Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The DNC Just Lost Its Mind—and Maybe Its Own Base—with this New Ad

The DNC Just Lost Its Mind—and Maybe Its Own Base—with this New Ad

Seriously…who approved this thing?

Since footage of the terrorist attacks in Paris started plastering itself across our computer and television screens, the country—and the rest of the world, at this point—has been engaged in a knock down, drag out battle royale over refugees, terrorists, refugees who might be terrorists, and most notably, the influence and effects of Islamic culture in America.

Everyone—from our grandmas to our long lost high school frienemies to the presidential candidates from both parties—have chimed in with condolences, opinions, and solutions to address the refugee crisis and the rise of radical Islam.

The key word here is radical. By and large, the commentary has centered on how to counter the threat of radical Islamic terrorism on American soil, but even so, the this-or-that-and-nothing-else-type arguments posited by talking heads and politicians have acted as chum in the water for comms shops and operatives looking to update the RAAAAACISM narrative for the 2016 cycle.

It’s been an ugly time on Facebook on Twitter—and the DNC wants you to know that they’re watching. They put out an ad today accusing the Republican presidential candidates of lumping all Muslims together with ISIS and other radical sects. The only problem is, they couldn’t seem to find a single example of a Republican presidential candidate lumping all Muslims together with ISIS and other radical sects.

Watch this nonsense:

Ridiculous. Embarrassing. The stupidity and blatant intellectual dishonesty of this ad makes me hostile. Normally, what the DNC says and does pales in comparison to the follies of the social justice warriors and 60s-era “activist” sect, but this is just too much.

The DNC rails in this ad about “incitement,” saying that inciting fear “isn’t presidential”; the problem is that this very ad attempts to incite more fear than even the most radically offensive, white hood-wearing, backwoods racist could ever hope for.

They don’t want you to be afraid of radical Islamists. They want you to be afraid of Republicans. I’m not sure how this messaging could get any stupider or more opportunistic, but I welcome the comments section to have some fun with it.

Most importantly, as Alex Griswold points out, the DNC may have just alienated their own base:

To begin with, the ad is horribly tone-deaf. I don’t doubt that the decision-makers in the Democratic Party are horrified by the phrase “radical Islam.” But a new poll released today on the issue found that a supermajority of Americans agree that the United States is at war with radical Islam, including 56% of Democratic voters. Only 24% of the country agrees with the president. So right off the bat, the Democratic Party is attacking Republicans for a stance their own voters agree with.

But of course, the ad attacked Republicans for just saying “radical Islam,” not saying we’re at war with it. Well, 92% of Americans also say “radical Islamic terrorism” is a serious threat to the United States. But hey, at least the DNC is making inroads with that 8%.

To say nothing of the timing behind the ad. Literally any other time of the year, voters might have just rolled their eyes at the unbearable PC-ness of it all. But the DNC ad comes after a series of major terrorist attacks across the globe… and after President Barack Obama gave a speech in response that left the impression that he was more fired up about attacking his domestic critics than taking on ISIS. To attack Republicans for “inciting fear” about radical Islam in the wake of nonstop news about radical Islamic terror is just an unbelievable misfire.

This reeks of desperation. The DNC knows that right now, what Americans want is reassurance. That reassurance may not come out of the mouth of Donald Trump, but it sure as hell isn’t coming out of the gaping maw of the Obama administration. This was a ploy to redraw political battle lines over “racism” and “profiling” and “problematic policies,” but all they’ve done is draw their own supporters right out of the conversation they’re so desperate to lead.

Welcome to slow clap politics.

Follow Amy on Twitter @ThatAmyMiller

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:
,

Comments

Barracula is the KING-CAT-DADDY of “instilling fear”.

Remember how 30,000 Americans were dying annually because they didn’t have “health insurance”?

Remember how Gorebal Climate Thingie is killing the planet, and poses our greatest national security threat?

I could go on, but we all know the truth here.

The DNC plays “follow the leader”. And so does the media. It doesn’t matter that the majority of Americans are concerned about radical Islam. The media will always – ALWAYS – be the voice of the minority viewpoint. They don’t even think about it. It’s a reaction. 5,000 people an be for a cause and 3 against it and the media will give air time to the 3. You can count on it.

    Frank G in reply to gasper. | November 21, 2015 at 1:30 pm

    When you hear: “some critics say…” you know it’s their own bias saying it. As you note, 3 out of 5000 is “some critics say”.

Humphrey's Executor | November 20, 2015 at 6:15 pm

Sorry, but look at a map of the world. Where you see strife, ignorance and oppression, you’re most likely to looking at a place where the Majority are Muslims.

I’m not sure how this messaging could get any stupider or more opportunistic…

I have no idea either….but give’em time. They’re a bottomless cesspool of stupidity and opportunism.

This ad is nearly as stupid as Obama’s statements that we should find places for 30,000 “Syrian refugees” to live, when we have over 50,000 U.S. veterans who are currently homeless! These people need to get their priorities straightened out.

Wait, did the DNC just justify the war in Iraq? The one that they elected Obama to end?

Doesn’t whats-er-face run the DNC?

I guess the Dems have not gotten the message. If you appease tyrants, terrorists and fools to keep your way of life, you will be the first ones on the list, when they come to get the dissents. The useful idiots that comprise the higher elections of the DemocRAT party are the ones that will taken out first.

Reality is in the process of proving Democrats wrong, and they can’t bear to see it. They are about to have a nervous breakdown.

DavidJackSmith | November 20, 2015 at 8:32 pm

The Democrat party, and its idiot base, is ONE mass-casualty attack on US soil away from electoral carnage.

Deep in their Lizard brain, they must know that.

But whoever accused leftists of never doubling down on dumb?

HistoricalForensics | November 20, 2015 at 8:39 pm

“Incitement and incite”, as well as “like yelling fire in a crowded theater” are strategic key words and phrases used by Islamic think tanks, like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and Muslim Brotherhood front groups, like CAIR, ISNA and the Muslim Student Association (MSA), etc. (Add in progressive narrative makers too, who follow the leader without ever considering the consequences to themselves.) The goal is to divert attention away from Islam and its beliefs to subtly focus blame on non-believers for the terrorist act. The non-believers caused the violence due to their words or actions. They should have known better. The non-believers’ rights are superseded by Shariah law, which, according to Islam is the only law that can be observed. Man-made laws are an abomination to Allah and can only be observed when believers are too few to force Shariah compliance.

A good example is the Garland, Tx. attack. Think about how much time media spent, and ultimately, many conversations, on whether it was wise of the cartoon contest organizers to do something they knew would be offensive to Muslims, instead of focusing on the horrific actions of two Islamic men who attempted to kill the attendees. The fact the perpetrators’ belief system decrees that the penalty for insulting Islam or the prophet is death was ignored. Few defended the organizers right to free speech. If they did, it was often couched in language that bowed to Shariah (I wouldn’t have done that, but…) or other equivocations. 9-11 also generated similar narratives.

The strategy is the implementation of Shariah Slander laws by shame or pressure. When UN Resolution 1618 (essentially Shariah Slander laws) was approved by Hillary, she stated they would use “shaming” to silence Americans into Shariah compliance.

Amy is right. Don’t buy it. Do not be silenced. Speak the truth. Islam is what it is. Not only are Jews targets, so are Christians and all other non-believers. Hate Speech is Shariah law compliance or a variation thereof, meant to silence you as you’re led to slaughter or forced into submission. Learn what the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Sira say. Read some of the “true and acceptable” works that comprise Shariah law.

Remember: Not all Muslims want to implement Shariah, but that does not change the fact that Shariah demands submission, that mainstream core Islam believes in it and that reformers and non-practicing Muslims are, according to Shariah, apostates. The penalty for apostasy is death. ISIS is Shariah compliant. ISIS is mainstream core Islam.

    “Amy is right…. Islam is what it is.” — except Amy didn’t say that. She said it’s only “radicals” that we need to be concerned about.

    You are correct: it isn’t just a few “radicals” who have been degrading life in the major European cities, making crime and violence and the incidence of rape skyrocket, creating “zones de non-droit” (such that your hotel staff, even before Nov. 13, might have advised you to avoid the St.-Denis suburb of Paris with its historic basilica filled with royal tombs), and making native Europeans feel increasingly like aliens in their own countries.

    It isn’t just “radicals” who demand that Western societies make more and more accommodations to Islam, including the censorship of words and images that Muslims don’t like. The percentage of Muslims in the U.S. who think “blasphemy” should be illegal is quite high.

    And we can never be certain that an average, non-radical Muslim won’t be inspired to do jihad for the sake of Islam, or to kill his daughter because she didn’t want to wear hijab. How many times have the neighbors of terrorists or aspiring terrorists told us that they would never have expected such a quiet, polite person to do something so evil?

I know this may be slightly off topic, but one of the rules of graphic designers is that anyone that uses the font Comic Sans in a professional setting is a child, and idiot and lacking in professionalism.

So color me not surprised when the graphic at the top of the page has Comic Sans.

    Really? That bothers you? I don’t know about the others, but not being a graphic designer, who the hell would know enough about it to be pissed off? Pretty strong language for such a petty issue.

      I have no idea what profession you are in. You many notice things in something that I would not when the DNC trots something out. I would respect that.

      Others have covered the lack of thinking in the ad and the stupidity behind it.

      I was just commenting that the icing on the cake to me is a really childish,boorish and unprofessional graphic.

        If someone was not in my profession I may point out something that was not appropriate, but I doubt I would call them an idiot for not knowing some obscure detail of my profession. I believe the graphic was totally relevant because of the overall topic that was being addressed, which itself was childish. I got it and so did others, even without your comment.

          tobiathan in reply to gasper. | November 21, 2015 at 10:41 pm

          I didn’t know about the Doge meme til this all came up.

          But i’m kinda stupid when i’m not being arrogant.

    I think it was meant to be ironic?

    If embracing the Doge makes me an unprofessional idiot child, then I don’t EVER want to grow up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_%28meme%29

    Anything else?

      If you embrace the Doge as a graphic designer, there is nothing else to say as you made my point for me.

        I’m an attorney and a writer–not a graphic designer. I do enjoy those adult coloring books they’re coming out with, though.

        Everything’s going to be alright, gitarcarver. Just breathe.

          Anonamom in reply to Amy Miller. | November 21, 2015 at 10:10 am

          You might want to re-think the writer bit. It’s “all right,” not “alright.” I believe we covered that in fourth or fifth grade here. HTH.

          For anonamom: Did you notice a spelling error from the editor when you typed “alright”? It doesn’t on mine. Perhaps it’s Already gaining acceptance. Altogether, I am not sure your point is totally accurate. Times change and so do words. Fourth grade for me was quite some time ago.

          gmac124 in reply to Amy Miller. | November 21, 2015 at 2:57 pm

          Anonamom as gasper stated times do change. I understand where you are coming from though. I am not sure if my English teachers where passing on their own prejudice or if it was the accepted style at that time, but they beat into my head that pleaded was not acceptable ever. You were supposed to use pled. Today pled isn’t even a proper spelling according to spell check.

        tobiathan in reply to gitarcarver. | November 21, 2015 at 10:38 pm

        gitarcarver- don’t be discouraged. We are a troop of feral apes and monkeys around here. Although normally we appear majestic and noble in our indomitable natural environment we will often scream, throw poop and masturbate openly when a strange male attempts to enter our space. I once threw poop and screamed while maturbating but got my hands all mixed up and….well, anyway:

        Keep coming back. After the first couple visits we’ll be completely oblivious of you.

    Common Sense in reply to gitarcarver. | November 21, 2015 at 11:05 am

    BIZARRE COMMENT

    Has to be from a lost liberal?

By the way, the (D) in the circle at the end of the ad stands for “dimwit”.

Shhh!

Dont interfere with your enemy while they are in the middle of destroying themselves!

Let’s clear the air please; there is No. Such. Thing. as ‘radical islam’; there is only the variable of “devoutness”, going from ultra-orthodox to “meh” . A ‘radical’ muslim (as well as all the other flavors of muslims) reads the Koran, AND The Hadith (islam’s “How I did it.” chronicle of setbacks and victories).

Orthodox muslims *implicitly* believe / obey / follow every line and verse in those two books… retracing and re-enacting the Prophet’s path to victory, his assent to Paradise, and his ‘rightful’ place at Allah’s side. ANY true believer believes that can achieve similar glory by faithfully duplicating the Prophet’s path (and actions along the way).

A long as the above dynamic is regarded a valid, and (relatively) cost-free path to heavenly glory… the sweet soothing lies, carnage, murder, rape, slavery, and terror Will. Not. Cease.

For those of you with the nerve, and the stomach for it, you know the answer to this problem. For those who don’t, read a non-PC approved history book or two… there are plenty of examples on how to achieve temporary solutions to militant islam.

(Hint: it doesn’t involve hugs, tolerance, or flowers)

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Eisenwulf. | November 21, 2015 at 10:00 pm

    Let’s clear the air please; there is No. Such. Thing. as ‘radical islam’; there is only the variable of “devoutness”, going from ultra-orthodox to “meh” . A ‘radical’ muslim (as well as all the other flavors of muslims) reads the Koran, AND The Hadith (islam’s “How I did it.” chronicle of setbacks and victories).

    Oh, please.

    Every one of these people is a “born-again” Muslim, or a recent convert to Islam, (haven’t you read any of he biographies of these terrorists?) and had very little knowledge of Islam when they encountered radical preachers. And the preachers most likely don’t have status.

    Killing people outside of normal war, is not traditional Islam. It didn’t work when Imperial Germany first came up with this idea during World War I, but now there are anumber of people drawn to the idea of traditional Islam with no real knowledge of it.

      Imperial Germany first tried what during WWI?

      Pretty sure that the British Empire c/o Lawrence of Arabia taught Moslems the path to fighting modern powers like the Ottomans and their allies Imperial Germany.

      Germany didn’t do a lot of instigating in the Great War; they were just trying to survive the trap set on them by competitors Imperial Russia and Great Britain.

      But i really genuinely would like to know what you mean . Honestly, i’m not being tricky. I love military history…

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to tobiathan. | November 22, 2015 at 9:55 am

        tobiathan:

        Imperial Germany first tried what during WWI?

        Urging the killing by Moslems of civilians of enemy countries.

        http://www.express.co.uk/news/history/521532/Kaiser-provoked-Islamic-Holy-war-among-Muslims-soliders-World-War-1

        From his office in Berlin, Oppenheim dispatched agents to bribe Muslim mullahs, from Istanbul to Kabul, into issuing fatwa rulings against all Europeans except Austrians, Hungarians and Germans. To stoke the jihad fires, Oppenheim’s bureau concocted tales of Britain’s anti-Islamic perfidies.

        German-sponsored jihadist pamphlets (in French, Persian, Arabic, and Urdu) called on all Muslims, in language uncomfortably similar to that used by IS and Al Qaeda today, to kill Christians…

        The theology of Osama bin Laden and others is derived from that of Max von Oppenheim, and somewhere in archives in Berlin maybe you can find it in the original German.

        Small groups kept it going over the years.

        tobiathan:

        Pretty sure that the British Empire c/o Lawrence of Arabia taught Moslems the path to fighting modern powers like the Ottomans and their allies Imperial Germany.

        The difference with Lawrence of Arabia was he didn’t base it on Islam. Oppenheim’s Bedouin soldiers, according to this article, were prone to shout “Alluhu Akbar” before attacking, thus losing the element of surprise.

But you miss the obvious.

Our President is so confident in his finely tuned bureaucratic apparatus that he can guarantee that no American will ever be harmed by ISIL, who are “contained” (or al Qaeda, who is “on the run” and “neutralized”).

All those slips in the past (i.e. OPM, DOJ, Solyndra, VA, healthcare.gov, IRS, ATF, or “Four dead in Benghazi”) are in the past.
He has, at last, finally delivered “Change we can believe in.”

So, the next time you hear of a disaster, fraud, waste or abuse, ask yourself … “How does this affect the President’s veracity ?”

I know you’re saying .. “That’s too much to ask.” I say “Yes We Can.”

Al Qaeda and ISIL’s coming
We’re finally on our own.
This summer I smell the burning,
Four dead in Benghazi.
130 dead in Paris.
18 dead in Mali.
308 dead in Baltimore.
419 dead in Chicago.

Each Republican quoted in the commercial specifies RADICAL Islam, and the DNC is claiming that’s all Muslims? Sounds like they’re the ones having trouble with believing all Muslims are radical or terrorists, not us.

The qualifier “radical” clearly defines a subset of all Muslims. The left again tries to turn it into a more bigoted descriptor of ALL Islam. Those polls show people are not that stupid, but the ad stirs the pot.

The left also likes to misuse Bush, as if all Republicans abide by his every word as gospel. The left indeed protects every lie of Hillary or Obama, but the right is more willing to dissent.

Bush went too far in “calming” those he must perceive as blood thirsty non-discerning Americans. Instead he should have recognized even then, the radical sects of Islam, and the (allegedly) reformed and westernized elements that are hopefully more dominant. By falsely claiming that Islam is (universally) a religion of peace, he in essence yielded to the sharia concept, and failed to identify the enemy, radical (fundamentalist) Islamic ideology.

Hillary carves out her own safe space by using the term “jihadist”, as if that is so different from the Republicans using “radical Islam”. So Hillary will fight the jihadists that go to war commit crimes, but deny there exist mosques preaching radical Islamic intolerance, plotting terrorism. Of course she has many positions and blurring the terminology can only help her. The mass Islamic exodus into the west must be laid at her SOS feet, next to the genocide of Christians.

As we saw with Nidal Hasan and others, we can’t wait till they start shooting to identify the radicals. We indeed need that database of the Muslims that are in contact with the radical imams. The FBI was already watching some mosques, and we know which mosque spit out the two that tried to kill Pamela Geller. Brussels and Paris are purging neighborhoods at this very moment.

McCarthy failed to root out the communists, and they took Hollywood, then the media and our schools. They even have a president (plus Jarrett) now, both mentored by card carrying communists. While communism has been (is still) subversive, radical Islam is plotting more violent revolution. Hopefully we get a new president that will fight, not aid and abet, our enemies, foreign and domestic.

So, the Democrats really are against “radical Islam”.

Just the words, not the actual terrorists.

The DNC has been hijacked by the fringe progressives.
They are hell bent to destroy everything that is good about our country.
Their leader is a lying, petulant, community organizer who has one year left to do as much damage as he can!

Buckle up because this is just the start of an all out war against us!

God help us!

Problem is, it’s not “radical Islam” — it’s Islam.

I honestly thought that was an ad for the GOP.

Hillary should run on this. Seriously.

Its even better than running on Obamacare and Gun Control, which have cost the D’s about 1000 legislative seats and a dozen Governorships. On those issues, they typically poll in the low 40’s, sometimes mid-30’s.

But, support for Terrorists? Yeah, run on that! I dare you!!

Saw a poll in California – 14% supported Syrian refugees coming here, 62% opposed, with a big # unsure. 14%!!! In California.

The only time I’ve ever seen worse numbers was when the Times of Jerusalem did a poll asking simply, “Does Barack Obama support Israel?” and a full 96% said NO. Hard to find a poll on anything where there aren’t at least 4% chiming in on “not sure”.

The world is upside down: The democrats making a commercial that attempts to make bush look good.

And reminds the conservatives of one of the reasons we have a low opinion of bush.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend