Posted on 11/03/2014 6:13:20 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
As the world is about to read the Democrats obituary for the 2014 Election, an autopsy has already begun to find the whys and wherefores. Of course, there are several reasons for the leading partys defeat despite its demographic advantage. In a nutshell, heres the crux: passivity. Passion (on the right) vs. passivity (on the left): which do you think will win? The right expresses passion however unfounded and artificial it may be while the left shows passivity.
When and why did Democrats become passive about so many issues? The year was 1968 when the party reacted to two major issues: resistance to the Vietnam War and the tumultuous Chicago convention. The dove candidate, Eugene McCarthy, inherited the mantle passed from the revered Bobby Kennedy who died from an assassins bullet that same year (same as MLK). But that wasnt enough to overcome the establishment candidate, Hubert Humphrey. The youth at the convention reacted violently, and thus the election was lost to Nixon, albeit a nail-biter.
The party reacted in the next cycle by nominating a super-dove, George McGovern, who had only arrived as candidate due to Nixons covert assistance, the defeat of Edmund Muskie. The Maine senators loss is directly attributable to Nixons dirty tricks.
Tricky Dicks team (which, in part, later became known as the Watergate burglars) forged a letter which implied Muskie was anti-French Canadian. Thus the forgery came to be known as The Canuck Letter. It was sent to the editor of the Manchester (NH) Union Leader, who in turn published it on February 24, 1972, two weeks prior to the primary. Muskies tears in reaction to the letter brought his campaign to a screeching halt the exact result Nixon intended.
So, Nixon effectively eliminated his best competitors before they had a chance to face him in the general. Who knows what other dirty tricks, including political and actual assassinations, were fair game for the party apparatus during those decades with Nixon at the helm?
But the Democratic Party leaned passive, and this effect remains leaving the voters to choose between the passive and the passionate.
Naturally there are extremes in both wings. However, Americans in most instances prefer strength. They admire politicians who take a firm stand and stick to it. The only reason the President is unpopular at this time is because he didnt stick to the positions he took as Candidate Obama in 2008 and 2012. If his disillusioned followers were content with his performance, the 2014 mid-terms would look quite different. Unfortunately , he sacrificed his rock-solid promises to appease the right which would never have acceded to his wishes no matter what proposal was laid on the table even if originally theirs. He took a gamble and lost, and some of the chips were the crown jewels of fundamental Democratic programs dating back to FDRs 1930s.
Much of the difference is salesmanship. An attractive, much-in-demand product will fall flat if not marketed properly.
The contrast is amazing.
Karl Rove sold America an ignorant sap from Texas that couldnt put two sentences together and ended up almost sending the country to the trash-heap. Yet Democrats cant sell America an intelligent, suave leader. Plus the GOP architect did it for 2-terms while DNC counterparts couldnt win two mid-terms in a row.
If Barack Obama cant read Republicans, he cant understand Russians. In the foreign arena, theres strong evidence of lack of leadership. Not only the crisis in Ukraine, but Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Gaza, Somalia, and the list goes on. Any hint of weakness could encourage trouble spots like North Korea, Hong Kong, or Taiwan to erupt. The Chinese do read tea leaves. Taiwans annexation back to China would be another casualty of Americas perceived weakness.
Republicans are at fault for weakening the President, but so is the President himself. He allowed Republicans to trespass into forbidden territory when throwing criticism at him during foreign crises. No longer is it prohibited to speak unkindly about the President on international issues when our service men and women are at risk. Weve long broken the waters edge rule. Their hate for Obama exceeds their love for the country.
After the Senate is lost, his last two years will be most miserable. Its a downward spiral politically, and the casualty may be Hillary Clintons defeat. If Obamas numbers continue down, so will hers. Winners have coattails; losers have millstones.
In hindsight, Ive now come to the conclusion only the financial meltdown of September 15, 2008 salvaged the election for Barack Obama. Otherwise wed be saluting Vice-President Caribou Barbie Sarah Palin and her mummy John McCain. Because Democrats dont know how to sell; Republicans do.
Oh, its not all about marketing, to be sure. Its about communicating the benefits youre promising and providing accentuating the good while downplaying the bad. Obamas base is repressed to the level of low voter-turnout. The man made big, solid promises that he was willing later to use as bargaining chips with the very people that almost drove the nation off the cliff. In other words, he showed more respect for enemies than honor to friends. Key provisions of major issues were unilaterally surrendered before negotiations even began.
Language skills also play into politics. Are most ears attuned to short answers or long? When trapped in a protracted conversation with another person, does your mind tend to drift and wish for an escape or convenient interruption? Attention spans are limited. I think thats basic human psychology.
But Democrats havent learned that lesson either.
Republicans simplify sentences, but say them with passion and conviction. And with religious fervency. Republicans use religion; Democrats run from it.
Democrats extend sentences with several modifying phrases, conjunctions, adjectives, adverbs, exceptions, additions, and dangling clauses. And they say them with little passion and conviction for fear of error or future revision which would somehow tarnish their image down the road. I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it. John Kerry, 2004
After listening to both sides, the average person comprehends what the Republican says but doesnt know what the Democrat is struggling to say.
Lets take a typical question from a journalist of no-stripe: How would you take care of ISIS to protect America?
REPUBLICAN: Kill em all, clean out all the terrorists, and arm the Kurds so radical Islam will never come back. No military option is off-the-table. Fight them over there so we wont have to fight them over here.
DEMOCRAT: Very interesting question. We should not have gone to war in Iraq knowing the information that we know today. Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing that al Qaeda was not in Iraq until we invaded, I would not have gone to war. But, yes, I would have voted for the authority to go to war. I believe it was the right authority for President Bush to have at the time, although I would have done it very differently from the way Bush did in his diversion into Iraq. His illegal invasion caused ISIS to be born. Nevertheless, there is no advantage for us to put boots-on-the-ground in Iraq and Syria now, but we must arm an Arab coalition to maintain Americas respect around the world, and that means multi-national air strikes until the job is finished which includes listening to our military leaders wholl advise us when the job is finished even if it means 2020 or beyond."
Who do you think wins the argument?
I could think of several more scenarios where Republicans score points and Democrats rack up minuses. Its in the language, the nuances, the contradictions, and the terms that sell or dont. If only we could get Democratic leaders to attend Basic Language 101. Or listen to old tapes of Will Rogers or Franklin D. Roosevelt.
In addition, Democrats seem afraid of being courageous in a time when courage is in short supply but on demand. The public, especially the progressive base, picks up on this. They long for competent, courageous and strong leadership, much like the rest of America.
We need an FDR in a Depression, not a compromiser with the Hooverites that drove America off the cliff. If Roosevelt would have caved to Republicans in the 30s, where would we be today?
Because of global warming, it will be necessary to sell refrigerators to Eskimos.
I can imagine he wrote this through tears as he fought back sobs of grief. heh
Why would Dems try to sell flyswatters to fertilizer farmers? They produce more manure than any other entity in the entire country. Every thing they produce turns to $h!t.
Reading the DUFU is funny....ampersignunicode is thinking of moving to Europe... hmmm...didn’t some Hollywood actors said that if Bush won...did they?
Yes, they always threaten to leave the country for Scandinavia.
Upside down world.
I need a fly swatter after reading that.
As the world is about to read the Democrats obituary for the 2014 Election,
This happens every time the republicans win a victory but over all the socialists comes out winner a little at a time, a little more socialism here and a little more there.
This will slow down the progress of the socialists but it is not their demise because the voters will turn around and start biting the ones they voted for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.