Democrats Affronted ...
The Washginton Times has an interesting and extremely relevant editorial today regarding the anger the Democrats have over being perceived as, well, angry.
The Republican national chairman this week suggested Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is too "angry" to win the White House in 2008. And to hear Republicans tell it, Mrs. Clinton is just one of many Democrats with an anger-management problem.
Former Vice President Al Gore is angry. So is Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The party is held hostage by the "angry left."
There can be no argument on this fact. It is a glaring actuality that the Democrats cannot deny. Since 2000, the Democrats have been bitter--chafing under the administration in the White House--and have made no attempt to communicate their frustrations in a way that is winning them friends, and influencing others. In fact, the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 should have served as a political barometer for their party, and someone is obviously not watching the dial. The people they have appealed to share their same anger--unhinged, insane, and anything but driven by common sense. To appeal to America, one needs ideas, not spite and vitriol.
In recent months, Republican operatives and officeholders have cast the Democrats as the anger party, long on emotion and short on ideas. Analysts say the strategy has been effective, painting Democrats' differences with the GOP as temperamental rather than substantive.
"Angry people are not nice people. They are people to stay away from. They explode now and then," said George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
Mr. Lakoff is quite correct. Common sense people avoid angry people. They do not want to be around them. They do not want to be dragged down by their rhetoric. For the Democrats, they do have a lot to be angry about. They have tried for five years to tear down the president, and failed at every attempt. In 2004, led by the big-pocket George Soros, the Democrats spent record amounts of money--upwards of thirty million dollars from Soros, and over $230 million from Democrat 527s--to unseat a president that defeated them handily. Soros anger was translated into dollar signs, and all his money, all his influence could not help the party he identified with. Why? The president presented a message of optimism and faith in America. John Kerry and his colleagues tried to reinvent the "malaise" of the Carter Administration in an attempt to fool America into thinking it was not the greatest nation on the face of the planet; a true force for freedom in the world.
His book "Don't Think of an Elephant" has become something of a bible for Democrats trying to improve their communication with voters.
Political history is dotted with failed presidential candidates perceived by the voters as too angry -- think of Howard Dean's famous scream in 2004, or Bob Dole admonishing George H.W. Bush in 1988 to "stop lying about my record." Each party's most revered figures in recent years, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, projected optimism and hope.
That is what wins elections. President Reagan's famous quip while running against President Carter was simple and effective: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? President Reagan promised to return America to where it belonged. But the Democrats, over the last few years, have forgotten about what makes America great. They have forgotten What is necessary to keep America moving forward. They have become concerned with one simple goal: The reaquisition of their power. To Hell with everything else. They want us to give them the power, then sit down and shut up as they drive this nation into Third-World status.
The latest example of the anger strategy came Sunday, when Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said on ABC that Mrs. Clinton "seems to have a lot of anger." He cited comments she made in Harlem on Martin Luther King Day in which she likened the Republican-led House to a "plantation" and called the Bush administration "one of the worst" in history.
Yes, yes. The Clinton years were so much better. An economic policy that ended in a recession in March of 2000. Mismanagement of law enforcement and military forces to where we were wide open for an attack from our enemies. Corruption and scandals ripping through the headlines. Spying going on right under the administration's nose with our dearest secrets. The IRS used as a Gestapo force against political enemies. And the list goes on. Meanwhile, under President Bush's watch, we have a roaring economy with an unemployment rate lower than the index under President Clinton, we have a war that is successful on every front, and respect in the woprld again. The minor details (and I dread calling them minor) that have rocked the Congress recently in the Aramoff scandal is insignificant in comparison.
"I don't think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates," he said.
Democrats defended Mrs. Clinton.
"Democrats want a leader who shares their frustration -- even anger -- about Republican failures," Democratic strategist Dan Newman said. "Anger at terrorists is expected; outrage about corruption is a plus."
What failures? The Democrats have yet to cite a single, meaningful failure by this administration. As opposed to a party that either lacks a platform, or refuses to be vocal about their platform, I think the GOP has done an outstanding job. The Democrats said at the end of last year, and at the end of 2004, that they needed to find a platform that appealed to America. They needed to go "soul-searching" and find out why they are losing. Well, as with any addiction, the first step is usually admitting you have a problem. People like Howling Mad Howie Dean, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, Harry Reid, and Robert Byrd refuse to admit that they have problems. Look at the actions of Kerry and Kennedy during the Senate debate over Justice Alito. (Yes, I do love that title.) Despite the polls showing an overwhelming support of Justice Alito, they were still willing to shoot themselves in the foot, and drag their party towards a filibuster; one that never showed up because Reid was not that stupid.
RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt dismissed the charges, saying the anger strategy was fully justified when Democrats launch personal attacks. She cited Mr. Dean's description of Republicans as "brain-dead" last year, and Mr. Reid's calling President Bush a "loser."
Other examples of the anger strategy abound. Last summer, with chief White House political adviser Karl Rove under investigation in the CIA-leak case, Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, denounced Democrats' criticism of Mr. Rove as "more of the same kind of anger and lashing out that has become the substitute for bipartisan action and progress."
And that is the key to this. The Democrats are the first ones to stand up and demand that the GOP work with them, and then they slam who joins the from the GOP. Everything involved in their rhetoric is angry criticism. It is not constructive, it is destructive. In efforts to undermine the president, the Democrats slam him at every chance. The Coretta Scott King "funerally" was a prime example of that anger. Indeed, see the cartoon above today from Chris Muir as Jan shouts at Damon over her defense of the actions taken during the funeral. Damon sums it up best. "Yes, you do have issues." Indeed, that sums up the Democrats to a tee right now. They do have issues, but they are not issues that will help them or America. Those "issues" will continue to drag them down.
Last month, after Mr. Gore criticized the president for approving warrantless eavesdropping on terror suspects, Miss Schmitt retorted: "While the president works to protect Americans from terrorists, Democrats deliver no solutions of their own, only diatribes laden with inaccuracies and anger."
Mr. Bush himself touched on the anger theme in his recent State of the Union Address, saying: "Our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger."
Al Gore has been unhinged and angry since 2000. For awhile, he left the public stage, pouting over his loss to President Bush. The Democrats, in their limited wisdom, knew better than to support him for the run in 2004, which would have devolved into a hate-fest worse than what we saw in 2004. Howling Mad Howie's infamous scream was the epitome of losing one's mind. Gore would have surely screamed well before Dean did.
Point being is that this is a very, very angry party. Their anger, they believe, will catapult them into cat-bird's seat again. But it was solid work and an appeal to America that granted them forty years of power in the Congress starting in 1954, and four Democrat presidents. JFK was elected by a widely popular margin, but on his death, LBJ took over. With the escalation of the Vietnam War, LBJ opted out of another term, and did not run in 1969. With the scandal overflowing from Watergate, Carter was able to exploit that when he defeated Gerald Ford. And in 1992, Clinton was able to move into the White House after a plurality vote, and runing on the supposed lie told by President George H.W. Bush about his "no new taxes" pledge. Clinton, unlike Carter, used the idea of optimism to help his campaign, and it was the same thing he used in 1996.
There is no such hope or optimism now in the Democrat Party. Howling Mad Howie, John Kerry, Al Gore, and Ted Kennedy are all appealing to the moonbat fringe of the party. The unhinged, Michael Moore-driven masses that utilize the hateful talking points from the last five years. The president is, as follows, and in no particular order:
--a war criminal.
--an emperor or king.
--cares only for the rich, and damn the poor.
--is a drunk.
--is a druggie.
--has broken innumerable laws.
--subverts Congress and the courts every chance he gets.
And the list goes on, and on. What is not on that list and within their rhetoric is how they would do a better job. What would they do differently, especially in a world where our enemy is covert and determined to hit us as hard as they can in an effort to make us capitulate to them, and shrink from the world. We saw eight years of an absentee landlord. President Bush has been anything but such, and despite the differences I have with a couple of his policies, the man has done a superb job.
The Democrats need to drop the angry baby throwing the temper-tantrum at the drop of a hat, grow up, and come up with something that makes America believe in them again. And anger, dear Democrats, is not the way to do it. THAT will continue to lead them to defeat at the ballot box, time and again.
The Bunny ;)
The Washginton Times has an interesting and extremely relevant editorial today regarding the anger the Democrats have over being perceived as, well, angry.
The Republican national chairman this week suggested Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is too "angry" to win the White House in 2008. And to hear Republicans tell it, Mrs. Clinton is just one of many Democrats with an anger-management problem.
Former Vice President Al Gore is angry. So is Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The party is held hostage by the "angry left."
There can be no argument on this fact. It is a glaring actuality that the Democrats cannot deny. Since 2000, the Democrats have been bitter--chafing under the administration in the White House--and have made no attempt to communicate their frustrations in a way that is winning them friends, and influencing others. In fact, the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 should have served as a political barometer for their party, and someone is obviously not watching the dial. The people they have appealed to share their same anger--unhinged, insane, and anything but driven by common sense. To appeal to America, one needs ideas, not spite and vitriol.
In recent months, Republican operatives and officeholders have cast the Democrats as the anger party, long on emotion and short on ideas. Analysts say the strategy has been effective, painting Democrats' differences with the GOP as temperamental rather than substantive.
"Angry people are not nice people. They are people to stay away from. They explode now and then," said George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
Mr. Lakoff is quite correct. Common sense people avoid angry people. They do not want to be around them. They do not want to be dragged down by their rhetoric. For the Democrats, they do have a lot to be angry about. They have tried for five years to tear down the president, and failed at every attempt. In 2004, led by the big-pocket George Soros, the Democrats spent record amounts of money--upwards of thirty million dollars from Soros, and over $230 million from Democrat 527s--to unseat a president that defeated them handily. Soros anger was translated into dollar signs, and all his money, all his influence could not help the party he identified with. Why? The president presented a message of optimism and faith in America. John Kerry and his colleagues tried to reinvent the "malaise" of the Carter Administration in an attempt to fool America into thinking it was not the greatest nation on the face of the planet; a true force for freedom in the world.
His book "Don't Think of an Elephant" has become something of a bible for Democrats trying to improve their communication with voters.
Political history is dotted with failed presidential candidates perceived by the voters as too angry -- think of Howard Dean's famous scream in 2004, or Bob Dole admonishing George H.W. Bush in 1988 to "stop lying about my record." Each party's most revered figures in recent years, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, projected optimism and hope.
That is what wins elections. President Reagan's famous quip while running against President Carter was simple and effective: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? President Reagan promised to return America to where it belonged. But the Democrats, over the last few years, have forgotten about what makes America great. They have forgotten What is necessary to keep America moving forward. They have become concerned with one simple goal: The reaquisition of their power. To Hell with everything else. They want us to give them the power, then sit down and shut up as they drive this nation into Third-World status.
The latest example of the anger strategy came Sunday, when Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said on ABC that Mrs. Clinton "seems to have a lot of anger." He cited comments she made in Harlem on Martin Luther King Day in which she likened the Republican-led House to a "plantation" and called the Bush administration "one of the worst" in history.
Yes, yes. The Clinton years were so much better. An economic policy that ended in a recession in March of 2000. Mismanagement of law enforcement and military forces to where we were wide open for an attack from our enemies. Corruption and scandals ripping through the headlines. Spying going on right under the administration's nose with our dearest secrets. The IRS used as a Gestapo force against political enemies. And the list goes on. Meanwhile, under President Bush's watch, we have a roaring economy with an unemployment rate lower than the index under President Clinton, we have a war that is successful on every front, and respect in the woprld again. The minor details (and I dread calling them minor) that have rocked the Congress recently in the Aramoff scandal is insignificant in comparison.
"I don't think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates," he said.
Democrats defended Mrs. Clinton.
"Democrats want a leader who shares their frustration -- even anger -- about Republican failures," Democratic strategist Dan Newman said. "Anger at terrorists is expected; outrage about corruption is a plus."
What failures? The Democrats have yet to cite a single, meaningful failure by this administration. As opposed to a party that either lacks a platform, or refuses to be vocal about their platform, I think the GOP has done an outstanding job. The Democrats said at the end of last year, and at the end of 2004, that they needed to find a platform that appealed to America. They needed to go "soul-searching" and find out why they are losing. Well, as with any addiction, the first step is usually admitting you have a problem. People like Howling Mad Howie Dean, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, Harry Reid, and Robert Byrd refuse to admit that they have problems. Look at the actions of Kerry and Kennedy during the Senate debate over Justice Alito. (Yes, I do love that title.) Despite the polls showing an overwhelming support of Justice Alito, they were still willing to shoot themselves in the foot, and drag their party towards a filibuster; one that never showed up because Reid was not that stupid.
RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt dismissed the charges, saying the anger strategy was fully justified when Democrats launch personal attacks. She cited Mr. Dean's description of Republicans as "brain-dead" last year, and Mr. Reid's calling President Bush a "loser."
Other examples of the anger strategy abound. Last summer, with chief White House political adviser Karl Rove under investigation in the CIA-leak case, Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, denounced Democrats' criticism of Mr. Rove as "more of the same kind of anger and lashing out that has become the substitute for bipartisan action and progress."
And that is the key to this. The Democrats are the first ones to stand up and demand that the GOP work with them, and then they slam who joins the from the GOP. Everything involved in their rhetoric is angry criticism. It is not constructive, it is destructive. In efforts to undermine the president, the Democrats slam him at every chance. The Coretta Scott King "funerally" was a prime example of that anger. Indeed, see the cartoon above today from Chris Muir as Jan shouts at Damon over her defense of the actions taken during the funeral. Damon sums it up best. "Yes, you do have issues." Indeed, that sums up the Democrats to a tee right now. They do have issues, but they are not issues that will help them or America. Those "issues" will continue to drag them down.
Last month, after Mr. Gore criticized the president for approving warrantless eavesdropping on terror suspects, Miss Schmitt retorted: "While the president works to protect Americans from terrorists, Democrats deliver no solutions of their own, only diatribes laden with inaccuracies and anger."
Mr. Bush himself touched on the anger theme in his recent State of the Union Address, saying: "Our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger."
Al Gore has been unhinged and angry since 2000. For awhile, he left the public stage, pouting over his loss to President Bush. The Democrats, in their limited wisdom, knew better than to support him for the run in 2004, which would have devolved into a hate-fest worse than what we saw in 2004. Howling Mad Howie's infamous scream was the epitome of losing one's mind. Gore would have surely screamed well before Dean did.
Point being is that this is a very, very angry party. Their anger, they believe, will catapult them into cat-bird's seat again. But it was solid work and an appeal to America that granted them forty years of power in the Congress starting in 1954, and four Democrat presidents. JFK was elected by a widely popular margin, but on his death, LBJ took over. With the escalation of the Vietnam War, LBJ opted out of another term, and did not run in 1969. With the scandal overflowing from Watergate, Carter was able to exploit that when he defeated Gerald Ford. And in 1992, Clinton was able to move into the White House after a plurality vote, and runing on the supposed lie told by President George H.W. Bush about his "no new taxes" pledge. Clinton, unlike Carter, used the idea of optimism to help his campaign, and it was the same thing he used in 1996.
There is no such hope or optimism now in the Democrat Party. Howling Mad Howie, John Kerry, Al Gore, and Ted Kennedy are all appealing to the moonbat fringe of the party. The unhinged, Michael Moore-driven masses that utilize the hateful talking points from the last five years. The president is, as follows, and in no particular order:
--a war criminal.
--an emperor or king.
--cares only for the rich, and damn the poor.
--is a drunk.
--is a druggie.
--has broken innumerable laws.
--subverts Congress and the courts every chance he gets.
And the list goes on, and on. What is not on that list and within their rhetoric is how they would do a better job. What would they do differently, especially in a world where our enemy is covert and determined to hit us as hard as they can in an effort to make us capitulate to them, and shrink from the world. We saw eight years of an absentee landlord. President Bush has been anything but such, and despite the differences I have with a couple of his policies, the man has done a superb job.
The Democrats need to drop the angry baby throwing the temper-tantrum at the drop of a hat, grow up, and come up with something that makes America believe in them again. And anger, dear Democrats, is not the way to do it. THAT will continue to lead them to defeat at the ballot box, time and again.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home