| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Dems are the victims of their own "verbal momentum" |
| 2005-12-06 |
| From heretofore unknown (to me, anyway) blogger "Steve" at "IR1." Hat tip: Instapundit. I think the boy's on to something . . . While watching Hannity and Colmes on Fox News last night cover John Kerry's pronouncement that our troops in Iraq are no better than terrorists it suddenly struck me: Karl Rove has made suckers out of the democrats again. Remember how the Bush team kept strangely silent for months while democrats unleashed increasingly powerful attacks against Bush's Iraq policy and its results? Remember the agonizing questions about why Bush did not speak out in defense of his policy and its indisputable achievements in Iraq? The answer is in the phrase, verbal momentum. What the heck is that? Well all right, I just made it up. But what it means here is the tendency to defend and even extend a position one has taken when it is first challenged, before the higher brain functions like logic have a chance to kick in. Of course the longer those higher brain functions take to kick in the further the position will be extended and with a lot of politicians that gives plenty of time to get way out in left field. Howard Dean and John Murtha spring to mind for example. I have a cousin who described this effect, after an argument with his wife, as his "out of body experience". "I was over here", he said, "and my mouth was over there still talking!" The reason this is important is that there's a pretty fine line between vigorous opposition to your country's policy during war and behavior that most Americans regard as treason. Stay on one side of the line and your criticism drains support from your political opponents. Cross the line and you are suddenly in political no man's land. Now it's clear why the Bush team had to wait such an seemingly excessive length of time to respond. They had to wait while the democrats all slowly racheted up their rhetoric, until they were just barely on the "safe" side of the line. Then, when the Bush team finally responded, the susceptible democrats took the bait and jumped right over the line, driven by their own verbal momentum. It's interesting to note that one politician, who pretty much everyone agrees is the Mr. Spock of the democratic party, didn’t fall for it. Of course with Hillary Clinton it's pretty hard to tell if she's one politician or two so the extra brainpower probably helped her see the trap sooner. Anyway that's the idea. Karl Rove, master of timing and momentum, strikes again and we all get to watch the democrats crowd together on that last little twig way out at the end of the limb. I used to be a law clerk in an appellate court, and I got paid to watch a lot of lawyers make fools of themselves. One of the judges on our court used to be a master at using people's verbal momentum against them. During oral argument, he'd induce a lawyer to extend his position further . . . and further . . . down the garden path . . . then whammo! he trips the ambush (that is, points out the glaring hole in the lawyer's argument) and leaves the poor sod standing there in his Brooks Brothers suit looking stupid. Thing was, this judge was an equal-opportunity sort, and he'd usually do it to both sides on a case, just to keep 'em on their toes. So, yeah, I agree with the theory of "verbal momentum." Anyway, fellow Ranters, what's your take? Hit the comments! |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #11 I loved the way Hugh Hewitt pased up Dean today. The man clearly was out there in left field and doesn't realize it or care. Kerry all but lost any direction when he paints the U.S. GIs as the bad guys. Yes Karl was right to let them keep swinging, eventually they would have to hit themselves because they were the only ones in the fight. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-12-06 20:51 |
| #10 Hear, hear Thosh! Get a name BTW. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-12-06 18:31 |
| #9 fully 50% of the country doesn't vote and at some point a good chunk of them might. am making matters worse, 50% of the dead folks still don't vote and at some point - a good chunk of them might :-) Air America can't float a radio station in a single US city and the congress voted 403-3. The press has the biggest megaphone to pronounce "how Americans think" but no matter how much they hype it, the Deaniac crowd is a tiny minority. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-12-06 18:29 |
| #8 Thosh, you make a good point but it still concerns me because fully 50% of the country doesn't vote and at some point a good chunk of them might. These are the ones who don't pay attention until they think the world is ready to end and that is what the Democrats have been screaming for years now. If the lies sinks in it could be bad. Truth doesn't matter, impressions do. But as I said so far you are right. It seems enough people see through the BS that my concerns may be totally unwarranted. Could be my point only effects those who get stuck in watercooler arguements with uninformed idiots. But that's pretty bad as it is. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-12-06 18:21 |
| #7 and Karl Rove brought out the small saw today (Bush gently chiding) - big saw later (Cheney) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-06 17:04 |
| #6 "we all get to watch the democrats crowd together on that last little twig way out at the end of the limb." Upside: We all get to watch. Downside: We all get to watch. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-12-06 16:10 |
| #5 I have a cousin who described this effect, after an argument with his wife, as his "out of body experience". "I was over here", he said, "and my mouth was over there still talking!" Any husband (or wife for that matter) can probably readily testify to the validity of 'Verbal Momentum'..... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-12-06 15:17 |
| #4 RJ, look at the election results. That's what counts. Not enough people are convinced by the BS to win one election out of the last 3. I suspect this is how Bush uses polling, to tell when too many people are starting to buy the BS and it's time to fight back. |
| Posted by: Thosh Thavitle8705 2005-12-06 14:45 |
| #3 Yes this theory make sense as far as political junkies are concerned. But look at the other side of the coin. Years of alligations without any response have left the impression amung a lot of people that there is truth to those alligations. Certainly total bullshit statements are now generally taken as fact. If you win the arguement amung the 10% paying attention and lose it amung the remaining have you really gained? |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-12-06 14:30 |
| #2 I think the verbal momentun is part of it, but probably the icing on the cake. Rove understands that the only poll that counts is the one they take on election day and that none of the others matter, except as they effect that one. From Rove's perspective, public opinion in odd numbered years is irrelevant; He can't get the press he needs all the time, so he let's them (the donks and the press)have their fun when it doesn't count. But once we are within election time, they start to focus on the message so that on election day they get 51% of the vote. The same thing is happening here. Note that Rove has improved the congressional standing of the trunks in 2000, 2002 and 2004. If he can do it again in 2006, he will be in Mark Hanna territory. The focus from now till November 7 will be on victory in Iraq. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser, said somebody famous. The message all year long will be that the trunks will deliver victory in the War on Terror. This will build the majority in Congress and provide the momentum for action in 2007, just as the Iraqis should be in a position to pick up the slack. Pencilneck should be scared, very scared. |
| Posted by: Thosh Thavitle8705 2005-12-06 13:53 |
| #1 To extend the lawyer analogy, the Dems have constructed an argument that takes into account everything except the testimony of the witnesses. They really don't seem to have caught on to the fact that anyone with a modem can read the milbloggers, i.e., guys on the scene who almost without exception support the mission (or can talk to returning troops.) The contrast between what the Dems are saying and what the troops are saying also reinforces the (accurate) perception that the Dems are generally anti-military. ("Hmm,I can either believe Howard Dean or a Marine sergeant who just got back from Iraq. Lemme think about that for a nanosecond.") |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-12-06 13:15 |