My humble suggestion for the new DSCC slogan.

Let me set the scenario: the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has unfortunately realized that the 2010 election cycle – which would be where the DSCC spent 97.8 million and went into debt for 8.9 million in order to lose six Senate seats and gain zero – demonstrates handily that the DSCC cannot be trusted to come in out of the rain; wipe its own nose; or, indeed, wear its underpants underneath its outer clothing.  Accordingly, the DSCC is now outsourcing to actual functional adults every possible function that it can… which includes finding a slogan for the DSCC.  Seriously: as the Politico puts it, “…DSCC Chairman Patty Murray (Wash.) is looking for a pithy catchphrase to rally the troops…”  The Politico then proceeds to mock the DSCC for this, which is unusual – but, given the truly insipid slogans that the DSCC considering, perhaps the Politico simply could not help itself.

Certainly, I could not, so here’s mine.  I feel that it is pithy, actually conveys the message that the DSCC is attempting to convey, and even uses a historical/pop-culture reference to make it, in its way, a truly honest slogan in a way that most political slogans cannot be. So, here we go:

DSCC 2012


Is there going to be a small prize for the winner?

Moe Lane (crosspost)

8 thoughts on “My humble suggestion for the new DSCC slogan.”

  1. Cross-posted to the Politico comments section:

    “Are you better off now than you were four years — uh, never mind!”

    “If you like voting for clueless left-wingers who’ll bankrupt the country, you’ll love our candidates for 2012!”

    “You better vote for us, or we won’t be your friends!”

    “Vote for Democrats! We caught Osama bin Laden, closed Guantanamo, brought unemployment down to 5%, disarmed Iran, and gave everyone absolutely free health care!”

    “Vote Democrat! We screw the other guy and pass the savings on to you!”

    And riffing on your idea …

    “The Republicans have tea parties, but Democrats will serve you Kool-Aid!”

  2. I wouldn’t get too greedy. If they spent $97.8 MILLION, i think a reasonable sum of $2.5 million should do. You got my vote!

Comments are closed.