Vetting the GOP VP Nominee Online, in Realtime - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

StanT · 09-02-2008, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The vicious attacks from the left are disturbing. I know there are some right websites that have viciously attacked Obama, but I never saw that get onto on TFP. A sad few days here.

Perhaps a focus on the issues will resume soon.

Sorry for leaving off the smiley, though I see the picture as satire, rather than a vicious attack on anything. Pretty much rolls up all the stereotypes into a single picture (the Schlitz can is a nice touch).

Where exactly are these vicious attacks by the left? Surely you'd expect the VP nominee for the Republican party to be thoroughly vetted by the press.

aceventura3 · 09-02-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

No, my same old standard is the governors should govern as if they had lived the life of their region's least advantaged. Don't be all for these porgrams when you don't know real costs yourself.

So, as an example, driving on public roads - "governors" should govern this issue based on....? What? I would suggest a minimal level of competence, balanced against logistics and individual needs and desires. If the "least advantaged" can not meet the level of competence then they should not be allowed to drive on public roads. Hence the blind should find alternatives to driving.

On the issue of serving on boards, given the responsibility of board members, politicians having the experience can be good. I would not dismiss a political candidate just because they served on a board, even if it was for an organization I fundamentally dislike.
-----Added 2/9/2008 at 02 : 45 : 08-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT

Sorry for leaving off the smiley, though I see the picture as satire, rather than a vicious attack on anything. Pretty much rolls up all the stereotypes into a single picture (the Schlitz can is a nice touch).

Where exactly are these vicious attacks by the left? Surely you'd expect the VP nominee for the Republican party to be thoroughly vetted by the press.

I started reading posts today from the past three days, I think there are about 3 or 4 threads on the subject of Palin, they are not issue based but are mocking and are dismissive of her, her family, her state, her experience, her values, and McCain's reasons for selecting her. Granted, it could be me - because I think she is a good pick and in my perception the attacks are vicious. I did not see the vicious smears that were circulated on Obama show up on TFP, but I don't think the folks here have missed any smear regarding Palin.

jorgelito · 09-02-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So, as an example, driving on public roads - "governors" should govern this issue based on....? What? I would suggest a minimal level of competence, balanced against logistics and individual needs and desires. If the "least advantaged" can not meet the level of competence then they should not be allowed to drive on public roads. Hence the blind should find alternatives to driving.

On the issue of serving on boards, given the responsibility of board members, politicians having the experience can be good. I would not dismiss a political candidate just because they served on a board, even if it was for an organization I fundamentally dislike.
-----Added 2/9/2008 at 02 : 45 : 08-----

I started reading posts today from the past three days, I think there are about 3 or 4 threads on the subject of Palin, they are not issue based but are mocking and are dismissive of her, her family, her state, her experience, her values, and McCain's reasons for selecting her. Granted, it could be me - because I think she is a good pick and in my perception the attacks are vicious. I did not see the vicious smears that were circulated on Obama show up on TFP, but I don't think the folks here have missed any smear regarding Palin.

No I agree with you Ace, I see it too. It's rather vicious.

abaya · 09-02-2008, 02:32 PM

Well, hey... we're not going to sit around singing kumbaya around the campfire about these candidates. Personally, I think there has been just as much debate/attack about Obama/Biden as there has been about McCain/Palin, and that's fine with me. We're talking about the next POTUS here... not Monday Night Football. In other words, I'm not surprised or offended by "vicious" treatment of either candidate, and to some extent, I think it's necessary. No one ever said that a presidential campaign should be pleasant.

dc_dux · 09-02-2008, 02:36 PM

I agree that the discussion about the daughter may be over the top..at least some posts. IMO, much of it could have been avoided if McCain/Palin had been up front about it on the day of her selection. As is often the case, the cover-up compounded the problem of the original act...no one to blame for that but themselves.

But, is it vicious to point out that Palin:

is under investigation by a Republican legislature for alleged abuse of power

actively lobbied for earmarked funds for the "highway to nowhere" before she was against it after Congress killed the funding

was a fundraisier for Sen. Steven's PAC, but has "thrown him under the bus" since his indictment

holds an extreme position on abortion (total ban) and abstinence only education

has surrogates claiming that she has foreign policy experience because of the geographic proximity of Alaska to Russia

Is it really more vicious then many of the "guilt by association" claims made about Obama?

Or ace's claim that Obama and all democrats are either liars or ignorant?
-----Added 2/9/2008 at 06 : 40 : 44-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

In other words, I'm not surprised or offended by "vicious" treatment of either candidate, and to some extent, I think it's necessary. No one ever said that a presidential campaign should be pleasant.

A brief history of political mudslinging:

examples:

* 1800: Jefferson hired a writer named James Callender to attack President Adams. He wrote that John Adams is "a repulsive pedant," a "gross hypocrite," and "a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensiblity of a woman."

* 1876 the opponents of Rutherford B. Hayes spread around a rumor that he had shot his own mother in a fit of rage.

* A Democratic newspaper told voters that Lincoln should not be elected president because he only changed his socks once every 10 days.

* 1912: Theodore Roosevelt is shot in the chest while preparing to give a campaign speech, then proceeds to deliver it anyway: “I don t know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot, but it takes more than that to kill a bull moose!”

* 1828: a Republican pamphlet said Democrat Andrew Jackson was "a gambler, a cock fighter, a slave trader and the husband of a really fat wife," an insult for which he never forgave his opponents.

* 1844: Democrats call Whig candidate Henry Clay on his "supposed baggage train of gambling, dueling, womanizing and "By the Eternal!" swearing." Clay lost.

* 1836: Congressman Davy Crockett accuses candidate Martin Van Buren of secretly wearing women’s clothing: “He is laced up in corsets!”

"If you vote for Nixon, you ought to go to hell." -Harry S Truman, campaigning for John F. Kennedy, in 1960

abaya · 09-02-2008, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

A brief history of political mudslinging:

Thanks for pulling those up, dux.

dc_dux · 09-02-2008, 02:47 PM

abaya....I think some of our colleagues here who are so offended by the "attacks" on Palin may have lost perspective.

One last thought....remember the Swift Boaters!

roachboy · 09-02-2008, 03:00 PM

or remember limbaugh accusing hillary clinton of murder.
or remember that lovely plame affair.
remember the centrality of personal attack in populist conservative media over the past 20 years.

while i find the effect of this sort of thing to be depressing, rendering american politics even more idiotic than it has been, you reap what you sow.

and this isn't even to start wondering about this newest little bon bon:

Palin was member of party calling for vote on Alaskan secession from US | World news | guardian.co.uk

jorgelito · 09-02-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Well, hey... we're not going to sit around singing kumbaya around the campfire about these candidates. Personally, I think there has been just as much debate/attack about Obama/Biden as there has been about McCain/Palin, and that's fine with me. We're talking about the next POTUS here... not Monday Night Football. In other words, I'm not surprised or offended by "vicious" treatment of either candidate, and to some extent, I think it's necessary. No one ever said that a presidential campaign should be pleasant.

Sure, I see your point abaya, but I think we're just bringing up issues of balance. Nothing wrong with questioning, scrutinizing the candidates. It would be irresponsible not too. The criticisms or "attacks" on Obama/Biden and his subsequent responses actually convinced me to switch from McCain to Obama. So yes, critical analysis serves an important purpose in our democratic process. However, the recent threads attacking Palin's daughter are disgusting to me. I wouldn't tolerate it if it were Chelsea, or Obama's kids, and I don't think it right to do it to Palin's kids. That's what I (and my guess Ace as well) was referring to.
-----Added 2/9/2008 at 07 : 03 : 23-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I agree that the discussion about the daughter may be over the top..at least some posts. IMO, much of it could have been avoided if McCain/Palin had been up front about it on the day of her selection. As is often the case, the cover-up compounded the problem of the original act...no one to blame for that but themselves.

Yes, this is what I was referring to. However I don't agree it's the fault of McCain/Palin.

Anything else is fair game of course and we all should scrutinize and review the candidate's stances and policies.
-----Added 2/9/2008 at 07 : 06 : 22-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

abaya....I think some of our colleagues here who are so offended by the "attacks" on Palin may have lost perspective.

One last thought....remember the Swift Boaters!

No, I don't think we've lost perspective. Just merely bringing another one to the table. We're hardly one-dimensional here right? I think you could agree that a diverse array of opinions is preferable to the group think here.

The swift boat campaign was a disgrace in my opinion just like the Willie Horton ads were too. So far this run has not been so abhorrent. Let's hope it stays that way.

Rekna · 09-02-2008, 03:59 PM

I'm curious, please post examples of people attacking her daughter here. I want to see what your definition of an attack is.

hannukah harry · 09-02-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I'm curious, please post examples of people attacking her daughter here. I want to see what your definition of an attack is.

i'm curious too.

and considering palin is the one who brought her daughter into it, by making her pregnancy a press release, i think it's a somewhat valid topic. her daughter being pregnant could be seen as a direct result of palin's belief system and policies. if it involved anything other than her daughter, we'd have a free pass to discuss. why should this be any different (if handled respectfully)?

Tully Mars · 09-02-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

i'm curious too.

and considering palin is the one who brought her daughter into it, by making her pregnancy a press release, i think it's a somewhat valid topic. her daughter being pregnant could be seen as a direct result of palin's belief system and policies. if it involved anything other than her daughter, we'd have a free pass to discuss. why should this be any different (if handled respectfully)?

I'm not sure what attacks I've seen aimed at the daughter either. People have questions her mother's experience, competence and her honesty. Seem like those are completely legitimate questions.

as to-

Quote:

if it involved anything other than her daughter, we'd have a free pass to discuss. why should this be any different

Because she's a kid.

hannukah harry · 09-02-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Because she's a kid.

she's 17. legally she's a minor, but if she's adult enough to handle the responsibility of pregnancy and motherhood, i say she's fair game now that her mom has brought her into it by using her as proof trig is not her daughters.

and i have a theory that basically says "if you say something legitimate that others don't want to hear, they'll accuse you of arrogance or malice." i've seen nothing vicious about what's been said about palin, but people who claim viciousness always seem to be her supporters. i didn't notice much sexism against hillary (although there definatly was some) and yet her supporters were screaming bloody murder as though obama was trying to tell women to get back in the kitchen. if you question someone's beliefs or people they support/admire, and say things they dont' want to hear, they'll accuse you of arrogence, malice, viciousness, etc.

Tully Mars · 09-02-2008, 06:02 PM

You guys want to focus on the daughter being pregnant, knock yourselves out. I find it completely lacking class, but that's just my opinion. Personally I'd rather stick to debating issues and Palin's creditability and competence myself.

ratbastid · 09-02-2008, 06:06 PM

Tully, here's the real deal. Having a militant anti-abortion anti-sex-ed right winger's daughter be an unwed pregnant teen looks really bad. It exposes the cracks in the policy. To prevent that being a legitimate thing to point out, that faction has to hide behind the "dirty pool bringing family into it" argument. They don't have a leg to stand on--not since Palin sent out the frilly pregnancy announcement to the press. But it's the best they've got.

AND I'm completely with you--as I've said before--there's plenty to bury this woman without bringing her daughter into it.

hannukah harry · 09-02-2008, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

You guys want to focus on the daughter being pregnant, knock yourselves out. I find it completely lacking class, but that's just my opinion. Personally I'd rather stick to debating issues and Palin's creditability and competence myself.

i'm not focusing on her daughter being pregnant. i am focusing on palin's policies, severe anti-abortion stance, and support for things such as abstinence only education. unfortunately, her daughter is a huge reminder on why those policies suck. you may think it lacks class, but i think if your (in this case palin's) policies obviously don't work and your family has fallen victim to them, that's a valid discussion starter.

if obama never saw his kids, and seemed to be a neglectful parent, i think that it would be a valid point to make against him. if someone is a bad parent, that tells us about their character, and allows us to make inferences about how they would fare as president/vp. the kids SHOULD NOT be the focus. the parents policies/stances/beliefs and whether or not they are a good or bad parent should be.

Tully Mars · 09-02-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Tully, here's the real deal. Having a militant anti-abortion anti-sex-ed right winger's daughter be an unwed pregnant teen looks really bad. It exposes the cracks in the policy. To prevent that being a legitimate thing to point out, that faction has to hide behind the "dirty pool bringing family into it" argument. They don't have a leg to stand on--not since Palin sent out the frilly pregnancy announcement to the press. But it's the best they've got.

AND I'm completely with you--as I've said before--there's plenty to bury this woman without bringing her daughter into it.

It does expose the cracks. But to make political hay off some kids likely stressful situation looks really bad too. And in my opinion it's just wrong. It's not like the kid choose to be born to some fringe belief mom who thinks the earth is 6000 yrs old and science is crap.

Plus, yes there's a ton of crap already coming out on this women. Some of her first words to the nation have proved to be lies.

Necrosis · 09-02-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I remember when Chelsea Clinton was asked about President Bill Clinton's affair. I remember being really, really pissed about how terrible it was to include her in the sideshow. Chelsea didn't run for office, and she sure wasn't involved at all in President Bill Clinton's affair.

I know that I brought up the Palin/daughter baby swap theory elsewhere, but I did so in order to illustrate to the other side what it was like when one introduces something deeply personal to attack a politician—like attacking Obama because of Wright or because his father-in-law is a Muslim—, and Pan did understand it as something inappropriate (which was my hope).

Except that Wright is a mature racist bigot, and Obama neither objected to his vileness, nor shielded his children from it.

Willravel · 09-02-2008, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrosis

Except that Wright is a mature racist bigot, and Obama neither objected to his vileness, nor shielded his children from it.

I don't get your meaning by calling Wright mature. Do you mean that Obama was an adult when he attended Wright's services?

Assuming that's what you meant, it's an interesting point, but still I'm sure many adults attend churches that don't teach exactly what they believe. While my father is conservative by my standards, he's actually quite liberal for an LCMS pastor. My father would never excommunicate a member for being homosexual, and wouldn't directly attempt to "cure" such a person. Many LCMS pastors would, and it's policy that homosexuality is a sin and those who are gay should be treated as those living in sin. So my father, a seasoned and well established pastor, doesn't necessarily agree 100% with the policy of the LCMS.

I'll give another example. Whenever I can, I like to go and listen to Noam Chomsky. I think he's brilliant and I always learn something new and exciting when listening to him (yes, I'm one of them). Noam Chomsky believes in god. He was born and remains in the Jewish faith. I am an atheist. Even so, I still accept him as a great teacher. If he mentions god, I simply filter it out. One day, I'd like my kids to listen to Noam Chomsky.

While I've never been to Wright's church, I've read up on his history, general philosophies, and religious beliefs. While he does have some rather extreme views, they don't exist in a vacuum. He's actually very well rounded. He served with distinction in the Navy, and upon returning became not only a pastor, but an active member of his community. He's been a great leader in the black community for decades, having many accomplishments. He does have some extremist views, but do those cancel out all that he's done and all of the other things he preaches?

host · 09-03-2008, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So, as an example, driving on public roads - "governors" should govern this issue based on....? What? I would suggest a minimal level of competence, balanced against logistics and individual needs and desires. If the "least advantaged" can not meet the level of competence then they should not be allowed to drive on public roads. Hence the blind should find alternatives to driving.

On the issue of serving on boards, given the responsibility of board members, politicians having the experience can be good. I would not dismiss a political candidate just because they served on a board, even if it was for an organization I fundamentally dislike.
-----Added 2/9/2008 at 02 : 45 : 08-----

I started reading posts today from the past three days, I think there are about 3 or 4 threads on the subject of Palin, they are not issue based but are mocking and are dismissive of her, her family, her state, her experience, her values, and McCain's reasons for selecting her. Granted, it could be me - because I think she is a good pick and in my perception the attacks are vicious. I did not see the vicious smears that were circulated on Obama show up on TFP, but I don't think the folks here have missed any smear regarding Palin.

ace, I've posted this response before, to another poster, but, IMO, the shoe fits, once again. By the way, the politcal ideals you seem to support, and the overwhelming majority of the folks who support them, alongside of you....have no history that I know of...of sincerely discussing the issues....they predicatbly "go for the throat"....isn't that why Rush and Hannity are able to command such high compensation for "the work" that they do....because advertisers are willing to pay for it to be done?

If I, as you do, found my own POV to be so closely in synch with the wealthiest, conservative white men who call the shots in the good ole USA, (AS SARAH PALIN SO OBVIOUSLY DOES...) i wouldn't be posting confirmation of it on an internet discussion forum..... I'd be too concerned about triggering suspicion that I was incapable of thinking anything that was not influenced by huge amounts of investment of those who require many to think the way you do, if they hope to overcome their lack of a natural constituency, each election day.

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...ml#post2407157

Quote:

San Diego Reader | The Rise and Fall of the Copley Press

The Rise and Fall of the Copley Press

By Matt Potter | Published Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2008

....When author Upton Sinclair ran for governor in the 1934 Democratic primary on a progressive platform he labeled “End Poverty in California,” he took San Diego County by 3000 votes. After the Copley papers repeatedly savaged him during the general election, he lost the county by 10,000 votes. It was just one of many moves Copley made to keep the lid on the city’s radicals and reformers during hard times....

Quote:

CJR, Sept/Oct 92

...RIGHT BACK WHERE WE STARTED FROM

by Curt Gentry
Gentry is a former journalist and the author of thirteen books, including The Last Days of the Late, Great State of California and J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets.

Upton Sinclair's surprise victory in the California Democratic primary of 1934 frightened the California business establishment -- and the California press lords -- as did nothing before or after. A longtime socialist, Sinclair was the author of dozens of muckraking books, the best known being The Jungle, an expose of the meat-packing industry. But it was one of his numerous pamphlets, I, Governor of California, and How I Ended Poverty, that thrust him into the political spotlight. In the midst of the Depression, his EPIC (End Poverty in California) plan drew a huge grass-roots following. Sinclair advocated having idle factories turned into cooperatives and manned by the unemployed; public ownership of utilities; special taxes on large land holdings; and -- the clincher that brought Standard Oil of California, banks, insurance companies, realtors, and the major movie studios into the fray -- a state income tax on corporations.

The campaign that followed has been described by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., as "the first all-out public relations blitzkrieg in American politics." Realizing that too much depended on the outcome of the election to entrust it to the state's feeble Republican party, business and industry leaders banded together and hired outside help....

....But even more important was the role of the press.

California's most powerful publisher, in terms of circulation, was William Randolph Hearst. Even if they had been able to ignore their philosophical differences, there was no question of Hearst supporting Sinclair, not after the candidate stated that one of the reasons he was running for governor was because he was sick of watching "our richest newspaper publisher keeping his movie mistress in a private city of palaces and cathedrals, furnished with shiploads of junk imported from Europe, and surrounded by vast acres reserved for the use of zebras and giraffes." Yet the Hearst papers were relatively fair to Sinclair, reserving most of their vitriol for the editorial pages.

(One notable exception was an unattributed bums/boxcar photo that appeared in the Los Angeles Examiner. Sharp-eyed movie fans recognized it as a scene from the movie Wild Boys of the Road. The still print had been provided by the MGM publicity department.)

"Fairness" hardly characterized the efforts of Hearst's leading competitors. Kyle Palmer, the political editor of the Los Angeles Times, raised funds and wrote speeches for Governor Merriam while directing the paper's coverage of the campaign. Chester Rowell, editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, drafted Merriam's platform, while Earl "Squire" Behrens, the paper's political editor for four decades, would later admit that he had personally developed and "used as straight news items, anti-Sinclair statements from leading Democrats."

The Los Angeles Times didn't keep its political bias a secret. Every day the paper carried, on its front page, a box of "Sinclairisms." Sinclair on the sanctity of marriage: "I have had such a belief . . . I have it no longer." On religion: "a mighty fortress of graft." On bankers: "legalized counterfeiters." On the American Legion: "riot department of the plutocracy" and conductors of "drunken orgies." Nearly all of the quotes were out of context; some of the most inflammatory were actually dialogue from characters in Sinclair novels. As the candidate himself told a journalist, if he lost it wouldn't mean that socialism had failed, only that he had written too many books.

Sinclair lacked the support of a single daily newspaper. Nor did he obtain much help from the many small but influential weeklies, some 700 in all, since Clem Whitaker, himself a former journalist, had established a "cozy relationship" with their publishers. According to Mitchell: "Besides his Campaigns, Inc. operation, Clem ran an advertising company in Sacramento and he had discovered that one operation benefited the other: it was amazing how much free coverage for his candidate he could secure simply by placing a few dollars' worth of advertising in each of the weeklies. . . . In a depression every few dollars mattered." Lest there be any doubt of his purpose, he insisted on paying for the ads in advance.

Late in the campaign, The New York Times sent Turner Catledge out to report on the strange goings-on in California. Scanning the Los Angeles Times, he saw stories on Governor Merriam's every appearance, but no mention of EPIC rallies or speaking engagements by candidate Sinclair. At dinner that night he queried the paper's political editor, Kyle Palmer. "Turner, forget it," Palmer replied. "We don't go in for that kind of crap that you have back in New York -- of being obliged to print both sides. We're going to beat this son-of-a-bitch Sinclair any way we can. We're going to kill him."

Beat him they did, though only by 200,000 votes, Merriam receiving 1.1 million, Sinclair 900,000. But kill him they didn't, although the EPIC movement itself, divided by factionalism and ironically even some Red-baiting, was assimilated into the newly resurgent Democratic party. Earlier, Sinclair had told one EPIC crowd that if they elected Merriam they would still have poverty and "I'll again be a writer. I won't need to think about what Pasadena thinks of me. I can go back to that blessed state of not being recognized on the streets." His first effort, of course, was a pamphlet entitled I, Candidate for Governor of California, and How I Got Licked. Returning to fiction, he wrote the highly popular Lanny Budd novels, one of which won him a 1943 Pulitzer Prize; remarried at eighty-three; and died, in 1968, an ninety. No one has ever been able to determine exactly how many books and pamphlets he published.

It would be an exaggeration to say that the campaign of 1934 was the last hurrah for the California press lords, the beginning of the end of their dominance of the electoral process. (Kyle Palmer, Earl "Squire" Behrens, and their successors would play kingmakers for another two decades, giving us, among others, Richard Milhous Nixon.) But the seeds were planted -- professional full-service campaign management, attack ads, the creative use of film, radio, and direct mail -- that would, as author Mitchell notes, forever change the way candidates ran for office.....

Quote:

Anthology of Thirties Prose
THE MOVIES AND POLITICAL PROPAGANDA
from The Movies On Trial
Upton Sinclair

........That I know what I am talking about was proved when I happened to write on a subject that did not involve the profit system. Several concerns were bidding for "The Wet Parade" before the book was out. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer paid twenty thousand dollars for it, and they spent half a million and made an excellent picture, following my story closely.

Now I loomed on the horizon, no longer a mere writer, but proposing to apply my rejected scenarios! While I was in New York some reporter asked: "What are you going to do with all the unemployed motion picture actors?" I answered: "Why should not the State of California rent one of the idle studios and let the unemployed actors make a few pictures of their own?" That word was flashed to Hollywood, and the war was on.

Louis B. Mayer, president of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, was vacationing in Europe when he got this dreadful news, and he dropped everything and came home to take charge of the campaign to "stop Sinclair." You see, he is chairman of the State Committee of the Republican party, so he had a double responsibility. I have met "Louie Bee," as he is called, now and then. I once took Bertrand Russell to lunch with him by invitation and learned that a great film magnate doesn't have time to talk with a mere philosopher, but politely appoints a substitute to see that he is properly fed and escorted round the lot.

Also Mr. Hearst was summoned from his vacation. Mr. Hearst belongs to the movie section. Hearst had been staying at Bad Nauheim. He was hobnobbing with Hanfstaengel, Nazi agent to the United States. You see, Hearst wants to know how the Reds are to be put down in America; so "Huffy," as they call him, flew with Hearst to interview Hitler.

As soon as Hearst learned of my nomination, he gave out an interview comparing me with the Pied Piper of Hamlin; and then he came back to New York and gave another interview, and from there to California, where he called me "an unbalanced and unscrupulous political speculator." His newspapers began a campaign of editorials and cartoons denouncing me as a Communist. I didn't see any denouncing me as a free-lover, and a menace to the purity and sanctity of the American home.

The first threat of the movie magnates was to move to Florida. Warner Brothers said they would go - and proceeded to start the construction of two or three new sound stages in Hollywood. Joseph Schenck of United Artists travelled to Florida to inspect locations, and the Florida legislature announced its intention to exempt motion picture studios from all taxes, and a mob of new "come-ons" rushed to buy lots.

Of course, this talk of moving was the veriest bunk. It would cost a billion dollars to move, and the British would grab the business meanwhile. Where would they get their mountains, and their eucalyptus trees, which represent the foliage of North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia? Above all, what would they do about the mosquitoes? I have lived in Florida, and I said to my audiences: "Right in the middle of a scene, one would bite the lady star on the nose and cost them fifty thousand dollars."

But that didn't keep them from building up the terror. Orders for an assessment came; and in Hollywood an assessment means that the check is written for you, and you sign it. In this case it was for one day's pay of everybody in all the studios - except the big "execs." The total amount raised was close to half a million. There was a little rebellion, but I didn't hear about it in any paper in California. I had to go to the London News-Chronicle to learn that Jean Harlow and James Cagney were among the Protestants. From the same paper I learn that Katharine Hepburn was threatened with dismissal if she supported Upton Sinclair.

I am happy to say that a few Hollywood writers showed political independence. Frank Scully got up a committee in my support, and it was joined by Dorothy Parker, Morris Ryskind, Gene Fowler, Lewis Browne and Jim Tully.

Also they started in making newsreels. Will Hays sent a representative to attend to this. They invented a character called the "Inquiring Reporter." He was supposed to be travelling around California, interviewing people on the campaign. They were supposed to be real people, but of course they were actors. On November 4, the New York Times published a two-column story from their Hollywood press correspondent, from which I quote:

FILMS AND POLITICS
HOLLYWOOD MASSES THE FULL POWER OF HER RESOURCES
To FIGHT SINCLAIR

The City of Los Angeles has turned into a huge movie set where many newsreel pictures are made every day, depicting the feelings of the people against Mr. Sinclair. Equipment from one of the major studios, as well as some of its second-rate players, may be seen at various street intersections or out in the residential neighborhood, "shooting" the melodrama and unconscious comedy of the campaign. Their product can be seen in leading motionpicture houses in practically every city of the State.

In one of the "melodramas" recently filmed and shown here in Los Angeles, an interviewer approaches a demure old lady, sitting on her front porch and rocking away in her rocking chair.

"For whom are you voting, Mother?" asks the interviewer.

"I am voting for Governor Merriam," the old lady answers in a faltering voice.

"Why, Mother?"

"Because I want to have my little home. It is all I have left in the world."

In another recent newsreel there is shown a shaggy man with bristling Russian whiskers and a menacing look in his eye.

"For whom are you voting?" asked the interviewer.

"Vy, I am foting for Seenclair."

"Why are you voting for Mr. Sinclair?"

"Vell, his system vorked vell in Russia, vy can't it vork here?"

All these releases are presented as "newsreels."

Another "newsreel" has been made of Oscar Rankin, a colored prizefighter and preacher who is quite a favorite with his race in Los Angeles county. Asked why he was voting for Governor Merriam, he answered that he liked to preach and play the piano and he wants to keep a church to preach in and a piano to play.

Merriam supporters always are depicted as the more worthwhile element of the community, as popular favorites or as substantial business men. Sinclair supporters are invariably pictured as the riff-raff. Low paid "bit" players are said to take the leading roles in most of these "newsreels," particularly where dialogue is required. People conversant with movie personnel claim to have recognized in them certain aspirants to stardom.

At another studio an official called in his scenario writers to give them a bit of advice on how to vote. "After all," he is reputed to have told his writers, "what does Sinclair know about anything? He's just a writer."

Hitherto the movies have maintained that they could not do any kind of "educational" work; their audiences demanded entertainment, and they could have nothing to do with "propaganda." But now, you see, that pretense has been cast aside. They have made propaganda, and they have won a great victory with it, and are tremendously swelled up about it. You may be sure that never again will there be an election in California in which the great "Louie Bee" will not make his power felt; and just as you saw the story of "Thunder Over California" being imported from Minnesota, so will you see the "Inquiring Reporter" arriving in Minnesota, Mississippi, Washington, or wherever big business desires to ridicule the efforts of the disinherited to help themselves at the ballot-box.

Listen to the lords of the screen world vaunting themselves: The front page of the Hollywood Reporter eleven days prior to the election.

This campaign against Upton Sinclair has been and is dynamite.

When the picture business gets aroused, it becomes AROUSED, and, boy, how they can go to it. It is the most effective piece of political humdingery that has ever been effected, and this is said in full recognition of the antics of that master-machine that used to be Tammany. Politicians in every part of this land (and they are all vitally interested in the California election are standing by in amazement as a result of the bombast that has been set off under the rocking chair of Mr. Sinclair.....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...ml#post2407361

Sorry, pan. It isn't the way that it works. I've shown you that, if you read it and considered it.

There is no way to "come together" when the influential force working on those furthest away from your POV is getting what it is paying for.

Humor me for a sec....it's 1934 and one out of five workers in sunny Cali-forn-eye-A is out of work, and everyone else is struggling with reduced pay, hours, or both.

A familiar face comes along, a man known to have exposed and forced the government and industry to clean up the meatpacking industry, years before. He gets your ear, and your neighbors, and he offers solutions that seem to make sense.

The newspaper owners disagree, and so do the Hollywood studio heads. They know that there is an underlying concern that, based on anecdotal obeservation and pride in the climate and the place, many residents already believe that there is a growing influx of out of state workers and their families, streaming into the state seeking work or just food and shelter.

The studios start making and circulating visual "aids", represented as current photos or newsreels (and the newspapers, too....) depicting "bums" packing railroad freight cars, riding the rails into their state and jumping off to slip into their communities, breeding crime and competing for scarce jobs and county welfare.

The newspapers incessantly remind everyone that the candidate is a socialist which is the same as a communist and is on record refusing to embrace the sanctity of marriage.

You believe in unity, and you avoid letting your opinion be shaped to where it is nearly indistinguishable from the owner of that newspaper or movie studio's take on things.

Others don't avoid that, pan. If you compromise with them, unite with them, you're doing what the people who pay to have people think and vote just like they do, have paid to influence them to vote for, and taken you part of the way with them.

They won't compromise pan, they never have. So, how and where can you?

We're spending ten times as much as the closest military rival, and an amount equal to all of the rest of the world combined, on our military. I think it starts there....what is the middle way on that issue? Which candidate, besides Ron Paul, has even mentioned a middle way?

What is the middle way on judicial appointments, to the supreme court for example, or on gay rights, or on abortion? Do we make it illegal on odd days?

Can we all agree that the purpose of the voting enforcement section of the DOJ is to oppose restrictive state laws....like new ones requiring official state issued photo ID's?

Maybe it''s just me, pan, but if it's good for General Dynamics or Haliburton, Ruppert Murdoch, Exxon Mobil, Merck, or Council for National Policy, chances are, whatever it is, it ain't so good for me or my family,

If it means no new restrictions on trial lawyers, planned parenthood, union labor organizers, or people who don't believe religion has a role to play in government or in public schools, chances are I'll be supportive of it....this spirit of unity.

Tully Mars · 09-03-2008, 04:16 AM

The McCain camp almost appears to have chosen her to gain a victim stance. Now when people point out the obvious flaws in her selection the GOP can scream they're attacking her because she's woman et el. And "see it the liberal media's fault." They may have looked at it and realized- we need to rally the base, we're not only loosing the swingers in the swing states our base may not even show up on election day. This may have been a brilliant move.

Poppinjay · 09-03-2008, 04:34 AM

Hey Ace and Pan, you've yet to say why you like her other than she's an "outoors man" - Ace.

Do you like her anti abortion stance? Her anti- sex ed stance? Her Alaska secession stance?

And do please show where her daughter has been attacked.

ratbastid · 09-03-2008, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Do you like her anti abortion stance? Her anti- sex ed stance? Her Alaska secession stance?

The suggestions that she's abused her power as a leader (both the "trooper-gate" thing and the fact that she demanded resignations from everyone who was "against" her in her little Alaskan village fiefdom)?

The woman failed at running a car wash. I don't want her running my country.

EDIT: The more I think about the "abuse of power" aspect of her political history, the better a fit she seems for a GOP vice president. Her behavior as both mayor and governor has been downright Cheneyesque.

asaris · 09-03-2008, 05:31 AM

What about her support for banning books?

roachboy · 09-03-2008, 05:55 AM

what about her support for teaching "creation science" to elementary school kids?

on another note, you can apparently"buy futures" (speculate as to what will happen) here:

Intrade Prediction Markets

there's a little commodity futures trade going on around the question of whether palin will actually get the nomination or not.

i think the idea of this trade is funny in itself.

flstf · 09-03-2008, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what about her support for teaching "creation science" to elementary school kids?

I think she will fire up the religious right support for the Republican ticket. Her world view seems to be very fundamental Christian based.

Apparently we are on a "mission from God".

Quote:

Palin said war in Iraq, gas pipeline are God’s will

The war in Iraq is part of God’s plan, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said in June in a speech at her former church.

Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate whose son will deploy to Iraq in a few weeks, told the students that “our national leaders, are sending [the troops] out on a task that is from God.”

Building a natural-gas pipeline is also part of God’s will, she said, according to a video published by the Huffington Post taken from material posted on the website of the Wasilla Assembly of God.

Earlier, she exhorted the students to pray for pipeline, saying “we can work together to make sure God’s will is done.” She said God wanted to extract natural resources.

Palin attended the church from the time she was 12 until 2002 and she still “maintains a friendship” with the church, the church office told Huffington Post.

MarketWatch ’s Election Blog Blog Archive Palin said war in Iraq, gas pipeline are God's will

I know it is probably unfair but I immediately thought of the Blues Brothers.

Rekna · 09-03-2008, 08:01 AM

I have a feeling her close ties to the AIP will get her in trouble. A VP Candidate that thinks Alaska should leave the US and become its own state????

roachboy · 09-03-2008, 08:28 AM

it won't get her in trouble amongst the conservative set for three reasons:

a. the republicans are already trying to head off the association by claiming there's no paper trail to demonstrate it, whereas there is a paper trail which shows her affiliation with the republicans. as if the latter excludes the former.

b. this is a far right group and in the schema of political demonization abroad in the land, so long as you don't blow up a federal building somewhere, anything goes. consider for example the non-reaction to the mobilization of militia groups to operate as de facto vigilante border guards. not a word about the problematic relation of militia organizations to the existing political structure. as a thought experiment, however, consider what would be the case amongst the rightwingers had a negative image of palin belonged to a trotskyist group, even one the membership of which was 3 guys who met in a bar once a month. THAT would be a Problem.

c. so there's no space for far-right groups in contemporary political demonology, and because the republicans are already mounting a counter to this problem of membership in the aip....well, this should not be enough, should it? but fact is that you also see taking shape an attempt to align the press as a whole with some phantom coastal Elite which hates those who "love life" blah blah blah, and because the campaign is based not on issues but on the construction of affinity, what results is a situation in which the republican denials will probably be enough for the faithful---addressing one of those "non-issues" you see (as a function of the non-place for the far right matter)--and information to the contrary will function to confirm the Persecuting status of the evil "elite media" and so will function to delegitimate the messenger.

what seems to already be getting conceded in all this is that the mc-cain base is not going to expand. so what the idea seems to be is to use any and all tricks to appeal to identity as a way of mobilizing that base as a base. whcih means that, in the end, the election will be a test of political machines, one against the other, fought out over who can get the largest number of bodies out.

if this is the case, then it is a mistake for obama to distance himself too much from the approach he was adopting earlier in his campaign, speaking to a broad and new demographic in a language designed to mobilize them. if he allows himself to get hoovered into television-style campaigning, once again the democrats will find themselves fighting on a terrain they do not define.

and i would not underestimate the power of the right's grassroots organization.

i wonder if this is accurate....

Tully Mars · 09-03-2008, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I have a feeling her close ties to the AIP will get her in trouble. A VP Candidate that thinks Alaska should leave the US and become its own state????

Ok, is this fact or fiction?

I can find sources saying she made a welcome video for this years convention and sources that say she has had nothing to do with the AIP.

Is this going to turn out to be a another rumor?

The way this whole Palin thing is being payed out it reminds me of the way the GOP handled Bush's Nam records. Somehow some forged documents were leaked saying what a lot of folks already believed. Then it turned out the documents were faked, in the wrong format and typed on the wrong type of type writer. Suddenly and quickly the nation was focused on these forged documents. Forget that Bush's failed to show up for and extended period of time, forget that his records were lost. "Hey everybody someone forged these documents, see told you it was all BS." I remember watching an interview with a lady who was Bush's CO's clerical person. She said "Yes, this isn't the way these document would have been done, it's not even the correct type face. But I remember typing documents that said exactly basically what these say, just have no idea where they went. Mr. Bush's CO was very unhappy that he was failing to show and we submitted several reports stating that." All the interviewer was interested in was that these documents were forged. Classic bait and switch... and it worked.

The way Palin's info appears to be being released smacks of these tactics.

I smell Rove.

roachboy · 09-03-2008, 08:35 AM

again, if you see in all this a single, narrow objective of bumping obama off the television, this has worked.
i smell a bit of rove as well--there is something fetid in the air.

but i think the outline above holds, regardless.

asaris · 09-03-2008, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

again, if you see in all this a single, narrow objective of bumping obama off the television, this has worked.
i smell a bit of rove as well--there is something fetid in the air.

but i think the outline above holds, regardless.

The problem with that thought is that it's the week of the RNC convention; Obama wouldn't have been getting much air time regardless. This might have been the case if McCain had announced a week earlier...

host · 09-03-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

....b. this is a far right group and in the schema of political demonization abroad in the land, so long as you don't blow up a federal building somewhere, anything goes. consider for example the non-reaction to the mobilization of militia groups to operate as de facto vigilante border guards. not a word about the problematic relation of militia organizations to the existing political structure. as a thought experiment, however, consider what would be the case amongst the rightwingers had a negative image of palin belonged to a trotskyist group, even one the membership of which was 3 guys who met in a bar once a month. THAT would be a Problem.

c. so there's no space for far-right groups in contemporary political demonology, and because the republicans are already mounting a counter to this problem of membership in the aip....well, this should not be enough, should it? but fact is that you also see taking shape an attempt to align the press as a whole with some phantom coastal Elite which hates those who "love life" blah blah blah, and because the campaign is based not on issues but on the construction of affinity, what results is a situation in which the republican denials will probably be enough for the faithful---addressing one of those "non-issues" you see (as a function of the non-place for the far right matter)--and information to the contrary will function to confirm the Persecuting status of the evil "elite media" and so will function to delegitimate the messenger.

what seems to already be getting conceded in all this is that the mc-cain base is not going to expand. so what the idea seems to be is to use any and all tricks to appeal to identity as a way of mobilizing that base as a base. whcih means that, in the end, the election will be a test of political machines, one against the other, fought out over who can get the largest number of bodies out.....

rb, below is the "blueprint" for how they do it, without increasing the size of their base, because, without a huge investment in time, money, there is a limit to how many will vote with the interests of the tiny fraction of Americans who hold most of the power and the money that it buys.

People who are indignant over opinions posted on this forum that are negative towards Palin, or towards her family members, or towards McCain and his mobbed up father-in-law, the religious right and the GOP, should, as I often challenge them to....examine how it is that "they know what they know". What I "know", is not the result of constant propagandizing by the establishment/rich man owned media....no one, based on manipulating "what I know and how I vote because of what I know", would make a fortune and avoid paying taxes due as a consequence of manipulating labor and leaching off of public investment in infrastructure and military spending....CAN THEY SAY THE SAME ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK ARE THEIR OWN BELIEFS, and by the way they vote them?

Quote:

Sarah Palin's ties to Alaskan Independence Party are played down - Los Angeles Times
The McCain campaign denies his running mate supports the party's separatist bent.
By Michael Finnegan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 3, 2008

Sarah Palin and the Alaska Independence Party. Palin addresses AIP convention

YouTube - Sarah Palin and the Alaska Independence Party. Palin addresses AIP convention

...But back home, she has cheered the work of a tiny party that long has pushed for a statewide vote on whether Alaska should secede from those same United States. And her husband, Todd, was a member of the party for seven years...

...The Alaskan Independence Party, founded in 1978, initially promoted "the Alaskan independence movement." But now, according to its website, "its primary goal is merely a vote on secession." Introduction to the Alaskan Independence Party

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said Tuesday that Palin did not support splitting Alaska off from the rest of the country. He sidestepped the question of whether she favored a statewide vote on secession.....

..."Gov. Palin believes that every American is entitled to their point of view, and their political beliefs," he said.

Bounds also did not directly answer the question of whether her husband supported the secession of Alaska.

"I can tell you that Mr. Palin is a proud American," Bounds said. "And he's excited that his wife has joined John McCain to reform Washington and make government work more effectively for all Americans."

For all but two months from 1995 to 2002, the governor's husband was registered as an Alaskan Independence Party member, according to the Alaska Division of Elections.

With McCain's campaign emphasizing patriotism -- his latest slogan is "Country First" -- the Palins' links to a party founded by the late secessionist gold miner Joe Vogler could prove awkward.

"I'm an Alaskan, not an American," Vogler is quoted as saying elsewhere on the party’s website. Introduction to the Alaskan Independence Party
"I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

The party supports a plebiscite on four options that it says Alaskans were entitled to vote on before becoming a state in 1959: Form a sovereign nation of their own, become a state, accept commonwealth status similar to Puerto Rico's, or remain a U.S. territory.

Leaders of the party say many of its 13,681 registered members have joined out of frustration over restrictions that the federal government has placed on the use of its vast land holdings in Alaska. Beyond the secession vote, the party also advocates gun rights, home schooling and abolition of property taxes.

A question-and-answer page Alaskan Independence Party
on its website asks, "Aren't most Alaskan Independence Party members a bunch of radicals and kooks?"

"The party has its share of individualists, in the grand Alaskan tradition," the answer says. "No longer a fringe party, the AIP is a viable third party with a serious mission and qualified candidates for elected offices."

Less than 3% of the state's 479,721 registered voters are members of the party......

....McCain's campaign also slammed ABC News for posting a Web story saying that Palin had been a member of the party, calling the report a "smear."

As it was in the 1896 presidential campaign, and in 1934 in California, it is today. It does not change. It is a struggle between what those, although much fewer in number, can do to buy the thinking of voters who would, if left to sort it out for themselves, vote against these interests, but are persuaded to vote for them..... versus those who vote their own best interests, if by some good fortune, both major party candidates are not in the back pockets of these elite, controlling parasites.

Quote:

AmericanHeritage.com / HOW MEDIA POLITICS WAS BORN

...In September 1933 Upton Beall Sinclair, the author of The Jungle and more than forty other books, decided to run for governor of California. The amiable, fifty-four-year-old Pasadena resident had run for governor twice previously, both times on the Socialist party line, where he hadn’t won more than sixty thousand votes. This time, however, he was going to run as a Democrat.

After living in California for nineteen years, Sinclair had come to believe that the state was “governed by a small group of rich men whose sole purpose in life was to become richer.” The result of their rule was “hundreds of thousands driven from their homes” and “old people dying of slow starvation.” Most of the land in California, he believed, had been “turned over to money-lenders and banks.” One in four residents of Los Angeles was on relief, receiving an average of four and a half dollars a month, and Sinclair was not confident that President Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration was going to remedy that. After registering as a Democrat, Sinclair began his pursuit of the governorship, intending to win this time.....

...His 1906 documentary novel The Jungle had led to passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act. Years later he had helped found the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). He later won a Pulitzer Prize for fiction and was nominated for a Nobel Prize by, among others, John Dewey and Bertrand Russell. He was friends with leading thinkers of his day, playing the violin with Albert Einstein and tennis with the radical poet and editor Max Eastman. Charlie Chaplin considered him one of his political mentors. “Practically alone among the American writers of his generation,” the critic Edmund Wilson observed, “he put to the American public the fundamental questions raised by capitalism in such a way that they could not escape them.” Next to Debs and Norman Thomas, he was the most famous socialist of his time.....

...There were few original planks in EPIC’s platform. Sinclair had merely adapted ideas from economic salvation plans already put forward by such national leaders (or demagogues) as Huey Long and Father Charles Coughlin. The local press poked fun at the EPIC plan, but thousands of Californians embraced it, creating what Turner Catledge of The New York Times called “the first serious movement against the profit system in the United States.” By primary day there were a thousand EPIC clubs across the state, and the campaign’s tabloid newspaper, the EPIC News, had a circulation approaching a million copies weekly.

Sinclair spoke to overflow crowds in high school gyms, open fields, and arenas. Observers likened EPIC rallies to religious revivals. Time called Sinclair an “evangel of nonsense,” but to his followers he was a prophet, even a savior. His framed portrait hung in their homes. On primary day, in late August, Upton Sinclair received more than 430,000 votes, a total greater than that of all his eight Democratic opponents combined. “Congrats on nomination,” the politically obsessed poet Ezra Pound wrote from Italy. “Now beat the bank buzzards and get elected.”

Sinclair knew that to become the first Democratic governor of California in more than thirty years, he would need the support of national Democratic leaders, especially of President Roosevelt. A few days after winning the primary, Sinclair journeyed to Hyde Park for a two-hour conference. The President offered no endorsement, saying he was staying out of state politics. Privately Roosevelt told his aides that “it looks as though Sinclair will win if he stages an orderly, common sense campaign but will be beaten if he makes a fool of himself.”

Sinclair’s impending victory in the nation’s sixth-largest state became big news nationally. H. L. Mencken wrote that Sinclair, who “has been swallowing quack cures for all the sorrows of mankind since the turn of the century, is at it again in California, and on such a scale that the whole country is attracted by the spectacle.” Will Rogers observed that if Sinclair could deliver even some of the things he promised, he “should not only be Governor of one state, but President of all ‘em.” Theodore Dreiser called Sinclair “the most impressive political phenomenon that America has yet produced.”

But Time, hinting at what was to come, declared: “No politician since William Jennings Bryan has so horrified and outraged the Vested Interests. … They hate him as a muckraker. They hate him as a Socialist. … They hate him as a ‘free-love’ cultist. … They hate him as an atheist. …” On Wall Street the market value of the twenty top California stocks dropped 16 percent following Sinclair’s nomination.

Sinclair’s friends started calling him Governor, but the title still belonged to a Republican party stalwart named Frank Merriam. The Los Angeles Times, backing the incumbent, declared that the Merriam-Sinclair contest “is not a fight between men: it is a vital struggle between constructive and destructive forces.”

California’s conservative leaders had not taken Sinclair seriously until it was too late to save the Democratic party. Now the whole state was up for grabs, and they would not make the same mistake again. “Those whose stakes in California are greatest,” Time noted, “hold themselves personally responsible to their class throughout the nation to smash Upton Sinclair.” A new kind of political campaign was about to begin....

.... The national campaign that had been most similar to the 1934 California gubernatorial race was the contest for President in 1896 between the crusading Democrat William Jennings Bryan and the staid Republican William McKinley. Bryan’s attacks on the moneyed class had inspired amazing fervor among farmers and workers.

Recognizing the inadequacy of campaign tactics as they were then known, McKinley’s adviser Mark Hanna developed a plan and a national party organization that ushered political campaigns into the twentieth century. Tens of millions of leaflets, explaining McKinley’s positions, were mailed to voters around the country. Fourteen hundred pro-McKinley speakers took to the stump. Hanna raised huge sums of money by assessing banks and businesses a percentage of their assets or profits. Spies were installed at Bryan headquarters. “Republican writers and speakers,” Gordon C. Fite has observed, “exerted every effort to portray Bryan as a wild-eyed radical whose election on what they charged was a socialistic Democratic platform would destroy the American system.”

McKinley won by a narrow margin. Fund raising and party organization were, as Mark Hanna showed, everything. Until the 1930s not much had changed in political campaigns except for the limited use of radio.

What was new in 1934 was a political party’s utilization of media experts from outside the party apparatus, the manipulation of the print media to promote a wholly negative campaign, and the first use of motion pictures in a campaign. These developments signaled the approach of a era “when election specialists, hired out as mercenaries,” as Schlesinger put it, would play a larger role than the party itself in mobilizing voters.

There was something else unprecedented about the 1934 campaign to defeat Upton Sinclair: the cost. In the hotly contested 1932 race for President between Hoover and Roosevelt, each party had spent an estimated three million dollars across the country. Two years later the Republicans spent upward of three times that amount in just one state—California.

When news that Upton Sinclair was now favored to win the governorship reached Europe, William Randolph Hearst cut short a vacation in Germany to return to California, calling the Democratic candidate “an unbalanced and unscrupulous political speculator.” Louis B. Mayer, the head of Metro-GoldwynMayer (MGM) and the vice-chairman of the state Republican party, hurried home from France “to organize the fight of the film industry against Upton Sinclair’s candidacy for Governor,” according to a United Press dispatch. In northern California, the Alameda County district attorney, Earl Warren, who was also the Republican state chairman, took to the campaign trail, charging that Sinclairism was threatening “to overwhelm California with Communism.”.....

...irtually every newspaper in the state lashed out at Sinclair. An editorial cartoon in Hearst’s Los Angeles Examiner pictured Sinclair as “The Fourth Horseman,” racing to catch up to Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. Following Whitaker and Baxter’s lead, the Los Angeles Times printed a box on the bottom of its front page every day, featuring an out-of-context Sinclair quotation.

On October 1 Sinclair complained at a rally: “I don’t know what there is left for them [the Times] to bring up unless it is the nationalizing of women.” Two days later a Sinclair statement on cooperative child care appeared in the Times under the heading NATIONALIZING CHILDREN. Instead of presenting his program, Sinclair spent most of his time trying to correct what he called “a million lies.” He was discovering the wisdom in Mark Twain’s observation that a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its boots.

To distract the candidate even further, the Republicans took another ground-breaking step. They hired Lord & Thomas, one of the first and most prominent national advertising firms, to direct an advertising struggle against Sinclair. Lord & Thomas had sold Lucky Strike cigarettes and Pepsodent toothpaste to the public; maybe, the GOP hoped, it could sell Frank Merriam as the answer to the Sinclair menace. Besides handling all the paid advertising—including the use of thousands of billboards to display twisted Sinclair quotations—Lord & Thomas may have had its own dirty-tricks squad. Sinclair charged that EPIC’s phones were tapped and some of its mail was stolen. “We hired the scum of the streets to carry placards: Vote for Upton Sinclair,” a Lord & Thomas manager later admitted.....

...Extremely conservative to begin with, the Hollywood studio bosses were incensed when they heard of Sinclair’s plan to impose a special new tax on the film industry and to let out-of-work actors take over abandoned sound stages to make their own movies. The heads of several studios threatened to move their entire operations to Florida if EPIC became a reality. Joseph Schenck, the president of United Artists, went so far as to inspect sites in Florida. But when some of the studios began building new facilities in Hollywood, it became apparent that they were bluffing. If Hollywood meant to defeat Sinclair, the moguls would have to take more direct action.

And so, under the leadership of Louis B. Mayer, most of the studio bosses asked their employees, from stenographers to stars, to donate money to the Merriam campaign. Many workers feared that if they did not contribute, they risked losing their jobs. The levy generated half a million dollars for the anti-Sinclair campaign, an enormous sum for a statewide race in the 1930s. Several stars, including Katharine Hepburn, James Cagney, and Jean Harlow, rebelled. When the screenwriter Dorothy Parker spoke up for Sinclair, she was told, “You’re cutting your own throat.”

But Mayer and the movie establishment knew that to defeat Sinclair they would have to reach the masses beyond Hollywood with the message that he was a dangerous radical, and they would have to do it in a novel, exciting, and at the same time subtle way. Variety had issued a call: “With theatres available to provide Sinclair opposition, so far as propaganda is concerned, let the picture business assert itself.”...

...Because newsreels had heretofore maintained a nonpartisan stance in election races, these shorts, based on an innocuous inquiring-reporter format, had an enormous effect. Well-dressed couples and prim, elderly ladies invariably endorsed Merriam. Disheveled, wild-eyed citizens with thick accents stood up for Sinclair. One man observed that Sinclair was “the author of the Russian government, and it worked out very well there, and it should do so here.”

Some of the interviews were legitimate; others were staged, using “bit” actors reading prepared scripts. The newsreels were just subtle enough to be effective. “Every screen fan in California,” The New Yorker later commented, “to prove that he was not a congenital idiot, was inclined to vote for Merriam.” Hard-core EPIC supporters, naturally, were angry. Outbursts in dozens of theaters forced some managers to stop showing the newsreels, “fearing wideopen terrorism,” according to Variety.

As a crowning blow, MGM, Fox, and possibly other studios produced newsreels showing an army of hoboes—or actors dressed in whiskers and rags—marching across California or arriving by rail, heading for the EPIC Utopia. A photograph showing the same migratory scene began appearing on the front pages of leading newspapers. Sharp-eyed readers identified the photo as a still from a recent movie, Wild Boys of the Road, provided to the newspapers by Warner Brothers.

There was more to the anti-Sinclair campaign. As much as ten million dollars may have been spent to defeat the EPIC candidate—a record for a state campaign that would stand for forty years. The funds were used to create front groups, print leaflets, and pay for countless newspaper ads and radio programs, all under the direction of Whitaker, Baxter, and Lord & Thomas. EPIC supporters were referred to as a “maggot-like horde.” Sinclair was called a “dynamiter of all churches,” and since he was often confused with Sinclair Lewis, he had to answer for Elmer Gantry as well.....

The last thing I could ever be concerned about would be the victimization of any candidate by "liberals" or by the liberal fucking media. There is no liberal media, and barely even any liberals......

Rekna · 09-03-2008, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Ok, is this fact or fiction?

I can find sources saying she made a welcome video for this years convention and sources that say she has had nothing to do with the AIP.

Is this going to turn out to be a another rumor?

The way this whole Palin thing is being payed out it reminds me of the way the GOP handled Bush's Nam records. Somehow some forged documents were leaked saying what a lot of folks already believed. Then it turned out the documents were faked, in the wrong format and typed on the wrong type of type writer. Suddenly and quickly the nation was focused on these forged documents. Forget that Bush's failed to show up for and extended period of time, forget that his records were lost. "Hey everybody someone forged these documents, see told you it was all BS." I remember watching an interview with a lady who was Bush's CO's clerical person. She said "Yes, this isn't the way these document would have been done, it's not even the correct type face. But I remember typing documents that said exactly basically what these say, just have no idea where they went. Mr. Bush's CO was very unhappy that he was failing to show and we submitted several reports stating that." All the interviewer was interested in was that these documents were forged. Classic bait and switch... and it worked.

The way Palin's info appears to be being released smacks of these tactics.

I smell Rove.

She made a welcome video in 2008, the McCain campaign admitted that she attended in 2000, and multiple witnesses say she was there in 1994. Her husband was a registered member for many years. If you want a paper trail then look at her husbands registration records and the fact that she made a welcome video for them.

aceventura3 · 09-03-2008, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I agree that the discussion about the daughter may be over the top..at least some posts. IMO, much of it could have been avoided if McCain/Palin had been up front about it on the day of her selection.

Her daughter being pregnant has no relevance to the issues of VP qualification.

Quote:

As is often the case, the cover-up compounded the problem of the original act...no one to blame for that but themselves.

Cover up? Just about everyone interested in knowing about the preganancy in Alaska knew the girl was pregnant. Was Rev. Wright a "cover up"? what is the standard used to determine what is a cover up?

Quote:

But, is it vicious to point out that Palin:

None of those points are vicious. However, there is a double standard. Palin being a woman, a conservative woman, is being treated different in the media than if she had been male.

Quote:

Or ace's claim that Obama and all democrats are either liars or ignorant?
-----Added 2/9/2008 at 06 : 40 : 44-----

I have been specific with justification for my view and I still hold it. I explained how I cam to the conclusion. I asked for input from others looking for help in seeing the errors in my view. My conclusion is my opinion on policy issues directed at those who take positions on those policy issues. There are clear patterns of unintended consequences to liberal policy positions and often empty rhetoric is used to "sell" the public on those policy positions. I acknowledge when Republican politicians are being dishonest or purely political in my view. I have even called Bush and McCain on it, i.e. Bush support of the Farm Bill and Mccain's seeming lack of conviction that sometimes guides his positions or changes in his positions. I honestly state what I believe and I have been open to changing those views on some issues.

My view regarding liberals being liars or ignorant was general at first ( not targeted to any particular individual), and later became more specific with, for example, Obama as I learned more about his positions and who his advisers are. My attacks against John Edwards where specific and about the contradictions between his lifestyle, how he made his money compared to his war on poverty. My attacks on Gore were again specific regarding his whining about how Bush "stole" the election and his inaction as VP on the issue of global warming. I have never attacked family, or individuals on non-policy related issues. However, I do admit that I can be vicious and that I can lack tact, but the regulars on this forum already know that.

Tully Mars · 09-03-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

The problem with that thought is that it's the week of the RNC convention; Obama wouldn't have been getting much air time regardless. This might have been the case if McCain had announced a week earlier...

You're assuming the strategy is to remove Obama form the air waves only this week and not the beginning of an attempted long term shift of focus. McCain is not an impressive speaker. He does not seem to create buzz the way Obama does, never has. Now with everyone talking about Palin the focus has shifted. So far it seems like an effective plan to me.

aceventura3 · 09-03-2008, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Hey Ace and Pan, you've yet to say why you like her other than she's an "outoors man" - Ace.

Do you like her anti abortion stance? Her anti- sex ed stance? Her Alaska secession stance?

And do please show where her daughter has been attacked.

She is not a Washington D.C. insider.
She's got personality.
She is a governor. If I vote McCain it will be the first time in about 30 years I have voted for a presidential candidate who was not a governor. {correction: I voted for Ross Perot a couple of times}
She has middle class roots.
She has balanced family and career.
She is not easily intimidated.
She seems to be direct and honest.
She is from an "oil state".
I trust her judgment in balancing environment compared to economic growth.
She is a winner and has the swagger of a winner.
She is willing to do the work that need to be done.
She sees things as an optimist rather than the Democratic Party message of how everything is wrong.
She supports gun rights.
She is pissing the media off, and that's worth kudos.

On the issue of Palin's daughter, Like I wrote perhaps it is me. I am actually a gentlemen and will always come to the defense of a woman (call it sexist if you want). I have even defended Hilary Clinton and found the attack on her over the top as well. I honestly believe that initially in her run for President that she was treated unfairly by the media and was being held to different standards the the men she ran against.

hannukah harry · 09-03-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

She is not a Washington D.C. insider.
She's got personality.
She is a governor. If I vote McCain it will be the first time in about 30 years I have voted for a presidential candidate who was not a governor. {correction: I voted for Ross Perot a couple of times}
She has middle class roots.
She has balanced family and career.
She is not easily intimidated.
She seems to be direct and honest.
She is from an "oil state".
I trust her judgment in balancing environment compared to economic growth.
She is a winner and has the swagger of a winner.
She is willing to do the work that need to be done.
She sees things as an optimist rather than the Democratic Party message of how everything is wrong.
She supports gun rights.
She is pissing the media off, and that's worth kudos.

On the issue of Palin's daughter, Like I wrote perhaps it is me. I am actually a gentlemen and will always come to the defense of a woman (call it sexist if you want). I have even defended Hilary Clinton and found the attack on her over the top as well. I honestly believe that initially in her run for President that she was treated unfairly by the media and was being held to different standards the the men she ran against.

most of what you just typed isn't based on fact. it's just regurgitating talking points.

you trust her judgement on balancing the environment compared to economic growth? why? what in all that's been learned about her has earned that? i doubt she's dealt with that topic enough in 20 months to be 'trusting her judgement' on it.

and you're not being a gentleman by always coming to the aid of women. i'll say it. you're being a chauvinist. you're saying that women women need your help and protection. how can a woman be VP, possibly Pres, if she needs the protection of big burly men all the time? either she can stand up on her own and defend herself, or she can't and you have to do it for her. which is it? if it's the former, she isn't fit to be VP, if it's the latter, then you obviously don't think she's really up to the job cause a man will need to hold her hand through it all.

Poppinjay · 09-03-2008, 10:24 AM

It sounds like she's has a libertarian appeal to you.

I have strong reservations about her "oil state" status. Seems like we already have a president from an oil state, look how well that's gone.

I also think a pro-abstinence conservative male who blocked sex ed would be getting easily as much flak.

Tully Mars · 09-03-2008, 10:32 AM

She's honest? What about the lie regarding the bridge to nowhere and the cash she never gave back?

dc_dux · 09-03-2008, 10:41 AM

Looking beyond the scripted convention, I wonder how much access the press will have to her w/o a party "minder" whispering in her ear.

I suspect press access to Palin will be very very selective.

The precedent has been with McCain canceling an appearance on Larry King after an "unfair interview" of a key staffer.

The "unfair interview":

Quote:

In that segment, Ms. Brown had sharply questioned Tucker Bounds, a campaign spokesman, after he said that the role of Mr. McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard was an example of executive experience that Senator Barack Obama of Illinois did not have.

“Can you tell me one decision that she made as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard, just one?” Ms. Brown asked.

Mr. Bounds responded, “Any decision she has made as the commander of the National Guard that’s deployed overseas is more of a decision Barack Obama’s been making as he’s been running for president for the last two years.”

Ms. Brown pressed again, saying: “So tell me. Tell me. Give me an example of one of those decisions.”

To which Mr. Bounds said, “Campbell, certainly you don’t mean to belittle every experience, every judgment she makes as commander.” The argument devolved from there, with no real resolution.

09-02-2008, 02:32 PM	#44 (permalink)
abaya Location: Iceland	Well, hey... we're not going to sit around singing kumbaya around the campfire about these candidates. Personally, I think there has been just as much debate/attack about Obama/Biden as there has been about McCain/Palin, and that's fine with me. We're talking about the next POTUS here... not Monday Night Football. In other words, I'm not surprised or offended by "vicious" treatment of either candidate, and to some extent, I think it's necessary. No one ever said that a presidential campaign should be pleasant. __________________ And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran

09-02-2008, 02:47 PM	#47 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	abaya....I think some of our colleagues here who are so offended by the "attacks" on Palin may have lost perspective. One last thought....remember the Swift Boaters! __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-02-2008, 03:00 PM	#48 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	or remember limbaugh accusing hillary clinton of murder. or remember that lovely plame affair. remember the centrality of personal attack in populist conservative media over the past 20 years. while i find the effect of this sort of thing to be depressing, rendering american politics even more idiotic than it has been, you reap what you sow. and this isn't even to start wondering about this newest little bon bon: Palin was member of party calling for vote on Alaskan secession from US \| World news \| guardian.co.uk __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-02-2008, 06:02 PM	#54 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	You guys want to focus on the daughter being pregnant, knock yourselves out. I find it completely lacking class, but that's just my opinion. Personally I'd rather stick to debating issues and Palin's creditability and competence myself. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

09-03-2008, 04:16 AM	#61 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	The McCain camp almost appears to have chosen her to gain a victim stance. Now when people point out the obvious flaws in her selection the GOP can scream they're attacking her because she's woman et el. And "see it the liberal media's fault." They may have looked at it and realized- we need to rally the base, we're not only loosing the swingers in the swing states our base may not even show up on election day. This may have been a brilliant move. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

09-02-2008, 03:59 PM	#50 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I'm curious, please post examples of people attacking her daughter here. I want to see what your definition of an attack is.

09-02-2008, 06:06 PM	#55 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Tully, here's the real deal. Having a militant anti-abortion anti-sex-ed right winger's daughter be an unwed pregnant teen looks really bad. It exposes the cracks in the policy. To prevent that being a legitimate thing to point out, that faction has to hide behind the "dirty pool bringing family into it" argument. They don't have a leg to stand on--not since Palin sent out the frilly pregnancy announcement to the press. But it's the best they've got. AND I'm completely with you--as I've said before--there's plenty to bury this woman without bringing her daughter into it.

09-03-2008, 04:34 AM	#62 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Hey Ace and Pan, you've yet to say why you like her other than she's an "outoors man" - Ace. Do you like her anti abortion stance? Her anti- sex ed stance? Her Alaska secession stance? And do please show where her daughter has been attacked. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

09-03-2008, 05:31 AM	#64 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	What about her support for banning books? __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

09-03-2008, 05:55 AM	#65 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what about her support for teaching "creation science" to elementary school kids? on another note, you can apparently"buy futures" (speculate as to what will happen) here: Intrade Prediction Markets there's a little commodity futures trade going on around the question of whether palin will actually get the nomination or not. i think the idea of this trade is funny in itself. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-03-2008, 08:01 AM	#67 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I have a feeling her close ties to the AIP will get her in trouble. A VP Candidate that thinks Alaska should leave the US and become its own state????

09-03-2008, 08:28 AM	#68 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it won't get her in trouble amongst the conservative set for three reasons: a. the republicans are already trying to head off the association by claiming there's no paper trail to demonstrate it, whereas there is a paper trail which shows her affiliation with the republicans. as if the latter excludes the former. b. this is a far right group and in the schema of political demonization abroad in the land, so long as you don't blow up a federal building somewhere, anything goes. consider for example the non-reaction to the mobilization of militia groups to operate as de facto vigilante border guards. not a word about the problematic relation of militia organizations to the existing political structure. as a thought experiment, however, consider what would be the case amongst the rightwingers had a negative image of palin belonged to a trotskyist group, even one the membership of which was 3 guys who met in a bar once a month. THAT would be a Problem. c. so there's no space for far-right groups in contemporary political demonology, and because the republicans are already mounting a counter to this problem of membership in the aip....well, this should not be enough, should it? but fact is that you also see taking shape an attempt to align the press as a whole with some phantom coastal Elite which hates those who "love life" blah blah blah, and because the campaign is based not on issues but on the construction of affinity, what results is a situation in which the republican denials will probably be enough for the faithful---addressing one of those "non-issues" you see (as a function of the non-place for the far right matter)--and information to the contrary will function to confirm the Persecuting status of the evil "elite media" and so will function to delegitimate the messenger. what seems to already be getting conceded in all this is that the mc-cain base is not going to expand. so what the idea seems to be is to use any and all tricks to appeal to identity as a way of mobilizing that base as a base. whcih means that, in the end, the election will be a test of political machines, one against the other, fought out over who can get the largest number of bodies out. if this is the case, then it is a mistake for obama to distance himself too much from the approach he was adopting earlier in his campaign, speaking to a broad and new demographic in a language designed to mobilize them. if he allows himself to get hoovered into television-style campaigning, once again the democrats will find themselves fighting on a terrain they do not define. and i would not underestimate the power of the right's grassroots organization. i wonder if this is accurate.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-03-2008, 08:35 AM	#70 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	again, if you see in all this a single, narrow objective of bumping obama off the television, this has worked. i smell a bit of rove as well--there is something fetid in the air. but i think the outline above holds, regardless. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-03-2008, 10:24 AM	#78 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	It sounds like she's has a libertarian appeal to you. I have strong reservations about her "oil state" status. Seems like we already have a president from an oil state, look how well that's gone. I also think a pro-abstinence conservative male who blocked sex ed would be getting easily as much flak. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

09-03-2008, 10:32 AM	#79 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	She's honest? What about the lie regarding the bridge to nowhere and the cash she never gave back? __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club