GOP’s ‘Anger’ Strategy Has Dems Defensive
The AP’s Beth Fouhy has written an article essentially about BDS-afflicted Democrats. It only took them an extra couple of years to notice it. Ms. Fouhy seems to think that it’s just GOP strategy to label various Democrats as angry. She seems to think that the RNC and Mr. Rove are making these stories up.
It’s obvious, though, that Democrats are BDS-afflicted. We aren’t imagining Al Gore’s anger that’s become the trademark of his diatribes. We aren’t imagining it when Mo Dowd says that Hillary isn’t angry enough. We aren’t imagining Howard ‘the Scream’ Dean saying that “we’re in a battle between good and evil, and we’re the good.” We aren’t imagining Dr. Dean’s angry diatribe in Iowa.
We aren’t imagining this either:
Democrats defended Clinton. “Democrats want a leader who shares their frustration, even anger, about Republican failures,” Democratic strategist Dan Newman said. “Anger at terrorists is expected, outrage about corruption is a plus.”
In other words, Democrats are calling for unlimited anger.
Some Democrats, in fact, complained that Clinton doesn’t get angry enough. Some also denounced Mehlman as mean-spirited, and smelled more than a whiff of sexism in his remarks. “It’s the stereotype of the crone, angry, nasty, but powerful,” Lakoff said.
It’s amazing that Democrats think that Chairman Mehlman’s comments on Hillary were sexist. Hillary’s recent diatribe campaign is well-documented. I’d bet the ranch that Chairman Mehlman would’ve made the same statements had he been talking about a BDS-afflicted man. That isn’t sexist. It’s simply accurate.
Angry people don’t win presidential elections. I defy anyone who’s dominant trait was anger who’s won the presidency. You can’t call either of the Bushes as angry presidential candidates. You can’t call Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter as angry presidential candidates either, though you could describe Jimmy Carter as a BDS-afflicted ex-president.
For her part, Clinton calmly dismissed Mehlman’s remarks as a diversion from serious issues and the Republicans’ “many failures and shortcomings.”
Calmly dismissed? Then where did this diatribe come from?
“I take a back seat to nobody when it comes to fighting terrorism and standing up for national homeland security,” she said. Referring to fugitive al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, Clinton said, “You cannot explain to me why we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan.” She added, “Since when has it been part of American patriotism to keep our mouths shut?”
That sounds like anything but calmly dismissing Mehlman’s statements. Dick Morris was interviewed yesterday on Hannity’s radio show and he said that Hillary doesn’t have a calm side to her presentations. Morris, who worked in the Clinton White House, said that Hillary doesn’t have Bill’s oratory skills, adding that Hillary either stays silent, which is when she does best, or she screams, which is what Morris says we should expect when she announces her presidential aspirations.
That’s reality, not spin.
Cross-post at LetFreedomRing
February 8th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Note Hillary’s rejoinder. She thinks that smearing her critics by calling their criticisms sexist will suffice to draw away attention from her anger problems. Unfortunately for her, angry, shrill diatribes can’t be hidden. Definitely an anger management course is in order.
February 8th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
They are angry. You can see it in their faces. They all have such an envy of power. They look like the other kids at the birthday party. You know, when the birthday girl is opening her gifts and all the other kids are jealous. They give the birthday girl the stink eye. Especially Hillary, she always looks like she swallowed a lemon, when ever she’s around Bush. Totally different from when her man was in power, then she smiled all the time. Also like little kids, the Dems are always trying to get the other kids in trouble. “He did it, it wasn’t me, it’s his fault, I didn’t do it.”