There are some very savvy political minds on this board and I want to use this thread to open a discussion as to how the Democrats can get their shit together enough to topple George W. One of the biggest mistakes made by those running against him is to underrate him. Ann Richards, John McCain (although his downfall was running out of money AND not being vehemently pro-life) and Al Gore are all individuals with many times the brain power and qualifications of George W. Bush but they all fell and a big part of that was because they didn't take him seriously enough.
So, what would be a good strategy for the Dems to use in order to unseat him from power?
I would also like to request that hemp laws, religion, poon tang and Yoko Ono be excluded from the discussion or at least relegated to peripheral status.
Defeating Bush
-
HungupStrungup
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 12:14 pm
- Location: NE USofA
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
El Vez,
Great idea for a topic. I will ponder some things I think the Dems will need to do, but one that comes to me right away will break one of your rules. Hoefully only peripherally.
Bush courted the religious right when he ran, and it paid off huge dividends. Florida aside, the rest of the electoral map was a testament to this. Bush's wins were primarily in midwest and Bible-belt states, while Gore scored big in urban industrial centers. One of many reasons that Gore lost Arkansas and Tennessee was that Bush did such a fine job of securing that religious right vote. The Dems are going to have to decide how to court these voters. Dean was, in a round about way, touching on this when he said they needed the votes of the pickup truck-driving southerners with the confederate flag stickers. He meant a lot of things by that, and he got in trouble for all the wrong reasons for saying it. But one of the things that clearly meant was that the Democrats should not make the mistake Gore made in 2000 of writing off the bIble belt and only aiming at New York, California, Pennsylvania and (gulp) Florida (not Texas, since they knew that was already in Bush's back pocket). How they would do that will depend a lot on which of them gets the nomination. My guess is that they will try to frame the discourse in terms of morality and immorality on issues like the war and taxes, big business and corporate greed (i.e. tax cuts for the wealthy are immoral) while downplaying their stances on issues that raise the hackles of the religious right (like abortion and gay marriage). Wesley Clark did just exactly this in an interview with Chris Matthews the other night. He talked about the war in terms of good and evil, practically, but he was very coy about questions regarding his stance on gay marriage ("Are you for gay marriage?" "I'm for equal rights." "But does that mean you're for gay marriage?" "I'm for equal rights for everyone." Not exactly an answer). Of all the candidates, John Edwards is probably best suited to do well in this arena, though not in very many others.
Of course to do the above is pandering. It requires a willingness to distort your own views to make them more paletable to the masses. But that's politics.
Great idea for a topic. I will ponder some things I think the Dems will need to do, but one that comes to me right away will break one of your rules. Hoefully only peripherally.
Bush courted the religious right when he ran, and it paid off huge dividends. Florida aside, the rest of the electoral map was a testament to this. Bush's wins were primarily in midwest and Bible-belt states, while Gore scored big in urban industrial centers. One of many reasons that Gore lost Arkansas and Tennessee was that Bush did such a fine job of securing that religious right vote. The Dems are going to have to decide how to court these voters. Dean was, in a round about way, touching on this when he said they needed the votes of the pickup truck-driving southerners with the confederate flag stickers. He meant a lot of things by that, and he got in trouble for all the wrong reasons for saying it. But one of the things that clearly meant was that the Democrats should not make the mistake Gore made in 2000 of writing off the bIble belt and only aiming at New York, California, Pennsylvania and (gulp) Florida (not Texas, since they knew that was already in Bush's back pocket). How they would do that will depend a lot on which of them gets the nomination. My guess is that they will try to frame the discourse in terms of morality and immorality on issues like the war and taxes, big business and corporate greed (i.e. tax cuts for the wealthy are immoral) while downplaying their stances on issues that raise the hackles of the religious right (like abortion and gay marriage). Wesley Clark did just exactly this in an interview with Chris Matthews the other night. He talked about the war in terms of good and evil, practically, but he was very coy about questions regarding his stance on gay marriage ("Are you for gay marriage?" "I'm for equal rights." "But does that mean you're for gay marriage?" "I'm for equal rights for everyone." Not exactly an answer). Of all the candidates, John Edwards is probably best suited to do well in this arena, though not in very many others.
Of course to do the above is pandering. It requires a willingness to distort your own views to make them more paletable to the masses. But that's politics.
Last edited by noiseradio on Tue Jan 20, 2004 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
If Gore's brother was governor of Florida, Gore would be in office now. I guess things happen that way.....
The 2000 election has been over with for years, yet many Dems can't quite get over it. It's sad.
I honestly believe that half of the American population votes on issues and half votes on image. And that's sad as well.
The 2000 election has been over with for years, yet many Dems can't quite get over it. It's sad.
I honestly believe that half of the American population votes on issues and half votes on image. And that's sad as well.
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
You guys are missing my point. If you're talking about the popular vote, that makes no difference at all, as that's not how we choose presidents. It's the electoral college, and that came down to Florida. But it was extremely close. Even if Gore really was the winner of Florida, it came down to a couple hundred votes either way. It was a statistical tie in that state, what with all those hanging chads and crap. I'm not defending how the election was decided. I'm saying, set aside Florida, and you have a clear pattern. If Bush had not captured virtually all of those Bible-belt and midwestern states, we wouldn't be talking about the shenanigans in Florida. So the Democrats still have to capture some of those states from Bush if they hope to beat him. And they're not going to do it by griping about the way the election was decided. They're oing to have to convince those folks that Bush has failed them. And that's going to be a hard sell, but not impossible.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
Hey Noise, although I agree with almost everything you've said in the above posts, I think the reason Gore lost Florida had to do with the huge number of African American voters that were improperly expunged from Florida's rolls. Give those people a voice, and the hanging chads and whatnot make no difference. The Supreme Court and the Republican administrators of Florida took that election away from the rightfully elected person. This story was huge news in mainstream, respectable papers all over the world, but got nary a mention in the US.
However, the fact of the matter is, Bush IS president and now the only thing a true democracy lover can do is make sure his illegal ascension is taken away from him. Democrats need to quit trying to be moderate Republicans. A majority of people in our country identify themselves as Democrats, but statistically, they are the least likely people to vote. Democrats don't need to pander to the far Christian right; many of my Catholic and Jewish friends are Democrats precisely because those religions teach social justice as one of their main tenents. The Democratic leadership needs to reach out to ALL citizens who think the war is wrong, who think that the corporate greed (much, though not all of which, is Republican) that has hurt our country is wrong, and who are not going to watch Bush and the Republican congress saddle our children with the largest deficit in US history. Brave citizens need to be loud about pointing out the abuses of the administration in their handing out of lucrative contracts to Halliburton and other rightwing corporations.
However, the fact of the matter is, Bush IS president and now the only thing a true democracy lover can do is make sure his illegal ascension is taken away from him. Democrats need to quit trying to be moderate Republicans. A majority of people in our country identify themselves as Democrats, but statistically, they are the least likely people to vote. Democrats don't need to pander to the far Christian right; many of my Catholic and Jewish friends are Democrats precisely because those religions teach social justice as one of their main tenents. The Democratic leadership needs to reach out to ALL citizens who think the war is wrong, who think that the corporate greed (much, though not all of which, is Republican) that has hurt our country is wrong, and who are not going to watch Bush and the Republican congress saddle our children with the largest deficit in US history. Brave citizens need to be loud about pointing out the abuses of the administration in their handing out of lucrative contracts to Halliburton and other rightwing corporations.
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
Bu__sh__
My fear is that the GOP will use electronic voting fraud to stay in power. If you run a search on this subjuct, especially the Diebold machines, you'll see what I'm talking about.
Of course, I'm a well-known paranoid.
I'd like to make up a big ole email filled with reasons to distrust the pResident, and send it to my conservative rivals. They are so distracted by the Fox Box, and so unwilling to believe that they are being manipulated by the corporations, that I'd just like to blow their little ditto-heads clean off.
But then, I think that maybe an email filled with links to Molly Ivins' editorials would be a better idea. Then, it would be more like it's coming from Mother, rather than from a burnt-out lefty commie pacifist.
http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cf ... nsName=miv
Of course, I'm a well-known paranoid.
I'd like to make up a big ole email filled with reasons to distrust the pResident, and send it to my conservative rivals. They are so distracted by the Fox Box, and so unwilling to believe that they are being manipulated by the corporations, that I'd just like to blow their little ditto-heads clean off.
But then, I think that maybe an email filled with links to Molly Ivins' editorials would be a better idea. Then, it would be more like it's coming from Mother, rather than from a burnt-out lefty commie pacifist.
http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cf ... nsName=miv
-
Boy With A Problem
- Posts: 2718
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 9:41 pm
- Location: Inside the Pocket of a Clown
Here's how the Democrats win:
1. The economy goes down the shitter.
2. The U.S. body count in Iraq gets to an unacceptable level.
I don't see Bush being defeated unless these two conditions are met. Of course more than half the people in this country do not vote - so in a lot of respects we get exactly what we deserve. I think if we really want change we need to root for more job losses and massive casualties. Not at all fair, but I think that's the picture.
1. The economy goes down the shitter.
2. The U.S. body count in Iraq gets to an unacceptable level.
I don't see Bush being defeated unless these two conditions are met. Of course more than half the people in this country do not vote - so in a lot of respects we get exactly what we deserve. I think if we really want change we need to root for more job losses and massive casualties. Not at all fair, but I think that's the picture.
I agree with some of what all you have said -- particularly the part about Molly Ivins, who is my personal political Goddess -- though trying to get Ditto-heads to read her would be tricky -- makes me think of what Dorothy Parker said when posed with the problem of using the world "horticulture" in a sentence --- "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think." (I even agree that the voting machines are a subject for some concern -- not neccessarily because anyone's doing anything nefarious right now or not, it's the long-term potential for manipulation that worries me.)
Anyhow, here's my take. Noise brings up an extremely important point about the so-called Bible Belt. Basically my belief is that politics, when it's done right, is kind of a tight-rope. You can't (and shouldn't, if you plan to be elected) say anything so truthful that it guarantees you won't get elected -- but, at the same, you shouldn't simply be saying anything you think the public wants to hear to win. If you get caught this doing this, you'll likely lose, unless you resort to Gray Davis style dirty tricks and go successfully ultra-negative. Certainly, I can't think of a more bankrupt idea than the one Joe Lieberman is promulgating -- "vote for me because I'm conservative enough to win." If that's how we're going to decide our primaries, we might as well all stop voting completely because our cause is utterly and completely lost. That's like giving up before the game even starts and it gratifies me deeply that he appears to be getting reading for a thorough defeat.
There is, in fact, an alternative to the Clintonite (and Leiberman style ultra-Clintonite) strategy that's been proven to work. It's actually having some CORE convictions and occasionally being forthright, but without angering so many people that you can't win. The person who did this the best in recent memory is Ronald Reagan. A huge percentage of the people who voted for him, the "Reagan Democrats", were substantially to his left. They agreed with on only a few key points that were more style than substance, but more imporantly, they liked him because -- even if they didn't agree with a lot of his positions -- they believed that he believed, and they trusted him for that.
This cuts both ways -- my parents, who were for the war in Vietnam and eventually voted for Nixon in 1968 and again in '72, were prepared to vote for Bobby Kennedy, simply because they believed in him and his family even though they disagreed with him on Vietnam and lots of other things.
In this race, Dean is obviously the closest thing to this kind of candidate -- he may even be that kind of candidate -- and I find his success heartening, though I wish he could master smiling.
I think Dean has a better than decent shot at winnning if can combine the winning strategies of Reagan and Carter. He can be Reaganesque in continuing to forthrightly state his opposition to the war, criticizing the other many boneheaded/vile policies of Bush, etc., but stilling speaking in terms of patriotism and "core American values."
Still, he can't exactly be a Democrat equivalent to Reagan, because he's basically a centrist -- though perhaps a pre-Reagan centrist with some basic human decency, not unlike Jimmy Carter, which makes him seem like a raving liberal by today's pathetic standards. Still, all he needs to do when accused of being a crazy new-age leftist is point to Dennis Kucinich -- and actual and literal crazy new-age age leftist.
However, the more scandals that get piled on Bush's door, the more Dean can, in fact, take advantage of what you might call Noise's morality gap. I.e., "Bush talks morality but he lets his friends practice corruption. I'm here to (good naturedly) drive the hypocrites from the temple."
Of course, with 9/11 still in the background, there's another problem. For some God-forsaken reason, people still trust the Republican more with foreign policy than Democrats -- though a lot of that is the fault of Democrats, who historically start more wars than Republicans because they're afraid of being perceived as being soft -- which makes Republicans seem more responsible by comparison. For Dean or any other Democrat to win, they are going to have to persuade people that -- aside from being better on economic matters than Bush -- they are also going to make the U.S. public as safe or safer than the Republicans.
Sadly, Bush is doing everything in his power to make this seem more reasonable. A Democratic candidate might reasonably be able to make the case that a monkey would do a better job of crafting foreign policy than Bush and company. Still, it's important for the candidate to really shore up their credentials in this end.
Since I think Dean is the best man, I've been playing amateur political strategist and trying to think of how he could find a sort of non-evil version of Dick Cheney as his running mate. Someone with really outstanding (or at least perceived as outstanding) credentials on foreign policy who could actually play an important role in the administration.
In a better world, this person would be Gary Hart, who basically "called" 9/11 long before it happened and who, it seems to me, has turned into a first class mind on foreign policy (well, at least that's how he seemed to me on Charlie Rose!). Still, there's that inane Donna Rice thing in his background. Maybe a "high ranking advisor" then.
Actually, Dean has one other problem, which came up with that whole confederate flag mishegas -- he's not as yet all that popular in the minority community. Clinton -- who didn't do much for African-Americans or anyone else -- was nevertheless beloved by many of them, simply because they saw him as a friend, even as somehow black himself. It's mainly a manner of style -- but this could be overcome and really energize people by having a running mate of color (any color other than white, maybe).
In a sense the ideal thing to happen is for Condie Rice to have a sudden conversion, realize the profligate error of her ways, make some electrifying speeches, and then be selected as Dean's Vice Presidential candidate, energizing African-Americans AND women. Second best (and SLIGHTLY more likely) would be for the same thing to happen with Colin Powell. Still, both scenarios are the product of my fevered imagination. Unfortunately, I don't know any other people of color who are famous enough to qualify on this count.
Another option is to just go with a conventional white-guy, but not Gary Hart. Here is where the idea of a Dean/Clark ticket seems sort of attractive. Still, I have a lot of doubts about Clark, who seems increasingly like a lose cannon (John McCain without the charm?) and possibly an oportunist -- that's certainly how he's being painted in certain sectors on both sides of the political fence.
For a second I thought Madelaine Albright would be a good, if strange choice -- hey's she's a foreign policy expert and a woman. Then I realize that she wasn't all that successful on some scores, and wasn't born in the U.S.
So, any more ideas for runnning mates, folks?
Anyhow, here's my take. Noise brings up an extremely important point about the so-called Bible Belt. Basically my belief is that politics, when it's done right, is kind of a tight-rope. You can't (and shouldn't, if you plan to be elected) say anything so truthful that it guarantees you won't get elected -- but, at the same, you shouldn't simply be saying anything you think the public wants to hear to win. If you get caught this doing this, you'll likely lose, unless you resort to Gray Davis style dirty tricks and go successfully ultra-negative. Certainly, I can't think of a more bankrupt idea than the one Joe Lieberman is promulgating -- "vote for me because I'm conservative enough to win." If that's how we're going to decide our primaries, we might as well all stop voting completely because our cause is utterly and completely lost. That's like giving up before the game even starts and it gratifies me deeply that he appears to be getting reading for a thorough defeat.
There is, in fact, an alternative to the Clintonite (and Leiberman style ultra-Clintonite) strategy that's been proven to work. It's actually having some CORE convictions and occasionally being forthright, but without angering so many people that you can't win. The person who did this the best in recent memory is Ronald Reagan. A huge percentage of the people who voted for him, the "Reagan Democrats", were substantially to his left. They agreed with on only a few key points that were more style than substance, but more imporantly, they liked him because -- even if they didn't agree with a lot of his positions -- they believed that he believed, and they trusted him for that.
This cuts both ways -- my parents, who were for the war in Vietnam and eventually voted for Nixon in 1968 and again in '72, were prepared to vote for Bobby Kennedy, simply because they believed in him and his family even though they disagreed with him on Vietnam and lots of other things.
In this race, Dean is obviously the closest thing to this kind of candidate -- he may even be that kind of candidate -- and I find his success heartening, though I wish he could master smiling.
I think Dean has a better than decent shot at winnning if can combine the winning strategies of Reagan and Carter. He can be Reaganesque in continuing to forthrightly state his opposition to the war, criticizing the other many boneheaded/vile policies of Bush, etc., but stilling speaking in terms of patriotism and "core American values."
Still, he can't exactly be a Democrat equivalent to Reagan, because he's basically a centrist -- though perhaps a pre-Reagan centrist with some basic human decency, not unlike Jimmy Carter, which makes him seem like a raving liberal by today's pathetic standards. Still, all he needs to do when accused of being a crazy new-age leftist is point to Dennis Kucinich -- and actual and literal crazy new-age age leftist.
However, the more scandals that get piled on Bush's door, the more Dean can, in fact, take advantage of what you might call Noise's morality gap. I.e., "Bush talks morality but he lets his friends practice corruption. I'm here to (good naturedly) drive the hypocrites from the temple."
Of course, with 9/11 still in the background, there's another problem. For some God-forsaken reason, people still trust the Republican more with foreign policy than Democrats -- though a lot of that is the fault of Democrats, who historically start more wars than Republicans because they're afraid of being perceived as being soft -- which makes Republicans seem more responsible by comparison. For Dean or any other Democrat to win, they are going to have to persuade people that -- aside from being better on economic matters than Bush -- they are also going to make the U.S. public as safe or safer than the Republicans.
Sadly, Bush is doing everything in his power to make this seem more reasonable. A Democratic candidate might reasonably be able to make the case that a monkey would do a better job of crafting foreign policy than Bush and company. Still, it's important for the candidate to really shore up their credentials in this end.
Since I think Dean is the best man, I've been playing amateur political strategist and trying to think of how he could find a sort of non-evil version of Dick Cheney as his running mate. Someone with really outstanding (or at least perceived as outstanding) credentials on foreign policy who could actually play an important role in the administration.
In a better world, this person would be Gary Hart, who basically "called" 9/11 long before it happened and who, it seems to me, has turned into a first class mind on foreign policy (well, at least that's how he seemed to me on Charlie Rose!). Still, there's that inane Donna Rice thing in his background. Maybe a "high ranking advisor" then.
Actually, Dean has one other problem, which came up with that whole confederate flag mishegas -- he's not as yet all that popular in the minority community. Clinton -- who didn't do much for African-Americans or anyone else -- was nevertheless beloved by many of them, simply because they saw him as a friend, even as somehow black himself. It's mainly a manner of style -- but this could be overcome and really energize people by having a running mate of color (any color other than white, maybe).
In a sense the ideal thing to happen is for Condie Rice to have a sudden conversion, realize the profligate error of her ways, make some electrifying speeches, and then be selected as Dean's Vice Presidential candidate, energizing African-Americans AND women. Second best (and SLIGHTLY more likely) would be for the same thing to happen with Colin Powell. Still, both scenarios are the product of my fevered imagination. Unfortunately, I don't know any other people of color who are famous enough to qualify on this count.
Another option is to just go with a conventional white-guy, but not Gary Hart. Here is where the idea of a Dean/Clark ticket seems sort of attractive. Still, I have a lot of doubts about Clark, who seems increasingly like a lose cannon (John McCain without the charm?) and possibly an oportunist -- that's certainly how he's being painted in certain sectors on both sides of the political fence.
For a second I thought Madelaine Albright would be a good, if strange choice -- hey's she's a foreign policy expert and a woman. Then I realize that she wasn't all that successful on some scores, and wasn't born in the U.S.
So, any more ideas for runnning mates, folks?
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
VP suggestions
Schwartzkoff?
Nader?
Kerry?
How 'bout Eastwood?
Nader?
Kerry?
How 'bout Eastwood?
Schwarzkopf -- No interest in politic -- and probably a conservative anyway.
Kerry -- probably too testy a relationship to be believable as an activist VP
Nader -- I don't think so...
Eastwood on the other hand is intriguing. It's possible the Republican have moved so far to the right that he's feeling more like a liberal these days -- what with all the hanging with our man EC and all, he might have some new lefty ideas (or look for EC to write a big apology song to his new surrogate grandma, Maggie -- "Dig the Gal Up").
Still, I like Mr. T. He's a born-again Christian, he's tough when he needs to be, and he has loads of foreign policy experience as a emeritus member of the A Team.
Kerry -- probably too testy a relationship to be believable as an activist VP
Nader -- I don't think so...
Eastwood on the other hand is intriguing. It's possible the Republican have moved so far to the right that he's feeling more like a liberal these days -- what with all the hanging with our man EC and all, he might have some new lefty ideas (or look for EC to write a big apology song to his new surrogate grandma, Maggie -- "Dig the Gal Up").
Still, I like Mr. T. He's a born-again Christian, he's tough when he needs to be, and he has loads of foreign policy experience as a emeritus member of the A Team.
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
The biggest problem I have is that too many people simply won't acknowledge the other side. What I mean is, all of my liberal friends only listen to NPR...won't even consider listening (even sparingly) to one of the other right-wing talk shows. All of my conservative friends will only listen to Liddy or Rush....won't even consider checking out anything any liberal source has to say. People need to take in information from as many sources as possible, weigh it to the best of their ability, and decide what makes sense. If you limit yourself to a single viewpoint for all of your information, you're never gonna hear or read the truth. Nobody broadcasts or prints the entire truth.
-
so lacklustre
- Posts: 3183
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 2:36 pm
- Location: half way to bliss
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
Politics
I think Hillary will eventually be president someday. She's tough, and she wants it.
I have to agree and disagree with cosmos. Yes, most people avoid hearing out the other side. That's because people go with their gut, and folks like Rush and Liddy make my gut hurt!
As far as mass electronic media is concerned, especially radio and television, the power of the corporate elite is overwhelming. It is very hard for brainwashed people to see that they are brainwashed.
Still, this country is very divided, and closely divided. A few electronic voting impropriaties would be all the GOP needs to stay in power. Why don't you know that? Why don't you know that the CEO of Diebold has pledged to "deliver" the election for GWB in 2004? Because the corporate media powers that be choose not to inform us. Propaganda is something like Jazz: You have to hear what they are not saying.
I'm convinced that GWB and his buddies are greedy evils that are out to make the world safe for thier interests, which at this point in history means that we must secure the world's oil reserves. Everything else they say is a smokescreen. How do I know this? Not by listening to Fox News, that's for sure.
But, even if I suggest it, my conservative pals won't even look at sites like these:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info
http://www.buzzflash.com
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
They won't look because they would rather "believe" the propaganda they get from other sources, then to have their views shattered by an opposing logic. When I listen to Rush, my "beliefs" are not diminished, they are strengthened, because I can see right through what he is doing. When they read a BuzzFlash story, they are appalled that anyone could disagree with their views, and they immediately begin to paint the lefties as incompetent at best, and traitorous at worst, without any real evidence, just a lot of personal attacks idealogical mudslinging.
The GOP is out to subvert democracy at in this country, therefore giving up control of the government to the large corporate interests. The Demos are doing very little to stop it. The media is keeping us preoccupied with Micheal Jackson.
Anybody seen the new twenty-dollar bill? That's the crappiest looking money we've ever had. I think it reflects our state of being at this time: a big, disoriented sham of what we used to be.
I have to agree and disagree with cosmos. Yes, most people avoid hearing out the other side. That's because people go with their gut, and folks like Rush and Liddy make my gut hurt!
As far as mass electronic media is concerned, especially radio and television, the power of the corporate elite is overwhelming. It is very hard for brainwashed people to see that they are brainwashed.
Still, this country is very divided, and closely divided. A few electronic voting impropriaties would be all the GOP needs to stay in power. Why don't you know that? Why don't you know that the CEO of Diebold has pledged to "deliver" the election for GWB in 2004? Because the corporate media powers that be choose not to inform us. Propaganda is something like Jazz: You have to hear what they are not saying.
I'm convinced that GWB and his buddies are greedy evils that are out to make the world safe for thier interests, which at this point in history means that we must secure the world's oil reserves. Everything else they say is a smokescreen. How do I know this? Not by listening to Fox News, that's for sure.
But, even if I suggest it, my conservative pals won't even look at sites like these:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info
http://www.buzzflash.com
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
They won't look because they would rather "believe" the propaganda they get from other sources, then to have their views shattered by an opposing logic. When I listen to Rush, my "beliefs" are not diminished, they are strengthened, because I can see right through what he is doing. When they read a BuzzFlash story, they are appalled that anyone could disagree with their views, and they immediately begin to paint the lefties as incompetent at best, and traitorous at worst, without any real evidence, just a lot of personal attacks idealogical mudslinging.
The GOP is out to subvert democracy at in this country, therefore giving up control of the government to the large corporate interests. The Demos are doing very little to stop it. The media is keeping us preoccupied with Micheal Jackson.
Anybody seen the new twenty-dollar bill? That's the crappiest looking money we've ever had. I think it reflects our state of being at this time: a big, disoriented sham of what we used to be.
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
Calling all history buffs...
Are there any historians out there that can verify this?
http://c0balt.com/resources/terror/terror.shtml
When you look at GWB's family history with the Nazis, it's almost as scary as his current affiliation with the Saudis...
http://c0balt.com/resources/terror/terror.shtml
When you look at GWB's family history with the Nazis, it's almost as scary as his current affiliation with the Saudis...
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
Rope,
The basic facts presented in the article about Hitler's "war on terror" are true. It is, of course, worded to remind the reader as much as possible of the bush administration, and manages to distort a bit as a result. I'm not necessarily endorsing some of the conclusions that one might draw about our situation from this article. But did Hitler do the things the article says? Yes. And are there eire similarities? Yes. Does that mean Bush is using Hitler as a template for domestic and foreign policy? Probably not. Seems to me some of these similarities are of the Kennedy-Lincoln connection ilk. But others make me very jumpy, especially Homeland Security, a name which has always made me think of the Fatherland version. Was Prescot Bush in bed with the Nazis? Yes.
And I don't think you're paranoid about the Deibold machines. It's real cause for concern.
Re: Democrats. John Kerry, when he's being interviewed or when in his own element (i.e. not in a debate and not when most Americans are watching) seems to cut through the crap better than any of the other Dems. He voted for the war and now feels misled. He hems and haws in debates over that. I think if he would forcefully say, "Intelligence information said there were probably WMD, Clinton thought Saddam had WMD, and it was our best estimate that he did. That's what we were told, and I believed the president. I feel misled, and I wish I could take my vote back. In lieu of that, I will do everything I can to make this war end as soon as possible..." (Get a speechwriter to clean that up). If he did that, he could remove the objection that many people have--that he voted for the war--or at least diffuse those blows. If he was able to project the interview John Kerry in debates, he might be able to beat Bush.
Either way, the biggest issue for the Dems to be able to beat Bush is going to be the war. If they can frame things so that the election is about the war and that the Bushies handled it terribly, they can win. But if Osama or Saddam are captured and presented to the public in September, don't be surprised. I suspect the war on terror will magically have a major victory a couple of months before the election, and wave upon wave of soldiers will be returning home in time to vote.
The basic facts presented in the article about Hitler's "war on terror" are true. It is, of course, worded to remind the reader as much as possible of the bush administration, and manages to distort a bit as a result. I'm not necessarily endorsing some of the conclusions that one might draw about our situation from this article. But did Hitler do the things the article says? Yes. And are there eire similarities? Yes. Does that mean Bush is using Hitler as a template for domestic and foreign policy? Probably not. Seems to me some of these similarities are of the Kennedy-Lincoln connection ilk. But others make me very jumpy, especially Homeland Security, a name which has always made me think of the Fatherland version. Was Prescot Bush in bed with the Nazis? Yes.
And I don't think you're paranoid about the Deibold machines. It's real cause for concern.
Re: Democrats. John Kerry, when he's being interviewed or when in his own element (i.e. not in a debate and not when most Americans are watching) seems to cut through the crap better than any of the other Dems. He voted for the war and now feels misled. He hems and haws in debates over that. I think if he would forcefully say, "Intelligence information said there were probably WMD, Clinton thought Saddam had WMD, and it was our best estimate that he did. That's what we were told, and I believed the president. I feel misled, and I wish I could take my vote back. In lieu of that, I will do everything I can to make this war end as soon as possible..." (Get a speechwriter to clean that up). If he did that, he could remove the objection that many people have--that he voted for the war--or at least diffuse those blows. If he was able to project the interview John Kerry in debates, he might be able to beat Bush.
Either way, the biggest issue for the Dems to be able to beat Bush is going to be the war. If they can frame things so that the election is about the war and that the Bushies handled it terribly, they can win. But if Osama or Saddam are captured and presented to the public in September, don't be surprised. I suspect the war on terror will magically have a major victory a couple of months before the election, and wave upon wave of soldiers will be returning home in time to vote.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
I have a theory that if the Americans are going to vote in a minority member, they're going to go for it, bigtime.
They're going to start a reality show called "Who Wants To Be A President?" and the winner is going to be an African-American Jewish Lesbian.
They're going to start a reality show called "Who Wants To Be A President?" and the winner is going to be an African-American Jewish Lesbian.
This morning you've got time for a hot, home-cooked breakfast! Delicious and piping hot in only 3 microwave minutes.
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
Southern desire
Noise, your assessment of the article is right on.
As Noise was speaking before about the southern Bible Belt vote, I'd like to point out that (from what I've been experiencing out here in the sticks) is the apparent eagerness of your average Bubba Repubican to fall for the party line. In some cases, as in the example of my extreme brother, the idea that GWB is a "noble" man protecting us from "evil" has reached an endemic porportion. At Wal-Mart the other day, I saw a bumper sticker that said "Have you prayed for our President today?" Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with praying, but I don't ever recall seeing anything remotely like that on any bumpers when Billy C was in the Whitehouse.
The point is that the hard core right-wing is lost. They're practically goose-stepping. When we look at the electoral map of 2000, we can see that Gore took the urban areas, and Bush took the rural areas. While it doesn't hurt to woo the South, many of these folks are already calling the left-wing traitorous for opposing the war. So why risk getting smeared? There are plenty of unculled votes to be had from the large metropolitan areas, and the Demos are better off making sure everyone that wants to vote left is ready, willing, and able to do so.
We need to hit undecided voters and non-voters with a barrage of links like this one...
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17366
...in order to stir up a little rage, and get the train moving that will railroad this unworthy pResident out of office.
As Noise was speaking before about the southern Bible Belt vote, I'd like to point out that (from what I've been experiencing out here in the sticks) is the apparent eagerness of your average Bubba Repubican to fall for the party line. In some cases, as in the example of my extreme brother, the idea that GWB is a "noble" man protecting us from "evil" has reached an endemic porportion. At Wal-Mart the other day, I saw a bumper sticker that said "Have you prayed for our President today?" Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with praying, but I don't ever recall seeing anything remotely like that on any bumpers when Billy C was in the Whitehouse.
The point is that the hard core right-wing is lost. They're practically goose-stepping. When we look at the electoral map of 2000, we can see that Gore took the urban areas, and Bush took the rural areas. While it doesn't hurt to woo the South, many of these folks are already calling the left-wing traitorous for opposing the war. So why risk getting smeared? There are plenty of unculled votes to be had from the large metropolitan areas, and the Demos are better off making sure everyone that wants to vote left is ready, willing, and able to do so.
We need to hit undecided voters and non-voters with a barrage of links like this one...
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17366
...in order to stir up a little rage, and get the train moving that will railroad this unworthy pResident out of office.
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
First of all, try this for a week....for every liberal-slanted piece of information you take in, go get one from the conservative side. Editorials, news articles, newscasts, radio shows.....it's very interesting.
I don't think Bush is EVIL...that's a harsh word. Misguided, arrogant, overwhelmed....those are more fitting adjectives.
I don't think he knew for sure about the WMD's simply because he didn't WANT to know for sure. He and Cheney have messed up the levels of security so badly that he didn't know what info had been filtered and what had not.
I believe the U.S. knows where Osama is hiding. However, we will not capture him because Bush's family has been in bed with the Saudis for so long that if they were to pull their tremendous financial interests out of the U.S., the economic results would be catastrophic.
There are people out to get Bush just like there were people out to get Clinton. What comes around goes around.
If you blame a poor economy on Bush, then you must credit him for a good economy. It can't be a one way street. Personally, I don't think the president has all that much to do with the economy anyway.
And Bill O'Reilly (the EC board's FAVORITE talk show host) was actually ripping Bush very harshly the other day about his stance on the Iraqi contracts.
[/b]
I don't think Bush is EVIL...that's a harsh word. Misguided, arrogant, overwhelmed....those are more fitting adjectives.
I don't think he knew for sure about the WMD's simply because he didn't WANT to know for sure. He and Cheney have messed up the levels of security so badly that he didn't know what info had been filtered and what had not.
I believe the U.S. knows where Osama is hiding. However, we will not capture him because Bush's family has been in bed with the Saudis for so long that if they were to pull their tremendous financial interests out of the U.S., the economic results would be catastrophic.
There are people out to get Bush just like there were people out to get Clinton. What comes around goes around.
If you blame a poor economy on Bush, then you must credit him for a good economy. It can't be a one way street. Personally, I don't think the president has all that much to do with the economy anyway.
And Bill O'Reilly (the EC board's FAVORITE talk show host) was actually ripping Bush very harshly the other day about his stance on the Iraqi contracts.
[/b]
Great link. Truly trenchant analysis of the current state of things. Really.
Re: Cosmos important point -- I believe it truly would be a better country, and a better world, if everyone at least looked at what the other "side" in any controversy they're involved with is telling themselves.
Still, there are some people on every side who are truly not worth considering. People lie Rush and Bill O'Reilly are only important to consider because they have such large and devoted audiences. Otherwise, 99.9% of what they say is devoid of worth--I know because I have listened (though I've had more O'Reilly shoved down my throat).
But, there are conservatives who are very much worth reading and listening to, as much as I think they're completely wrong. People like William Safire, William Buckley, even (God help me) Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak are interesting people with interesting (wrong) things to say.
What worries me overall is that the right seems to be getting right-er all the time. I recently picked up an issue of "National Review" that someone left laying around my gym (my gym seems to be seat of conservatism in Hollywood) -- one issue was truly frightening. Lots of barely concealed racism (or, at least, hatred of minority activists), lots of religious right propaganda that seems out of place in an intellectual magazine (referring to evolution as merely a "theory" when, as theory goes, evolution is as close to absolute fact as you get in science -- a little bit like saying that Newton's laws are "just theories" -- which is technically true).
It seems to me that this may well be they're Achilles heel. Bush campaigned from the center-right, but is governing mostly from the far-right, alarming even some more theoretically rightwing than he on civil liberties issues. I think their is definitely a coalition of traditional liberals, disaffected and justifiably cynical former non-voters, worried moderate, old-school conservatives and even more worried sort of "economically conservative/socially liberal" types. I really believe Dean, or perhaps Clark or John Edwards, could knit these groups together. Gephardt or Kerry -- I strongly doubt it. They've proven over and over they have no convictions and will be seen through and quickly shot down.
Bush is overplaying his hand like Newt Gingrinch did. If he somehow wins anyway, I'm very, very worried. Then he can dominate the game for who knows how long. If you've ever played poker with someone who's won an insane amoun of money, you know how hard they can be to defeat. They just buy every hand.
Re: Cosmos important point -- I believe it truly would be a better country, and a better world, if everyone at least looked at what the other "side" in any controversy they're involved with is telling themselves.
Still, there are some people on every side who are truly not worth considering. People lie Rush and Bill O'Reilly are only important to consider because they have such large and devoted audiences. Otherwise, 99.9% of what they say is devoid of worth--I know because I have listened (though I've had more O'Reilly shoved down my throat).
But, there are conservatives who are very much worth reading and listening to, as much as I think they're completely wrong. People like William Safire, William Buckley, even (God help me) Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak are interesting people with interesting (wrong) things to say.
What worries me overall is that the right seems to be getting right-er all the time. I recently picked up an issue of "National Review" that someone left laying around my gym (my gym seems to be seat of conservatism in Hollywood) -- one issue was truly frightening. Lots of barely concealed racism (or, at least, hatred of minority activists), lots of religious right propaganda that seems out of place in an intellectual magazine (referring to evolution as merely a "theory" when, as theory goes, evolution is as close to absolute fact as you get in science -- a little bit like saying that Newton's laws are "just theories" -- which is technically true).
It seems to me that this may well be they're Achilles heel. Bush campaigned from the center-right, but is governing mostly from the far-right, alarming even some more theoretically rightwing than he on civil liberties issues. I think their is definitely a coalition of traditional liberals, disaffected and justifiably cynical former non-voters, worried moderate, old-school conservatives and even more worried sort of "economically conservative/socially liberal" types. I really believe Dean, or perhaps Clark or John Edwards, could knit these groups together. Gephardt or Kerry -- I strongly doubt it. They've proven over and over they have no convictions and will be seen through and quickly shot down.
Bush is overplaying his hand like Newt Gingrinch did. If he somehow wins anyway, I'm very, very worried. Then he can dominate the game for who knows how long. If you've ever played poker with someone who's won an insane amoun of money, you know how hard they can be to defeat. They just buy every hand.
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
Sorry you've had O'Reilly shoved down your throat, Bobster. That's no good. I had to board-op Rush for a summer. To quote Bob Dylan, I was "an innocent man in a living hell....."
The key to listening to the right-wing shows is, like anything else, moderation. I listen to O'Reilly for a total of maybe an hour every week (by the way, he comes off better on his radio show than on his tv show...he can't scowl at you through the radio). I listen to Glenn Beck for the same amount. But I also make it a point to read The New Yorker every week, as it has a good Bush-bash article in seemingly every issue.
Anybody who listens to and blindly follows/agrees with one guy for three hours a day, five days a week (i.e. Rush)....well, that just seems to get Hitleresque and very scary. Kind of like the Alice Cooper scene in the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band movie.
Back to the point of the thread.....it pains me to say this, but I think Bush will be re-elected regardless. I certainly hope it's not the case, and I surely won't vote for him. I wish John McCain would make a serious run at him on the Republican side. But unfortunately in American politics, money talks. And this election will be bought by George W., regardless of who he's running against.
The key to listening to the right-wing shows is, like anything else, moderation. I listen to O'Reilly for a total of maybe an hour every week (by the way, he comes off better on his radio show than on his tv show...he can't scowl at you through the radio). I listen to Glenn Beck for the same amount. But I also make it a point to read The New Yorker every week, as it has a good Bush-bash article in seemingly every issue.
Anybody who listens to and blindly follows/agrees with one guy for three hours a day, five days a week (i.e. Rush)....well, that just seems to get Hitleresque and very scary. Kind of like the Alice Cooper scene in the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band movie.
Back to the point of the thread.....it pains me to say this, but I think Bush will be re-elected regardless. I certainly hope it's not the case, and I surely won't vote for him. I wish John McCain would make a serious run at him on the Republican side. But unfortunately in American politics, money talks. And this election will be bought by George W., regardless of who he's running against.