Posted on 10/10/2002 11:41:05 AM PDT by thedugal
I had a conversation with a dem 2 nights ago. She objected to the new bumper sticker I put on my car "Proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy." I explained Hilary Clinton came up with that phrase. She credited Clinton with welfare reform and cited the number of people she knew personally that had benefited from it. She's a former revenue specialist for FL, collecting payments from dads to single mothers.
I explained how Clinton had vetoed that same legislation over and over again, and that it came from the Republican Revolution. She did not beleive me. I told her we could not have a discussion until she read the passage in Newt's book published in 1995- "To Renew America" where he outlines everything she liked about the reform, that the Impeached Rapist did not sign 'til his second term.
She left my house in a snit. She feels that she is a very "intuitive" person, and she intuitively knows that I must be wrong. She told me Clinton had never been impeached. Not only that, but she doesn't want to have to try to keep up with current events- not that her admitted ignorance will keep her out of the voting booth. And that my use of facts to back up my argument robbed me of my "Joi de Vivre" (She has a B.A. from Vanderbilt). I was suddenly just another angry Republican to her.
You know, the McBride-Rossin debate was on tonight, and Rossin kept using the phrase- we must not be living in the same state...and it's true. I live in Florida and dems live in a state of denial...of reality.
I know Rush talks to these people to be provokative but truly- except for entertainment value "Only a fool argues with a fool."
Clinton finally signed on to welfare reform only when the political windsock held by Carville and his ilk dictated that this was a popular position among the American people. When it was successful, of course he took all the credit for it. And his supporters gave him all the credit for it. I guess Hillary will get credit for a successful war effort in Iraq, now that she's signed on in favor of it (after ten million focus groups and polls told her which side of the question to be on.) Can democrats spell "core values." I didn't think so.
...?...
...pathognomonic...
People dont change their mind based on a few facts. rather they pick and choose and interpret facts based on what they already believe.
It takes a BIG SHOCK to change mind sets and beliefs.
what you are saying here is that 911 was that shock. The "clinton mind-set" goes all the way back to 1992: "it's the economy stupid", as long as clinton kept the prosperity, we'd ignore his personal and political ransgressions (at least the case for non-freeper). Nothing GOP could do to shake that. But 9-11 has changed how people think about politics now.
The Clinton era is now HISTORY ... 9-11 was an exclamation point to the late 90s bubble and era of Complacency. You are correct to assert that minds wont be changed about that era. people who lived through made up their minds along the way. So let's focus on now and the future. We have a great advantage with Bush and his good leadership and high poll ratings.
If you are stupid enough to think that is what he said then you are dumber then a box of hammers. You're wrong. So wrong.
If you were any further in left field you would be in the bleachers. Heck, you would not even be in the same state as the ball park.
a.cricket
LOL!!! Thanks, I love a good show tune!!!
Yeah! You'd be in the left field bleachers in a ballpark in a whole different state - stupidly using your teeth to pull the nails out of the wrong side of a box of stupid hammers.
a.wiseguy
You'll note I never said lie to dems. I never said, be illogical. I never said only use emotion void of anything else. What I said is that logic doesn't work to change the minds of people who base their fundamentals on feelings.
This is why an example like "Don't you feel Bush's actions since 911 have made the country more safe" works. It is founded on fact. You can back it up with facts, logic and reason, but it is the initial impact of the emotion which will give the opening for the rest of the argument. Until you get a democrat off the "yeah but republicans are mean" modus operandi, any discussion with them will be fruitless (although often fruity).
Absolutely on target.
Here's one of my favorite "great quotes" which makes the same point:
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."
- Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy (1828-1910)
feel,felt, found (easy to remember). Kind of transitions emotion (feel, felt) into logic (found). Try it, it seems to work.
To win we need to combine the logic of our ideas with emotional appeals.
This is better than trying to bash them on the head, but there's another way that works even better still: rather than arguing about the past or present, argue about what you think a person is likely to do in future. Tell the sheeple than you think XX is likely to do some despicable act YY. They'll argue that he wouldn't possibly do such a thing. At that point, don't argue with them. Just say "Who knows, maybe he won't." Wait while they watch the person they just said wouldn't do something heinous do that exact thing. Once that happens, don't rub it in, but be prepared to make future 'predictions'.
This approach has two big benefits: (1) Since they're expecting their 'hero' to do the right thing, they're unprepared for him not to. Indeed, the more certain they are that he'll do the right thing, the greater the shock when he betrays them. Tne shock, however, is inflicted by their hero, not by you. (2) If you can make predictions about their hero's actions better than they can, they may decide that you know more about their "hero" than they do. This may lead them to start to trust your judgements of their "hero", though you need to tread carefully here to avoid having them put up their defenses again.
Bill Clinton's one trademark, other than his ability to lie and evade the laws of this land, is his ability to emote. With a certain percentage of the people, he is able to maintain a stranglehold on that part of the brain which can, when massaged at the right speed, turn every neuron in the reasoning sector of the brain to a jiggling bowl of jello.
It could best be described as 'mental assault'.
I'm with you...liberals, dems, or converts have a blind side when it comes to Clinton. They just don't get it..probably never will. It was the perjury, stupid! I'm sorry...some old habits die hard. So..keep the focus on Bush and what the administration is successfully doing.
Go Bush
Red
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.