The Republicans are Still Better at It (and That's What Matters)

Vice President Dick Cheney is out rounding up the faithful and raising money for the imminent mid-term elections.

He's good at it. His general approval rating is something like 34%. So? He's way better at revving up the base than Democrats generally. Check out this quote from a random fundraiser for a random Congressional Republican:

"If we follow Congressman Murtha's (Democrat/Enemy) advice and withdraw from Iraq the same way we withdrew from Beirut in 1983 and Somalia in 1993, all we will do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy and invite even more terrorist attacks."

This is good politicking. It's not dumbed down (in a noticeable way) yet it's easy to understand. It's got a clear messsage: Vote for Demoracts--or even support democratic ideals--and the terrorists win. It's specific: Opponent offering advice is named, two specific instances are drawn from recent and comparable history, and the mechanism of the terrorists winning is defined. Analytically put, Cheney claims: 1) The Democrat position of withdrawal is analagous to these two previous instances; 2) (implicit) in these two previous instances, the withdrawal spurred on additional attackes; 3) The Democrat position will therefore probably lead to additional attacks by terrorists; therefore 4) A vote for the Democrats is a pro-terrorist vote.

God that's good. He even uses "we" instead of "them." Sure, a lot of people might not trust Dick, but enough trust him for a good get-out-the-vote scheme. And, when we are all making our hueristic decisions come election day, you can be sure that his straightforward, analytical, not resorting (obviously) to lowest common denominator approach will swing some swing voters. So what if he might be wrong? 1) No one is gonna check, and 2) If they do, well, whether or not the withdrawal's spurred additional attacks is a matter of educated opinion, isn't it?

And, he's tapping into fear--a powerful emotion. And he's doing it, not so much like a dumbass politico or a tabloid or a commercial for Hershey's Chocolate asmuchas an assistant professor, or one of those old white guys on the History Channel.

Now check out the witty rejoinder from a whole cadre of Democratic Senators:

"Instead of ranting and raving on the campaign trail, Bush and Cheney should spend their time on the trail of Osama bin Laden."

Dumbasses. Does anyone really believe they aren't hunting Osama Bin Laden? More to the point, does anyone have proof that they aren't? People are gonna read this and say "Of course they are hunting Osama, why wouldn't they?" Jackasses. It's so general, it so hackney. It smacks of tabloidism--maybe that's unfair, at least the tabloids are creative (Hello! BatBoy?). If you are going to manipulate someone because you don't have respect for their intelligence, don't make it so obvious that you don't have respect for their intelligence. That's a key difference between the wannabe Plutocratic Democrats and the Republicans. Try walking up to some shmoe on the street and telling him you know better than he does. Here's the reaction to expect, Senator: "So you went to Harvard Law, so fucking what? I'm an adult and I'll do what I want; I'm capable of making decisions."

The Republicans have a good mix of people who believe that the common man is capable of making decisions and people who can fake that they believe that the common man is capable of making decisions. Maybe if the Democrats learn about this they won't keep failing to capitalize on elections that are handed to them. (And I'm watching this one, so don't fuck it up).

quotes from: the post.