Oct 28 2007

Paranoid Delusions Are Not “Emotional Appeal”

Published by at 11:03 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

The Democrats (and their far left fevered swamps) cannot understand why they are not succeeding with the American public. Well there are a lot of reasons (see the post below) but one is hysterical paranoia is not “emotional appeal”:

Democrats are losing the battle for voters’ hearts because the party’s message lacks emotional appeal, according to a widely circulated critique of House Democratic communications strategy.

“Our message sounds like an audit report on defense logistics,” wrote Dave Helfert, a former Appropriations spokesman who now works for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). “Why are we defending [the State Children’s Health Insurance Program] instead of advocating a ‘Healthy Kids’ plan?”

The problem the left has is they lost all their credibility by being hysterical chicken littles. They have predicted doom so often on so many fronts one wonders what keeps these people from doing a Jim Jones with real magiv Kool Aid. They were wrong about tax cuts (economy is doing great). They were wrong about Iraq and the Surge. They were wrong about every failed liberal policy they continue to trump, even when a sea of destroyed lives are in the history books to prove the policies are disasters.

They keep wanting more emotion and less thought. This is what happens when you are bankrupt on the ideas front. As you get more and more desperate you panic more, and then the only answer is more emotion! The left has not well thought policies. They have frustration, panic, anger and hate. Which is why they lose America.

2 responses so far

2 Responses to “Paranoid Delusions Are Not “Emotional Appeal””

  1. crosspatch says:

    “Why are we defending [the State Children’s Health Insurance Program] instead of advocating a ‘Healthy Kids’ plan?”

    Because the people have become jaded to the Democrats’ “Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy” and Orwellian program names. That is exactly what the Democrats have done through history. I might start with “Social Security” that was sold as some kind of “pension” plan when in fact it was designed to finance the debt that Roosevelt knew he was going to need to finance New Deal projects. You collect money from every person working and their employers. At first, nobody is eligible to collect benefits, you only have money rolling in. You REQUIRE that any excess funds be lent to the treasury and so there you have it … the excess cash needed to build dams an highways and power distribution projects. And the age for collecting benefits just happened to be equal to the average life expectancy at the time so chances were that not many would live long enough to draw benefits and those who did wouldn’t draw them long. It was perfect. People AND their employers would pay into the system for their entire working life and probably die before collecting benefits or after collecting only for a short time. Our problem now is that they didn’t index Social Security qualification age with life expectancy and Social Security is going to blow up in 15 years or so.

    The Democrats have a history if giving things names that say one thing but do something else. And they generally come back to blow up on us. They can call it whatever they want but in the end people are still going to ask “how much is this going to cost”.

  2. MerlinOS2 says:

    First off it is beyond the point of irony when the party with the most outspoken support for abortion portrays programs as for the benefit of the children.

    Second their support in a lot of cases they keep pointing to is in softball question type polls that do not even in some cases address what they are claiming the poll supports. They are simply projecting their agenda onto a false claim of poll support and claiming bogus mandates.

    The number of people who go beyond the media sound bite to look at how the poll is actually structured is almost nil.

    As to the far left, their weakest point is that they have maintained a high level of just pure energy driven hate that really is hard to maintain in the long term. They project fascism on the right but the over the top demands rather than argument of reason is mostly on their side of the aisle. If you read them regularly just to keep up with what they are doing you see a no compromise take no prisoners type of attitude.

    When you tune it down a notch and move away from the most extreme left websites, you then get to the still somehat extreme left sites that substitute feeling and emotion for any sort of reasoned debate of the issues. Justification on principle debate rarely exists and for the most part it is a lets do it because it is the right thing to do being the assertion without any real look at the possibility that it may not be.