Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats

BUSH IS A MORAL COWARD / WHY ISN'T ANY DEMOCRAT SAYING THIS ?

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (17 fans)   -- Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com

See cartoon: http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2007/07/25.html
Bush is just another upper-class white boy trying to prove he's tough ~ and this is a man in such serious denial it would be pathetic if it weren't damaging so many lives ... Bush's real problem is not deception, but self-deception : Molly Ivins
For a long time America has had a co-dependent relationship with George W Bush ~ where they recognize his self-deceptions, from being a moral coward to a sincere liar and hypocrite, but are afraid to confront him on his obvious moral failings.
The people are now clearly seeing Bush's self deception, with the help of the Internet, but the Democratic party ( led by the DLC ) is not mirroring what America sees ~ and is in danger of losing its base as well as the next election. 
Robyn Blumner, Tribune Media Services Salt Lake Tribune, picks up this theme in her recent article Too-polite Democrats need to dust off that left hook where she identifies a prophet, Drew Westen,  ( THE POLITICAL BRAIN: The role of emotion in deciding the fate of a nationwho can lead them to the promised land of winning national elections ~ and his prescription is simple: Fight back, dadgummit.

Voters don't want to be inundated with facts; they want to be awash in feelings. Voting is emotional, not cognitive, Westen says.

So the reason no Democrat candidates are saying Bush is a moral coward, even though they believe it, is because they have distanced themselves from their feelings and emotions ~ and, as a result, they are distancing themselves from their base.
This Westin Exerpt is an excellent example of what I mean;         " During the presidential debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore, moderator Jim Lehrer asked Bush whether there were character differences between himself and Gore. Bush responded by raising the specter of fund-raising improprieties by Gore at a Buddhist temple and suggesting that the Lincoln bedroom was offered as a prize to big dollar donors while Gore was vice president. (Westen says, the use of ''Lincoln bedroom'' also allowed Bush to draw unconscious associations with sexual improprieties in the White House.) Gore's response was: ''I think we ought to attack our country's problems, not attack each other. I want to spend my time making this country even better than it is, not trying to make you out to be a bad person.''  
By not parrying the attack, Westen says, Gore demonstrated a weakness that resonated particularly with Southern men, who more aggressively respond to any slight of honor. (Physiological tests prove it.) Maybe that is why Gore didn't carry a single state of the former Confederacy, not even his own.  
Here is Westen's proposed rejoinder for Gore: ''Governor  Bush , you have attacked my honor and integrity in front of my family, the people of my home state of Tennessee, and millions of my fellow Americans. So I think it's time to teach you a few old-fashioned lessons about character. ''When I enlisted to fight in the Vietnam War, you were talkin' real tough about Vietnam. But when you got the call, you called your daddy and begged him to pull some strings so you wouldn't have to go to war.So instead of defending your country with honor, you put some poor Texas mill worker's kid on the front line in your place to get shot at. ''Where I come from, we call that a coward.''
Case closed ~ This is an important must read article for all Democrats.
Allen L Roland
http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2007/07/25.html
Too-polite Democrats need to dust off that left hook
Robyn Blumner, Tribune Media Services Salt Lake Tribune

Democrats finally have a prophet who can lead them to the promised land of winning national elections, and his prescription is simple: Fight back, dadgummit.

OK, it's not quite that simple, but nearly so. In one exceptionally clear 400-page volume, Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory University, lays out everything that Democrats have been doing wrong.

He explains it all in neuroscientific terms according to what regions of the brain control political decision-making, but it comes down to this: In election after election, Democrats have been appealing to the dispassionate, rational, fact-sensitive voter, a being, apparently, who doesn't exist.

According to Westen's The Political Brain: The Role of Emotions in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, winning elections is all about influencing feelings and emotions. Westen says bringing more passion into politics requires the use of storytelling narratives and other emotional cues that powerfully engage those circuits of the brain that recruit and reinforce beliefs.

Democrats keep losing presidential campaigns, not because the issues they stand for are unappealing, but because they tend to structure their campaigns to engage the brain's reasoning centers. And that just doesn't cut the synaptic mustard.

The results speak for themselves. In most polls, Americans are demonstrably more supportive of the Democratic agenda, yet somehow Republicans keep winning.

The most blatant example of an emotionally dead campaign was that moment during the 1988 presidential debates when moderator Bernard Shaw asked Michael Dukakis whether he would favor the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife.

''No, I don't, Bernard,'' Dukakis responded. ''I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime.''

As Westen writes, Dukakis answered in the language of ''rational utility,'' describing his concerns for the death penalty's deterrent value. But the average listener heard a different question. They heard Shaw ask Dukakis, ''Are you a man?'' The answer was a resounding ''No.''

Democrats have unilaterally disarmed like this by insisting on taking the high road and focusing on policy, fact and expertise, while Republicans willingly use unconscious emotional cues such as race baiting (Willie Horton, states' rights, etc.) to win by any means.

Westen says Democrats should not dip into such unethical waters, but they should not shy away from negative campaigning - giving voters reasons to be wary of the opponent. He says that positive and negative associations engage different parts of the brain and no campaign should cede half this neurological territory.

Another way Democrats disarm is by failing to dignify attacks by answering them. When an attack is greeted with silence, the punch will leave a lingering impression that the candidate may not be able to overcome.

During the presidential debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore, moderator Jim Lehrer asked Bush whether there were character differences between himself and Gore. Bush responded by raising the specter of fund-raising improprieties by Gore at a Buddhist temple and suggesting that the Lincoln bedroom was offered as a prize to big dollar donors while Gore was vice president. (Westen says, the use of ''Lincoln bedroom'' also allowed Bush to draw unconscious associations with sexual improprieties in the White House.)

Gore's response was: ''I think we ought to attack our country's problems, not attack each other. I want to spend my time making this country even better than it is, not trying to make you out to be a bad person.''

By not parrying the attack, Westen says, Gore demonstrated a weakness that resonated particularly with Southern men, who more aggressively respond to any slight of honor. (Physiological tests proveit.) Maybe that is why Gore didn't carry a single state of the former Confederacy, not even his own.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

http://www.allenroland.com

Allen L Roland is a practicing psychotherapist, author and lecturer who also shares a daily political and social commentary on his weblog and website more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments