I have not AGREED with Obama's vote.

Anonymous said...

This article is flippin' brilliant and a media watchdog site like Ostroy's should pick up on this riff:

Anonymous said...

Since you people are continuing the Obama-vote talk I'll add my two cents worth. The two above are wrong - it was Jonathan Turley )they probably turned in after the intro), but everything else they say is true. I'm with them. It is highly significant that our "liberal", Democratic, "left" "progressive" decided to vote with Bush and undermine the Constituion and make us now subject to secretive spying from our government. That's how goverments become dictatorships.

Anonymous said...

I am really confused. Jackson and Rev. Wright, his Church and the theology he preaches believe that blacks are victims of "whitey"'s mistreatment and terror and Obama attended that church all those years and cherished his relationship with Rev. Wright yet, he, Obama now blames the black communities' troubles on the black men. How did he lately get to the exact opposite position in his thinking? No wonder Jackson is shocked into fury.

Anonymous said...

There are those of us who consider Obama's vote which erodes the Fourth Amendment cannot be excused no matter the spin. Read the Letters to the Editor in the NY Times today to see how seriously former supporters feel about his betrayal.

Anonymous said...


You hear wind swirling in your head, don't you?

Anonymous said...

10:06 No, I read stupidly dull sarcasm in your pathetic response.

Anonymous said...



I'm so confused!


Anonymous said...

9:51 Think it through. There's nothing to be confused about. Obama attended a church for twenty years in which it was preached that white people and the government they control are responsible for all the troubles the black population has suffered in their lifetimes and the lifetimes of their ancestors as well as any bad behavior they might display as far as responsiblity to their families is concerned. That is the message cheered by the Trinity Church congregation and believed by Jesse Jackson and his followers. Suddenly, however, the black community has a chance to get a black man elected as President so, he, the black candidate and most of the black population are perfectly satisfied when he, Obama, totally changes course and declares black men need to take responsibility themselves for their bad treatment toward their children. When Cosby said it the blacks in the country railed against him, but now its OK because that position will get Obama elected. Who knows what he will "believe" once in the White House. I'm sure you realize you were right and no longer feel uncomfortable with your understanding.

Anonymous said...


Pay no attention to the charlatan posing as an authority on Trinity United (aka 2:49). It's entirely likely his/her whole experience with the church is limited to YouTube and FauxNews characterizations (slanders) of an entire faith community - as is your own given your admitted confusion.