Psst, Bobby? You can't stop 'being' the stupid party. You can only stop acting stupid!

Once, when I was embroiled in some relationship drama, I said to one of my male friends, "Why doesn't he just tell me if he doesn't want to be with me?" My friend paused and finally said, "Look, he's telling you in every way he can without actually using the words."

I never forgot that. Rejection is so painful, people tie themselves in knots just to avoid the soul-crushing reality. And it sounds like the Republicans are still in that stage where they just can't acknowledge the truth: It's not the way you look or that extra ten pounds. It's you. The voters just aren't into you!

But instead of real change, you just know they're going for the new hairdo. Jamelle Bouie writes in the American Prospect:

Mitt Romney didn’t just lose to Obama in the 2012 presidential election: He underperformed. The consensus projection from political scientists and election forecasters was that it would be a close election, with a slight advantage for President Obama. Romney wouldn’t win, but he would come close to breaking 50 percent. This, it turns out, was too optimistic for the former Massachusetts governor, who lost by 4 million votes. In the end, he finished with 47.1 percent of the vote, a small improvement over John McCain’s performance in 2008.

Fundamentals can explain Obama’s win, but they don’t account for Romney’s surprisingly small share of the vote—and they certainly don’t explain the GOP’s poor performance in Senate elections, where mainstream and Tea Party Republicans lost to their Democratic counterparts. Twenty-twelve began as the year Republicans would win a majority in the Senate, and ended as the year Democrats expanded their advantage.

Exit polls provide a few clues about why voters rejected the Republican Party at all levels. Thirty-eight percent of voters said unemployment was the biggest issue facing people like themselves, and of them, 54 percent voted for President Obama. Fifty-five percent of voters said the U.S. economic system favors the wealthy (71 percent of them voted for Obama), and 53 percent said Mitt Romney’s policies “generally favor the wealthy” (87 percent voted for Obama).

If you weren’t well-off—if you were struggling—you didn’t vote for Romney; the GOP had nothing to offer you. Romney might disparage politicians who give “gifts” to the public, but the fact of the matter is that voters support leaders who provide—or can promise—tangible benefits. At most, Republicans promised greater “growth” from cutting taxes, slashing spending, and reducing regulations.

Americans didn’t bite, because those policies don’t work (they remember the previous administration) and because they don’t trust Republicans to govern (they remember the previous administration). The GOP brand is still reeling from the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush. To wit, 53 percent of voters last year said Bush was responsible for our current economic problems, compared with 38 percent for Obama. It’s no wonder voters gave Obama a second term—it takes more than four years to clean up a mess of that magnitude.

Any attempt to fix the problems of the Republican Party—to build a conservatism attuned to the needs of ordinary people—needs to start with an examination of the Bush years. So far, however, Republicans seem uninterested in self-reflection. The most prominent voices in the party—Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, Florida senator Marco Rubio, Wisconsin representative Paul Ryan, Texas senator Ted Cruz—insist on purity as the way back to power. If Bush failed, it’s because he spent too much. Unmentioned is everything else—the belligerence, the wars, the general incompetence.

One of the things that was very difficult for me when I made reentry to civilian life after working on a high-powered campaign was how oblivious most voters are to the sophistication of the political and corporate messaging machine. People simply didn't believe me when I tried to discuss it. See, most people see themselves as invulnerable to that type of programming, and it's easier to pretend it doesn't exist. The fact that Frank Luntz is still working is proof enough, isn't it? The owners will use every tool they can to win:

You're going to hear a lot about "shared sacrifice" from the NHL in the days and weeks to come. That's the word from inside a secret emergency PR focus group, in which a top Republican Party strategist tested pro-ownership messages on a captive audience of hockey fans. One of those fans shared the documents with us, for a sneak preview of the propaganda campaign the NHL will be unloading on the public as the lockout drags on. Here's a look at the bullshit on the menu before the league serves it to you.
* * *
"When I say 'the NHL,' what's the first thing that comes to mind?"

That's how 30 people were greeted as they filed into a comfortable, well-lit room in a nondescript office building in a DC suburb Friday evening. They were there not because they were genuinely eager to give their opinions on the lockout, but because they were being paid—$100 for three hours of their time, three hours' worth of feedback to help the NHL shape its message to get the public back on its side.

As the lockout claimed its first games last week, the NHL hurriedly turned to the experts on shaping public debate: Luntz Global, the multinational market research firm that proudly proclaims, "It's not what you say, it's what they hear." CEO and founder Frank Luntz is one of the Republican Party's chief strategists, and he appears regularly on CBS and Fox News as an analyst. But his biggest impact has been behind the scenes. He's played a key role in framing the GOP's message over the years. When global warming was recast as "climate change," that was Frank Luntz. When the estate tax became a "death tax," that was Frank Luntz. When the Affordable Health Care for America Act was held up as "a government takeover," that was Frank Luntz, too.

[...] Luntz Global bills itself as leaders in "language research, creation, and innovation," and language is at the forefront of Frank Luntz's strategy. (Words That Work is the title of his book.) After a discussion or a video, Luntz would disappear behind the one-way mirror, presumably to check the results of the dial testing. Then he would re-emerge, and ask participants to listen to him give a speech as if he were an NHL executive. His speech would use the key terms that rated well with dial testing, and repeatedly hammer them home.

From the content of these speeches, one participant gleaned the phrases and concepts the NHL might use going forward. The league is eager to portray individual players as not in step with the union, claiming that the majority of them don't believe or don't buy into the rhetoric used by Donald Fehr and NHLPA leaders, and that they just want to play hockey. "The players are not the enemy," the NHL may very well tell you. "The union is the problem."

As for the owners' slogan, one laughable phrase kept coming up: "Shared sacrifice."

"Maybe we asked for too much at first," Luntz's mock-NHL-exec speech went, "but we're willing to give. The NHLPA has to be willing to give as well, if we're going to give the fans back their hockey. There's no way we're going to do this without both sides bringing something to the table."

Geeze, it sounds like the Obama administration is using Luntz, too! "Skin in the game" and "shared sacrifice," anyone?

The NHL is losing the publicity war. While most fans categorize the negotiations as the rich vs. the richer, there's almost no sympathy for Bettman and the owners for promulgating their third lockout in 18 years. That's a perception they're desperate to change. While concessions will come at the bargaining table, the court of public opinion will dictate which side feels the most pressure to compromise. And, of course, when hockey does come back, the league doesn't want fans to feel so bitter that they stay away from the game. That's where Luntz's research fits in. Most fans, ignorant to the ins and outs of revenue sharing and the like, just want hockey back. It's within the league's power to win the PR war, and portray the NHLPA as the villains behind the work stoppage.

As the research session came to an end, the group was asked to respond again to the first question from their packets. On a scale of 1 to 10, whom did they side with, players or management? One participant gauged the mood in the room, and spoke with his fellow guinea pigs afterward.

"No question," he says. "The group had a much better opinion of the owners."

Mitt Romney's time at Bain Capital is one of the few quantifiable ways voters can see how he intends to approach employment issues and corporations, and the Obama campaign has done a terrific job of pointing out the "vulture capitalist" Romney so desperately tries to hide. In fact, they launched a new website this week highlighting the swath of devastation Romney left behind. It gives details about the different companies they stripped of all assets in order to maximize profit to investors.

Also this week, Joe Biden gave a speech where he was on fire -- as on fire as I've ever heard him -- about the differences between the middle class and the 1 percent and why Romney's Bain Capital profit model was guaranteed to benefit only the rich while further destroying the middle class and leaving them farther behind. It was a speech for the ages. It also had Republicans on the run, scurrying to counter the message in the Wall Street Journal and wherever else they could spread the word.

So this morning on Meet the Press Mayor Cory Booker just managed to undo all of that work with a few measured sentences. Start at about 5:31 of the video clip embedded above and watch until you hear Booker tell the panel that he's "uncomfortable" with the attacks on private equity. Via TPM:

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday, Newark Mayor and Obama bundler Cory Booker said he was “uncomfortable” with the Obama campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s career with Bain Capital.

“It’s a distraction from the real issues,” Booker said, of both attacks on Bain and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. “It’s either gonna be a small campaign about this crap, or it’s gonna be a big campaign about the issues the American public cares about.”

“I’m not about to sit here and indict private equity,” Booker added. “If you look at the totality of Bain Capital’s record, they’ve done a lot to support businesses — to grow businesses. And this to me, I’m very uncomfortable.”

Well, Mayor Booker. Thank you so much for that false equivalence. The Bain Capital issues strike right at the heart of what this campaign is about. Are we a country of financialists or a country of opportunity and growth for the middle class? Is the goal to maximize profit at the expense of workers or is the goal to simply strip the value from companies in order to reward the private equity investors.

To be clear, there is absolutely no equivalence between the bogus Reverend Wright revival and Romney's actions while at Bain Capital.

Digby:

If Romney can't be criticized for his vulture capitalism and we can't "indict" private equity then what does he think this campaign should be about? The deficit? Some abstract notions of "jobs" and "the economy" without any reference to the fact that it was the financial sector and "private equity" that caused this situation in the first place? Sounds perfect. For Wall Street.

Sadly, this is exactly the kind of concern trolling that will make the Village declare that the Democrats are hitting below the belt by criticizing Bain Capital and the Dems will fall in line. Indeed, the fact that it's Cory Booker who's saying it today indicates that it's the Democrats themselves saying "stop us before we hurt the Masters of the Universe's feelings again."

Yes, this. Exactly this. Already the RNC has popped out with their version of "even Democrats agree with us" on this issue, thanks to the careless remarks of Mayor Booker, and even though he attempted a halfhearted walkback via Twitter, he did a terrific job of stepping on the success of last week's campaign messaging.

Please, politicians. Stop being so darn polite on these shows. Stop assuming that people like David Gregory will actually try to insert facts into factless discussions. Bain Capital and Romney's conduct while there is absolutely relevant to this election and no one should think otherwise.

Update: Mayor Booker responds to the criticism:

When The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was first introduced and debated in Congress, polling on the individual parts saw an overwhelming majority of Americans approving. Well, with Democrats in charge of our framing, we all knew that wouldn't last.

Enter Frank Luntz and the Republican Dirty Framing Machine and we got Death Panels killing grandma and it was all over but the funeral.

Democrats screwed the pooch on this because in the 30+ years Luntz has been teaching Republicans how to talk, Democrats have refused to fight back with equally compelling language that illustrates our policies using our moral frames.

This may be a battle that is so long into the siege that it can no longer be won, but I'm not going to go down without fighting for what I believe is the best way to turn this conversation around and start winning back all those people who liked what was in the bill in the first place, but have been talked out of supporting the bill by the Fright Wing Party of America.

President Obama is a brilliant man. But like anyone else on this planet, he's also capable of being led astray. I don't know who advised him to try to "own" the pejorative "Obamacare," but they were dead wrong. Dead wrong. The president's little Twitter hashtag game completely backfired when Republicans started using it to continue their disparagement of it in the nastiest terms possible. "Obamacare" is no more embraced by those who would potentially support it if they understood it than it was last summer.

And there was nothing about that hashtag that would have made it look utterly stupid for someone to be objecting to!

That's why I'm proposing that we forget "Obamacare," and that we even abandon the here-to-fore "official" name, The Affordable Care Act. That's become a joke now, too. "Affordable care — yeah, right. My premiums went up 20 percent the minute the damn thing passed!"

But how ridiculous does it sound to oppose Patient Protection? Who (in their right mind) could be against that?

So I have a challenge for each and every one of you:

Fire up your Twitter accounts and start tweeting the hashtag #PatientProtectionAct, along with something it protects. Here's a list of my tweets using it — copy them and tweet them yourselves. And post your own here, too, so the rest of us can copy and tweet them, too.

(Tweets below the fold.)

Continue reading »

FIRST LET'S TALK ABOUT MORALITY.

I think Democrats need much better positive messaging, expressing and repeating liberal moral values — not just policies — uniformly across the party. That is not happening. One of the reasons that it is not happening is that there is a failure to understand the difference between policy and morality, that morality beats policy, and that moral discourse is absolutely necessary. This is a major reason why the Democrats lost the House in 2010.

Consider how conservatives got a majority of Americans to be against the Obama health care plan. The president had polled the provisions, and each had strong public support: No preconditions, no caps, no loss of coverage if you get sick, ability to keep your college-age child on your policy, and so on. These are policy details, and they matter. The conservatives never argued against any of them. Instead, they re-framed; they made a moral case against "Obamacare." Their moral principles were freedom and life, and they had language to go with them. Freedom: "government takeover." Life: "death panels." Republicans at all levels repeated them over and over, and convinced millions of people who were for the policy provisions of the Obama plan to be against the plan as a whole. They changed the public discourse, changed the brains of the electorate — especially the "independents" — and won in 2010.

… It is vital that Democrats not make that mistake again.

~ Dr. George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics, UC Berkeley in, Why the GOP Campaign for the Presidency Is About Guaranteeing a Radical Conservative Future for America

So what is the morality of Democrats if Republicans have appropriated "freedom" and "life" as their own? Dr. Lakoff suggests "empathy" and "responsibility," and he makes excellent arguments as to how those two basic principles form the backdrop of our positions.

However, he ends his lecture without giving us the tools for describing those moral positions. And if we hope to win over the people who have both "conservative and liberal moral systems in their brains" and aren't beholden to either of the two extremes, it is absolutely critical to get the language right.

SO LET'S GET ON WITH THE WORDS.

(Continue reading after the jump.)

Continue reading »

Luntz' talking points are widely adopted by media, politicians and AstroTurf groups almost as soon as they're written. Consider his 2005 immigration memo (PDF), framing the entire issue and demonizing immigrants as a scourge and drain on the country. Or his 2009 memo (PDF) characterizing the Affordable Care Act as a "government takeover of health care."

I assure you we will hear these talking points on Fox News and CNBC immediately. So here are some of the top points. Read the entire list at Yahoo! News.

1. Don't say 'capitalism.'"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no.Taxing, the public will say yes."

[...]

4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised."So why are we talking about jobs?"
[...]

6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'"If you talk about 'compromise,' they'll say you're selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' What you use in that to replace it with is 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles."

7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: 'I get it.'"First off, here are three words for you all: 'I get it.' . . . 'I get that you're angry. I get that you've seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system."

That last one sounds really condescending to me, like a little pat on the head or something. I don't know, maybe it's me, but telling a student facing huge tuition increases while they owe thousands in student loans already "I get it" will likely not earn any points for empathy, particularly from those defending the 1 percent.

The Occupy movement has the momentum. Their message resonates because it's true. Frank Luntz can try to rewrite a job search into a career search, but tell that to someone who can't even get a job at Walmart for minimum wage and they'll laugh. At the same time, our corporate media will take these very, very seriously and attempt to use them to marginalize and even demonize the Occupy participants.

Beware.

DOWNLOADS: (161)

PLAYS: (692)

Embed

As usual, August has been the cruelest month for President Barack Obama. From the stupid debt-ceiling debate to the even dumber jobs speech snafu, he has taken hit after hit after hit from both sides of the aisle with the press amplifying each negative message.

But underneath every one of these so-called gaffes, there is Bill Daley. It's clear to me that whatever I may have thought about Rahm Emanuel, he was simply better at what a Chief of Staff is supposed to do than Bill Daley can hope to be.

Jonathan Chait has a column in Sunday's New York Times that highlights how ineffective Daley really is, though that's not the primary focus.

This has been the summer that liberal discontent with Obama has finally crystallized. The frustration has been simmering for a while — through centrist appointments, bank bailouts and the defeat of the public option, to name a few examples. But it has taken the debt-ceiling standoff and the threat of a double-dip recession to create a leftist critique of the president that stuck.

If messaging is a part of the Chief of Staff's duties, and I believe it's one of the central parts, then Daley clearly fails on all counts. Every single issue is framed inside right-wing themes, from the decision to suspend new EPA standards to the debt-ceiling debate. There is no progressive message, not even a small bone offered up to progressives who might be able to swallow a short delay in implementation if there is some small sensible reason. Yet, time after time, Daley offers up those nuggets to the Chamber of Commerce, the Republican Party, and conservatives, presumably in the hope that some will be reasonable. There's a term for that. In some circles, some might call it insanity. I call it a failure to serve a wider constituency.

If a 30-year veteran of Congressional politics sees no hope of reasonableness, why can't Daley?

Even on the level of the mundane, there was no excuse for the ridiculous scheduling "error" to have happened, much less for it to get any traction, and that was, once again, all Bill Daley.

If Daley didn’t know that Wednesday, the day Congress returns from its five-week break, was also the night of the NBC/Poliltico-sponsored GOP debate at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California—moderated by NBC’s Brian Williams, and featuring, for the first time, Texas Gov. Rick Perry—he should have. Yes, it’s one debate of 20 to come, but the contretemps made the president look like he was mischievously, sneakily trying to steal his potential opponents’ thunder.

Continue reading »

Robert Gibbs announced his departure as White House press secretary today. As one who is not really a fan of how he has handled the press for the past two years (or the message), I wish him well and hope the next Press Secretary masters communications better. This would include a focus on aiming at the right wing and leaving the left alone.

Here are some excerpts from his press conference today:

Q Can you tell us a bit more -- in a bit more detail about what you're going to be doing next? You're not going to be lobbying or consulting. How would you define your next job?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me start by saying a few things, Ben. It is -- and you all know this because you do this as well, and that is it is an honor and a privilege to stand here, to work inside this building, to serve your country, to work for a President that I admire as much as President Barack Obama.

I've been a member of his staff for almost seven years, and it’s -- again, it’s a remarkable privilege. It is in many ways the opportunity of a lifetime, one that I will be forever thankful and grateful for.

What I'm going to do next is step back a little bit, recharge some. We've been going at this pace for at least four years. I will have an opportunity I hope to give some speeches. I will continue to provide advice and counsel to this building and to this President. And I look forward to continuing to do that.

Q In terms of advocacy for the President, are you looking forward to the potential freedom that will come with speaking for him and not being behind that podium?

MR. GIBBS: No, look, we -- we're in a very different political environment than we've been in a number of years in this country and I think whoever stands here or whoever goes on television to make the case for this administration should be an advocate of the decisions and the policies that are coming from this building. You certainly have to play that role.

I'm not going in order to be freed up to say a series of things that I might not otherwise say. I've enjoyed every time I've come out here and even on days when you -- even every day, even when you wake up at 4:00 a.m. and pick up the paper and groan that you have a sense of what the first several questions might be. But I think it’s important for this country and for an administration to come out here and advocate on behalf of and -- on behalf of its policies and answer your questions.

Q And you’ve talked about how long you’ve been next to now President Obama. Can you talk about the impact that you think your leaving will have in concert with David Axelrod and already Rahm Emanuel?

MR. GIBBS: I will say this. One of the things you learn very quickly as you walk into this building each day, you’re struck by the sense that -- of the history of this place, and you realize that whatever your length of service here, it is temporary in the long and wonderful history of our country. And I think it does an administration good -- and I think it will do this administration good -- to have people like David Plouffe and others come into an administration who haven’t been here, who have been able to watch a little bit from the outside.

We all admit there’s -- you have to admit there’s a bubble in here, to some degree. So I think having new voices and having fresh voices, some of those voices that are coming back from having taken a couple of years off, are an important part of this process. I think they will serve the President well, even as people like David Axelrod and I go outside of the building and have a chance to talk to the President and people here with a slightly different perspective of not driving in here each morning.

So I think it’s unique. I think it’s -- but the truth is you walk around here and you see the history and such, and I'd just reiterate again, you realize that for however long you’re here, it’s temporary. But what endures is our government. What endures is the great experiment of democracy that’s proved to be such a wonderful thing for the world.

Suggestion for the next Press Secretary: Bring someone in from the outside who has watched the travesty unfold for the last two years. And make sure they've got sharp teeth and a sharper tongue.

Outgoing Ohio governor Ted Strickland has some harsh words for Democrats, and they're pretty well-placed, too. In his words, Democrats suffer from "intellectual elitism". In an interview with the Huffington Post on Tuesday, Strickland warned Democrats that they're suffering from Polysyllabic Wonk Syndrome:

Democrats suffer from an "intellectual elitism" that prevents them from adopting the type of populist tone to relate to voters, he said. And while President Obama had made a series of monumental legislative advancements -- any one of which would have been "historic" in its own right -- he fails to recognize that he is being "slapped in the face" by his Republican critics.

"I think there is a hesitancy to talk using populist language," the Ohio Democrat said in a sit-down interview with The Huffington Post. "I think it has to do with a sort of intellectual elitism that considers that kind of talk is somehow lacking in sophistication. I'm not sure where it comes from. But I think it's there. There's an unwillingness to draw a line in the sand."

Nowhere is this more evident than this weeks' Great Tax Rate Debate. This is a no-brainer to almost everyone paying attention. It's really so much easier than Obama and some Democrats are making it seem. Here it is in simple terms: No billionaire tax breaks. They all expire this year. That's all. Simple, right?

Not so much. There is a fear on the part of some Democrats that a real compromise is in the works between the White House and Republicans that would extend the upper tier of tax cuts for a couple of years while making middle class tax cuts permanent while throwing a fresh round of stimulus spending into the mix. Part of the reason for their fear stems from the possibility that the GOP will successfully pin the blame for higher taxes on Democrats, along with the crummy economy. That messaging thing, again. The meme machine on the GOP side is louder and smarter than Democrats'.

Still, wouldn't the facts bear the truth out? Wouldn't it be fairly easy to simply say that the GOP held the middle class tax cuts hostage for the billionaires' cut? Not really, partly because a freshly-minted GOP House could come back in January and pass retroactive tax cuts, which would not only throw everyone's tax planning into chaos, it would also push this very same argument into 2011, with a Republican House and a more Republican Senate. It's entirely possible that enough BlueDogs could join with Republicans to send a package to Obama's desk that's worse than any compromise they could craft in this session.

I still think they won't get 60 votes for anything, and the whole package will expire on December 31st. What worries me is that instead of cranking up the victory message machine, we'll once again have a message hijack by the GOP about how our President and the Democrats let the middle class suck canal water tax-wise and tanked the economy further by not compromising when they had control of both houses of Congress. What worries me more is that those of us who actually get how this stuff works won't be able to get a message out that makes any sense because of Democrats' need to be wonky and noble about things.

Really, it's as simple as what Susie said in her earlier post. Just keep reminding everybody that the Republicans wanted to give $700 billion in tax cuts to billionaires while the unemployed middle class takes the hit for it. Keep reminding everyone that these irrational, greedy bastards in the Republican party serve two masters: greed and ambition.

But even more than that, why aren't Democrats hitting harder on the patriotic duty of every American to support their country by paying taxes? This is where they really lose me completely. I paid taxes every year that Bush was in office, grumbling all the way about how I resented financing wars and greed. If Democrats could quit apologizing for taxes and start a very simple campaign about the patriotic good that taxes do, they could shift attitudes enough to start calling the greedy bastards at the top unpatriotic freeloaders.

One way or the other, Strickland is right when he says this:

"I mean, I understand a reluctance to reach the conclusion that I think a reasonable person can reach: that [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell was speaking the truth when he said his goal was not to govern, not to develop public policy, but his goal is to defeat this president in 2012. And I think when the base understands that that's what's at stake, the base is going to be much more willing to engage and to join the fight. The base is going to be less willing to join the fight if they don't see the clear differences. The differences are there, for God's sake."

and this:

"People are willing to stand with you if they see you fighting for them."

Yes, the differences ARE there, but if we can't win this argument -- one we shouldn't even be having -- I hold very little hope that 2012 will be much different from 2010.

Meanwhile, Bushies do the happy dance over maneuvering the administration and Democrats into this position in the first place. I hope they sprain their butt muscles when they fall.