Democrats hard at work blowing the 08 election Part II

[Elrohir]

Republican criticism is one thing. Trying to use the media to sway public opinion, and completely misjudging the media, and the public, is another thing altogether. Thats what the Democrats are doing. They behave as if the media was invented last week, and theyre just now trying to learn how to use it Meanwhile, the Republicans, who we constantly accuse of being stupid, play the media like a violin.

I find this endlessly amusing. Why can't liberals make up their minds? Are Republicans stupid people who can't do anything right? Or are they devious masterminds controlling everything in our society? Earlier in this thread, Bozo, you said that the Republicans "couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag". (Or something to that effect) So which is it? Are they so deft that they can "play the media like a fiddle", but so stupid that they can't run a war?

Anyway....I don't think the Democrats are capitalizing on the average American's discontent like they could. But neither do I think the Republicans are "playing the media like a violin", either - on the contrary, I think for almost all of President Bush's administration, they've been extraordinarily inept at engaging the Democrats in the square of public opinion. They've just sort of gone ahead and done stuff, without really explaining why.

More like (that in general) the American media is so right-wing and wants 4 more years of Republicans that they will attack the Democrats regardless.

That's friggen hilarious. The American media might be right-wing by European standards, but by American standards they are very liberal. Something like 90% of new journalists voted for Kerry in 2004. Regardless of what you think, the American media, by and large, is no friend of the Republican party in general, and President Bush in particular.

 

[JollyRoger]

Jolly, Ive realized that we expect too much from the media, maybe because of the hype associated with Watergate. Ultimately, the media is just a tool, which is used best by those who understand it best. Democrats demonstrably have no idea how to use the media. They won Congress in the last election because of the obvious Republican incompetence, not because of their skill at directing public opinion (which is non-existent, obviously).

Well, the good news for 2008 is that none of the Republican frontrunners for President appear to be very media savvy and I think that a Dem ultimately prevails. The Dems should be able to increase their numbers in the Senate and hold onto the House. If this comes to be, it will be time to take control of the media narrative. The bubbleheads desire access to powerful sources more than anything else, so with control of the executive and legislative branches, the bubbleheads should be easy to control.

 

[JollyRoger]

Regardless of what you think, the American media, by and large, is no friend of the Republican party in general, and President Bush in particular.

Yep that's what Fox News, the Christian Broadcasting Network, the Inspiration Network, Clear Channel, Radio America, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the New York Post, National Review, The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, Commentary, the Drudge Report, Instapundit, Powerline, David Brooks, Dinish D'Souza, David Horowitz, Ben Stein, David Frum, Bill O' Reilly, Sean hannity, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanon, Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, George Will, FreeRepublic, NewsMax, Townhall, Regency Publishing, Sentinel, Spence Publishing, Crown Forum, Accuracy in the Media, and the Family Research council told me - the media is liberal.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I find this endlessly amusing. Why can't liberals make up their minds? Are Republicans stupid people who can't do anything right? Or are they devious masterminds controlling everything in our society?

The Republican Party leadership is extremely skilled, not only at manipulating the media, but at understanding the public which the media is speaking to. This much is obvious. The above has basolutely nothing to do with waging a war, and consolidating the benefits of that war. An area in which Republicans have shown themselves to be demonstrably deficient. In short, if Republicans could fight a war as well as they could sell one, all the Neocon wetdreams for this century would come true. But they wont. Because they arent.

Earlier in this thread, Bozo, you said that the Republicans "couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag". (Or something to that effect) So which is it? Are they so deft that they can "play the media like a fiddle", but so stupid that they can't run a war?

I can do many things well, and many other things, I cant do so well. What about that is so muanced that its difficult for you to comprehend?

Anyway....I don't think the Democrats are capitalizing on the average American's discontent like they could. But neither do I think the Republicans are "playing the media like a violin", either - on the contrary, I think for almost all of President Bush's administration, they've been extraordinarily inept at engaging the Democrats in the square of public opinion. They've just sort of gone ahead and done stuff, without really explaining why.

I think youre right about that, believe it or not. But I think thats because heir reasons for the war (and its continuation) dont bear close scrutiny.

That's friggen hilarious. The American media might be right-wing by European standards, but by American standards they are very liberal.

No. I said that the American public is relatively right wing, not the media.

Something like 90% of new journalists voted for Kerry in 2004. Regardless of what you think, the American media, by and large, is no friend of the Republican party in general, and President Bush in particular.

Please dont take this as a trolling, insulting, elitist statement but the fact is that the American public has very little in common with Ive League journalists and the politicians which they cover, of either party.

 

[MobBoss]

Ok, lets start by defining some key things:

I will endeavor to answer to the best of my ability.

1. What is our mission in Iraq?

At this point I would say it is ensuring the current government survives and that the country able to defend itself from hostile neighbors and their covert agents.

2. Who are the insurgents? Are they Bathist elements of the former regime? Are they Sunni militias? Are they Shia militias?

In my humble opinion, the majority of the insurgents are the non-government militias that have been allowed to exist for far too long.

3. What is the Sunni vs Shia conflict all about?

Religious fanaticism.

4. Is that internecine Islamic conflict something which Americans should be involved in, and attempt to resolve?

I think that indirectly yes, if our goal is stability in Iraq.

I look forward to your answers on those four questions, MB.

I hope I didnt let you down.

Once again, victory isnt about our military winning on the battle field. Theyve already done that. Our military has performed admirably and heroically. the mess we're currently in isnt because of a failure on their part. Its because of a failure of the civilian Republican leadership back in Washington.

I dont think that the case at all. If the republicans have failed in anything, its not emphasizing how long or how tough the war would be. De facto victory now simply equates into fewer soldiers killed and better press from the area. Hard to do when you are trying to keep the peace in a volitile region.

I agree with that wholeheartedly. Our losses so far are minimal, compared with other conflicts we've had to endure (unlike this one, which was optional). However, I dont think that most parents of fallen soldiers will be consoled by that. Because this war didnt have to happen. There were no WMDs, remember?

I am not going to argue the point about WMDs, but be honest, this war was about more than just WMDs from the get go. It was about knowing for sure about Saddam, and the only way we could have ever known for sure was to go in on the ground. I personally think the world a far better place without Saddam and even for that one sole achievement, the war has been worth it.

Maybe if you were on the frontlines you would have a different opinion about that. I know someone who is. He's just a poor, dumb kid who was in such financial difficulty, that he had no choice but to sign up for the war, in order to help his family.

Please realize that because of my position, for every 'one' you know, I happen to know a couple of hundred, irregardless of me being on the frontlines or not.

I dont buy the 'no choice' thing either - that is just a flat cop out. Everyone has choices, everyone. My oldest kid is pretty much in the same boat and she wants to get married next year, so she needs a good job. But she flat out refused to go into the military. Thats her choice.

Explain to his family how intelligent Bush is, and how wonderful the war is, if, God forbid (knocking on wood), he's killed, or maimed in this stupid war.

Whats Bush's intelligence got to do with anything in this arguement? Who said the war was 'wonderful'. Again, Bozo, cut the rhetoric...NO ONE is saying the war is wonderful. NO ONE. So cut it out. If all you are out to do is demonize the other side without any true discussion then fine, all you are is another Cindy Sheehan. You want to talk like an adult, then by all means do so, but drop the lefty propaganda.

Heres what I see as being pathetic: starting wars without a coherent plan, and embarking on a peace, without a coherent plan.

They did have a coherent plan prior to the war. You can disagree all you want, but you are wrong to state it as fact. Parts of it failed. Parts of it suceeded. This is true of pretty much all military plans. The old adage "no plan survives contact with the enemy intact' holds true today as it has all throughout history. There are no crystal balls.

You having 20/20 hindsight on the issue gives us no answer as to what to do TODAY about it. War is a process of making plans, making mistakes, and doing things to overcome those mistakes. Generally, those that adapt and overcome their mistakes quicker - win.

I dont give damn what they care about. I would never send young men to die using the logic "Sorry buddy, youve got to die, because you living is just what our enemies want."

To not care what our enemies think of us is a grave, GRAVE, error. If we play directly into their pre-conceived notion of our capability, then we empower them into thinking they actually have a chance at engaging us and winning. If you dont recognize this as true you are being purposefully niave about the situation.

I respect the authority of the Commander in Chief. I believe that Bush should be allowed to fight his war unfettered, until the clock runs out on his CIC authority. Do you disagree with that?

Not at all. However, the Dems dread it because unhindered, Bush might actually accomplish victory in Iraq. If that occurred, the Dems would rue it for decades, because it means a political dead end for them for a very long time.

I take it then that you think congress should approve funding of the troops?

The only reasonable course of action is to elect a Democrat in 08.

NOT going to happen if the dem candidate is Hillary or Obama. Sorry, its just not.

As I say: want to stop the war? Elect a democrat in 08.

Hillary is already on record saying that she would establish permanent bases in Iraq and that she is against a complete withdrawl. How is that stopping the war?

How will Americans continue to die in Iraq if we are no longer occupying that country?

Isolationism isnt the answer. Fighting our enemies on their own soil is far preferable to fighting them here in the USA. 9/11, and other various Islamic terror attacks around the world have shown that we can be attacked on our own soil. If we fail in Iraq, the conflict will truly grow into a larger Jihad, like OBL wants and will still continue to fester until the next terror attack on US soil.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Well, the good news for 2008 is that none of the Republican frontrunners for President appear to be very media savvy and I think that a Dem ultimately prevails. The Dems should be able to increase their numbers in the Senate and hold onto the House. If this comes to be, it will be time to take control of the media narrative. The bubbleheads desire access to powerful sources more than anything else, so with control of the executive and legislative branches, the bubbleheads should be easy to control.

Democrats have to learn how to use the media bubbleheads before they can win an election. You dont win an election first, and then learn how to mainpulate the media, its the other way around. The late Lee Atwater understood this principle perfectly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater

 

[Elrohir]

Yep that's what Fox News, the Christian Broadcasting Network, the Inspiration Network, Clear Channel, Radio America, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the New York Post, National Review, The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, Commentary, the Drudge Report, Instapundit, Powerline, David Brooks, Dinish D'Souza, David Horowitz, Ben Stein, David Frum, Bill O' Reilly, Sean hannity, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanon, Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, George Will, FreeRepublic, NewsMax, Townhall, Regency Publishing, Sentinel, Spence Publishing, Crown Forum, Accuracy in the Media, and the Family Research council told me - the media is liberal.

Most of those aren't very far reaching news sources - Fox and Drudge are, but other than that not so much. Ask the average American what Powerline is, or who Dinesh D'Souza is, and you'll get a blank stare. (I know what Powerline blog is, and who D'Souza is, but I'm unusually informed on political matters for an American)

How about CNN, ABC, CBS, DailyKo's, Huffington Post, Michael Moore, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, Newsweek, Time, NPR....compared to all the small-timers you quoted, the liberal media in America is much, much bigger than the conservative media. (And I took care not to double up - why do you count Fox news as liberal, they add in several Fox news anchors on your list? What, not enough material to make it look impressive without puffing it up?)

 

[JollyRoger]

Democrats have to learn how to use the media bubbleheads before they can win an election. You dont win an election first, and then learn how to mainpulate the media, its the other way around. The late Lee Atwater understood this principle perfectly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater

You think crossdressing Rudy, varmit hunter Romney, or strolling through Baghdad McCain are skilled at using the media? If the Dems fail to make use of these blunders, then they don't deserve the Presidency.

 

[JollyRoger]

Most of those aren't very far reaching news sources - Fox and Drudge are, but other than that not so much. Ask the average American what Powerline is, or who Dinesh D'Souza is, and you'll get a blank stare. (I know what Powerline blog is, and who D'Souza is, but I'm unusually informed on political matters for an American)

Clear Channel is not far reaching? The Wall Street Journal is not far reaching? Rush is not far reaching? The point is that the media is far from liberal. All of the networks you list have more bubbleheaded anchors than anything else - just think about how they tripped over each other in their positive coverage of Bush's Mission Accomplished speech that looks so ridiculous now. A balanced media would have reported at the time that it was a risky speech by the President should Iraq not remain a cakewalk. You list the New York Time - the same paper that gave us Judith Miller spinning WMD's and willing to go to jail to protect Scooter Libby - can you imagine Brit Hume going to jail to protect Hillary Clinton?

 

[Elrohir]

The Republican Party leadership is extremely skilled, not only at manipulating the media, but at understanding the public which the media is speaking to. This much is obvious. The above has basolutely nothing to do with waging a war, and consolidating the benefits of that war. An area in which Republicans have shown themselves to be demonstrably deficient. In short, if Republicans could fight a war as well as they could sell one, all the Neocon wetdreams for this century would come true. But they wont. Because they arent.

I disagree, and this is coming from a conservative. I think the Republican party is terribly inept at manipulating the media and the public, or even at getting it's message out. The Republican party has better policies than the Democrats, in my opinion, but they are much worse at explaining those policies and influencing the public than the Democrats are. I read conservative blogs fairly regularly, and I have to tell you: they spend a lot of time complaining about how the Republican party isn't doing a good job with the media, because it's so liberal. Don't you think those inside the Republican party would have a better idea at how effective we are?

I think youre right about that, believe it or not. But I think thats because heir reasons for the war (and its continuation) dont bear close scrutiny.

That isn't an excuse.

No. I said that the American public is relatively right wing, not the media.

That wasn't directed at you.

Clear Channel is not far reaching? The Wall Street Journal is not far reaching? Rush is not far reaching? The point is that the media is far from liberal. All of the networks you list have more bubbleheaded anchors than anything else - just think about how they tripped over each other in their positive coverage of Bush's Mission Accomplished speech that looks so ridiculous now. A balanced media would have reported at the time that it was a risky speech by the President should Iraq not remain a cakewalk.

Not as far reaching as the liberal outlets and sources I quoted.

 

[ComradeDavo]

That's friggen hilarious. The American media might be right-wing by European standards, but by American standards they are very liberal. Something like 90% of new journalists voted for Kerry in 2004. Regardless of what you think, the American media, by and large, is no friend of the Republican party in general, and President Bush in particular.

You call that liberal? No wonder you ended up with Bush and Iraq....

 

[MobBoss]

You call that liberal? No wonder you ended up with Bush and Iraq....

I find that a very funny comment from you seeing as how you are from Britain, and you ended up in Iraq with Bush as well.....

 

[Elrohir]

You call that liberal? No wonder you ended up with Bush and Iraq....

That's one example of their liberality. You might not see them as liberal, because you're a liberal European - but by American standards, the "mainstream media" is definitely leftist.

 

[JollyRoger]

That's one example of their liberality. You might not see them as liberal, because you're a liberal European - but by American standards, the "mainstream media" is definitely leftist.

The media is owned by big corporations who, under the free market theory, only make decisions that are good for business. So which of these is wrong?

1. The media is liberal
2. Being liberal is bad for business
3. The free market system doesn't work

 

[Mark1031]

The media is owned by big corporations who, under the free market theory, only make decisions that are good for business. So which of these is wrong?

1. The media is liberal
2. Being liberal is bad for business
3. The free market system doesn't work

Give the man a medal in logic . Logic of course being a liberal plot.

 

[Bill3000]

The media is owned by big corporations who, under the free market theory, only make decisions that are good for business. So which of these is wrong?

1. The media is liberal
2. Being liberal is bad for business
3. The free market system doesn't work

4. He's using the american definition of liberal

 

[Elrohir]

The media is owned by big corporations who, under the free market theory, only make decisions that are good for business. So which of these is wrong?

1. The media is liberal
2. Being liberal is bad for business
3. The free market system doesn't work

The first two are right, the third is wrong. You can see some liberal outlets, like the Los Angeles Times, falling to pieces. There's a reason why Fox News has grown so much in the US today. The free market is working, but it takes time, and as it stands now the media is still dominated by liberals, because they have numbers on their side.

 

[JollyRoger]

The first two are right, the third is wrong. You can see some liberal outlets, like the Los Angeles Times, falling to pieces. There's a reason why Fox News has grown so much in the US today. The free market is working, but it takes time, and as it stands now the media is still dominated by liberals, because they have numbers on their side.

How did the liberals get numbers on their side in the face of free market forces if being liberal is bad for business? Was the free market not working before Fox News came along?

 

[Elrohir]

How did the liberals get numbers on their side in the face of free market forces if being liberal is bad for business? Was the free market not working before Fox News came along?

Because they weren't as liberal in the past. There was less alternative in the market then, so there was strong demand for a conservative voice - and that is why Fox has succeeded so well. The free market pretty much always works.

 

[JollyRoger]

Because they weren't as liberal in the past. There was less alternative in the market then, so there was strong demand for a conservative voice - and that is why Fox has succeeded so well. The free market pretty much always works.

1st, if they weren't as liberal in the past, then how did they become more liberal in the face of free market forces?

Second, there have always been multiple outlets for news in every broadcasting medium, so free market forces should have always been at work to prevent a liberal imbalance.

Third, Fox still trails some of your so-called liberal brioadcasters by many multiples despite the fact that cable is virtually universal these days, so if they are the only conservative on the block, they should be THE LEADER by many multiples instead of trailing 3 other networks by many multiples.

Fourth, if the free market pretty much always works, then it was working when the media somehow became liberal.