Speaking of Dukakis

[billydkid]

How can these guys be so stupid (or is it just that they are so insulated)? Obviously, Dukakis looked like a nitwit riding around in that tank and the press certainly played up the idiocy of it, but I think what really killed Dukakis was his performance in the debates. I am thinking particularly of his response to the death penalty question - the "Suppose your wife was murdered." thing. He did the typical head up his ass "Well, no I don't support the death penalty because studies have shown it isn't a deterent....blah, blah, blah." Now anybody with half a brain would know that this would make people want to vomit.

What is astonishing is that there are a whole bunch of possible right answers he could have given. As someone opposed to the death penalty he could have said "Damn right, I would love to see the bastard who killed my wife burned at the stake, but this isn't about what I want or how I feel. This about what the law of the land should be. I happen to think a humane society does not execute its criminals... " and so on. Or he could have said that the death penalty is exercised too arbitrarily in this society. Or any of a hundred legitimate concerns with the use of the death penalty.

What the question really was was this - "Are you a friggin human being????" and, of course, Dukakis' answer was, essentially, no, I stopped being a human being a long time ago - shortly after I entered politics. John Kerry had the same problem and those times when he did try to appear to be human he was, at best, a pale impersonation of a human being. The same is true for Gore. I disagree with Ralph Nader on virtually every substantial issue and yet I would prefer to vote for him over either of those two guys - because he is a human being and human beings can be reasoned with. Why, campaign after campaign, do we get the same pathetic excuses for candidates? This must be said of Obama - he appears to actually be a human being.

I happen to believe the Reps have done well in the presidential races because their candidates are obviously, deeply human - venal, greedy, self righteous, evil and corrupt - but deeply human. And that is what people respond to. Even Nixon was very human - the worst of what a human being can be, but very human. If the Dems can put up a person who is clearly human, even if their politics are not what most Americans might approve of, they can very well win in '08. This is another argument for ditching Hillary ASAP. I happen to think the fact that Obama is a smoker probably works in his favor. If he were smart he would smoke in public and make jokes about it.

 

[Lurker]

Well, it's good to see you are not voting based on your emotions and instead seeking candidates that offer positions that you agree with. :rolleyes

Lurker

 

[Tricky]

Even Nixon was very human - the worst of what a human being can be, but very human.

Don't be silly. Nixon was never the vengeful sort.

 

[billydkid]

Well, it's good to see you are not voting based on your emotions and instead seeking candidates that offer positions that you agree with. :rolleyes

Lurker

Won't someone please think of the children!!!

 

[UserGoogol]

What do you mean human beings can be reasoned with? Humans are full of irrational "emotions," and you can't reason with emotions. Now, what you want is a cold unfeeling robot who will simply look at all the evidence presented to them.

But yes, from a marketing perspective, human emotions are important, and it's weird that except for Clinton, the Democrats have been quite bad at this in the last twenty-five years or so in presidential races.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What do you mean human beings can be reasoned with? Humans are full of irrational "emotions," and you can't reason with emotions. Now, what you want is a cold unfeeling robot who will simply look at all the evidence presented to them.

But yes, from a marketing perspective, human emotions are important, and it's weird that except for Clinton, the Democrats have been quite bad at this in the last twenty-five years or so in presidential races.

With the notable exception of Bill, I-am-flawed-and-did-Jennifer-Flowers-every-which-way-but-Thursday Clinton, whose charisma and flawed humanity served him well, to say nothing of his talent as a public speaker.

DR

 

[steverino]

I think Dukakis and others start out human, then get handled and robotized. Some seem human after they retire from politics, like Goldwater, when they can return to a human persona without risking their career/reputation.

Remember when voters freaked out when Bush, Sr. glanced at his watch during a debate? I thought at that moment what others thought, "Where the "F" else does he need to be that's more important?" Maybe he was just checking how much time was left? So maybe we demand in-humanness from our candidates.

 

[Hutch]

With the notable exception of Bill, I-am-flawed-and-did-Jennifer-Flowers-every-which-way-but-Thursday Clinton, whose charisma and flawed humanity served him well, to say nothing of his talent as a public speaker.

DR

I am reminded of a George Carlin riff, where he notes that all politicians are full of bullstuff. And that Clinton at least went out and said, "hey, I'm Bill Clinton and I'm full of stuff"...and people went for it.

I sometimes wonder if we Americans, on the balance, weren't better off with the 'smoked-filled rooms' of political professionals manuvering and running the Conventions. It often meant mutiple ballots and political compromises and arm-twisting (one Convention, I think 1920, lasted 108 ballots), but it also led to some damn fine presidents (Lincoln, TR and Franklin Roosevelt)

I don't see us going back to the Conventions--everything is now so very "democratic" in choosing the candidates..as long as said candidates have very deep campaign pockets..

 

[corplinx]

Well, it's good to see you are not voting based on your emotions and instead seeking candidates that offer positions that you agree with. :rolleyes

Lurker

His point is very valid. Dukakis gave the wrong answer. Why is it wrong? Because it hit the public like a fart in a crowded elevator.

His take on public perception is spot on and as a politician he should have performed better.

 

[Lurker]

His point is very valid. Dukakis gave the wrong answer. Why is it wrong? Because it hit the public like a fart in a crowded elevator.

His take on public perception is spot on and as a politician he should have performed better.

His answer was wrong only from the perspective of an emotional audience. The politics of it is merely his opinion, not wrong. Frankly, I tend to be coldly analytical when people ask me these sort of what-if questions so I don't see anything wrong with it.

But if you feel style is more important than substance to you specifically then go right ahead. But I do agree that it is more important for the wider audience, just not me in particular and I wonder why other individuals perpetuate the preference for emotional responses devoid of any insight into a political position.

 

[billydkid]

His answer was wrong only from the perspective of an emotional audience. The politics of it is merely his opinion, not wrong. Frankly, I tend to be coldly analytical when people ask me these sort of what-if questions so I don't see anything wrong with it.

But if you feel style is more important than substance to you specifically then go right ahead. But I do agree that it is more important for the wider audience, just not me in particular and I wonder why other individuals perpetuate the preference for emotional responses devoid of any insight into a political position.

Facing reality is more important the being all principled and noble. The reality I'm describing in the OP is the reason we have suffered with the likes of Dubya for the past 6 years. Democrats seem completely oblivious to this.

The reason Bill Clinton was elected twice is because people liked him (and hated him - hmmm, sounds familiar). It had almost nothing to do with his positions. Everybody knew he was a scoundrel and a weasel and a Huey Long kind of character, but just like people adored Huey Long they adore Clinton. Honestly, if I hadn't voted Libertarians I would have voted for him. I would have voted for him pricely because he is a charming weasel who liked to get hummers in the Oval Office.

My point is obvious enough - the most critical elements a politician needs are charm and humanity and that's just a fact. Democratic candidates typically have neither. Even Dubya has his weird ass charm that works on many people. As long as Dems keep putting up candidates like Kerry and Dukakis they will never win back the Presidency and it is impossible to have any of your agenda implimented with the other party in power. Is it really impossible for the Dems to field a candidate who has some personal appeal? You can have all the substance and right ideas in the world, but if you can't influence others, you have nothing.

 

[Lurker]

Billydkid:

I am not in disagreement with you in the slightest. But I think it is a problem that style trumps substance in politics so will speak out against it when I see it promulgated.

It reminds me of those Sunday morning politics shows where they debate the color of Gore's sweaters and how that will play in the midwest. Sheesh, I expect more than this sort of vacuous verbal diarrhea.

Lurker