Dems making reasonable case for emotional appeals

A post over at Captain's Quarters served as a fresh reminder of a Robyn Blumner column that I treated weeks ago. Blumner was excited about the prospect seeing Democrats engage in hardball campaigning that engages the emotions instead of the intellectual appeals that apparently explain the left's past difficulties in achieving its fair share of elected representation (not to rule out the Diebold conspiracy!). Blumner (I'm not kidding!) rued the fact that Democrats stick with reasonable arguments.

Captain Ed made pretty much the same points that I made, though using a new set of examples.

Have you wondered why the Democrats seem incapable of stopping the George Bush agenda, even after taking control of both chambers of Congress? Could it be the fact that they won their majority by electing more conservative Democrats to replace some center-right Republicans? Perhaps because their agenda doesn't have the allure that Democrats thought? Or perhaps their leadership has just proven itself incompetent?

According to one staffer on the Hill, none of those present the biggest problem for Democrats. They just don't tickle the amygdalae:

(Captain's Quarters)

Rather than just tell you that Cap'n Ed offers a nice set of damning counterexamples, I'll offer a taste:

For a good amygdalae tickle, one can't get any better than Pete Stark during the S-CHIP debate, when he accused Bush of sending troops to Iraq so he could enjoy having their heads blown off.

And just in case you missed Stark's stark-raving limelight moment:



The short version got taken down, but the relevant portion kicks off this longer version.

*****