If republicans are so bad............

[frazzledgear]

However, Republicans usually resonate with more people than Democrats do, by stoking a larger number of beliefs and folklores derived from American cultural dogma, such as, "freedom", "liberty", ideological capitalism (as opposed to pragmatic capitalism), and the construction of a common public enemy that threatens American civilization, be it Al Qaeda, the Soviet Union, Iran, Saddam Hussein, or whoever is the chosen enemy of the day.

Maybe Democrats will figure out that there is more success to be gained by pointing out the real foreign enemies of the nation -rather that insist the "real" enemies are always fellow Americans.

 

[greenpartyaz]

Why the heck they keep getting elected? The last 40 years we have had only 12 years uder a democratic president.

Because the Democrats haven't had a spine in years. Although it seems like that is changing.

 

[morpheus]

Maybe Democrats will figure out that there is more success to be gained by pointing out the real foreign enemies of the nation -rather that insist the "real" enemies are always fellow Americans.

Both sides of the spectrum point at both internal and external enemies. Scare tactics win public approval and votes. Conservatives pointed to Bill Clinton as man who will lead America into moral decay, and now point to Barrack and Michelle Obama as Muslim, terrorists, Black radicalists, and/or communists; or -as in the 2004 election- by preaching to rural conservative southerners that Democrats will ban the bible. There's lots of pointing fingers at fellow Americans by conservatives, trying to identify an enemy from within. And it works a lot of the time, because whatever Republicans have to say resonates more with the public.

The enemies from without are another interesting topic. We hear a lot about Iran and how Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons (something that is being hypothesized, and not something we know for sure), but rarely does American public discourse bring up the fact that Islamic Iran is -essentially- a product of the United States. Washington organized the 1953 coup which put and kept the unpopular Shah in power until the 1979 revolution. Anti-americanism in Iran was only a backlash against American political meddling in their country; but that's not how the American oligarchy wants you to see it. They want you to see it this way: the regime in Iran hates us just because. Because we're different, we're not Muslim, we love freedom and democracy, and so on. While anti-americanism is undoubtedly backlash against American foreign policy, public discourse in America completely separates anti-americanism from its causes, and attempts reconstruct a complex international development into a simplistic narrative that'll scare the American public into supporting the government's foreign policy. Take the end opf the Cold War for example. American intelligence knew very well since the early 1970s that the Soviet Union was headed for economic collapse. But that's not what the Reagan adminsitration and the ascending neo-cons wanted you to know. They inflated the Soviet threat, convinced themselves -with no evidence- that the Soviets were violating the ICBM treaty, completely hid America's involvement in the Afghanistan civil war, and scared the public into believing that the "Evil Empire" was out to get us. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Reaganites claimed that it was their doing, and patted themselves on the back. America can do anything she puts her mind to, so goes the propaganda-folklore.

This is how you win elections and foster support for your foreign policy. Construct enemies, infalate their threats, and scare the public. Works like a charm every time. America is the good guy constantly fighting evil forces. It's a scare tactic theorized by neo-conservative philosopher Leo Strauss, and Republicans have found it highly effective.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Okay, so maybe this is why conservatives are regarded as stupid. Not because they really are stupid. But because they play stupid -or attempt to change the subject- when something unpleasant is brought up to them. You know exactly what I'm talking about on both my first and my second posts, but you choose not to address and critique this aspect of your paradigm.

My analysis really was not about conservatives versus liberals, as liberals too can use rhetoric that resonates with a lot of people, for example on the issue of immigration/political correctness (that the United States is -supposedly- a "land of immigrants" that was "founded for freedom" by "people from all over the world", and so on). However, Republicans usually resonate with more people than Democrats do, by stoking a larger number of beliefs and folklores derived from American cultural dogma, such as, "freedom", "liberty", ideological capitalism (as opposed to pragmatic capitalism), and the construction of a common public enemy that threatens American civilization, be it Al Qaeda, the Soviet Union, Iran, Saddam Hussein, or whoever is the chosen enemy of the day. The propaganda machine manufactures such public enemies out of states or factions [sometimes former allies] who clash with the United States out of geopolitical context. Take a complex international development with a long past, and reconstruct it into a simplistic narrative of "good/us" versus "evil/them": that so-and-so hates America for who/what we are, and not because of anything we've done either on our part or mutually. The public then gobbles it up; it works like a charm every time. Hence politicians stoke this American national credo in order to get elected and to garner support for their policies: domestic and foreign policy alike. Who says that this only happens in America? I compared the Republicans to Chávez, and Americans to Venezuelans, but you disregarded that analysis, and accused the left of calling Americans stupid. Which further proves my point about Republicans: smear someone who disagrees with you (in this case, I'm the elitist calling Americans "stupid") in an attempt to discredit that person's viewpoint.

I said "Who? Wha-?" because the launch of your conversation with me was was in familiar tones that were alien to me.

But now you descend into the usual, "those mean old republiKKKans are just keeping the sheeple rattled in their cages. Too bad the sheeple won't listen to us." only you stretched it out to 500 eye-crossingly tedious words.

If the American people were so easily lead then you could lead them too; only you can't so your grousing about their alleged lack of intelligence/sophistication (descending coincidentally from the same word as sophistry) is just your way of covering for you political inadequacies.

If you want to start winning majorities stop calling the majority mid-numbed, bible-thumping, uneducated, easily-lead, easily-frightened, sister-touching, unwashed, backwoods, rednecks.

The second step is to stop telling them you demand control of their schools, their churches, their homes and their pocketbooks.

No charge for the clue.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I said "Who? Wha-?" because the launch of your conversation with me was was in familiar tones that were alien to me.

But now you descend into the usual, "those mean old republiKKKans are just keeping the sheeple rattled in their cages. Too bad the sheeple won't listen to us." only you stretched it out to 500 eye-crossingly tedious words.

If the American people were so easily lead then you could lead them too; only you can't so your grousing about their alleged lack of intelligence/sophistication (descending coincidentally from the same word as sophistry) is just your way of covering for you political inadequacies.

If you want to start winning majorities stop calling the majority mid-numbed, bible-thumping, uneducated, easily-lead, easily-frightened, sister-touching, unwashed, backwoods, rednecks.

The second step is to stop telling them you demand control of their schools, their churches, their homes and their pocketbooks.

No charge for the clue.

Need we point out that 20% still approve of Bush / Cheny... Somebody around here is easily led by fear tactics.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

It really should have been. But personally I think the Democrats ran Obama at least four years too soon and maybe 8 too soon. ...

I think that the money behind both parties would agree with you. They were expecting a controllable Hillary to beat the Republicans - the cost of having George Jr. in the Whitehouse for 8 glorious and profitable years. This is why they purchased both political parties.

Obama surprised the powers that be and that is why you see them scrambling to make McCain electable.

For the first time in 50 years, the money behind the power in this country actually cares about the election. They don't have but one lap-dog in the final 2 choices.

The unscripted nature of this election is why I am excited!

-Joe

 

[sealybobo]

Profanity is a poor substitute for logic and facts.

Congrats, you can google. So can I. You're all rage first and facts--made to fit--later.

Again, Gov Palin is not a member of the AIP. The AIP is not a terrorist organization like Mr Ayers or the KKK.

And you cannot simply dismiss the fact that Byrd was kleagle or that Little O and Ayers worked--not associated--but worked side-by-side for many years.

Palin did not participate beyond welcoming them as she welcomed other political convenstions. Palin was not a member, the leader of the AIP admitted as much. Even the factcheck article noted Mr Palin's involvement was so lackluster as to be negligible....AND he left before she came to national attention...unlike a certain guy at a certain racist church.

So stop with the lurid fantasies; the facts are not on your side.

Sorry dude, but Todd Palin has INAPPROPRIATELY been very very involved in his wife's administration. You know what? If you are dumb enough to vote for HER, then go for it. Either you are rich or too dumb to even discuss with anymore. And it's not just her, or her husband, or mccain's flip flops, or the anti abortion, or the tax breaks to the rich, or the recession, or the wars or McCain's melanoma. It's everything. You already have enough information. Aiers/Wright stories are weak. You are weak. That's like labeling me because I work with 100 people and one of them is a terrorist. You have nothing on Obama. What you have on Obama, multiply by 50 and that's what I have on McCain.

In the aftermath of the Walt Monegan firing, one question keeps surfacing over and over again; why does the governor's husband, Todd Palin appear to hold so much power?

After all, Nancy Murkowski or Susan Knowles were never accused of pressuring a commissioner or inappropriately sitting in on meetings that should have been private.

The stories started last year when Representative Ralph Samuels told me about going into a meeting, he thought would be private, with Governor Sarah Palin. Much to his surprise, Todd Palin was there and proceeded to sit through the entire meeting.

Other lawmakers have shared similar stories and were shocked at how inappropriate Todd's presence was at meetings with the governor. Yesterday on the Dan Fagan Show, Representative Jay Ramras mentioned that Todd was working lawmakers offices during the ACES debate.

 

[editec]

Because the Dems are pussies and they spend too much time fighting each other rather than the opponent. They dont understand the fundamentals of being a party which is loyalty, Republicans are extremely loyal.

Well of course they are.

Most of them get paid to keep their mouths shut and to fly right.

Start sounding like a radical on the left and you'll lose your job.

Sound like a radical of the rightest persuasion and you're managment material.

 

[sealybobo]

Well of course they are.

Most of them get paid to keep their mouths shut and to fly right.

Start sounding like a radical on the left and you'll lose your job.

Sound like a radical of the rightest persuasion and you're managment material.

Republicans don't realize that each Senator from each state is supposed to act independently. That's why Democrats have blue dog democrats vs. non blue dog democrats.

But Republicans are all the same. That's why it is a joke to say McCain is any different. He sat by and watched the GOP ruin America.

When he could he voted against them, so he could keep up his maverick apperance. But when he had to, he always toed the line.

 

[seth1492]

I think that the Republicans keep winning because every election year the Dems start out strong and then loose focus, get off message, and blow it! The Reps aren't doing anything special, in fact they are not doing enough, but the Dems will probably lose it for themselves like they have the last couple of elections. It should be the year of the Dems, but instead Barack could blow it for a lot of them.