Will liberal anger bring us down?

[Fixated]

Poll question: Will liberal anger bring us down?

With the ads and the rise of Dean and anti-Bush fervor, will our anger drag us down come election time?

[wryter2000]

1. No

Only indifference and apathy will bring us down.

"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not taking it anymore."

[joeybee12]

2. Focused, productive anger will win this sucker

Unfocused, non-productive anger will blow it.

Sounds simple, but the Dem leadership hasn't caught on yet.

[kentuck]

3. Do you think it helped or hurt us in Florida in last elections?

I am concerned about it...

[salin]

6. What anger?

the candidates were toned down in 2002. And Florida continued voter disenfranchisement. Of course Jeb didn't show "anger" with his outed comment about his way of subverting the voters' will regarding a ballot initiative related to improving education.

[joeybee12]

7. Exactly, what anger? The Dems were so scared to be seen as angry

and scare off the "swing vote" that they cowered in fear.

[Isome]

29. The only anger in Florida during the 2000 election...

was from the rethuglican operatives sent to shut down the voting recount in Miami. It worked out well for them.

[salin]

4. What gave Gingrich the house in 1994?

"Incumbent anger" - it was all about selling anger at congress and term limits. Of course most of these folks have refused to take the term limits themselves.

There is a fine line that can be crossed (and the impeachment demonstrated crossing that line). but this rightwing push on the negatives of anger, is very amusing in my book - given that is their stock in trade (re: DeLay, Gingrich, or powerbrokers Robertson/Falwell, the NRA, etc.)

[lcordero]

5. the angry people are the ones pointing out all of the abuses

going on.

[ecstatic]

8. The bland/happy Democrat image doesn't work!

Proof of that was with Al Gore. I hope that Dean doesn't change too much because if he does, he'll lose. The 3 million Americans who have lost their jobs or lost their loved ones in Iraq are angry.

[arewethereyet]

27. correct. but the determined, charismatic Dem with a plan does

ala Clinton (not angry), Carter (not angry), Kennedy (not angry).

all determined, passionate at times but not angry (OK CLinton got angy toward the end over the hummer stuff but he was a lame duck by then).

Angry does not win, I can't ever think of a time that it did. its un-presidential, pure and simple.

[ecstatic]

28. Thats true, but Clinton has the charisma and personality to pull that off

If you don't have that, then you have to use another strategy, ie anger. Gore didn't have the charming personality, but he could have won (more votes) if he showed a bit more harshness towards Bush.

[arewethereyet]

31. So does Edwards but was Carter on that level ? no !

but he did project strength and sincerity even if he wasn't a Clinton of Kennedy. The right personality can do it. Edwards has it in spades. Piss and vinegar wins only contempt in a battle of wits.

[DFLforever]

9. Anger's been crucial to getting people out of their

slumps, funks and the sinkhole of depression; it's been a necessary spur to action but I don't think it's what's keeping things going. I think people are now motivated more by hope for change; a hope underscored by dread of what might happen to the country if Bush/reThugs get in again.

[LeahMira]

23. Hope rules!

Anger's been crucial to getting people out of their .... slumps, funks and the sinkhole of depression; it's been a necessary spur to action but I don't think it's what's keeping things going. I think people are now motivated more by hope for change; a hope underscored by dread of what might happen to the country if Bush/reThugs get in again.

I think that's a very smart and very wise answer.

I do think that we need to listen to anger... not the anger that comes from not being able to dominate and rule everything and everybody, but the anger that comes from a feeling of powerlessness. Someone mentioned the Republican takeover of Congress during the Clinton administration. Democrats should have paid attention to the frustrations reflected in the Contract With (or On) America, figured out the roots of that frustration, and responded accordingly. Bring it out into the open, look at it and talk about it. It won't go away by itself.

[Ilsa]

10. One of my friends who saw the backlash of the sixties

is very concerned about that happening again. Ihope people's anger helps them focus on the problem and what to do about it. Constructive anger is a good thing.

[tokenlib]

11. The answer depends on the nominee...

If Dean is the nominee and can be portrayed by the corporate media and the Bushistas as "angry" above and beyond anything else--then we lose.
This is not to say that Dean cannot rise above the "angry" label-- I am just saying that somehow the anger must give way to a more positive image.

[aquart]

12. This anger has been building.

THANK GOD it's beginning to show.

We would deserve to be Bush's serfs if we "got over it."

[leftyandproud]

13. NO! Shut the hell up!!!

;)

[JackSwift]

14. It will motivate us

to register voters and get out the vote.

[Melodybe]

17. Of course it will help us!

Americans have every reason to be angry, this administration hopes to push us into a world where individuals are nothing more that machines. Where the elite few RULE the lower classes. RAGE against the dying of the light. Typing that makes me really wish that Rage Against the Machine would get back together, we definitely could uses some new tines by them these days.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

15. We need a balance.

Focused anger coupled with a solid message will help us. Anger for anger's sake only fires up the base. The base is fired up enough. We need to win the moderates. We don't want to go the other way either, with a bunch of passive sheep ready for political slaughter.

BTW, I think it's spot on to point out the mindless anger of the Right. The right-wingers are full of hate and rage, and they're the ones in charge. It's mind-boggling.

[elfwitch]

16. We NEED to get pissed!!

We need to get really angry. We need to stop fighting fair against cheaters. We keep bringing Nerf to the proverbial gun fight. That isn't going to get the job done. We can't be nice to these people. We can't be fair with these people.

Part of the image problem that Dems suffer in the "Heartland" is that we look like a bunch of wimps. That is partly what sank George Sr. in '92. People don't want woosies in office. * comes off looking like a tough guy. The Walmart crowd like him because he comes off like a cowboy. The NASCAR dads like him because he looks like he'd got to one of those pointless events.

We need to toughen up and take the fight to them. We need to start LOUDLY proclaiming every dirty trick they do. We need to put so much of their dirt out there that the "news" outlets have to pick it up. If we put out ten items a day, they might actually run one. We need to remind them every day that * was AWOL, that * made Houston the most polluted city in the US, that * is a liar, a cheater, and a drug addict. (He replaced booze and coke with Jesus)

There was a line in Mel Brooks' Spaceballs that sums this up pretty good:
Dark Helmet: So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb. /

We have to stop being so dumb about this.

[Melodybe]

18. Hear Hear! I second the notion!

[andym]

19. Liberal Anger and the Anger of the Majority

Liberal anger by itself in recent history (last 50 years) has only contributed to defeat of a Democratic candidate (McGovern, 1972, partisan supporters did not help M's image with Americans, though this campaign was flawed in many ways.)

Liberal anger coupled with the anger of moderates/conservatives has contributed to victory (Carter, 1976 and anti-Nixon feeling).

So, when liberal anger resonates with moderates and some conservatives it is much more likely to triumph than when it stands alone.

However, very rarely in American history has a firebrand candidate of either party been elected President. In the 20th century T Roosevelt and Harry Truman come to mind. And of the two, only TR was a real revolutionary in that he worked to reform corporate power and preserve the environment against the will of his own party. However, it is unclear to me what role anger of any politcal group played in TR's victory.

But while the past may suggest likely patterns it does not predict the future, so this may the election cycle where liberal anger might resonate generally. Let us hope so.

[kerryistheanswer]

20. We need energy, not anger!

I don't think we need to play the Republican's game and get angry. We need positive energy - a movement to release us from the Bush tyranny. Anger is a great way to organize but energy and focus will attract masses and lead to victory.

We don't need anymore anger in this world - we need solutions - peaceful solutions.

Dennis Kucinich and John Kerry can take us there.

[Selwynn]

21. "It'll help us a lot" is why we always lose...

[Scott Lee]

24. "Always lose"? Then explain.....

Why angry North American colonists managed to kick out the strongest military and political power on earth at the time?

Why angry peasants in Russia managed to overthrow a centuries-old Czardom?

Why angry women in America managed to get the vote?

Why angry people opposed to treating Blacks like third class citizens brought about a change to civil rights law?

Why an angry group of US soldiers, surrounded and outgunned by German forces, pulled off a defiant defense and broke free of their certain capture or death?

Why an angry Chinese man stood by himself in front of a tank and stopped an entire tank column from advancing on Tienanmen Square?

The list goes on....



Anger isn't such a bad thing, when you need it.

[Selwynn]

26. Simple: Because anger wasn't what caused their success.

[Isome]

34. Yes, it did.

They were angry (still are) and channeled that anger into action. Even their language is angry, and too often violent, to this day.

[Scott Lee]

36. You're joking, right?

[chookie]

30. What about the "Angry anti-Liberals" of America?

Gee -- a minority of very pissed off Americans managed to impeach a sitting president during wartime for a personal matter, and for 20 years maligned Democrats and carpet-bombed the nation with their brand of agit-prop -- and they seized power in this country.

Tom Delay is a pussycat? Newt Gingrinch -- butter wouldn't melt in his mouth? Dennis Hastert -- a teddy bear of a man who never has a bad thing to say about anyone? Ann Coulter -- disciple of Gandhi?

Gee -- looks like to me that a lot of very angry people are now in control of our national agenda.

I know that the key to getting our country back is strategy and leadership, but on the other hand, I am not going to be capable of going all mealy-mouthed and accomodating over over the high crimes that this administration has perpetrated.

How about we just tell people the truth? And watch them get angry too.

I believe in civility in public life, but I am not going to pretend that what's going on is just something I have a little bit of philosphical difference over.....

[Silverhair]

22. Anger clouds judgement. Cold clear determination wins.

I will put it in poker language: The Democrats took a bad beat in 2000, and now the base is on tilt.

I don't feel like explaining as it would be misunderstood. maybe some other poker player might want to try, if they agree.

[Isome]

33. No, rage clouds judgement.

Anger spurs action.

[chookie]

25. How can or why would we not be angry?

Let's see -- the GOP can scream "Where's the outrage?" for 8 years, drive around with hateful bumper stickers, and call honorable people vicious names -- and *that* was okay, but for people to get angry over the actions and agenda of *their* trained little monkey -- we're the bad guys and outrage is outlawed?

I'm not against Bush because he looks like a monkey or because I reflexively hate Republicans (Which I do not). I am not only against Bush for what he has done to our country -- his incompetence and his radical extremism. Did he do just a little bit wrong? NO! He is the worst president in American history, and among the worst leaders in the world. *That's* why I am ANGRY!

The notion of "Liberal anger" is bullshit! This is all -American Constitution-respecting patriotic country-loving anger!

They will try to pretend that it is some liberal fringe movement of sprout-sucking elitist dog-f***ers ONLY who hate Bush, but the TRUTH is, Americans of many descriptions utterly reject this extremist stupido Chimperial Majesty.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Squishy Dems don't like passion.

The "be nice", "move to the right", "play it safe", chorus speaks. But, the people are sick of double talking, "me too", "I'm not really a liberal", "We must all work together", candidates who seem adept only at compromising and losing to the right wing.

Anger? And, a desire for honesty and backbone.

[Scott Lee]

37. Their days are about over.

[Isome]

35. Repost from the Rude Pundit:

.::.Advice To the Democrats From the Rude Pundit.::.

If you’re in a street fight and you are playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules, you shouldn’t be surprised if your opponent kicks you in the nuts and then beats the shit out of you while you’re down on the ground ... if you’re gonna bother fighting, fight to win, to be the one who walks away. The guy on the ground is only fit to be pissed and spit on by the gathered crowd.

See, Republicans understand this. They know that you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. They understood this when they went after Bill Clinton. They threw everything they possibly could at him, .... You've got to remember that for every James Carville on the Democrats' side, the Republicans have ten Lee Atwaters or Karl Roves.

Embrace that anger. ...Republicans will suckle at the teat of Richard Mellon Scaife-funded foundations until they are engorged to bursting with filthy fascist lucre, but they bleat like castrated lambs when George Soros donates money to MoveOn.org ...

[KG]

38. let's ask bushco very nicely to relinquish power.

i'm sure saying 'please' goes a long way way with them. :eyes:

[SeattleRob]

39. "Liberal Anger" translated...

The Establishment and the elites keep talking about "liberal anger" and Dean being too angry. They say that it will alienate the average voter. That is complete BS. When they say this, they are basically saying that they (the elite pundits) are afraid.

[mkultra]

40. uh ok

If anybody is choking on their own anger its the republicans. I say angry is good in this season. Speaking of being vindictive, new websites needs our comments.


http://www.slantright.com

give em hell!