Monday, September 08, 2008

Losing

To add to the post below. If everything hinges on winning, and you plan on being the winner, then naturally some one's gotta lose. That role has been aptly played by the Democrats for a while now and a lot of people are used to that. The GOP is really used to it, so much so that they make sure that when Dems lose, they lose.

And what I mean by lose is, they suffer consequences for losing. Democrats are called every name in the book, and it often sticks in the public mind. The media makes Dems pay, by enforcing some unwritten code of imbalance that allows the GOP to always have the last word and get pretty much whatever they want out of the media. Blue states also pay - the distribution of federal funds favors Red states. The GOP gets away with condemning the coasts, NYC, San Fran, urbanites, and many other parts of America. And that's fine! Those places lost! Now if a Dem were to call Mississippi a bad name, that pol HATES AMERICA!
Democrats have taken a lot of shit the last 8 years.

The GOP has no problem whatsoever dishing out the punishment for losing an election. They make you pay. The Democrats really don't. At least not on the scale the GOP does. Clinton really went out of his way to be conciliatory, regardless of what Ken Starr says. Clinton put Bill Cohen in charge of DOD. 'Nuff said.
You think Bush would put Sam Nunn in charge of DOD? Would McCain put Bob Kerrey or another qualified Dem at the Pentagon? Not on your life. And while Clinton won two presidential elections and acted rather nice about it (welfare reform!), the GOP was winning one congressional election after another, and went after Clinton relentlessly. The new Dem congress? Not too dogged on all those Bush scandels.

So, to tie this to what I said in the post below, the question is whether a President Obama would make the GOP pay for losing this election. To me, this is the window into how much he really wants to win. I think he has to be committed to making the GOP suffer if they are defeated. Less conciliation, more consequences. The best way to demonstrate that is to start punishing the McCain campaign right now. Make them pay for their gaffes. Make them pay for their mistakes. Make them suffer the consequences. Strip away the aura of winning.

Here's an example from tonight's Olbermann interview with Obama - Olbermann states that Obama doesn't want to be perceived beating up on an old man or a woman. Hey! Worrying about what people think of you when you criticize your opponent is what a loser does. Winners don't care. They attack. If you feel the need to respond, use that as an opportunity to attack again. "No, I wasn't being sexist, I just don't care for her incompetence."

Here's why I think this is so important: our conciliatory gestures though noble, communicate that there are no consequences for losing. Why is this important? Well, it's pretty basic. If people are afraid of being on the losing side, they might make a better effort to make an informed decision. Or at least they might see the differences between the two sides. I think a lot of people on the fence will be motivated by the fact that if they vote against the GOP and the GOP wins, there will be hell to pay. I don't think a lot of people have the same worry about the Dems. If the Dems win, hey, I'll get free health care! No consequences. Here's my vote Mr. McCain!

The message I think Obama needs to give to the voters is simple. There will be consequences for losing an election. If the nation's security is on the line, or if there is a natural disaster, we'll take care of everybody because that's what Americans are supposed to do. But for everything else, if you vote GOP and we win, then God help you because we won't. Winners win, and losers lose.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home