Skip to comments.GOP's 'anger' strategy has Dems defensive
Posted on 02/08/2006 12:15:49 PM PST by LouAvul
NEW YORK - The Republican national chairman created a furor this week when he suggested Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is too "angry" to win the White House in 2008. And to hear Republicans tell it, Clinton is just one of many Democrats with an anger management problem.
In recent months, GOP operatives and officeholders have cast the Democrats as the anger party, long on emotion and short on ideas. Analysts say the strategy has been effective, trivializing Democrats' differences with the GOP as temperamental rather than substantive.
"Angry people are not nice people. They are people to stay away from. They explode now and then," said George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His book "Don't Think of an Elephant" has become something of a Bible for Democrats trying to improve their communication with voters.
Political history is dotted with failed presidential candidates perceived by the voters as too angry - think of Howard Dean's famous scream in 2004, or Bob Dole admonishing George H.W. Bush in 1988 to "stop lying about my record." Both parties' most revered figures in recent years, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, projected optimism and hope.
The latest example of the anger strategy came Sunday, when Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman said on ABC that Clinton "seems to have a lot of anger." He cited comments she made in Harlem on Martin Luther King Day in which she likened the Republican-led House to a "plantation" and called the Bush administration "one of the worst" in history.
Some Democrats, in fact, complained that Clinton doesn't get angry enough. Some also denounced Mehlman as mean-spirited, and smelled more than a whiff of sexism in his remarks.
"It's the stereotype of the crone - angry, nasty, but powerful," Lakoff said.
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
Uh, yeah. That's what Lt. Col Robert Patterson said in his book, Dereliction of Duty
(Sarcasm = off)
It's no sterotype, she is a crone.
Hillarys anger will turn to smiles when she frog marches her detractors into the death camps.
Come on, Hillary! Get mad! You're going to lose anyway, so you might as well tell us what you really think of us, in your best lamp-throwing style.
The cocaine and pot use of her blackpanther terrorism groupi days would show better if she did not have so much plastic surgery. Liposuction has also helped apparently... both Clintons, by the way.
I think this is going to be real fun to watch!
Boy..this is gonna make them angry....lol
Good shooting, Karl and Ken.
It's effective because it's true, elegantly simple, and easy to understand.
Maybe The Swimmer and Park Avenue Howard should have their aides read this to them. They are practically incoherent.
How they can watch this woman when she's in one of her full-out, red-faced screeching tirades, and then say she's "not angry enough", just boggles the mind. The uproar Mehlman's remarks has caused is very telling about how the Dims really see her performance on the stump.
Was Lakoff angry when he made this complaint?
If he automatically associates anger with women, that says more about him than it does about Mehlman's remarks.
In fact, "angry" and "nasty" are well deserved stereotypes and accurate descriptions of the most visible Democratic Party leaders and front-runners, regardless of the specific gender involved.
"I'm not angry,I"m not,really,I'm not...really,I'm not
If they want "substantive", then maybe the Dims need to offer something more substantive than, "Bush sucks, America sucks, and we really really really really really really really really hate Republicans!"
I just wish she (Hillary) and the Rats in particular would get angry at the enemy for a change. The enemy is not the Republicans, their fellow citizens, but the Islamacist fanatics would have telegraphed their intentions for crying out loud. They want to DESTROY US.How much more plain can they make it?
As for Hillary allow me to tell my Hillary story.
In 1993 I hosted an afternoon talk show on a top 20 market, 50,000 watt radio station in the midwest. In September of that year Hillary invited the talk show hosts of America to the WH to spend three days including an address to Congress by her hubbie (very exciting being there even though I couldn't stand the guy) and our last day broadcasting live on the WH lawn with all the other hosts from around the country.
On day one we got cleared into the WH (I was in a group with Alan Colmes and Curtis Sliwa) and ushered to a briefing room where Queen Hillary had just started her presentation. For nearly 30 minutes of her presentation she never once smiled, acted human, or made sustained eye contact with the audience. I thought to myself, what a cold human being. She was followed to the podium by Tipper Gore and then HHS Secretary Donna Shalala. Neither woman holds the same views I do but both of them, while professional, were warm, human, and engaging.
Hillary is angry, she is calculating, profane, and self-absorbed and self-important.
Lakoff is a joke, but I'm glad the Dems are listening to him. He is just telling them what they want to hear, namely that it the way they frame their message and not the message itself that is the problem. He really thinks the only reason Republicans are winning is because they are better at rhetoric and framing issues. Mehlman is just saying what is obvious to everyone that watches Hillary, or Ted Kennedy or John Kerry or any other Democrat these days. They're all a bunch of petulant, angry foot-stompers with no ideas and no message.
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.