Remember how Tom Sawyer managed to get out of the onerous job of painting Aunt Polly’s fence? He just employed a little misleading rhetoric and persuaded his friends that it was the best fun ever, and if they would only pay him for the privilege, he would surrender the paint brush and let them paint to their hearts content.

Isn’t this exactly what the GOP and their media supporters have managed to do in reverse? That is, take a long lineup list of Democratic legislative achievements that will make our lives better, persuade a big swath of not so savy Americans that the list is a criminal indictment, and if they’ll only fork over their votes, they’ll get in on the fun and get to lob some figurative stones at the responsible malefactors.

Let us be clear – Republicans have done nothing for two years but try to stamp their sclerotic old feet on the brakes. It was Democrats who stabilized the economy and staved off another Great Depression. Democrats gave us health care reform that will provide millions of previously uninsured people with protection, rationalize medical spending and ultimately contribute to lowering the deficit. In spite of massive lobbying efforts to stop them, Democrats took on the broken regulatory system and passed a major financial oversight bill. There are dozens of smaller achievements.

But just today we read in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that Robin Carnahan hid from the Vice President when he visited here on Friday.  The report details the ways she tries to brush off any association with the successes of the past two years. If you read Michael Bersin’s recent Claire McCaskill Q&A posts, you’ll note that she’s definitely on the defensive also. Which leads one to ask: Why aren’t our Missouri Democrats on the attack instead of on the run? Don’t they know that if you run, you’re gonna get chased down and the end isn’t usually pretty?

I don’t mean to be too hard on our Missouri Democrats – who would probably love to do the right thing. They are no different from the rest of the party. As a group, they’ve been outclassed by the Tom Sawyers of the GOP, who have joined up with the media arm of their right-wing noise machine to blast heavy-duty flim-flam from coast to coast – and Americans sure do like them some flim-flam.

In part, this is an issue of what George Lakoff calls framing although I prefer to talk about hijacking. Republicans use simple, frequently dishonest, often manufactured refrains, repeated incessantly and aimed at the gut in order to hijack perceptions. They’re cynical enough, crazy enough, or stupid enough to do this without qualms. And how should Democrats respond to being hijacked by crazed morons? Certainly not by pretending to be just as cynical, crazy or stupid.

Remember the Maersk Alabama hijacking? The ship’s crew didn’t jump overboard – they threw the hijackers off. Before Democrats can successfully reframe their agenda, they have to stand up to Republicans. If they jump off the boat, it’s lost.

Instead of hemming and hawing about her previous  support for health care, why doesn’t Carnahan demand to know how Blunt could vote against the welfare of the millions of Americans? Why aren’t Carnahan, McCaskill and other Missouri Democrats demanding that the Republican zealots stand up and face a few unpleasant facts? Why are they all so dammed nice and quiet, only speaking up when they think they might be able to claim a Republican brownie point? Instead of running in the direction that the polls point, why aren’t they out there planting the direction signs? Where are our leaders?

* Third from last paragraph edited for clarity. The phrase “frequently dishonest, often manufactured” was added to the second sentence .

Previously: Wecome to post-racial America

A letter to the editor was published in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal on Monday, August 16th, with the heading “Racism targets Obama”:

Racism is alive and directed at our president.

Two very offensive racist bumper stickers were sent to the Johnson County Democrats PO box in Warrensburg. One had the donkey symbol with a strike-out mark and the words “2010 – Don’t renig.” The other had the initials BP above an oil blob and a photo of President Obama, with the words “Slickest and blackest disaster in US history.” I turned the second one in to post office staff to register a complaint with the post master, and kept the first in case people didn’t believe me.

I hope that local republican and conservatives are as offended as I am, and will speak out publicly to disavow these racist bumper stickers. Some people believe conservatives are closet (or not) racists and this is why. Please prove them wrong by speaking out against racism.

Jane VanSant, chair, Johnson County Democratic Committee

[with permission of the letter writer]

Curiously, the letter doesn’t appear to be available on-line.

It turns out that a local republican office holder did speak out and then some:

Hoskins Speaks Out Against Racist Bumper Stickers

…The letter to the editor regarding the bumper stickers called for local Republicans to speak out against racism, which I will gladly do, Rep. Hoskins said…

…No one has taken credit for sending the bumper stickers Rep. Hoskins continued, I was offended that the tone of the letter clearly implied that conservatives tend to be racists and therefore must have been the ones responsible for sending the bumper stickers. I have friends, business acquaintances, House colleagues, Johnson County Central Committee members and family of different colors. While I am clearly a conservative Republican, I am confident that I am the norm and not reflecting the attitude implied by the letter to the editor. Its ironic the very narrow-mindedness the letter speaks against is the same narrow-mindedness it projects by stereotyping conservatives as racists…

That’s right, because liberals and progressives would have every reason to anonymously send bumper stickers to the local Democratic Party post office box.

And, apparently, when victims ask others to speak out it’s their fault.

“…I hope that local republican and conservatives are as offended as I am, and will speak out publicly to disavow these racist bumper stickers. Some people believe conservatives are closet (or not) racists and this is why. Please prove them wrong by speaking out against racism…”

Uh, you did say you were offended and you did speak out. So, according to the letter writer you proved some people wrong. Is this a problem? Just asking.

These ads have been airing in the Kansas City market this morning with a frequency more like late October than late August. And the donors?

Rove-linked group uses secret donors to fund attacks

…American Crossroads GPS, on the other hand, is incorporated under Section 501(c)4, which requires it to spend the bulk of its cash focusing on issues, but frees it from having to disclose the names of its donors. In fact, it won’t be required to publicly report any of its finances until at least May 2011…

Male announcer: The message is clear. Seventy-one percent of Missouri voters don’t want government mandated health care. We want to make our own health care decisions.

Female announcer: But Robin Carnahan disagrees, while seventy-one percent of us voted no Carnahan sided with lobbyists, big unions, and Washington insiders to force Obamacare on us.

Male announcer: Missouri’s Lieutenant Governor is suing the federal government so we can keep our health care.

Female announcer: Tell Carnahan to get in touch with Missourians and support the health care challenge.

[Paid for by Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies]

Grassroots? Yeah, right. Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie are really grassrootsie (via our friends at Fired Up).

The ad is in need of a tiny bit of editing:

“…We want to make our own health care decisions…” Correction: republicans want insurance companies to deny benefits, continue rescission, and increase premiums while reducing benefits.

“…Carnahan sided with lobbyists, big unions, and Washington insiders to force Obamacare on us…” Correction: Roy Blunt (r-lobbyists) sided with lobbyists and Washington insiders to block access to health care for those who desperately need it.

“…Missouri’s Lieutenant Governor is suing the federal government so we can keep our health care…” Correction: Missouri’s Lieutenant Governor is suing the federal government so he can posture in the hopes that he can position himself for a run for higher office in 2012.

There, that’s much more accurate.

If, like me, you are tired of hearing and seeing “failed stimulus” in Roy Blunt’s TV ads, how about countering that lie with some facts (not that facts hold any weight with Obama haters.)   But there might actually be some Repubs or Indies up there in Northern MO who will listen and appreciate the fact that their internet service will be much improved because of, yes, it’s true,  federal stimulus money.

According to the KC Star,$66.3 million in federal stimulus money will be used to “extend high-speed Internet in 59 northern Missouri counties, including all of those in the Kansas City metropolitan area.” (Jason Noble, Allison Long)

And, get this, private firms will construct the system which means jobs in that part of the state.

The right wing is getting a lot of mileage out of their lies about the stimulus money.  Let’s talk about the successes.  There are a bunch of them in the City of Pacific, and I’m going to make sure readers of our local paper know about them.  What’s happening in your part of the state?  How many people have jobs because of stim money?  For those people, the program has been anything but a “failure.”

Previously:

Ike Skelton (D) in the 4th Congressional District: right wingnut “Americans for Prosperity” TV ad {August 9, 2010)

Vicky Hartzler (r) in the 4th Congressional District: the Democratic Party strikes back (August 10, 2010)

The air campaign in the 4th Congressional District escalates, this time with a response similar to the Missouri Democratic Party’s:

Announcer: Why won’t Vicky Hartzler support our men and women in uniform?

[Vicky Hartzler, Support Our Troops?]

She voted against re-enlistment pay for the National Guard.

[Vicky Hartzler Voted Against Re-enlistment Pay For National Guard (SB 2008, 1997)]

Voted against making it easier for overseas troops to vote.

[Hartzler Voted Against Making Voting Easier For Troops (HB 1381, 1998)]

Hartzler even voted against funding to help bury fallen National Guardsmen.

[Hartzler Voted Against Funding For National Guard Funerals (SB 208, 1997)]

There’s a different record. Ike Skelton.

[Ike Skelton]

This year the VFW honored Ike with their Congressional Award…

[Ike Skelton, VFW Congressional Award 2010]

…and said, “Our military, veterans and families have no better friend in Congress.”

[VFW National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell, Sr]

[Approved By Ike Skelton, Paid For By The Ike Skelton For Congress Committee.]

Congressman Ike Skelton (D): I’m Ike Skelton and I approved this message.

It’s sort of like watching someone clubbing a baby harp seal, don’t you think?

Despite all the noise about Roy Blunt’s nasty little subliminal “Robin-Carnahan supports 9/11 terrorists” message, the really big news for progressives yesterday was a tweet from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch‘s Tony Messenger:

News from @robincarnahan: the dedmocrat [sic] says she supports extending ALL the Bush tax cuts. “now is not the time to raise taxes, she says.

As unexpected as a slap in the face from your friendly neighborhood grocery clerk. In both cases there can be only one response: Why?

Duanne Graham, in his excellent blog, The Erstwhile Conservative, suggests that because progressives really hate Roy Blunt, Carnahan thinks she’s got us between a rock and a hard place and can afford to diss us in order to go after the knee-jerk center. Graham speculates that she thinks that she has more to gain by courting folks who are more easily bamboozled by the “biggest tax increase ever” fiction disseminated by Republicans fighting tooth and nail to keep the good times rolling for their wealthy constituency.

Maybe Graham’s right, or maybe Carnahan really has had a change of heart and is acting from conviction. Personally, I’d rather believe that she’s trying to be strategic rather than that she’s stupid; and Graham’s contentions about her “triangulating” ploy seem at least somewhat credible when we consider that, as the The Hill  reports, this is a rather sudden change in her position:

In a February radio interview, Carnahan had said she favored extending tax cuts for the middle-class but not for the wealthiest Americans. She said then that the nation couldn’t afford it.

Carnahan said in an interview Thursday with The Associated Press that her position has evolved because of an additional six months of difficult economic times, which she blamed on policies backed by Blunt.

Excuse me! Am I hearing correctly? Carnahan wants to fix a recession caused by policies backed by Blunt and his BushCo gang by continuing those same policies?  If we couldn’t afford these tax cuts then, how can we afford them now? Please, Ms. Carnahan, I would just love to know what you’re thinking – or, alternatively, what you’ve been smoking.

I have also heard stories that Carnahan might parse this support for the upper bracket tax cuts a little more narrowly, claiming that she believes that if they expire, it might hurt small businesses whose success conventional wisdom deems essential to recovery. This line is also, incidentally, the exact position that is currently being pushed by Senate Republicans.

Will increasing the top bracket from 35% to 39.5% actually discourage small businesses from expanding and hiring? Writing for The Christian Science Monitor, Howard Gleckman demonstrates that the increase will actually affect only affect a very small number of business that have a positive business income of over $700,000 – and that whether or not it will slow their job creation is moot. Surely Carnahan knows this? *

Even if one truly believes that letting the top bracket cuts expire would harm small businesses, there are alternative, less costly approaches. As Alan E. Binder, Professor of economics at Princeton University and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board remarks:

Some tax-cut enthusiasts — showing signs of latent Keynesianism — have pointed out that all tax increases reduce spending, which is not what we want now. They’re right. That’s why any higher taxes should be paired with policies that more than replace the lost spending. Examples abound. We could raise unemployment benefits, as was recently done. Or boost food stamps. Or help hard-pressed state and local governments forestall layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters. Dollar for dollar, these and other options would more than offset the spending lost by letting the tax cuts expire.

Isn’t this the type of economic policy we progressives think that Democrats like Carnahan ought to stand up for? Of course, it’s difficult to explain in sound-bites, so she might loose the center to the tax-and-spend slogans that Blunt tosses around with  such abandon.

There is, though, another side to the coin. There’s been lots of talk recently about the enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans, and watching our candidates parrot intellectually weak, Republican talking points will do little to bridge it.

* URL added.

Robin Carnahan has been hammering Roy Blunt with ads–one of them just released on Wednesday–with his support for TARP. I’m all in favor of anything that will harm Blunt. The notion of having that slithering flunky of the super rich in the Senate makes me ill. And this ad is gonna leave a mark.

The message is pretty direct: the wildly unpopular TARP bailout was Blunt’s bill. And if there is any question as to whether Blunt is the quintessential insider, there is footage of him appearing on a Sunday show, being described by a gray beard of the journalism world (CBS’s Bob Schieffer) as the guy who “carried the water for the Bush administration.”

The spot, airing statewide, is somber and straightforward. It seems likely to be effective as well. Carnahan’s opposition to TARP has put her at odds with many of the national figures in the Democratic Party. But it’s been a cudgel with which she’s bloodied Blunt.

Like many Democrats, I’m disturbed that Carnahan opposed the TARP bailouts, since it probably kept us out of another Great Depression. … And we’ve gotten most of the money back, besides. But Carnahan opposed it because she feels that we’ve set a precedent that the big money boys needn’t take care. We’ll always bail them out. You know there’s truth in that. Carnahan has said repeatedly that she favored the stimulus; it’s just TARP that sticks in her gullet.

Still, Blunt’s campaign is trying to return the favor and to tar Carnahan as well with the “support TARP” brush.

On Friday, the Blunt campaign released what it is pleased to call “The Santa Fe Tapes” — audio of Ms. Carnahan’s one-word response to a donor at a New Mexico fundraiser who suggested that the 2008 financial bailout bill had been necessary to forestall greater problems.

“Absolutely,” Ms. Carnahan said.

I don’t have the full context of that remark, but it’s likely to be a Shirley Sherrod misrepresentation, because Carnahan is outspoken that she would have voted against TARP.

Carnahan told The Democrat she believes the plan was rushed through and private sector alternatives were not fully explored. She said she would have voted against the measure if she had been a member of Congress at the time.

What? There were “private sector alternatives”? Not that I know anything about. Of course it would take something much larger than a thimble to contain all the stuff I don’t know anything about.

So, let’s assume that Carnahan’s opposition to TARP is a principled stand, and perhaps we can even assume that she’s not out in left right field in her belief. If that’s the case, then glory be to god that she’s got a hammer she has every right to use. And that she’s inflicting blunt trauma on her opponent with it.

That still leaves the question of her statement, reported in HuffPost today, that she favors extending the tax cuts for the rich. Arghh!

Oh well. We’ll leave that question for tomorrow.