What if Obama loses?
A. Will the Democrats take the blame?
B. Could words over actions be the reason?
C. Republicans have been beating themselves up while the leadership of the Democratic Party take no blame, blame Bush, and offer no reasonable solutions.
D. You can’t just talk the talk; you must walk the walk.
E. They’ll blame the Republican Attack Machine, McCain for selling out by going out and getting Palin, the fact that Americans don’t get it, and that we are basically stupid, the normal theological culprits on the right, and on and on.
F. Could it be that Democrats have lost touch with their true roots, and only give lip service to unions, blue color workers, and urban folk.
G. Could it be that paying off people making them more dependent on government in return for votes has only yielded more dependency and less progress in America?
1. Look at the list of the poorest cities in the country.
H. Does that mean that Republicans or let’s say Conservatives are doing a great job? No! They have compromised themselves time and time again.
I. However, it is interesting to note that the way President Clinton worked with them was to corral and triangulate their best ideas into policies that seemed popular in the country.
J. The way Rahm Emmanuel engineered the last election win in 2006 was to get conservatives who were also Democrats. They shared the same values.
K. Problem is that the far left group that supports the Democratic Party’s leadership and ranking members is far astray from many of these regular-people type Democrats.
L. They seem to be more the party of Anti instead of the party of Pro;
M. They seem to be the party that critiques but offers little in terms of improvement.
N. They talk of transparent, but when called to do so, are no different from those that weren’t , and we’re supposed to buy into that argument that it’s ok because they did it.
O. Where is the true call to change things that the Democrats had a chance to attack in 2006. Why didn’t it sell?
P. Leadership says the same old things with the same shrillness.
Q. Bad news for our country seems to simply be more fodder on the fire of criticism, but no revolutionary new ideas come out of the smoke.
R. They don’t allow their candidate to break away from their apron strings, and truly run on change.
S. Their intransigence on issues illustrates more of an interest in winning a political victory than arriving at solutions to help the country.
T. Thus, they end up many times trying to talk to Mainstream Americans, with Mainstream language, while secretly trying to sell them a product that when the glittering generalities fade away, they don’t want to buy.
U. Finally, their lack of respect for the intellect of the everyday common citizen does not allow them to trust the very thing they say they want to foster; independence. They do not carry this burden alone as the other party is also oblivious on many occasions to the wishes of their constituents.
V. In conclusion, the Republicans are not exactly running the best ticket ever. In fact, until the Palin phenomenon was introduced, the race was a bore, and Obama looked to be a shoo-in. Maybe he will still be if this honeymoon with Sarah ends earlier than the election. Still, the problem for the Democrats is that they cannot sell that which ultimately is not buyable, and which will ultimately change the very structures that form the basis
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Just Random Thoughts about the Election!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Let's face it---politics is the game of manipulating the citizenry by implanting the fear in them that YOUR candidate is the only one who can take away that fear.
It is very primal, appeals to the reptilian brain. The Republicans have been very successful in doing this, more so than the Democrats.
But the fear that the economy is slipping into recession may outweigh the usual Republican talking points of terrorism, gay marriages, abortion on demand, and flag burning by a mile.
I don't think there is anything the Republicans can do this close to the election except what they have been trying to do recently, and that is pin the economic woes on the backs of the Democrats.
Palin's record will not pass closer scrutiny, McCain has flipflopped so many times he no longer has credibility.
The first debates are in 10 days.
I'm going to write an entry in a political science book that will written 50 to 100 years from now:
Late in the 20th century the Republican party handlers discovered that elections could be won by wooing the uninformed, mis-informed, or under-informed voters coupled with pandering to the single-issue voters. Critical thinkers wouldn't be an obstacle if enough propaganda (factual or not) could be injected early.
Case in point: Abortion was an issue that performed quite well as a rallying point for many single issue voters. Anti-abortionists were re-named 'pro-lifers'. It had a nice ring to it, afterall what's the antithesis....'anti-life'?
Anyhow, critical thinkers may have posed a few questions like:
1. What would become of the 1.5 million embryos and fetuses that had been aborted every year in the USA? Was the plan to adopt out all of them, build gov't sponsored orphanges, increase the welfare rolls to accommodate unwed mothers who were forced to quit work and take care of the babies?
2. What kind of a parenting would occur among those who were forced to raise an unwanted child?
3. What becomes of victims and children of rape and incest?
4. What penalties would be placed on those who had an abortion? If abortion is murder, than would the death penalty be enforced for those that had an abortion? What of the doctors and/or nurses involved? Would doctors be guilty of murder, too, and therefore be sentenced to life in prison or received the death penalty? Nurses, hospitals, and others would be accomplices?
The Republicans discovered that single-issue voters weren't, for the most part, critical thinkers so those questions never needed to be addressed.
Under-informed voters could be manipulated quite easily, too. For example, even during the election of 2008 there were many voters who still believed Barack Obama was a Muslim with terrorist ties to al-Queada operating in Africa.
Lesson learned: Smear and fear work as campaign tactics if you can convince the voters they don't have to think too deeply or critically. Appealing to low-information voters can have great electoral power. The Democratic Party could never figure out how to combat that strategy due to poor, unimaginative leadership through the first half of the 21st century.
Frediculous,
Your post takes the prize for the most elitist, condescending and just plain snobbish post of the day. I'm sure future scholars will marvel at your amazing open mindedness and chuckle in derision at those poor dumb souls too dim to understand their own beliefs.
Here's a quote from that future book:
"But Americans did not, by and large, take kindly to being told they were dumb and they stubbornly continued to believe as their conscience and religious faith taught. The elitists continued their string of electoral defeats, becoming angier each time until eventually deciding to move en masse to the New Soviet Union.
There absence was noted by mass celebrations by Americans who then, as today, know what they like and know what they don't like.
And they know for sure they don't like to be called dumb by insufferable elitists.
trenton doesn't use his brain for fear of appearing snobbish.
Ok, you win, Trenton.
If my recognizing someone is un-informed and/or is a single-issue voter labels me 'elitist', then I'm an elitist. If promoting critical thinking skills makes me an 'elitist', then I'm an elitist. If understanding the importance of learning and making the most of one's education makes me an 'elitist', then by all means call me an elitist.
Incidently, congratulations on working the R-Tribe's 'buzz word of the week' into the conversation.
I do not think it benefits the culture of a society to assume those that might not agree with us are stupid. I feel this is one of the primary reasons we can not have a civil debate in America anymore.
I think that fear manipulation might play a part in an election. Other possibilities include buying votes with government policies that benefit the group being courted, media manipulation of data to include some stories and exclude others, influence by people who want to be like certain celebrities, and differing views on moral values.
For me, I do not think that democrats have a monopoly on critical thinking. The more I learn the less I can identify with them on most issues. I do still agree with them on some. Insinuating I am stupid for not agreeing with someone is not going to win me over, and is very likely to offend me.
Anon,
I didn't call anyone stupid. I used the term uninformed.......big difference.
For example, if I had to make a decision concerning something I knew little about, I'd want to become better informed before I rushed to judgement. I thought my example of abortion vs anti-abortion positions made it clear that sometimes we can make decisions without regard to possible consequences.
Critical thinking involves gathering as much information as possible, considering outcomes, and making a choice based upon all you've been able to assimilate.
The problem is that some issues are 'hot button' issues and trigger an emotional response that clouds rational thought. Politicians are quite aware of the power these hot button issues can have among voters, believe me.
Post a Comment