Is there some sort of daily Right Wing Memo? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

kutulu · 03-21-2005, 01:51 PM

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.

lurkette · 03-21-2005, 01:54 PM

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

Willravel · 03-21-2005, 01:57 PM

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?

KMA-628 · 03-21-2005, 02:27 PM

........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?

NCB · 03-21-2005, 02:33 PM

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

ratbastid · 03-21-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

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.

NCB · 03-21-2005, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

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.

Willravel · 03-21-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Edit: Will--wrong thread, eh?

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.

filtherton · 03-21-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

^^^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.

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?

KMA-628 · 03-21-2005, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Willravel · 03-21-2005, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

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?

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.

CShine · 03-21-2005, 03:12 PM

GOP Talking Points on Terri Schiavo

Quote:

The following memo listing talking points on the Terri Schiavo case was circulated among Republican senators on the floor of the Senate.

This is an exact, full copy of the document obtained exclusively by ABC News and first reported Friday, March 18, 2005, by Linda Douglass on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings."

S. 529, The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act

Teri (sic) Schiavo is subject to an order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1p.m.

The Senate needs to act this week, before the Budget Act is pending business, or Terri's family will not have a remedy in federal court.

This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.

This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

The bill is very limited and defines custody as "those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment."

There is an exemption for a proceeding "which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under applicably law that clearly authorized the withholding or or (sic) withdrawl (sic) of food and fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances."

Incapacitated persons are defined as those "presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding or withdrawl (sic) of food fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law."

This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy.

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

KMA-628 · 03-21-2005, 03:18 PM

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

Lebell · 03-21-2005, 03:38 PM

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

kutulu · 03-21-2005, 03:47 PM

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.

iccky · 03-21-2005, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

^^^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 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.

Manx · 03-21-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iccky

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.

roachboy · 03-21-2005, 06:56 PM

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.

nofnway · 03-21-2005, 10:58 PM

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...

matthew330 · 03-21-2005, 11:04 PM

"It's disgusting... "

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

nofnway · 03-21-2005, 11:06 PM

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...

host · 03-21-2005, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

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

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 ?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050316-3.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050316-3.html</a>
David.

Q Mr. President, you say you're making progress in the Social Security debate. Yet private accounts, as the centerpiece of that plan, something you first campaigned on five years ago and laid before the American people, remains, according to every measure we have, poll after poll, unpopular with a majority of Americans. So the question is, do you feel that this is a point in the debate where it's incumbent upon you, and nobody else, to lay out a plan to the American people for how you actually keep Social Security solvent for the long-term?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, Dave, let me, if I might correct you, be so bold as to correct you, I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally. I have laid out principles, I've talked about putting all options on the table, because I fully understand the administration must work with the Congress to permanently solve Social Security. So one aspect of the debate is, will we be willing to work together to permanently solve the issue.

Personal accounts do not solve the issue. But personal accounts will make sure that individual workers get a better deal with whatever emerges as a Social Security solution.

And the reason why is because a personal account would enable a worker to, voluntarily, by the way -- this is a voluntary program, you can choose to join or choose not to join. The government is not making you do that, it's your option, and you can decide whether or not you want to put some of your own money aside in a conservative mix of stocks and bonds to earn a better rate of return than that which you would earn -- your money would earn inside the Social Security system. And over time, that compounds, it grows, and you would end up with a nest egg you could call your own.

And so I think it's an interesting idea, and one that people ought to discuss to make sure the system works better for an individual worker. But it's very important for people to understand that the permanent solution will require Congress and the administration working together on a variety of different possibilities.

Q But, sir, but Democrats have made it pretty clear that they're not interested in that. They want you to lay it out. And so, what I'm asking is, don't --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm sure they do. The first bill on the Hill always is dead on arrival. I'm interested in coming up with a permanent solution. I'm not interested in playing political games. (Laughter.) I'm interested in working with members of both political parties.

Q Would you say if you're specifically supportive of an income test for the slowing of future benefits? Could that get some kind of bipartisan consensus going?

THE PRESIDENT: David, there's some interesting ideas out there. One of the interesting ideas was by the fellow -- by a Democrat economist name of Posen. He came to visit the White House -- he didn't see me, but came and tossed some interesting ideas out, talking about making sure the system was progressive. We're open for ideas. And I -- look, I can understand why people say, make -- force the President to either negotiate with himself, or lay out his own bill. I want to work with members of both political parties.

And I stood up in front of the Congress and said, bring your ideas forward. And I'm looking forward to people bringing ideas forward. That's how the process works. I'm confident we'll get something done. See, the American people want something done. They don't like partisan politics; they don't like people saying, I'm not going to accept so-and-so's idea because it happens to come from a particular political party. What they want is people coming together to solve this problem.

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 !!

Quote:

<a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0503140217mar14,1,2052254.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=2&cset=true">http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0503140217mar14,1,2052254.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=2&cset=true</a>
Business, RNC lend hand to Bush blitz
Aggressive efforts to guide opinion trends on Social Security raise concerns over `information-sharing'

By Mark Silva
Washington Bureau
Published March 14, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The White House, in concert with the Republican National Committee and well-financed business groups, has launched an unprecedented campaign for changes in Social Security, including essays in local newspapers, media interviews and supporters calling in to radio shows to back President Bush.

The drive, which includes mobilization of supporters to attend rallies for the president and town-hall meetings by members of Congress, closely tracks Bush's travels as he crisscrosses the nation on a 60-day tour touting Social Security revisions facing opposition in Congress.

The coordination among the president, Republican Party and privately financed organizations is the latest example of an aggressive, disciplined control of information flowing from the White House, which experts say dwarfs the communications efforts of previous administrations.

Many attribute the administration's successes in no small part to this painstaking control of information. These efforts have ranged from the innovative and aggressive to what the non-partisan Government Accountability Office has called the illegal production of video reports that appear to be the work of journalists.

Critics say the White House sometimes has gone too far, blurring the distinction between information and propaganda and disregarding the public's right to know. Indeed, the administration has been rebuked by federal auditors for distributing government-produced videotapes masquerading as news reports and has been embarrassed by revelations that agencies paid columnists to promote the Bush agenda. The legality of hiring columnists is under review of the GAO.

Others say the Bush White House is simply skilled at media management. The new campaign--coordinated through weekly meetings of representatives from the White House, the RNC, congressional leadership and private groups such as Progress for America--is an offshoot of the president's 2004 re-election campaign. Essentially, this organization is a permanent organization for the promotion of Bush's second-term agenda, focused for the moment on Social Security.

The "information-sharing" sessions "make sure we are all rowing in the same direction," said Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman, who managed Bush's re-election effort.

"We are working with a lot of the same tools we used in the '04 campaign--a research operation, a booking operation [for interviews] . . . the ability to place op-eds and a grass-roots organization," Mehlman said. "All of that is now happening with the goal of passing an agenda . . . not just on Social Security, but also going forward."

This message machinery--in combination with the extraordinary discipline of a largely leakproof White House--has convinced veterans of the news trade that Bush is raising the art of information management to new heights.

"It certainly appears that there is a well-oiled process at play within the Bush administration, that they are savvy, they are adept, they are determined," said Bob Steele, a media expert at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla. "They have created pipelines, and they have created vehicles, and they have built a system that seems to work well for the administration in many ways."

The U.S. comptroller general recently wrote a letter to administration officials urging them to avoid breaking the law again as they did in producing fake television reports, telling agency heads to heed "the boundaries between the government and the free press."

Much of the effort by Bush and his allies is aimed at reaching over a wall of an allegedly liberal Washington media and, as Progress for America states on its Web site, "forcing the media to report the facts about President Bush's common-sense conservative agenda."

Bush calls the strategy "going around the filter" of national media.

"The national media has the opportunity to ask the president questions very regularly," said White House Communications Director Nicolle Devenish.

The `local' strategy

"The local media strategy has its roots perhaps in the fact that the president, as a [former Texas] governor, understands that people get their news from the Dallas Morning News or Sacramento Bee or St. Petersburg Times. ... The current intensity of our outreach is a reflection of the president's eagerness to get his second-term agenda enacted by the Congress and embraced by the public."

But the "outreach" is more than just talking to local newspapers. It includes the coordinated campaign of a White House office headed by Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, the Republican Party, and groups such as Progress for America (PFA) and the Coalition for the Modernization and Protection of America's Social Security (CoMPASS).

Independent 527 committees, named for the section of the federal tax code under which they operate, were barred from coordinating with Bush's re-election campaign, but they now are free to work in lockstep with the White House in promoting issues such as Social Security change. Progress for America spent more than $35 million on its campaign for Bush's re-election, with donors such as the mortgage company Ameriquest giving $5 million and Amway donating $4 million. CoMPASS is a newer group financed by the Business Roundtable, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors and others to support Bush's Social Security moves. It has a reported budget of about $20 million.

An internal Republican National Committee memo shows that during a recent congressional recess, when lawmakers returned home to test public sentiment on Bush's Social Security plans, the committee booked staff and "surrogates"--local speakers lined up to speak on the president's behalf--for national television interviews while party staffers participated in nearly 50 local and national radio interviews.

At the same time, the memo shows, Progress for America's troops made 7,098 contacts with constituents in targeted districts, participated in 38 radio shows, hired public relations professionals in 20 states with plans to expand to 25, and "generated" 18 published letters to the editor on Social Security.

CoMPASS forces made more than 250,000 telephone contacts in 11 targeted districts, the memo details, participated in 41 interviews with local media, placed 200 calls to talk radio shows, "mobilized" 3,100 advocates to attend town hall meetings with members of Congress, "drove attendance" at 50 town-hall meetings and placed opinion pieces in the newspapers of 10 "local markets."

"Social Security is a great American institution, but it was designed for a different--and distant--era," says the opinion piece signed by CoMPASS Executive Director Derrick Max. It ran in Florida's St. Augustine Record, New Jersey's Bergen County Record, Minnesota's Duluth News Tribune and central Utah's Daily Herald from Feb. 17 through 24.

"The story for most Americans, it's not about the national press," Max explained in an interview. "It's what they read in their local paper. It's not Dan Rather. It's Jim and Joe at 5."

The group placed an opinion piece supporting Bush's plan by J.C. Watts Jr., former congressman from Oklahoma and one-time star college football quarterback, in the Manchester, N.H., Union Leader.

"When I played football for the University of Oklahoma, our coaches always told us the same thing before big games: Let's leave it all out on the field," Watts wrote. "Watching the Social Security reform debate unfold, I have been reminded of my coaches' wisdom."

`Covert propaganda'

Democrats have strongly criticized the Republican tactics.

"We are seeing a steady stream of covert propaganda being churned out by the Bush administration," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who is seeking investigations of the administration's media techniques.. "You would think they would pull back their efforts, but they are moving ahead with outrageous propaganda tactics on Social Security."

As they take Bush's program to the field, supporters are savoring their freedom from the campaign restrictions on coordination between the White House and private groups.

Asked about his relations with the RNC and White House, CoMPASS's Max said, "There are no rules against coordination. It's not an election season. It's pure issue advocacy. We can coordinate with anyone we want."

The White House unit working with CoMPASS and other groups is the Office of Public Liaison, which is under the supervision of Rove, Bush's longtime chief political adviser. The White House says Rove isn't directing the campaign so much as relying on the work of supporters.

"It's more a true coalition versus what some might see as a top-down approach," said White House spokesman Trent Duffy. " . . . It's up to the leaders of the individual groups to decide what activities they wish to engage in."

The RNC's efforts are considerable.

Another recent internal party memo details coordinated events surrounding visits of "POTUS"--president of the United States--to congressional districts. In Indiana and New Jersey, this included "driving supporters to POTUS events with signs."

In New York, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Nevada, it meant distributing information countering Democratic Party attacks on the president's plan and using Hispanic surrogates to conduct Spanish-language radio interviews.

"It certainly is sophisticated," Mehlman said. "Certainly the level of interest by the party working with the White House and working with folks on the outside is the highest I can remember."

"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.

alansmithee · 03-21-2005, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

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.

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

Willravel · 03-22-2005, 12:08 AM

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.

alansmithee · 03-22-2005, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

irseg · 03-22-2005, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

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.

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.

archer2371 · 03-22-2005, 01:22 AM

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

host · 03-22-2005, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

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.

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:

Quote:

But the "outreach" is more than just talking to local newspapers. It includes the coordinated campaign of a White House office headed by Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, the Republican Party, and groups such as Progress for America (PFA) and the Coalition for the Modernization and Protection of America's Social Security (CoMPASS).

Independent 527 committees, named for the section of the federal tax code under which they operate, were barred from coordinating with Bush's re-election campaign, but they now are free to work in lockstep with the White House in promoting issues such as Social Security change. Progress for America spent more than $35 million on its campaign for Bush's re-election, with donors such as the mortgage company Ameriquest giving $5 million and Amway donating $4 million. CoMPASS is a newer group financed by the Business Roundtable, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors and others to support Bush's Social Security moves. It has a reported budget of about $20 million.

An internal Republican National Committee memo shows that during a recent congressional recess, when lawmakers returned home to test public sentiment on Bush's Social Security plans, the committee booked staff and "surrogates"--local speakers lined up to speak on the president's behalf--for national television interviews while party staffers participated in nearly 50 local and national radio interviews.

At the same time, the memo shows, Progress for America's troops made 7,098 contacts with constituents in targeted districts, participated in 38 radio shows, hired public relations professionals in 20 states with plans to expand to 25, and "generated" 18 published letters to the editor on Social Security.

CoMPASS forces made more than 250,000 telephone contacts in 11 targeted districts, the memo details, participated in 41 interviews with local media, placed 200 calls to talk radio shows, "mobilized" 3,100 advocates to attend town hall meetings with members of Congress, "drove attendance" at 50 town-hall meetings and placed opinion pieces in the newspapers of 10 "local markets."

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.

alansmithee · 03-22-2005, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

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."

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.

Quote:

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 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:

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7203069/
"The criticism that George Bush got worse coverage than John Kerry is supported by the data. Looking across all media, campaign coverage that focused on Bush was three times as negative as coverage of Kerry," the report said. "It was also less likely to be positive. That also meant Bush coverage was less likely to be neutral."

According to the report, 36 percent of campaign-related stories about Bush were negative, compared to 12 percent for Kerry. Twenty percent of stories about Bush were positive, compared to 30 percent for Kerry. The remaining stories - 44 percent for Bush and 58 percent for Kerry - were neutral in tone.

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:

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollV...=579917&page=1
In the midst of a 60-day drive by Bush to build public support for his Social Security initiative, this ABC News/Washington Post poll shows no movement in Bush's direction. Americans oppose his plans by 55 percent to 37 percent, and the intensity of sentiment is against him: Those who are "strongly" opposed outnumber strong supporters by a 2-to-1 margin.

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.

roachboy · 03-22-2005, 08:18 AM

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.

Lebell · 03-22-2005, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

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.

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.

Manx · 03-22-2005, 08:54 AM

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).

stevo · 03-22-2005, 09:33 AM

"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.

Manx · 03-22-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

"err on the side of life" is not an empty one-liner slogan spouted by the right to kill any further debate.

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.

roachboy · 03-22-2005, 09:45 AM

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.

kutulu · 03-22-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

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.

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.

Manx · 03-22-2005, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

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.

stevo · 03-22-2005, 10:10 AM

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

KMA-628 · 03-22-2005, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

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.

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.

Manx · 03-22-2005, 10:29 AM

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.

03-21-2005, 01:51 PM	#1 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	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.

03-21-2005, 01:54 PM	#2 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	Actually, yes, the White House Press Office does send out briefing memos, and a lot of people adopt the language suggested. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

03-21-2005, 02:27 PM	#4 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	........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? __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

03-21-2005, 03:18 PM	#13 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	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 __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

03-21-2005, 03:38 PM	#14 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Anyone who thinks only one side does this is blind to politics in America today. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

03-21-2005, 01:57 PM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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?

03-21-2005, 03:47 PM	#15 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	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.

03-21-2005, 06:56 PM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-21-2005, 10:58 PM	#19 (permalink)
nofnway Insane Location: under the freeway bridge	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... __________________ "Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind" Leonardo Da Vinci

03-21-2005, 11:04 PM	#20 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	"It's disgusting... " ....at first, you get used to it.

03-21-2005, 11:06 PM	#21 (permalink)
nofnway Insane Location: under the freeway bridge	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... __________________ "Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind" Leonardo Da Vinci Last edited by nofnway; 03-21-2005 at 11:09 PM..

03-22-2005, 12:08 AM	#24 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

03-22-2005, 01:22 AM	#27 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	We're just sneakier about it than the Dems are. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

03-22-2005, 08:18 AM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-22-2005 at 08:21 AM..

03-22-2005, 08:54 AM	#32 (permalink)
Manx Loser	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).

03-22-2005, 09:33 AM	#33 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	"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. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

03-22-2005, 09:45 AM	#35 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-22-2005, 10:10 AM	#38 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	so conservatives aren't stupid. They're just wrong. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

03-22-2005, 10:29 AM	#40 (permalink)
Manx Loser	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.