The fatal mistake the Democrats keep making is that they do not seem to understand a simple fact. While it is true that the electorate frowns on weakness and will not support a candidate they take to be soft, they don’t particularly care whether your toughness comes through on this topic or that.
Leaving aside political correctness for a moment, a candidate can get a lot of mileage out of challenging their opponents’ manhood. For example, a candidate that loudly and consistently responds to al-Qaeda talk with admonitions not to wet your pants…not to be a simpering bedwetting pantywaist…is going to sound like the tougher of the two candidates.
Don’t get me wrong…I’m not arguing for more macho rhetoric in politics. There is more appropriate language for making these points than allusions that your opponent is gay, a woman, or otherwise unfit for office. I like bedwetter. I like coward. Pick your own insult.
The point I’m making is that the proper response to a campaign of fear is to denigrate those that are easily frightened. A candidate that tells the people that they are not afraid sounds stronger than a candidate that tells people they should be afraid.
If the President asks for the right to listen to our phones calls without a warrant because the world is so scary, the proper response is to tell him to grow up and act like he has a pair (or whatever language conveys the point best). It’s the same thing you tell your children when they’re afraid to get on a bike or step into the batter’s box, or dive into the deep end of the pool.
We’d send our troops into harm’s way to defend our rights, but this President wants to take our rights away on the mere threat of a terrorist attack. That’s not tough, that’s not courage, that’s not how strong men act.
George W. Bush is a bedwetter that wants to turn us into a nation of bedwetters. And the Democrats are even worse because they’re afraid of a bedwetter. They’re afraid to point out that only a coward would give away his rights without a fight…on the mere threat of a fight.
It doesn’t take a man to point this out. It takes someone that is actually tough. And, as I look around, I don’t see anyone tough. Our politicians are a bunch of scaredy-cats.
Is there a Vince Lombardi or maybe a Mike Ditka in the Democratic Party?
We need a whole of what Jim Webb doled out to Lindsey Graham on Meet The Press.
Can’t the Dem leaders see how shit like this will resonate with John Q. Public? Perception is reality in this media world and if more Dems could display this level of vigor and toughness in the face of the Republican pseudo-bravado, we could go a long way toward getting the will of the American people carried out.
I don’t agree with a lot of what Jim Webb’s positions, but he doesn’t take any shit. And we could sure use a lot more of that from the leaders of the Democratic Party.
even webb’s a bedwetter: he voted for FISA and the blank check.
Some tough guy.
i think the bedwetters see webb as a big dick guy….esp if we have another terrorist attack before the next election…the guys who voted for fisa are going to be in a better position with the bedwetters….i think they are counting on that in fact…..which is scary in itself.
…but with the FISA bill passed, what’s their excuse when Dick Cheney orders up the next attack on American soil in order to beat us into submission – again. That’s all he knows how to do, by the way, because he’s a bully/tirant type. The changes to FISA will have not been the magic bullet, therefore they failed. I think America’s tired of getting its ass kicked and lunch money stolen at this point. I actually think that if we’re attacked again, they’ll throw every last bed-wetter and incompetent bully out and demand their rights back. Confront the bully and team up with the smart kids. Alot of voters have “grown a pair” now and they won’t tolerate failure of leadership to keep their families safe.
By the way, I’m loving this tough-huy manly talk. We liberal-brainiac-fairies don’t get to engage in it much.
I disagree with your first point. If we get attacked it will favor reactionaries, as it always has in every country for time immemorial. Sad but true. If we are in power when it happens we can control the response. FDR did very well. Bush? Did not.
we already ARE a nation of bedwetters.
thats why big penis talk works so well.
i dont see any way around this except to play it better than them…it will take generations to change the national psyche and we arent even headed in that direction….if anything i dont think we have bottomed out on that yet.
why is edwards so low in the pols?
he is the softly loving sweet candidate….the bitch and the scary black man are way ahead of him…..because of the bedwetters.
if gore enters the race as the hero coming to save the planet and take back what is rightfully his, he will blow everyone away…..he has superman powers….his penis is gigantic.
I couldn’t even see his dick in 2000.
Well, it WAS overshadowed by the Clenis.
I’m just reading “The Assault on Reason” now. It’s great. If Al Gore does swoop in to the race to save the day and talks the way he writes, he’ll be the real “Hard Man” in the room for sure. I’d really love to see him kick Guliani or Romney around in a general election. With Boy Wonder Obama as his running mate. Even the dick-worshiping bed-wetting scaredy-cat white men would sleep well with them at the helm. And they’re even smart too. This time around, I suspect average Joes might want someone who seems smarter than they are, considering what we’ve experienced with the stubborn dumb lug.
Really though, what people admire in a candidate is someone who is strong in their convictions, not shifty. Even if the candidate is completely of the opposite ideology, at least they feel that they know where that candidate stands. A perfect example is Russ Feingold. Even though many in his state disagree with his “liberal” politics, they like that he’s a man of his word who isn’t afraid to go against the tide of bed-wetters.
If Hillary makes it, I would want her to make pissing contest/Big Swinging Dick/grow a pair remarks about her tough-guy Republican opponent though. Show him to be the petty schoolboy that he is. Come to think of it, this would be a good strategy for any Democrat.
It’s hard to define what it is exactly that separates Feingold or Wellstone from Kucinich, but there is a definite manliness component. Feingold and Wellstone would never, ever, ever advertise for a spouse over the internet, for example. But it goes deeper than that. Kucinich isn’t tough. He’s combative, he’s argumentative…but he couldn’t defend you in a fight from pretty much anyone. He doesn’t have what it takes.
Whoever it is has to be able to take down Bill Orally without breaking a sweat. Get Bill-O to go ballistic and still remain cool. Like Dodd did. Or like Barney Frank teh gay congressman can do. Killer debaters. Even little Glenn Greenwald. Seen clips of him debating? He kicks butt. Kucinich is that sweet boy next door who would save your kitty cat stuck in the tree, but couldn’t tame the vicious-sounding dog next door that barks at everyone but is really a sweetheart if you gain its trust. Feingold, Wellstone, Franks and Dodd could. They command respect somehow. What is it?
you know you can get kind of elemental about it. If we were some tribe out in the desert, who would we elect to be our leader? If you can’t imagine the candidate winning THAT election, they probably won’t win this one. You know what I’m saying? Some people are better fits as consiglieres. They are really smart and they give really good advice, but they don’t lead the tribe.
Now, I can imagine all kinds of women being elected to lead a desert tribe. Barbara Bush, for example…or Hillary Clinton. But Dennis? Not in a million years.
We’re a post-tribal society and we don’t HAVE to restrict ourselves to picking the type of leaders that are suited to a tribal culture. But we probably will.
Choosing a leader is an emotional – not a rational – decision and the slightest things get you noticed. You’ve got to be someone that won’t take “No” for an answer to gain that trust. Of course it would be nice if the leader is always asking the right questions – ones that deserve a “Yes.”
I used to be surprised that Barbara Boxer gets elected to whatever she runs for. She advertises herself as a “fighter” but alot of people don’t like her ideas. But don’t you dare cross her. You’ll regret it. People like that in a leader. John Tester as well. In a state where they supported the patriot act, he ran against it and challenged entrenched-criminal Conrad Burns for treating “us” like the criminals. “Where’s Osama?” from his TV ad was good.
And I saw a poll somewhere where white republican men would choose Obama of the Democrats. I was surprised. But he commands respect and it seems genuine. I think the beltway drones may have it wrong about him. Maybe they’re just afraid of him like they were of Howard Dean.
Well, Montana is infamous for opposing the federal government. Patriot Act is not all that popular there.
Good point about Montana. That makes sense now.
You know Boo, you are a leader here. What is it about you that draws people? I had no idea what you looked like until I saw that picture you posted recently, so that’s not it – for me anyway. Just from your writing, you have that authoritative aura. It also helps that you know what you’re talking about but to people choosing a leader, that part doesn’t always matter for some reason. People just hope they’ll hire good staff. Evidence: The current occupant.
From your lips to their ears, I hope, although acting like a bunch of ninnies is a hard habit to break.
that the dems strategy is deliberate and not a fear response…
It’s only deliberate in the sense that they deliberately decided that they are afraid.
on the broadness of the candidates shoulders and how chisled their looks are.
But Hillary’s cleavage has got me rethinking my whole approach.
Hillary’s cleavage vs. Mitt’s broad shoulders and Fred’s grandfatherly toughness…hmm…
I go with the whiteness of the candidate’s teeth.
had the same approach. Crest vs. Colgate. Your decide!
I’m an Arm & Hammer man myself. Figure my toothpaste should match my politics.
Remember JFK?
Gimme head with hair
Long beautiful hair
Shining, gleaming,
Streaming, flaxen, waxen
Give me down to there hair
Shoulder length or longer
Here baby, there mama
Everywhere daddy daddy
Hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair
Flow it, show it
Long as God can grow it
My hair
Let it fly in the breeze
And get caught in the trees
Give a home to the fleas in my hair
A home for fleas
A hive for bees
A nest for birds
There ain’t no words
For the beauty, the splendor, the wonder
Of my…
Hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair
Flow it, show it
Long as God can grow it
My hair
You raise an interesting point here, Boo. It relates to something I noticed right from the beginning after 9/11. The Democrats have never really questioned the fear-mongering, rather they have tried to use it to their advantage, but in a different way. The more they realized the Republicans were full of crap with their fearmongering, the Democrats could have said, “This is all a bunch of crap,” but they didn’t do it because the country wasn’t there. In fact, very few Democrats were there either. It’s hard to know, because if they were, they weren’t going to say anyway.
It’s like it was unpatriotic NOT to be scared. BTW, I think the most un-scared people in the country, on the whole, were New Yorkers, because for them it was a direct experience. For everybody else in the country, it was pure “perception-management” by the media.
Yeah, I know t the Pentagon was hit, too, but that’s located inside the Beltway. And those guys are always scared.
Instead, the Dems just let the Republicans screw up, and as the country began to notice that the Republicans screwed up everything they touched, the Dems could say, You see, in these scary, scary times, when we’re all afraid — very afraid — the Republicans are not protecting us.
Now you have to admit this was a radical idea, but it doesn’t work if the Dems try to make people more courageous. But it was a radical idea because it was long ago received from Mt Sinai that the Republicans are strong on defense, and it’s the Democrats that haven’t got a clue.
Polls have shown for quite a while that this situation has now reversed itself. Quite an accomplishment, although it owes far more to Republican faults than Democratic virtues.
So my point is, ONLY NOW could — COULD — the Democrats start doing what you’re recommending. The public is beginning to see the Repugs as a bunch of incompetent corrupt, perverted wimps — which they are. Far more Democrats in politics have actually faced combat situations, etc. — but only now COULD they make that point. Weird isn’t it? But that’s America in the 21st century.
Now, if they did that, you know what the Rove spin machine would do. It would do what it’s always done in the past. Attack them on their strong points. The question is, would it still work, if the Dems actually responded in the right way? I don’t think it would. But will the Dems actually do this? If not, why not?
I don’t know. We have gone thru stages. First there was rage. We may have been frightened, especially from the anthrax, but out overwhelming feeling was lust for revenge. Then came 2002 and the year of perpetual fear. By 2004 we were beginning to come to our senses. By Katrina we had arrived at our senses but had to wait 14 months to vote. Whatever the case in the past, today there is no substitute for courage. The candidate that projects fearlessness will win easily.
If anyone wants to defeat Heather Wilson (R-NM) all they need to do is make a campaign ad using C-Span footage of her arguing for the FISA bill that just passed, where she almost cried and wet her panties telling Ellen Tauscher that she just doesn’t understand how scaaaary things are right now. Pathetic.
If anyone can dig up the footage, I’d love to see a YouTube get out of that one. Show her constituents just how “tough on terrorists” she really is.
Didn’t she also cry over Janet Jackson’s nipples?