From The New York Times

...

Serious thinkers set to work, and produced a long shelf of books answering this question. Their answers tended to rely on similar themes. First, Democrats lose because they are too intelligent. Their arguments are too complicated for American voters. Second, Democrats lose because they are too tolerant. They refuse to cater to racism and hatred. Finally, Democrats lose because they are not good at the dark art of politics. Republicans, though they are knuckle-dragging simpletons when it comes to policy, are devilishly clever when it comes to electioneering. They have brilliant political consultants like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, who frame issues so fiendishly, they can fool the American people into voting against their own best interests.

This literature was never taken seriously by sophisticated Democrats, but it thrived nonetheless. Still, you’d think it would be pretty much extinct now that Democrats are winning and Republicans are in the midst of a historic meltdown.

But Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory University, has come forth with a late entry in the field, and his book, “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation,” is enjoying a vogue. He takes an interesting dollop of neuroscience and uses it to coat the conventional clichés of the Why Democrats Lose genre.

-----------

Gus: Touché!... One of the example of this "emotionally" based vaccuum has been the effective dehumanization of the left by the right, using simple terms such as the "loony left" or "chardonnay swilling lefties", or such. With not much in return from the left with a shy conscience to be too the right with greed in its pocket... I did scratched my brains a bit and from time to time I use something that's meek but has to do fault of finding better. I've used "ratbag right" "rednecks" (this word not exclusive to the right), and "greedy bastards" or such... "Rattus" goes back to the days when one of his colleagues called him a lying rodent...

But all in all we plod at it, using cartoons and satirical blogs to expose the ....... (fill in your own words describing succinctly the way the right takes us for a ride...

Brisbane crowd favours Garrett during climate debate

Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his Opposition counterpart Peter Garrett have debated the issue of climate change at a public forum in Brisbane.

Even before today's debate began at the Queensland Conservatorium, former Midnight Oil singer Mr Garrett was clearly a favourite with the university crowd.

Mr Turnbull won the coin toss and started the debate.

He was heckled throughout his speech, especially when he touched on the issue of deforestation.

The reception was much warmer for a relaxed looking Mr Garrett, whose speech was also regularly interrupted by loud applause and cheering, especially when he reaffirmed Labor's anti-nuclear stance.

"We don't agree that a nuclear Australia is the right answer to climate change," he said.

During the follow-on question time, it was Mr Turnbull who once again sparked audience anger and was accused of not answering the questions posed to him.

Record opium crop helps the Taliban fund its resistance By Anne Penketh and Ben Russell Published: 28 August 2007

Britain faces a war on two fronts in Afghanistan, following the revelation that the province where British troops are deployed has become the biggest source of illicit drugs in the world.

In an annual survey of opium production released yesterday, the UN reported that Helmand province had produced 48 per cent more opium compared to its record-breaking crop last year. Opium production in Afghanistan as a whole will reach a "frighteningly new level" at 8,200 tons, 34 per cent higher than last year, the report said.

British troops sent to back up reconstruction efforts in Helmand have been pinned down by resurgent Taliban fighters, who have a stranglehold over the drugs trade which is funding the resistance.

Although another record opium crop had been expected, the massive jump in the Helmand output reflects the level of insecurity in the province, where the insurgency has deepened in the past year. British commanders have described the conflict as the most intense since the Korean war.

---------------

Terrorism links to opium rejected Craig Skehan
August 28, 2007 - 1:04AM

THE Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, has rejected claims of a major connection between opium production in Afghanistan and funding of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and terrorist groups in South-East Asia.

His remarks came as the federal Opposition cited a new United Nations report on record opium crops in Afghanistan and argued that Australia was failing to act decisively, including in relation to financial backing for Jemaah Islamiah.

The South-East Asian group stands accused of a leading role in terrorist attacks in Indonesia, including the killing of Australians in Bali.

"There may be links to the Taliban but it is certainly not believed to be a major source of funding for the Taliban," Mr Downer told the Herald. He also played down any Jemaah Islamiah ties.

The Foreign Minister spoke out against calls for widespread aerial chemical spraying of poppy fields in Afghanistan, a proposal that has had a measure of support from some US officials. "The argument against it - is that it will push these farmers into the hands of the Taliban and to politically support the Taliban," he said, echoing British concerns.

His preferred tactic was to attempt to improve security "province by province".

---------------

Gus: obviously our Clowner knows things that he only knows, when the rest of the world including the UN  knows different... But then he is not the Orstralyan foreign minister for nothing, is he?...