Anger is a gift, but to whom?

[Julien Sorel]

This comes from the RNC website:

http://www.gop.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/TLvideo2.htm

This link was posted on the Clark blog, and it's an example of how some of our candidates would be painted in a general election. Some of them look, to be diplomatic, a little bit frightening, and that's to me, a person who understands and shares some of their anger. Imagine what they look like to an average voter, who pays attention to politics every two years or so, thinks Bush is a basically OK guy, and sees nothing wrong with Republicans or Democrats, as long as the food is on the table and the rent gets paid. Those are the people who will decide this election, and I seriously doubt they will respond to the style in this video.

Like it or not, the Republicans have a point here: certain forms of attacks, however justified, will still alienate as many people as they appeal to, if not more. The so-called 'base' of the Democratic Party is going to have to become calculating, and learn to sacrifice some anger in exchange for votes, which is what elections are about, after all. Some of the behavior in this video isn't going to cut it, and will make devastating ads for an actual election.

[La_Serpiente]

1. I have been thinking about something

Is this going to be their tactic for the upcoming season? Are they just going to say, "Oh, they are always complaining, don't listen to them?" That is the impression I am getting and they could use it against us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Yep

why?

Everything else is failing

So they are going to paint the Democrats as a bunch of
obstructionist, hate america crowd

If we let them, they will do it

We must avoid allowing this

[Julien Sorel]

3. I think it's part of the approach they will use.

If I were analyzing Bush, I would say he has exactly one strength, and one strength only: people like him. No, I have no idea why, because there's something about him I've never liked, but in general, most people like him, even those who would never vote for him, I've found (I have two close friends who are a lesbian couple, and they both 'hate' Bush, but then they also say what a down-to-earth guy he is. They hate him on the issues, but like the person, and I know other people who are like them). So that's his strength. How do you play on that? By turning, as much as possible, the election into a contest of personalities.

This was done to a certain extent in the 1984 Reagan-Mondale election. Although Mondale wasn't all that demonstrative, he did have an essentially 'negative' message, while Reagan was almost idiotically upbeat. We know what happened then. I think the groundwork is being laid for a repeat of that election as much as possible: given the right opponent, a Reaganesque 'Morning In America,' plus an appeal to fear via the 'War On Terra' will be quite an effective 1-2 punch for an election theme.

[JailBush]

4. How long are we going to continue this charade?

The Republicans excel at combat politics, then cry foul when Democrats try the same tactics. It works for Republicans, yet critics warn Democrats not to try it - because it will blow up in your face!

Any candidate challenging George Bush had better display some anger, if he wants MY vote. And if someone criticizes him or labels him an extremist, I hope he gives them the middle finger and tells'em where to shove it.

I'm sick of the games. It's time to grow up and call a spade a spade. George W. Bush is a de facto criminal and traitor, as are his supporters, and anyone who isn't ANGRY about it isn't playing with a full deck.

[Julien Sorel]

5. Why do you have to act angry to be angry?

[JailBush]

8. It's a form of communication - and a form of honesty.

If you smile and act like you really respect your opponent (George W. Bush), then you send out one of several messages:

"Hey, folks, you can see by the smile on my face that there aren't really any serious issues, and my opponent isn't such a bad guy."

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'm another Busines-As-Usual candidate who plays games - with my emotions and your tax dollars."

"Me, a reform activist? Ha! You can tell I'm bed with all the other Democrats and Republicans."

Have you forgotten Campaign 2002? When people complained about the Democratic candidates' lack of passion - of anger - other Democrats replied, "This is how you play the game. You don't want to look angry, and you don't want to talk about any controversial issues. You want to pretend you basically support George Bush in time of war, and this isn't the time to mention the environment. Trust me; these tactics will get us some victories!"

Of course, Campaign 2002 was a sick joke. The same thing happened during Campaigni 2003.

Many people aren't falling for that line again. I didn't fall for it in 2002, because I know how the game is REALLY played.

[Julien Sorel]

13. You don't have to smile, and you don't

even have to mask your anger that much. But frothing rage is a turnoff, and turning people off loses elections, wouldn't you agree? A measured, forceful, and yet reasonably expressed anger is fine, and can even be a huge asset, but histrionics and rage are counter-productive. Think of an election as a courtroom: would an attorney who went around waving his or her hands in windmill fashion while spouting anger in every sentence be more, or less, likely to sway a jury? Because a trial is what an election is, to a certain extent, and the voters are the jury.

[JailBush]

19. "Frothing rage" and "histrionics" may be bad, but I'm very leery

of anti-anger crusades. I've been politically involved for almost a decade and have run for public office three times. The Seattle establishment pulls out all the stops in defanging candidates. We're constantly reminded that "civility" rules, and anyone who says harsh things about their opponent not only will not get elected but won't have any friends. ): We even have a law that forbids candidates from MENTIONING THEIR OPPONENT in the Voters Pamphlet!

A few years ago, I was invited to an open house at a public school in Puyallup. I was one of three candidates passing out fliers when the principal approached me and said someone had complained about the language in mine. She kicked me out. Care to guess what the offending words were? "Terry Bergeson (the b*tch I was running against) has done nothing but sit on her fat butt for four years."

If I could have afforded an attorney, I would have sued her ass back to the stone age. Instead I wrote a nasty letter to the editor of the local paper - which printed it.

But I've also noted that civility campaigns usually go hand in hand with anti-issues campaigns. We're told not to discuss issues that are too provocative - or, better yet, don't discuss too many issues at all. Best of all, don't discuss ANY ISSUES; just repeat a campaign slogan like a mantra.

I want the candidates who oppose Bush and Cheney to be ANGRY, and if people criticize the for it, I want them tarred and feathered as hypocrites. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what games the Republicans are up to, and any candidate who's too spineless or stupid to expose them shouldn't be running for office.

Any candidate who runs against Bush had better call him a TRAITOR. If he can't do something as simple - and honest - as that, then what's he doing in politics?

[Julien Sorel]

20. Sometimes you reach a point...

Any candidate who runs against Bush had better call him a TRAITOR. If he can't do something as simple - and honest - as that, then what's he doing in politics?

Has any candidate called Bush a traitor? Not that I'm aware of. If a candidate did call Bush a traitor, would that help, or harm, that candidate in an election?

[JailBush]

22. TRAITOR!

I'm not aware of any candidate calling Bush a traitor, either - and that concerns me very much. Would calling Bush a traitor hurt or help him in an election?

It's hard to say. There are so many variables, and the Republicans can and will pull so many dirty tricks, I think it's stupid to get hung up on a question like this. But calling Bush a traitor would certainly be more effective if ALL the candidates said the magic word. If just one has sufficient backbone to speak the simple truth, it will be easier for the Repugs to dismiss him as an extremist.

But I think the key words in your question are "that candidate" and "an election." It isn't just about a single candidate or election. The candidates challenging Bush should work as a team, and every election is part of a bigger process. It should lay the foundation for the next election - not the next presidential electio, the the elections that are held THE NEXT YEAR.

Compare it to sports. Can you imagine a soccer team playing just one game every four years? Imagine each play refusing to play his best because he's afraid he might look foolish. Forget the team - they're focused on THEMSELVES. After they lose, they start preparing for the next game, four years later, using the same losing strategy.

Johann Cruyff was a famous soccer player who was known for playing "total soccer." Similarly, political candidates need to start waging total politics, not this penny ante bullshit the Democrats give us every year.

[nofurylike]

15. so relieved you said this!

thank you JailBush

[sendero]

31. thank you...

... why is it anger, innuendo and smears only work for the right?

Because the left hasn't perfected the spin yet. But we are getting close and the first step is to stop listening to the delusional "high road" bunch who want to keep doing what has failed so well in the past.

Our turn chumps.

[unfrigginreal]

6. Since gop.org is now an approved source on DU...

here's a few more links to take a look at:

CLARK’S FINALLY GOT A CAMPAIGN STRATEGY: CLAIM TO HAVE OPPOSED
WAR IN IRAQ AND REPEAT IT A LOT

http://www.gop.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research102703.htm

-------

CLARK WHOPPER WATCH

http://www.gop.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research102303-2.htm

-------

Clark Musters Out Of Lobbyist Corps

http://www.gop.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/ICUMI100203.htm

[Julien Sorel]

7. Cool, but do you have a response to the actual topic

of the thread?

[unfrigginreal]

9. Response to what?

The opinion that you share with the Republicans that our candidates are too harsh? When you have some facts to back that opinion, let me know. Besides, I thought that you didn't think Bush was that bad anyway...haven't you announced here that you'll stay home before you would cast a vote for Dean?

[Julien Sorel]

10. No, I said I would cast a vote for a third party.

And the fact that the Republicans are saying someof 'our' candidates are too harsh, doesn't invalidate the fact that some of them are too harsh, and that video kind of points it out. Given the degree to which you are desperately trying to avoid that point, and your own leanings in candidate choice, I think you know which candidates those are, and I also think you know the basic point is valid, or else you'd try to front some kind of real argument instead of the mass of illogic you have so far.

[La_Serpiente]

11. I think what he is trying to say

is that the GOP just could use our anger against us. That is all. In fact, they already have. Gillepsie has recently been saying that everything coming out of the mouths of Democrats has been hate speech, even if it was legitimate criticism or not. But is most of the criticism legitimate? I think so. Iraq. Deficit. I would be terribly pissed.

But this will be the GOP's tactics after the primary. Do I still think we have the right to be angry? Yes. But we also have to frame the message right or else most of the words coming out of our candidates mouth will be stereotyped as hate speech.

Read this spinsanity column.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031113.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Oh I want Gillespie to use the crap

about running on rank jingoism, now that they seem to be ready
to turn tail and run

[pruner]

14. playing dress-up is a gift, but to whom?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[unfrigginreal]

17. The only "issue" that should be looked at in this posting...

is the over the top hatred that you have for Dean.

[Julien Sorel]

21. I'm not running for president, or any office,

so my 'over the top hatred' isn't an issue. You haven't made a single post that deals with the topic at hand, which had nothing directly to do with Dean, by the way, although it seems to be a shoe that fits Dean rather well, to judge by both your reaction and the reaction of your fellow Deanites. It would be nice if, instead of trying to change the subject, you actually tried to argue the point. It's not like there's an election hanging in the balance or anything. :eyes:

[unfrigginreal]

23. You've made no point.

You've offered an opinion, one that you share with the Republicans( oh and btw, O'Reilly opines the very same thing in his column this morning), that our candidates are too harsh. I disagree.

[Julien Sorel]

24. So you think the behavior captured in that video

is perfectly fine, and would help Democrats in an election?

[unfrigginreal]

25. I would prefer that they didn't have the footage.

I would also prefer that they didn't have the footage of CLark "tremendously" admiring Bush or the footage of CLark praising Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld saying "we need them there." Which footage will cause more harm? Trust me, you and I differ on that one.

The pukes will have video on any of our candidates for the upcoming election but we'll be giving as good as we're getting.

[Julien Sorel]

26. It's not the footage, it's the

behavior, the attitude that's important. If the videos were isolated incidents, it would be irrelevant, because anyone can get caught with an odd expression, or on an off-day. But that's not the case here. Some of these guys behave the way they do in that video all the time: it's part of who they are. What's being discussed isn't a statement, or an appearance, but normal behavior and outlook. That's what people buy into, that's the message, and if it sticks, that candidate is likely cooked.

[FrenchieCat]

18. It's already been shown...

on Meet the Press. Don't see what it can be used for after that. GOP can't use that during General Election....or else I guess we can revive the DUI.

No, problem with the Repugs is they have not much more ammo on Clark. They had to use it all right away to try to make him "fade"...but it ain't working. Trotting out the Generals, calling him crazy waco killer, and war criminal, got fired. There's not much more than that. He's had MTP,Interview outside of MTP on C-Span, then full Politics page spread on USA Today, with online 2 videos (one made me cry)....also in the news for Going to testify against the one "Dictator" that did get caught...at the Hague.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-16-clark-main_x.htm

American Prospect and Slate came out and totally pulvarized New Yorker Smear........It was brutal!

Also Eagle fundraiser in Hollywood was today

Tomorrow appearance on Fox and MSnbc.

Wesnesday, 60 minutes II

Thursday, David Letterman

Losta of happenings in NH, and he is starting to generate losta of press.

I'ts all good.

YOU CAN'T CATCH ME, SAID THE HARE TO THE TORTOISE!!!....THAT FABLE ENDED IRONICALLY....

ALSO SEE: Seabiscuit.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-16-clark-main_x.htm

[brava]

27. Why not confront the "anger" issue directly?

Why can't a candidate just reverse the spin by addressing it forthrightly?

Why can't a candidate say something to the effect of "The Republicans accuse the Democrats of being angry..."

Well hell, you bet I'm angry.

I'm angry that our soldiers are being used as bait in Iraq and coming home in body bags or maimed for life.

You better believe I'm angry about THAT.

I'm mad as hell that the President of the United States lied to the American people, lied to Congress, lied to the U.N. about the reasons for going to war.

You bet I'm angry that millions of Americans are losing their jobs and can't afford health care, while Bush bilks us for another $87 billion on top of the (is it $100 billion?) he's already spent on this bogus war.

I'm mad as hell and I think I speak for a growing tide of angry Americans who are not going to take it anymore!

----------

How does that sound?

How would the necons spin that?

[Spazito]

36. Good post and thanks for the info!

The Hare and The Tortoise indeed!

[JNelson6563]

28. The RNC says....

LOL!!!!!

As usual they are projecting but this time with a twist. They actually manufactured anger during the Clinton administration and swept into office (Congressional) with it.

There is so much to be angry about from the past three years it's amazing. I can see how any Dem coming out fast and furious would be a shock to the system of many Dems who have grown comfortably accustomed to our Dems in Congress rolling over compliantly for the boy king. Trippin' all over to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with 'im even.

Dean is not nearly the angry persona that his opponents would have us believe. I can see how opponents' followers who are insecure would see the value in actively promoting that meme though. Funny, I see lots of other Clark supporters who do not seem to share your malady. That alone is interesting to witness--the difference in mindsets of supporters from the same campaign.

But I digress...

Back to anger, that somewhat foreign concept to some still....

There is great anger in the country. With some 9 million unemployed (not to be confused with the 3 million collecting UE $), massive deficits, some 400 Americans dead in Iraqnam, lies about the war surfacing, Wilson-gate and 9/11 investigation obstruction (just to name a few) goin' on people are getting mad(der).

We are at an important turning point in history. We Dems did not intentionally create it as the Pubs did in the 90's but we can use it wisely. The Pubs grabbed it and didn't know what to do with it. They had no plan besides hate-mongering and incoherent anger really, aside from their Contract on America. They then lost some of their control of Congress. They did squeeze enough out of the effort to make it a close race between Gore and the Simian which should tell you something right there.

I find it very interesting you have to go to the RNC site in order to locate a Dean smear piece that best suits your needs. Your freudian slip is showing.

Julie

[CWebster]

29. On a progressive Democratic web-site

we are lapping up Republican spin?

[Q]

30. So then...once again you're allowing the RWing to frame the debate...

...and that's a problem the Dems need to confront. It's getting a bit tiring listening to 'advice' that we shouldn't act so 'angry'. We're called 'Bush* haters' because we're angry about a US 'president' committing treason by pushing this country into a war based on lies.

- But the RWing's very strategy DEPENDS on our lack of anger...our lack of resolve.

- Just remember that 'evil prospers when good men do nothing'.

[JanMichael]

32. We must, MUST, stop letting them intimidate us!

Why are so many Dems afraid?

Afraid of being labelled "this", afraide of being seen as "that". Give me a break. We're in a War that we ought not be in and were LIED to to get there and the American Social Contract is being destroyed by "Crowd Out" and "Wither on the Vine" Corpos.

If they aren't angry by now they're retarded.

[bleedingheart]

33. This is republlican propaganda.

[Silverhair]

34. Tired of fundamentalist preachers? First Amendment issues.

The 1st amendment clearly establishs freedom of speech and of religion. Does he propose telling a preacher what he/she can or can't preach on from the pulpit? What does he propose to do about a preacher saying something he doesn't like? That film clip, if shown to an evangelical church audience will scare then straight into voting Republican.

[JNelson6563]

35. none of us have any problem with

the rights fundies have to preach hatred and fear, 1st amendment and all that. What we take issue with (Dean included) is the fact that the zealot-fundie agenda is having such influence on our government.

But maybe you're ok with it and that would be your perogative.

Julie

[Silverhair]

38. When you scream with great anger about something it implies...

that you are going to try to do something about it. What is he going to try to do? The first amendment protects EVERYBODY or it protects nobody. The ACLU occasionally catches a lot of flak when they defend some very unpopular group/persons right to speech. But they understand the nature of the first amendment.

The quote, "Though I disabree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it." aren't just words to me. And yes, that means I have to defend that fundamentalist preachers right, both to his beliefs and to his right to speak them. That's the only way I can preserve those right for me too.

If one of our candidates doesn't understand the first amendment, then he lacks the qualifications to be president.

Further, how do you think an evangelical church congregation will respond to one of our candidates saying he is tired of what their preachers say?

[RetroLounge]

37. Glad to see that now you are using the RNC to bash

If you are not angry, you're not paying attention.

:boring: