Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
host earlier had talked about this is psychological terms--i talked about it in terms of a particular style of argument--either way the results are the same.
is it really impossible for a reflective conservative defense of this misbeggotten imperial adventure to be mounted? one that at least poses the question of what kind of relation obtains for them between their initial assessment of the arguments put forward by the bush people and their take on what is going on now in iraq?
the positions--left (if you want--this is america after all) and right are mutually exclusive. if this and other threads like it are any index, conservative arguments really hold no water whatsoever. and they cannot be justified as arguments by any of those who rehearse them. so from the outside, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the positions are simply arbitrary, and to go from there to a psychological explanation for it. but this cannot--seriously, cannot--exhaust the matter. there must be a reflexive/reflective version of support for this war somewhere, one that grapples with the kind of questions anyone who works in opposition has had to--i woudl think that the burden of proof to the contrary now rests with conservatives, at least insofar as this thread is concerned.
|
There is disturbing evidence that the folks in the Red states do not vote in
their own best interests, and play into the hands of the conservative agenda.
It is ironic that the agenda that Bush supporters now walk to in lockstep
(goose step?) was created by, and is financed by the wealthiest conservative
families in the country:
When we request candor in the opinions of Bush supporter, this is the "wall"
that we find ourselves up against. A well financed, cohesive machine that
is remarkably successful in persuading those lulled into it's fold by it's
repetitive "information" barrage to think and speak in a unified voice.
Quote:
The Right-Wing Express
<a href="http://alternet.org/mediaculture/21192/">http://alternet.org/mediaculture/21192/</a>
By Don Hazen, AlterNet. Posted February 7, 2005.
Consider that the conservative political movement, which now has a hammerlock on every aspect of federal government, has a media message machine fed by more than 80 large non-profit organizations – let's call them the Big 80 – funded by a gaggle of right-wing family foundations and wealthy individuals to the tune of $400 million a year.
And the Big 80 groups are just the "non-partisan" 501(c)(3) groups. These do not include groups like the NRA, the anti-gay and anti-abortion groups, nor do they include the political action committees (PACs) or the "527" groups (so named for the section of the tax code they fall under), like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which so effectively slammed John Kerry's campaign in 2004.
To get their message out, the conservatives have a powerful media empire, which churns out and amplifies the message of the day - or the week - through a wide network of outlets and individuals, including Fox News, talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, Ann Coulter, as well as religious broadcasters like Pat Robertson and his 700 Club. On the web, it starts with TownHall.com
Fueling the conservative message machine with a steady flow of cash is a large group of wealthy individuals, including many who serve on the boards of the Big 80.
Rob Stein has brilliantly documented all of the above in "The Conservative Message Machine Money Matrix," a PowerPoint presentation he has taken on the road across the country, preaching to progressives about the lessons that can be learned and the challenges that need to be overcome.
|
An intriguing symptom of the disconnect is the persuasion of primarily lower and middle class, rural state, voters to vote against their own financial
status quo:
Quote:
<a href="http://www.makethemaccountable.com/misc/Maps2000.htm">http://www.makethemaccountable.com/misc/Maps2000.htm</a>
Givers and Takers
By DANIEL H. PINK
Published: January 30, 2004
...Using the Tax Foundation's analysis, it's possible to group the 50 states into two categories: Givers and Takers. Giver states get back less than a dollar in spending for every dollar they contribute to federal coffers. Taker states pocket more than a dollar for every tax dollar they send to Washington...
78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states.
76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states.
Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25.
Of the 16 Giver states, Mr. Gore carried 12...
Most people who vote Republican say they want less government and not to pay for the welfare of others. What's actually happening is that those of us who live in the states that tend to vote Democratic are subsidizing those who live in states that vote Republican.
How do they do it? By having more representation in the Senate than those of us who live in the Net Giver states. The fact that every state has two Senators, regardless of population, guarantees unequal representation for the states with smaller populations. And the fact that the Electoral College is made up of one vote per U.S. Representative and one vote per U.S. Senator skews the presidential vote in favor of small population states, as well.
You could say that the Net Taker states are suckers on the federal teat, but it's we in the Net Giver states who are the suckers.
<a href="http://taxfoundation.org/sr132.pdf">http://taxfoundation.org/sr132.pdf</a>
|