Is there some sort of daily Right Wing Memo?
 

With this Terry Shaivo issue I'm really starting to wonder if there is some sort of right wing memo that tells members in the 'in' crowd exactly what to say. I've listed to a lot of talk radio the last couple days and have been reading message boards and you keep hearing the same arguements worded in the same way. The most recurring phrase is "err on the side of life" Everyone keeps repeating that phase like they are some sort of parrot. Here is a yahoo search for that phrase:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=err...ab-web-t&b=161

I got a few hits (only about 1.2 million).

Frankly I'm sick of the right wing attaching to little slogans and repeating it at every possible time they can. I'd rather err on the side of forming my own thoughts.

Actually, yes, the White House Press Office does send out briefing memos, and a lot of people adopt the language suggested.

Oddly enough I, a Libertarian, used that same phrase moments ago in the Terry Shaivo thread. err on the side of life is what I call empathy. If I was a real vegetable, I'd want to die, but if I was able to comprehend life and laughter, of course I woulnd't want to die! "Err on the side of life" is about cases where you aren't sure. If you aren't sure, that means you could be wrong. Do you want your wrong decision to result in a wrongful death?

........and 910,000 for "left wing memo".

This is absurd, do you think it only relates to the "right wing"? Or is that just how you want to portray it?

Both sides have been making this identical accusation. Both side issue talking points memos. It makes sense to have everybody on the same page.

So what?

What is wrong with that?

Or is it wrong since you only accuse the "right wing"?

Edit: Will--wrong thread, eh?

Yeah, us red staters get one with daily, with appropriate talking apoints as well. It's great!! They do all the thinking for me!

Sad thing is, they actually do. You just don't notice it.

Go watch Outfoxed. The conservatives have a very sophisticated and synchronized Message Machine running in this country.

^^^Excellent example of why people don't elect liberals anymore^^^.


When y'all cease thinking that way, perhaps you'll get another chance. Consdescending and flip language will keep liberals in the minority.

I don't think so. Right after I posted a post with the phrase "err on the side of life" in it, this popped up. I wanted to address it. "Err on the side of life" is not a right-wing-exclusive phrase. A libertarian such as myself using that phrase should prove that. While there are TONS of things that people on both sides like to repeat ad-nausiam, I don't think this phrase should be one of them. That was my point. Go with something like "flip-flopper" if you want to find a party line.

You do realize that you're condescending and flip on here all the time, right? You do realize that conservatives are just as guilty of smug self satisfaction as liberals, right?

Yeah, I read it again and it makes sense.

When I first read it, it sounded like you were responding to the Schiavo thread.

Whoops.

I'd edit it, but then your post wouldn't make any sense.

Don't ask for a concession. You won't get any. Most still think that we found WMDs in Iraq.
This thread has no aparent value, I hope someone can change my mind.

Edit: and no worries KMA. You're still the man.

GOP Talking Points on Terri Schiavo




http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Schiavo/story?id=600937

I don't know.....that memo looks like it was done in MS Word....it's probably fake (we'd better check the bloggers to make sure, though).

And what is this breaking news about no WMD's in Iraq? That's not what my memo said. Granted, it got held up in the mail and took awhile to get to me.

/sorry, I had to.
//and yes, I am being sarcastic...not to troll....just to be sarcastic.....cuz I like to.
///any more slashes and I am going to have to upgrade my Fark account
////shit, there I go again

Anyone who thinks only one side does this is blind to politics in America today.

I understand it happens on both sides and it's sad. More and more, people are abandoning independant thought and just going along with what the status quo tells them to talk about.

I really don't understand how his statement was at all condescending or used any "flip language".

It's a simple statement of fact. The conservatives in this country have a very well developed message machine dedicated to developing ideas and figuring out the best way to sell them. Huge think tanks like Heritage and the American Enterprise Institute put out position papers that pretty much all the opinion makers on the right read. Heritage, in particular is famous for it's two pagers, quick distilations of longer policy memos that are easy for busy politicians and reporters to read quickly. Conservatives in Washington meet and coordinate frequently and evens organized by these think tanks, and at regular lunch and breakfast meetings organized by groups like Americans for Tax Reform and the Conservative Political Action Committee.

It's impossible to cover hte conservative message machine here, but look at David Brock's "The Republican Noise Machine" for a partisan take on it or John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge's "The Right Nation" for a non-partisan book on it (and an excellent book that should be read by conservatives and liberals, by the way). The point is, if it seems that the right is singing out of the same hymnal, its because they are.

Democrats and liberals, on the other hand, have nothing like this machinery. And they greatly regret it.

This system isn't necessarily bad. Its the product of a very well-organized political movement with a keen understanding of the importance of staying on message. The existance of this "vast right-wing conspiracy" shouldn't color our judgement of the ideas it propounds for better or worse.

It's not so much the existence of the machine which colors judgements - rather, it's the difficulty in having a discussion that moves beyond the talking points it puts out. And when the discussion cannot even progress beyond exceptional oversimplifications of rather significant issues, it's ultimately the same thing as a total lockdown on problem solving.

frankly i am surprised that folk are just finding out about the conservative media apparatus, its top-down structure, etc. i assumed, given that this apparatus has developed over the past 20 years, its outlines have been quite public, and its effects obvious, that there would be little question about the matter. the "left" in fact has nothing comparable to it--there are moves afoot to respond in kind--but the situation remains assymetrical.

if you want to market an ideology to a pliant public--particularly an empty ideology on the conservative model---then your strongest weapon is repetition---repeat the same message early and often---but repetition is expensive--the advantage that the right enjoys, with its deep-pocket donors offering unearmarked funds to think tanks etc--in the theater of repetition is enormous.

it would be nice to find, once, maybe, someone from the right not responding to statements of fact concerning the apparatus that shapes and modualtes their politics, that the same thing takes place everywhere. that is simply false. the american conservative media apparatus is at once a particular, specialized, foul and remarkable thing. it certainly functions to keep the troops in line and to spare them the problems of having the think too much for themselves.

As soon as I laid eyes on the title of this thread I really expected a total flame war to be going on in here. You all are behaving so nicely.

It's disgusting... :lol:

"It's disgusting... "


....at first, you get used to it.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

there's a memo for ya

I checked google for the most recent slogan from the left that caught my attention...."Fix it, Don't mix it" referring to social security...I got 1 hit on google...not very effective. I must be the only one who heard Charles Schumer say it


hey hey, ho ho right wing slogans have to go...

One "side" has had remarkable success doing whatever it takes to "guide" American voters to vote against their own best interests. Here is a Chicago Tribune's D.C. bureau (The "Trib" editorial board endorsed Bush for president, last october) report on the "machinations" selected and implemented by the RNC to convince America that Bush's SSI "agenda" is worthy of their support. You can dismiss it with "everybody is doing it", but if it was intended by Bush & Co.
to be in the best interest of the greatest number of the American people, would
this obsessive seeming effort be necessary ? Why do these people want, so badly, for this vague and controversial "thing" to happen ?

<b>Consider that while Bush basically offered no details about his "plan" when he had an opportunity to do so during a publically telecast press conference last week, admitting instead that he was deliberately not "laying it out". Lebell, there are not "two sides" here, both acting similarly. The Bush "side" sets the "agenda" and then procedes to do everything but engage in a straight forward dialogue with the people. They got where they are by manipulating the vote, via disinformation. Everyone saw how competent Bush was during the debates last fall. He's the same guy who fronts for these people now. He's pathetically inadequate, IMO, and the organization behind him is hyperactive and foreboding. Dismiss it if you choose, but reading the bold area below, I think that the American people are by and large, f*cked !!</b>
"They" conducted all that activity without a detailed plan offered by Bush.
The "devil" is no longer in the details. They don't offer any...........they've discovered that they can attract enough support without discussion or disclosure. In the press conference linked above, Bush pointed to his Enron influenced, energy bill, tainted by Cheney's secret meetings with still undisclosed industry officials, that he has waited for his own party in congress, for four years, to debate and then vote on, as his presidency's response to national concerns about the rising costs of energy.

Yeah, the right's always making mindless slogans for the masses to repeat. NO BLOOD FOR OIL :rolleyes:

The king is 'flip flopper'. What a negative connotation to give a wise belief system. If you're wrong, you try to right your wrong. So that's bad? Does one become inconsistant if one decided to learn from his or her mistakes? That's scary.

That assumes that the person is really learning from mistakes, and not just following what the latest opinion poll says is popular. It is wise to reexamine your beliefs, but that assumes you actually FORM beliefs to examine. It could also indicate a inability/fear of making a decision, something that is generally considered undesirable in anyone in an executive position.

And (I assume) this relates to Kerry. I've had people who are die-hard liberals (one who even worked the last 2 cycles for democratic election campaigns) who didn't even know what Kerry stood for. I thought in his case the term was correctly applied, and was an apt description of one of his negative traits.

Yeah, I'm so sick of hearing the endless right-wing slogans such as "no blood for oil", "anyone but Bush". "regime change starts at home", and so on. :rolleyes:

We're just sneakier about it than the Dems are.

During one recent congressional recess, this is a description, excerpted from
the boldly highlighted area in my preceding post, of the actions mounted by
the Bush-Rove-RNC-et al to saturate targeted areas with their "on point" message for an SSI "reform" proposal that Bush admits refusing to describe in
detail:
alansmithee, with the "fire power" described above, I am curious as to what motivates you to post an anecdotal comment about Kerry supporters,"not even knowing what he stood for." What are the depth and the breadth of the
appendages that Rove must deploy, before you will withdraw your constant
and enthusiastic defense of the Bush admin. and the RNC, on this forum?
In the face of this gargatuan Rove spin machine, would anything that Kerry
said, did, or "stood for", have made a difference? Rove has won it all for you,
using a stooge as a frontman, yet you still exhibit a need that seems to belie your unabated insecurity, to challenge almost every critic. Will it take a Rove inspired dictatorship to calm you? You don't have Kerry to kick around anymore.

I posted that as a rebuttal to willravel's criticism of the term "flip-flopper". I used it to show how the term might be apt for a candidate who couldn't even make known what he stood for to what should be his core voters.

I would question your claim of my "constant and enthusiastic defense of the Bush admin". It seems that to many on this board, merely pointing out the inconsistancies in the opposing arguments constitutes fanatic support for the other side. This thread started to discuss the supposed right-wing overuse of slogans. I was merely showing that the other side also used the same tactics.

As for the supposed "gargantuan Rove spin machine", examining the facts would show that there has been no such thing. Taking a look back at the election, recently a report was released showing that Bush was three times as likely to recieve negative media coverage. Here's a link to a story about the report:

On top of that, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, Kerry got the best press ever during the campaign run http://www.cmpa.com/ . And his efforts in trying to gain support for Bush's plan for social security reform? It has done nothing, according to ABC news:

I find your comment about my supposed insecurity to be nothing but flamebait, but it is attached to something that shows how many liberals think, and why I feel the need to show the inconsistancies in so much of their thought. You refer to Bush as "a stooge". Many liberals cannot get past their blind hatred of Bush, and are unaware to think about anything but that. I remember in 2000-01, it was supposedly Cheney pulling the mythical strings of the White House; now it's Rove. Many liberals often try to point out that many feel that there were WMD in Iraq, they don't point out that just as many think that Bush lost in 2000 and 2004. Where's the criticism of the "gargantuan Sauros spin machine"? Many liberals seem unable to disagree with people on issues, they must attempt to demonize that person and anything they stand for. They don't look at issues, they see who supports the issue. If they see Joe Senator (R), anything he says is instantly disregarded. That is how these "vast right-wing conspiracies" can be concieved of, despite any evidence-they live in a world where there is no rationality or logic, there is nothing but blinding hate. That is how anything but blind irrational hatred directed toward the GOP is seen as "a need that seems to belie your unabated insecurity, to challenge almost every critic".
Logic has been abandoned in the face of hatred and partisanship. These people live in a world of black helicopters with red white and blue elephants on them circling their blocks, while faceless old white men meet in secret underground covens to plot how to squeeze oil out of Iraqi babies. And if people like this become the core of the democrat support the democratic party will go the way of the Whigs, nothing but a footnote in history.

first off, the attempt from conservatives here to equate demonstration slogans to the type of ideological warfare being waged by the right is simply ridiculous.

it follows from a wholly disengenuous misinterpretation of the central question at hand here--which is whether there is or is not a conservative media apparatus that operates de facto to centralize the right's talking points. which there clearly is--building this apparatus has been one of the major achievements of the american right over the past 20 years. it is far more important an achievement than the persuading of any number of individuals of any number of conservative ideological propositions.

this apparatus predates (and to a degree is a condition of possibility of) the bush administration--as much as i loathe karl rove, you cannot blame him for this--you cannot blame the white house press office for it--this institution building has been a central focus of conservative politics for many years now, and it turns out that they were, in the main, correct in their assumptions that what is required is repetition and pervasiveness (as opposed to content).

at this point, that there is something on the order of this apparatus is not in question--i can see why individual conservatives might be made a bit uncomfortable by the fact of the matter (kind of hard to be talking about individual freedoms blah blah in a context shaped entirely by a political machine) but this changes nothing.

curiously, alansmithee above trots out the black helicopters thing--which is a far right hallicunation, dear to the milita movement of the middle 1990s, and which functioned as an index of the paranoia of elements of the far right via-a-vis the united nations and gun control. much of the active conspiracy theory business is conservative as well--i think these two bits show the extent to which alan's (and other conservatives here) are engaging in a bit of projection in place of analysis. which is yet another fine fine conservative ideological pattern. it is funny to read through these wholly symptomatic posts accusing the opposition of paranoia, posts that read like historical catalogues of rightwing paranoia attributed wholesale to others.

it is also interesting to note the absolute refusal of reflxivity in these posts--the inability to think about whether there might not in fact be something to the claim that right ideology is tightly controlled. this refusal to think critically seems to me of a piece with the main problems that conservative politics poses for meaningful debate in general-the right simply refuses to engage in such difficult pass-times as thought in ways that depart from the assumption that their politics represent a type of "amurican common sense"--which is of course one of the central claims of right media, repeated day in day out--that they, and only they, articulate what "real americans" think in a "common sense" kinda way.

for background, look here:

http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/ncrp.callahan.1.htm

which provides basic information available in more detail from a wide range of print sources.
this is nothing new.


heritage foundation
american enterprise institute
cato
brookings
hoover

all of these not only develop policy proposals--they also work to recode their proposals to talking points, to get spokemodels who rehearse these talking points onto television news outlets (the right dominates commentary--look at any study of this--they are not hard to find if you look--and the right dominates commentary because they understand the importance of short, snappy statements)

there is the extensive network of explicitly conservative sonic wallpaper, which you can listen to 24/7 it seems on radio outlets around the country.

there is fox news. there is a conservative print media. there is the significant penetration of mainstream news, particularly mainstream telvision news, by conservative pundits--but most importantly there has been a shoft right in the ideological climate in general, which is a direct result of the operation of this apparatus.

some of the earlier neocons came to this position from the left. some of these folks were better readers of gramsci than were those who remained on the left. they understood the importance of what gramsci called "war of position" and that this war of position was about gaining hegemony, which he defined as a type of cultural domination, the ability to set the frame of reference within which debate unfolds. gramsci was right--the american conservative culture war, waged over the past 20 years, proves it.

I disagree.

In my experience, it is a complete unwillingness to even agree upon the meaning of the terms used and how to frame the debate.

After that, it is confusing compromise with surrender and betrayal of one's ideals.

With this particular group I believe it is simply symptomatic of the mean age of the membership.

People who have been through the mill a few times tend to know that black is not always black and that to get things done, compromise is occassionally necessary.

Nah. I'm basing my observation on experience beyond TFP, both alternate discussion groups, blogs and face to face, so mean age has little to do with the matter.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen "err on the side of life" and "This is what Hitler did" in reference to the Schiavo situation, for example. And to a lessor degree, "no blood for oil", from the other side. And as soon as you run into any of these types of comments, I have found there is absolutely no value in any further discussion - you can't get past the one-liner response - if you try, you're just met with the same one-liner, or if you're lucky another one of about 5 total. It just keeps going round and round.

The machine increases the likelyhood that you will be faced with a one-liner as the entirety or near-entirety of the opposing argument. The more powerful right-wing machine has more powerful effects on right-wing discussion, as stands to reason.

Though I do agree that a disagreement on the terms of the debate is certainly another problem, but not the one I am describing.

As for compromise, I've already described my opinion on the matter, particularly as it pertains to discussions between non-decision makers (as a reminder: it's useless).

"err on the side of life" is not an empty one-liner slogan spouted by the right to kill any further debate. Whether you believe it or not, that is actually how some people feel. That it is more important to them to be overly cautious and let someone live than to not. There might be more to these "right-wing one-liners" than regurgitation from some daily memo. The reason so many people are on the right is not because they are stupid and are easily seduced by quick snippits, but rather they are aware of their own beliefs. A lot of times these beliefs are similar within ideological divisions, it only makes sense that they would sound the same.

I think a lot of people on the left have a hard time accepting the fact that a lot of people are conservative, one way or another, and they think they are conservative only because they are stupid in-bread hicks that would believe anything as long as it sounds good and hippies don't support it. Well sorry, thats not how it works. A lot of people make up their minds for themselves, they just agree with each other once they do.

In reference to the Schiavo situation, yes it is. It implies a desire to forestall any hasty decision. 5 years of discussion is not a hasty decision. The slogan is empty.

i dont think it follows from outlining that there is a right media apparatus, and saying that it performs certain functions, necesarily leads you, stevo (or anyone else) to the conclusion that conservatives are seen as a bunch of stupid people.
if only things were that simple.
if only thinking that conservative=stupid was not a way of radically misunderstanding and underestimating the adversary.

no single move has a denser history of leading to disaster than does underestimating the adversary.


as an aside: i note in this and other threads the prominent role playted by self-pity in conservative responses to critiques of any kind, really--o well, you "liberals" think we are stupid--statements that have more to do with the right's quirk of thinking the opposition as some kind of "elite" than it does anything remotely like an understanding of the opposition. i think conservatives hope--dearly, truly hope--that they are being understood in this way--it justifies ignoring critique, it justifies further enclosing the already restricted/restricting political space within which this ideology can operate.

that posts from "the left" fall into this---my own included---is a tactical mistake. the results are almost ineviatbly a rehearsal of the same line from conservatives, with the same effect of shutting down exchange.

Total I was driving to work and listening to what is basically the Republican News Channel and the host was listing out all of the facts and not denying any of them:

Terri has had her due process (20 judges total)
Her brain is liquid
She will never recover
The Feds shouldn't have gotten involved

After minutes of what affirmed everything in support of removing the feeding tube (and that he would want the same for him) he still threw in:

"But I still believe in this situation that we have to errr... on the side of life."

I almost crashed my car.

Exactly.

The "conservatives are stupid" line is an empty one-liner. As you can see from this thread alone, liberals are NOT using that line, rather, liberals are analyzing the topic of discussion. Whether a conservative agrees with that analysis does not turn that analysis into an empty one-liner.

so conservatives aren't stupid. They're just wrong.

From the top-dog of the liberals, Howard Dean:
One major reason his party lost the 2004 race to the "brain-dead" Republicans is......

From the politics forum here at the TFP:
Mental health of the president and electorate

From one of our liberal members (remember Manx, you are saying that "liberals are NOT using that line"):
They are simply asinine drones that serve little purpose in their feeble lives. I label them as moronic drones due to their lack of ability to think for themselves. Their simple mindedness couldn’t possibly comprehend anything further than their false compassion for “Jesus” or their blatant disregard for other cultures. I can guarantee you that a large majority of these “good Christians” couldn’t find Iraq on the map, why? Because they are too concerned with Bush’s so called “faith” to worry about the innocent lives being taken away everyday by this “good man”.

From Slate: Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue
The unteachable ignorance of the red states.


Do I need to go back and dig up the slew of post-election articles blasting the intelligence of the "red states" and republicans in general? it was quite the common theme for quite awhile after the election, I doubt anybody has really forgotten that.

KMA, my words were:

"As you can see from this thread alone"

Hence, there are times when liberals have rested solely on the one-liner that conservatives are stupid, and there are times when liberals have stated that conservatives are stupid and then proceeded to argue that point instead of simply repeating it as the entirety or near-entirety of their argument. The difference there being significant in itself, but not so much for the point you are attempting to make.

As neither of those things have happened in this thread, as implied by stevo. Whom I was responding to in the post of mine that you quoted.

yep, you're right. I read past that part.

kma--when that does happen, it is a tactical mistake.

that said, it would be nice to see conservatives who are willing to place their premises on the line for discussion and not resort to simply rehashing talking points sent down to them from on high.

"as you can see from this thread alone" means nothing. Shall I point to a thread where conservatives did not use one-lines and libs did? and then use that as my evidence that libs rely on one-liners to get their message out, and conservatives use extended dialogue?

One thread proves nothing. I can't wait untill I get tomorrows right-wing memo in the mail, then I'll show the lots of ya.

That's not a talking point?....oh how many times have I heard this. It is truly irksome. The pure arrogance of it.

Of course it means something.

What you essentially did was this:

A lot of liberals think conservatives are stupid, but really they just can't accept that conservatives think differently. Therefore, no matter what I say (for example, err on the side of life), it is applicable and well thought through.

But since no one claimed that any statement (for example, err on the side of life) is due to the stupidity of conservatives, what you tried to do was simply to mask on empty statement behind yet another empty statement.

Instead of describing HOW the err on the side of life statement is AT ALL applicable to the Schiavo case, you simply reiterated that it is and then tried to change the subject.

There have always been liberal foundations funding and developing the left leaning ideology....

Ford
Rockefeller
Pew

and so on. Outspending their conservative counterparts 10 to 1 or more (Capital research center)

The current development of a broad developing, tightly woven right leaning movement is not the creation of the current administration but more a reaction to the longstanding dominance of the liberal ideology.

It seems when the right is willing to put their money where their mouth is, they are focusing on a set of core issues. Developing ideas and intellectual talent for the long haul. Creating a cohesive movement.
I notice the efforts of the left leaning machine being fractured by so many competing interests, many of them less than societally universal. Attacking individual issues piecemeal, splintering support.

It has taken more than thirty years of focused, concentrated effort to arrive at this point. I really think that the liberal establishment wrongly assumed things would always remain the same and they would hold their power without challenge....that said, once they finally overcome their denial of the situation they will finally get down to developing ideas to compete with the right wing machine. And so the pendulum swings.

First, I didn't think this thread was about the shaivo case.

Second, I've probably said "err on the side of life" once, possibly twice, always at the end of a statement specifying why I feel that way. Don't act like I posted a one-liner by itself.

You read that one-line and it doesn't matter what else was said because I'm using a "generic one-line phrase." Even if those are my own words, from my own brain, and I didn't hear them first on the radio or read them in my daily breefing from mr. rove.

nofnway - What you celebrate as a means to gaining power, I deride as a means of preventing meaningful discussion.

Though you may be correct that the only way to combat intentional ignorance is with equal and opposite intentional ignorance, I certainly hope you're mistaken.

steveo - You have never described how you can hold the "err on the side of life" while I too hold that opinion, while I also support Terri Schiavo's wishes. You haven't because all you feel the need to do is repeat the mantra. It is an empty statement. You've been given opportunity to fill it, but you haven't because you can't. So instead you decided to claim it is a generic liberals fault for not accepting your empty statement.

Insisting there is some sort of imbalance in the exchange of ideas is a strong motivating impetus for a political movement...ideas lead to movements lead to political support lead to policies lead to debate lead to ideas.

Most people I encounter on a day to day basis are operatiing on a sort of auto-pilot, asleep to any intellectual endeavor...the only way they seem to be reached is through the constant repetition of a single theme. Most topics (read almost all) are too complex to distill into 1 unifying expression so you use the tools you have. Grab the attention and attempt to convince or persuade. If the "mantra" is available and suits the moment it will surely be used.

Intentional ignorance is for some intentional bliss. 1 in a dozen or so people I talked to can tell me they read a book in the last year. I can't remember when the last time a family member, neighbor, or acquaintance detailed to me the results of some intellectual pursuit.....These are college educated people....asleep.

Pound Pound Pound just to get through....

We can have the meaningful discussion :)

I'm just waiting for someone on death row to pull this "err on the side of life" bullshit.

By the way, this is not turning into a fourth (fifth? sixth?) Schiavo thread. So make sure to stick to... whatever the topic is actually trying to cause a discussion about.

What you mistake for "pure arrogance" is my reaction to what I conclude to be
irrational behavior. I don't know about you, but I notice that the following
report, excerpted below, was publicly available for 10 weeks before last November's national election. The majority of voters in two of the sixth states
that were the most adversely recently impacted in actual dollar terms by federal tax and budget policies, Florida and Texas, apparently reacted by voting for more of the same.

Here is an excerpt from the linked quote box below:
Note the named states. I see only states where a majority voted for continuation, and I have to assume, validation, of Bush administration and
federal Republican Legislative intiatives and policies that cost the constituents of those states signifigant amounts of money because the recently formulated and implemented federal policies shift the tax burden from those who formerly paid more, onto them. These voters respond to this by voting for more of it. That strikes me as voting against their best financial interests. I see the house and senate representatives from these same states voting overwhelmingly to make bankruptcy more financially burdensome for the constituents of these same states, <br>all of which have higher than average per capita household chapter 7 bankruptcy filing rates.

If my reaction to people voting in large numbers for policies that sell them out
financially to special interests, while burderning them at the same time with unprecedented state and federal budget deficits, both in size and in projected duration, by describing their voting as being against their own best interests,
strikes you as "pure arrogance", how do you react to and describe the voting behavior of the majorities in the above mentioned states?

Way to take an out of context quote out of context KMA... I clicked your link-a word of advice-in the future don't make it so easy for us to call you on your bullshit. Dean used the word "brain-dead" without the complete quote we don't know what that was actually in reference to.

That is a direct quote from the article, I didn't write that, I merely copied it.

The article clearly states that Dean was calling Republicans "brain-dead"--his words, not mine.

If you have an issue with the person who wrote the article, speak with them. I quoted part of a sentence, that is all....the part of the sentence pertinent to my point.

The little dots at the end are usually understood to mean there is more to the sentence.

Sorry, no bullshit here. Especially when I use exact quotes from the article and then provide a link to the article.

No, that's not what the article clearly says. "Brain-dead" was his word "republican" was the author's addition, otherwise it would have read "brain-dead republicans" see the difference? Sorry I accused you of bullshitting when this was apparently just ignorance on your part.
hence my "out of context" accusation. In fact this is an article about Dean's admiration of the Republican's system of diseminating information, exactly the topic of this thread. It doesn't make sense for Dean to describe Republicans as brain-dead in a speech about how he plans to co-opt their strategies.
Yeah I thought that was a little brash ;) Take the time to read what you cut and paste and watch those quotation marks! :thumbsup:

In Case You Were Still Wondering if there is a "Daily Memo"...
 

I posted this "stuff" on the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2340102">"Who's Next"</a> thread here, about two weeks ago:
On monday, Nov. 19, AP released this:
<h3>Now, can someone who is familiar with these "bloggers", please explain their uniform reaction?</h3>
...and:
...and:
...and:
...and:
Did I miss including anybody's favorite parrot?

<h3>Above is a sampling of the immediate, uniform reaction by the distinguished internet pundits who unwaveringly support bushwar. They twist what the AP has repeatedly reported...AP 2005 Pulitzer prize winning news photographer Bilal Hussein was taken into custody and held by US military in Iraq 19 months ago, and still has not been charged with any specific crimes or been afforded a hearing in front of an impartial, or any...magistrate, accompanied by competent legal counsel to hear and respond to a description (or any official disclosure of) specific evidence against him that would justify his continued detention or criminal charges that he can defend himself against.</h3>

So, what do you make of this reaction from the above assembly of bloggers? IMO, they have lost orientation of what the US military is attempting to "uphold", by it's own example, in Iraq, to Iraqis. Why is there no concern by these bloggers about what AP is so concerned about? 19 months of detention without charges, without official, specific presentation of evidence to justify detention or charges against Bilal Hussein.

Just a lockstep rubber stamping of bushwar and the disconnect of it's actions vs. it's stated goals of "spreading democracy". and the "rule of law". Doesn't AP make a valid point about now "stale evidence",if there is any, and the problem of the original investigating and arresting US military personnel, no longer even being in Iraq, and the problem of no disclosure of evidence to the accused (accused of what?) and his legal counsel?

The shrill noise seems strangely disconnected from the facts. Malkin, et al, certainly know less than AP, about any of this. I also wonder, since these "folks" have made it clear that they dismiss AP, and not just in this instance, where the fuck do they get their news reporting? Do they have a news feed, unknown to the rest of us, to compliment their odd, disturbing, lockstep pronouncements about the AP's Hussein? Is the POV of the white house, DOD, and DOJ as isolated as these bloggers have made themselves?

What I want to know is why he was held for 19 months without charges - unless there was military necessity for it, meaning there was reasonable basis to think it would be dangerous to release him. I haven't seen any, and I don't like the idea of holding non-POWs without charges. But really, Host, you don't find it unremarkable that the people you quote -- who are deeply invested (emotionally, intellectually, etc) in the Iraq enterprise, and have been loudly screaming that the press is undermining it -- would have similar reactions?

I would suspect that if you went rounding up some left-side reactions after, say, the 2006 elections, they would read very similarly, too. Think of the numbers of people and outlets involved (on both sides) and you'll conclude that it's unavoidable.

This whole thing is much ado about nothing.

You're dismissing three important points:

1.)Malkin and the others are representing themselves as journalists. They have positioned themselves, and not just in relation to this news story, it appears to be vs. much of reality based news reporting....on some "side" that is opposite "fact based" news.

2.)The government that the executive branch can "get at", appears to be doing the same thing....an example:
3.)It seems likely that Bilal Hussein was captured and detained for so long, in the manner that he was...with no charges and no evidence provided, <h3>BECAUSE of a campaign by these "bloggers". I am pointing out that they are serving a function of not only commenting on the actions of authority, but heavily influencing and sometimes directing the priorities and actions</h3> of authority:
[/quote]

I know from experience loquitur, that you haven't seen anything, in a long series of the present regime's assaults on our rights, our laws, our treasury, and, our sensibilities, to take much exception to, especially from our exchanges during the Scooter Libby trial.

I don't like the POTUS, DOJ, and the military acting batshit crazy partisan, dismissing mainstream news sources, even as they manipulate information and events with the help of zealot bloggers posing as journalists. When did the executive branch transition itself from being the center of "the establishment", to some "fringe group" so closely aligned with an "alternative" press? Given that the white house and US military control the largerst nuclear arsenal in the world, it greatly concerns me that they identify, pre-occupy themselves with, and lash out at threats that either do not exist at all or are blown up, by the white house, DOJ, and DOD, along with their "bloggers", ridiculously out of proportion, even as they intimidate the press and defame it so that we will somehow take "our news" from the white house, DOJ, and DOD, and "their bloggers", as their "faithful",obviously are doing.

AP is a consortium of 5000 news gathering entities. There are intrepid unbiased reporters in "the mix", and there are agenda driven partisans. To dismiss AP, though, is a symptom of an insular, even a paranoid mentality, itf it wasn't so obvious that these miscreants in charge are attenpting to compete with AP, and with independent observatgion of event in the real world. The problem also, is, their track shows that they suck at it... NO WMD, NO WIDESPREAD VOTING FRAUD....no terrorist AP photographer....no formidible enemy in a GWOT to justify the hundreds of billions of dollars and the life and limb so far expended to combat it:

Host, I'm with you on the issue of holding people without charges and absent a showing of military necessity, as I said. All I was saying was that it should not be surprising that opinion journalists, like Michelle Malkin to use your example, have a distinct point of view and follow it in their stories. Why is that surprising? Doesn't Frank Rich do the same thing? Keith Olbermann? It's not outrageous that they do this, it's to be expected. They disagree with you (and often with me) but why is this a cause celebre?

The military PR dept. and conservative bloggers seem to be acting as one. The military is supposed to be outside of politics. Eisenhower and Powell had no discernible party affiliation until after their military careers...
I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that the AP photographer was detained because of an outcry from these bloggers, despite a lack of evidence of wrong doing.

I think it's unreasonable for the bloggers and the white house/DOD to be adversaries of AP, or to dismiss AP as a news source...it's fringe thinking to do that....

A coincidence of views does not imply prior coordination. You need a lot more than that. Otherwise I'm a member of more conspiracies than I can count.

You're your predictably dismissive self. I posted that "I suspect", and that it is "reasonable", to do so.

There are waaaayyyyy too many "coincidences". Food for thought, condensed beyond my meager abilities to convey observations I think are becoming more valid, in the fullness of time:
Aren't the following reactions to the US military's treatment of Pulitzer prize winning AP photographer and Fallujah, Iraq native, Bilal Hussein, "just about the size of it"?
loquitur, if you think that my posts are "over done" reactions to what top officials at AP say has happened to their accredited photo journalist reporting from war torn Iraq, and to what the US military itself has announced about his detention, it's duration, and the "pace" of it's "justice" in his "case", <h3>at what point would you be concerned enough to</h3> post about it, to attempt to discuss it, to protest against it, to post suspicion, in view of Malkin's statements/accusations of the last 2-1/2 years concerning Hussein's work, and her claim of an "anonymous tip" from the US military, immediately after his detention in April, 2006, that she was a catalyst, if not in his arrest, but in his long, so far unjustified, detention, <h3>if not at this point in time?</h3>

US citizen, Jose Padilla's similar detention without trial or a hearing of evidence, right here in the US, has obviously not fazed you, either. What would have to happen to raise your level of alarm? What display of callous disregard for justice and due process of an accused, by US authority would you have to observe, to raise your hackles?

I'm long past my limit, Padilla's "trial", three years late in coming, and without the criminal accusations that were described at the time of his arrest, by the US Atty. Gen. in a hastily convened "presser" from Moscow, as being so offensive to the sensibilities of "freedum lovin Muricans", that it was necessary to turn his sorry ass over to the military and to abridge all of his rights to "justice" in civilian criminal court, or to his "right to an attorney".

How do you do it? How do you exempt yourself from this "process"? When I see the treatment of Padilla, I wonder how I am any less exposed to what happened to him, at the hands of authority, than he was.

Then, when I observe the treatment of Bilal Hussein, a man with the AP, the largest news gathering and distribution organ in the entire world, squarely behind him as he is put through 19 months of injustice, and I see how little benefit his AP credentials and support, and exposure of his predicament have been for him, while in US military detention, I feel very vulnerable.

My vulnerable feeling is magnified by my suspicion that there may be "no bounds" to my embarkation of a campaign of intense, relentless, non-violent protest and civil disobedience of undetermined duration, because of what my government has already done to others, in an effort to communicate to authority that they've "crossed that line" and that I'm one who won't effing <h3>stand for it anymore</h3>.

Do you ever feel that way?

Sorry, Host, I didn't mean to sound dismissive. I'm generally skeptical, but I don't mean to be dismissive. If I came across that way I'm sorry.

Thank you, loquitur. I wish you and yours a safe and happy Thanksgiving holiday.

Why do you suppose we describe "stand for it", as sitting idly by while it happens, while our free press and our bill of rights protections against abuse by authority, are attacked by that same authority? Shouldn't it be described instead as "sit for it"?

Actually, we gave up some of our rights a loooooooooong time ago, and received a mess of pretty thin pottage in return. But that's a story for another day.....

you know what's great about america? the electorate gets to be stupid if it wants to be. I get as informed as i can. i follow the wake left behind on both the liberal and the conservative talking points. we are all trying to win the big game here. having a playbook isn't a sin. this whole situation of course shows us the difference between statesmen and carpetbagging opportunists. the statesmen do what is best for the country, and the others do what is best for those who will either keep them in power or line their pockets. it would be foolish to think our entire gov't hasn't been bought. but it's our gov't. we have to get educated and fight for it. my education and beliefs are going to be different than most folks on this board, but i have that right. i don't get mad at libs anymore, because they have the right to be libs. if they can outsmart, outspend, or outvote me, it's my own damn fault. this is war, folks. we play to win.

Get real... both sides get their talking points handed to them and go repeating them ad nauseam until they're blue in the face . I generally dont watch TV news that much, but I remember hearing the term "quagmire" so much... I dont think I've ever gotten so tired of hearing one word before. Not that I dont agree, but every network besides Fox was parroting the exact phrasing and words to describe the Iraq war. They all get their marching orders, and spread the propaganda.

Sure, the right media gets its talking points, and latches on, and repeats it over and over to give the points some illusion of credibility. If you cant recognize the left doing the same thing, I dont know what to tell you.

I won't forget the "gravitas" left wing talking point for the 2000 election. Every left wing news person was asking if Bush has "gravitas" pretty much over night.

Rush Limbaugh made a cute song of it 'feliz gravitas' splicing in all news people/pundits using the term.

I would argue that while there are "talking points" on both sides, the dissemination of these points doesn't always point to a sinister agenda on the part of those repeating the message, rather it just points to journalistic laziness.

Many journalists get their "news" from press releases. There are services that disseminate these releases and many journalists simply parrot what is found in the release without calling to ask any follow up questions. Punditry, blogs, etc. are not all that difference.

It's like a series of "me too" posts in an online forum.

True, in the 'gravitas' incident, and it was 7 years ago so its fuzzy, but I recall a handful of pundit types using it on the same day. That was the talking point. The rest, as you said were just plain lazy and latching on.

I heard recently the Clinton campaign got busted for planting a question in the audience at some debate. Thats really about the same level, its just a way to get a side of an issue 'out there'.

Yup, in the views of folks who see everything from a "business as ususal", POV, all "talking points" are equally meritless, or the opposite, and "both sides do it", so there is nothing to see here....move along, host. Associated Press is "bad", sez "one side" of the aisle, snd the administration it blindly supports, says the same....so, where does that "side of the aisle" get "it's news"?

It should be an important question, as should the questionable detentions, without charges, of both Padilla and AP photographer Hussein...but curiously,
none of these assaults on our rights or intimidations of the press, or the partisanizing of the US military, as an official policy, are of much concern to Ustwo and Charlatan...so move along, host...you're too shrill, and your overreacting.

I don't believe I once said, that we should not be concerned with "questionable detentions, without charges, of both Padilla and AP photographer Hussein". Please show me where I did.

I believe, if you read what I've written, I am simply addressing the issue of "talking points". As such I see "talking points" are about two different things.

1) Talking points that have been put forward by any given spin doctor.

2) How those talking points are used once they have been released.

I am suggesting that I find it unlikely that there is a grand conspiracy. Yes, players like Karl Rove are masters of spin and they work *very* hard to keep their people on message as well as providing a "message" for the media and the blogisphere to follow along (these are called leaks or press releases).

Spin Happens. It is utilized by anyone with any media savvy. Anyone.

The fact is the Republicans have been winning this media war.


All of the issues that are spun are still issues that need to be discussed. Perhaps more so as it becomes important to unspin the message.

Precisely. Many journalists are lazy and insular, just like most people. They do an awful lot of meme-chasing.

Let us see if today's "memo" gets any major traction.
It's based on some propaganda out of heritage.org , an entity founded by the same conservative christian fundamnetalist who founded the CNP:
The "goal" was described by Bozell in a 1992 speach to Heritage foundation gathering:
<h3>Here's how it surfaces, Heritage feeds this absurd bullshit to Moon's "rag":</h3>
Now we'll see if the "real" press distributes this, and how many others of the conservative choir on the internet, push it.