Why Republican Rhetoric Works

[GRocky]

I've been thinking about this one for a long time, and I think I've at least come up with a plausible explanation.

Republicans, as we know it, spew gallons of meaningless rhetoric and hurl double-sided promises at voters; the majority of whom will realize no (or possibly negative) gain from their politicking. At first, I thought that it was the Republican party's focus on the quick gain of a few dollars via tax cuts that won over the easily-swayed, under-informed voter. I also thought that their focus on "hot" religious issues had a magnetic effect, since so many Christians in this country are the Sunday-worship types that drop their polished, Godly ways the second they leave their shiny, fluorescent lit sanctuaries. But this, also, seems to be a bit far-reaching.

The answer was a lot more simple than that. Remember cavorting about on the playground as a kid? Remember how much fun it was to start rumors about your fellow students, and to join in on rumor spreading, teasing, and the general destruction of the unfortunate child's reputation? Now think, how often did you decide to extol the virtues of your friends? How much time was spent talking about why your friends were important to you and building this type of camraderie? Clearly the answer is not much, if any at all. The fast friendships of the playground were forged through crowding the stinking trough of trash talk and rumors. And that's why Republicans win over voters. Because they aren't afraid to talk trash, create harmful rumors and generally launch smear campaigns against their competition.

Allow me to generalize for a moment in saying that Republicans are much more guilty of stooping to these tactics than their liberal counterparts; one need only look to the guidance of Karl Rove to see the truth in this. The smear tactics of the neo-conservative faction make it easy for me to write them off as the worthless scum that I perceive them to be.

With this in mind, I like to practice the "keep you friends close, keep your enemies closer" philosophy. I try to read/listen/watch extreme neo-conservative news to keep my finger on the pulse. After weeks of doing that, it was easy for me to observe this pattern. Peruse, if you will, the web site of that fine conservative hero, Rush Limbaugh. At the moment, he's got no less than 15 "points of interest" that make vicious, far-reaching claims about liberals. Today, I can't see a single link that praises Bush's performance or offers a clear reason as to why he would be a finer choice. Rush instead employs the technique of bludgeoning liberals so far into the "evil" category that Lucifer himself would garner the vote as the "lesser of two evils" by an uninformed Dittohead.

You'll find much of the same garbage on Sean Hannity's web site. Or Ann Coulter's, or anybody elses.

So, the question remains. What is this all about? Is this just an ugly trait of human nature? A dog-eat-dog instinct that we're born with? Do we try to pick out the weak among us and do away with them in an attempt to make ourselves look stronger? If this is the case, do we need a liberal "champion" like Limbaugh to lunge for the jugular of conservatives? Al Franken certainly doesn't pull anything near Limbaugh's antics on Air America. But that's a difficult question, because I see a lot of Limbaugh's schtick as the distortion of reality and the tarting up of many unsensational leads. It lacks class to say the least. But if the Democrats can't find a way to counter the trash talk of the right, the trough will be crowded by even more hungry voters.

I like to think that people enjoy peace more than conflict, but in this day and age, it's hard to tell. What does everybody else think about this?

[tigereye]

1. personally I think it is because people have turned off

their bullshit detectors. I know that it is more complex than that, but that is my assessment. And welcome to DU.

[tiedye]

49. and have no clue what good journalism is about

Like I say, you are never going to learn how to overthrow your government in the Federal schools. The unfortunate function of crappy education

[NightOwwl]

2. Insecure people build themselves up by belittling others.

It's the only way they can feel good about themselves. Until now these guys have been able to spew their derogatory bullsh*t unnoposed.

But now it's all getting thrown back in their face and they are panicking. It's going to be fun watching them implode.

BTW, Welcome to DU! :hi:

[tiedye]

50. I've become skeptical of character assasinations

So much of the mainstream media is focused on making you dislike an actress or songstress or filmmaker by attacking their character. They never even get to the issue, its easier to get people to hate famous people and debunk their comments by attacking the credibilty of the speaker, not the credibility of the argument.
If the left sticks to the flaws in reason we will prevail. I think Karry is going to win. Bush is packing up his bags...One more sweep arounfd the room looking for the weopons of mass destruction in the white house. That was a poorly reasoned act by the President. I can reveal how it is distasteful and inappropriate without ever going into what an asshole Bush is.

[ParisFrance]

55. God, I hate being in a social enviroment with insecure people.

The only way they can create a laugh is to ridicule,mudsling, or slander someone.

[Robbien]

3. Yes, it is an us against them tactic

They are using the we are the moral right and everyone who is not with us are the immoral who should be exposed and thrown out of power. To reinforce this they have to keep tearing apart anyone who is not RW, making up things if they have to. They have to keep telling their people that anyone who is not a Bush follower is a "sub-human".

It works for military actions. These guys are bringing that military tactic into the political arena.

[Democat]

4. I agree and that was one reason Gore didn't quite make in in 2000

The basic premise of your post seems to be "negative attacks work!" That seems to be very true.

Gore tried to be a nice guy and he got beat up by Bush, who had no problem being an evil bashing asshole. Americans did not punish Bush for running a negative campaign in 2000.

That's what happened again in 2002. Our side decided to try to kiss Bush's ass rather than fight him and in return, the Republicans bashed Democrats as weak and terrorist-loving and other nasty things. We lost big time.

Every time we, the left, try to be "nice" or play "fair" we get beat.

Kerry seems to once again be trying to be the "nice" guy in this race. Luckily, he has people like MoveOn around who aren't afraid of fighting just as hard as the Republicans, but will that be enough? Will Kerry's "positive" strategy be able to stand up to the personal insults, lies, made up stories, name calling, and everything else the right wing will throw at him?

The early attacks by Bush have been effective with voters in painting Kerry a certain way, and they are just getting started. Kerry hasn't really tried to go after Bush at all yet, which some people think he should have.

Take the "flip flopper" issue. Instead of doing anything about it, like running a bunch of ads showing that Bush was the real "flip flopper" to try to neutralize it, Kerry pretty much ignored the issue. Now many voters see Kerry as a "flip flopper" and they don't see Bush as one. Should Kerry have gone on the attack to make Bush's ads seem stupid? We won't know until November.

The next attack from Republicans is the "Extreme Makeover" one. How easy would it be to show anti-Bush ads slamming him for saying one thing and governing another way. When the Republican convention comes, we will see Bush talking 180 degrees different than what he has actually done. Will the Democrats be willing to slam him for it and make the point with the American people? Will they be willing to "go negative" when they need to?

As long as the Republicans continue to "go negative", Democrats are going to have to learn to do the same. So far, our side doesn't seem willing to do what is needed to really hit the Republicans back as hard as they hit us. If Kerry wins, then maybe being "nice" really can work.

If Kerry loses in November, it will be time for a major change of strategy and cleaning of the house of all the "nice" Democrats. Hopefully it won't be too late.

[shraby]

6. Remember though, Gore

got the majority of the votes.

[Democat]

9. Again, he was too "nice" to fight for what he won

The Republicans, had the roles been reversed, would never have let Gore become a real "undisputed" president. They would have fought, complained, run ads, and done everything else they could think of to undermine Gore, had he won in the way that Bush won.

What's more, had 9/11 happened during a Gore presidency, the Republicans would have used it to destroy the Democratic Party and impeach Al Gore.

Instead, Gore gave up, supported Bush and the Democrats didn't even try to fight back. When 9/11 happened, instead of standing up to Bush and asking tough questions, the Democratic Party caved in and handed their entire power over to the Republicans and everyone fell in line behind Bush.

Our party as it stands today simply doesn't know how to fight. We can't even win when we get more votes. That tells you a hell of a lot.

There are signs that things are starting to change. Michael Moore, Howard Dean, MoveOn, and a few others are making noise and giving some hope to those on the left that are tired of being kicked around without kicking back. The problem is that it will probably take decades to get rid of the wimps in our party and replace them with people willing to fight hard and mean and even dirty when the Republicans do the same.

Negativity works in politics. Bush has proven that time and again. That might be sad to some people, but it's reality. If we don't learn to face reality, then we will continue to lose.

If Kerry wins, and I think he has a great chance, then maybe we can turn back the tide of negativity. But more than likely, if he wins, the Republicans will just think they weren't negative and mean and dirty enough and they will double their efforts.

[calimary]

19. KICK!

The main issue is - we HAVE to get back in power. When OUR guy is in the White House, the Bad Guys HAVE to deal with us. On OUR terms. And at the rate they're going (especially as this latest Terr Alert has more and more holes poked in it), bush won't have any coattails, either. Which means we might actually make gains in the House and Senate.

[drfemoe]

5. Rather than "dog eat dog" -

wouldn't it appear to be more of a wolf eat sheep world?

The school yard bully segue into current day neo-con bully-heads is a good one. Personally, I never was one to join in as a bully. Just not me. I have this crazy "liberal" (perhaps) notion that it is counterproductive to knock someone else's feet out from under them in order to 'stand above them'. I find the bully position to be the weakest of all.

Your observations of the content of the RW propaganda are right on.
Nothing positive (what is there?). It's all attack mode.

But just as those kids in the schoolyard, who were sheep at the time, ultimately escaped the child-wolves, we are escaping the neos.
The bully will always ultimately destory himself. Unfortunate that they often destroy many others before paying the price.

No, I do not believe the solution to destruction is more destruction.

[sandnsea]

7. How do you stop the bullies?

On the playground there's a couple of ways. One is to take the chief bully and beat the tar out of him. Then you're somebody nobody wants to mess with. Unfortunately that does nothing for the dynamics of the playground. Another is to outthink the bullies, embarrass and isolate them from the group. A third is to simply offer a better option, a good game of baseball where everybody can participate together.

A leader does the latter two and the first one only when absolutely necessary.

We're going to beat those bastards because we have a real leader.

[JSJ]

8. fascist rhetoric works here for the same reason the salem witch...

...Trials worked here for some very odd years- it appeals to the uneducated and ignorant. If you want to curtail this type of mass appeal, then support universal education and the diminishing meritocracy.

[Democat]

10. How do you improve education when your party has no power?

How do we get enough power to make the changes that will allow us to get the power to make the needed changes?

The Republicans control all branches of government right now. They control the media. It's hard to fight ignorance when those who benefit from ignorance are the ones with all of the power.

[shockingelk]

11. ugly trait of human nature n/t

They just need any reason to hate. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, right-wingers like hating people.

[GRocky]

14. But would it work for the left?

I wouldn't like to see it that way. Needless to say, I can't help but wonder how it would change the left if we had a group of people saying that they're on a mission from God, or spending all of their time bashing conservatives while ignoring the wrongdoing of their colleagues. I would be appalled by that behavior... but the trough would be lined with feeble-minded trash-talkers, methinks. Like flies to shit.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Careful pre-planned choice of words and phrases

Starting in the 60s and 70s, the right wing think tanks thought long and deep about framing the debate. The choice of words is carefully done and done in advance. That is why it was "Right to life", not "barefoot and pregnant". Admittedly that is a gross caricature of the choices, but you get the idea.

Phrases that frame the debate:

"family values", "right to life", "law and order", "big government", "death tax", "war president", "peace president", "kinder, gentler", "decisive", "morning in America", "welfare cheats", "shining city on a hill" (religious), "peacemaker missile", "no child left behind", "activist judges", "evil empire", "axis of evil", "supply side economics", "waste, fraud, and abuse", ...

Phrases are memes. They carry a genetic idea payload. When they land in the ear, on the way to the cerebral cortex, they pick up all the associated baggage. So when a Republican says "death tax", all of the associated images of big government versus hard working farmers and small business people are attached.

Democrats have had some success ("Great Society", "war on poverty", "it's the economy").

Notice how effective Kerry has been when he seized the "values" word and made it his own. The Republicans have made repugnant use of it by linking it most often to "family values". Kerry hit home when he talked about real "values" and exposed the facade of caring about one's own family while squeezing all kinds of other families around town.

It is only recently that the Democrats have really wisened up to the necessity to frame the debate that by choice of word and phrase. Better late than never.

Seize the meme and make it your own.

[Robbien]

13. Seize the meme and make it your own. Great phrase.

The GOP does have a long lead on both the think tanks and the media control.

The people behind Kerry's DNC speech and the convention itself are the right people to counter the GOP tactics. Hopefully they are in control of this electorial process and they keep their eye on not just countering the GOP, but seizing and controlling the meme process.

[July]

15. They've gone further than Newt's buzz words, too.

Now, the right is completely comfortable talking about Democrats as unpatriotic traitors, using comparisons to Saddam and bin Laden, and convincing the unthinking that "morality" and "liberal"(or "Democrat") are mutually exclusive terms.

They've got their bigmouths (Limbaugh, Coulter, etc.) making ridiculous labels stick by shouting them out every chance they get.

I agree with you that we need to "seize the meme."

I would also like more people to point out to the brainwashed that their bullshit detectors are broken.

[NewJeffCT]

17. Great post - welcome to DU

You're probably about 2,000 behind me in post count, but you have a lot of wisdom. It seems like you've read the great Professor George Lakoff.

We have to stop talking about "taxes" and calling it "infrastructure investments", because, Lord knows, we need to invest in the infrastructure of our country. The richest in our country benefit the most, and make the most use of, the infrastucture in our country, so they should be the ones investing the most in it.

[Blue Wally]

42. One of the ways we fell out of power

The public got tired of hearing government spending called "wise investments in the future" and tax cuts as "wasteful expenditures". That dog won't hunt anymore. "Tax-tax, spend-spend, elect-elect" as a Democratic party philosophy (as iterated by a DNC chairman in the thirties) went bankrupt in the seventies and led to the Reagan Revolution in the eighties and the rise of the "Atari Democrats".

[Mighty Undecided]

16. Bigger loudspeaker, repetition.

[calimary]

18. It is ESSENTIAL that we TAKE BACK the language.

You take back the language, YOU frame the agenda. You take back the agenda, you heal your country.

GUYS: Watch for Class Warrior's frequent "MEME MEMO" alerts. This is a GREAT exercise in thinking up buzz phrases and ways to use them.

Drop one or more of them into your calls to your local stations, or in your LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!!! I sent one with the meme "The Silenced Majority" to a Canadian reporter. She wrote me back, and took note of that phrase, saying how clever it was and how much she liked it. If she's favorably predisposed toward that, it'll stick in her mind and maybe eventually come out in her copy. Or the attitude behind it will.

YOU PLANT SEEDS THAT WAY. Some of those seeds sprout.

I was talking about "Hate-riotism" (rhymes with patriotism) here several weeks ago. No. Make that several months ago. The other night, I heard Michael Moore use that word on the Bill Maher show.

[rman]

20. Another reason why it works: they are in charge

They have almost complete control over all branches of government (and most of the media, and corporations).

People have a natural tendency to follow the leader. In any case where some kind of leadership is appropriate (ie a group of people working on some project), it would be counter productive to question the leader on every single decision he/she makes. After all, the whole point of the project is to get something done, not to debate all the time. Without this mechanism humans wouldn't be able to achieve the things we can achieve. But the same mechanism can be easily abused if people are not aware that it can be abused.

"They" are Boss, and who are the little people to question the boss, especially in a time of crisis? Add to that the threat of retaliation of one kind or another against those who disagree to strongly.

Because of this a large segment of the population follows the boss, which in turn strengthens the righteousness of the boss.

Simply put, the boss is always right.

They can pretty much claim anything based on what some unnamed expert says, and not be called on it.
Any counter claim requires huge amounts of evidence. This while the format of the media (sound bites) makes it very hard to even start presenting such evidence. Even if you manage to do that, it is easily countered with some bogus arguments; half-truths and logical fallacies like straw-men and ad-hominem.

[sampsonblk]

30. No, Another reason they are in charge: it works

They started this crap in earnest in 1994. They had virtually no power at that time. But they used this strategy and rhetoric to perfection and siezed power throughout the land.

[rman]

41. it started as early as Nixon, stepped up with Reagan

the RW did have some power at the time.

I'd say it works both ways: you can gain power by means of lying, and once you got power, the lies work even better.

[JHB]

21. An unhealthy level of "Woim Syndrome"

Never underestimate the power of a little rage & frustration combined with vicarious thrills of being "a winner" or "on the winning side", especially if it "sticks it" to persons or things/groups they find annoying.

You may remember the "Little Rascals"/"Our Gang" shorts, with Butch the bully and his ever-present toady, Woim. Not everyone is in a position to be a butch, but being a Woim is easy, and as long as you don't point out their "toady" role, they can be mightily pleased at watching the bullies work.

[NRaleighLiberal]

22. A few other thoughts....

I am exhausted from the anger and frustration I feel in watching this teflon idiot seemingly repel the torrent of potential and real scandals that are continually being uncovered. Something larger seems to be at work here - the giant pendulum that for whatever reason is swinging to the right.

One friend told me that he thought that as long as most people were "comfortable" - had their stuff - the necessary sea change, the revolution that will lead to the change from darkness to light - will not occur; his view was that apathy is one factor allowing this sham and scam to continue.

Then - what to do about the ignorance? This idiot has done more to support mediocrity than is believeable.....And, ignorance combined with religious ferver is doubly dangerous. On NPR this morning they were talking about who the Knights of Columbus would support - there are many other examples of organization tightly or loosely aligned with the conservative religions (is that redundant??) - so many people on the right are ONE ISSUE voters - whether it is gay marriage, or abortion - I swear, a common criminal could be their president (whoops.....he is!!!) and as long as he was anti abortion, etc everything is fine and dandy...again, ignorance, shallowness, selfishness,....

Then there is the complete enigma of the effectiveness of fear, particularly on those (the far religious right) who think that they are going to be "saved" anyway....what are people so afraid of???

No real answers, just lots of questions...

[Chili]

23. great discussion

I've been wondering this too. And I stare in disbelief every morning as I listen to the right-wing callers on C-SPAN. It just shocks me how uninformed, brainwashed, or dishonest they are. And for each caller like that, I wonder which combination of uninformed / brainwashed / dishonest they are.

Related to this, I've come to think that people who are clinging to Bush are behaving according to 4 major prejudices:

1) religious bigotry
2) racial bigotry
3) homophobia
4) class bigotry

(#4 is complex, because this includes both the poorest and the richest Bush supporters: the poorest resenting the "New England / New York" wealthy elite stereotype of liberals, and the wealthiest having unabashed comtempt for the poor and unemployed)

There's also a 5th category, but it's dependent on personality and is therefore vague and too generalized to actually list it, and that's The Profoundly Selfish. These people can be rich or poor, fundamentalist or atheist, gay or homophobic, black or white. These are the people who believe they were actually given a tax break even if they weren't - just as long as they're taxes aren't helping anyone else.

My guess is that every Bush supporter still vehemently supporting him falls into one or more of these categories.

[Green Lantern]

39. Interesting

I agree with you that much of the impetus for the behavior of the repugs is based on personality. First I would suggest that many conservatives come from abusive homes. That creates the fear, anxiety and anger the feel daily and express frequently. It colors their world view in everything.
Abuse creates it's own structure and mentality. It is very defensive in nature and an individual caught in it's grip will react in interpersonal relationships anywhere from fear (extreme shyness) to outright anger and more abuse on their own victims. It depends on the amount of anger they have built up over their situation.
Look and listen to their words and writings-they ever so frequently invoke the concepts embodied in the words "I'm afraid..." or "They are out to get ..."
Their language is negative, rarely positive. Their beliefs are defensive, rarely positive. Their actions and words often express anger and hatred, which springs from their resentment of their own early years.

They will often close their world into pigeon holes. They are insecure with the unknown or shifting or fluid situations. They crave consistency and a lack of uncertainty. Thus many find occupations that are rigid and structured.

There is a clear progression (in theoretical terms, at least) of the anxiety process. They experience this daily, intensely. (see the concept of the panic attack-they are major and primary, victims) Anxiety will often break into fear,and if left without intervention, the fear goes to anger. Unbroken anger with a perception of continuing insults to their personna will often go to hatred.

The guards at Abu Ghraib most likely fit much of this profile, for example, as they obviously showed a pair of marker characteristics-that is - a lack of interpersonal relationship abilities and second a lack of sense of the value of human life.

One might note that the conservatives often speak of things like values, money, ideas, etc. but they do not speak with compassion of individuals in trouble. They always invoke the concept "pull yourself up by your boot straps" The moral imperative is their driving process after fear. They found themselves alone, often abused, victimized and told it was their own fault, told to shape up, to get a grip etc, but they do not speak in personal terms with regard to the very personal.

Liberals generally act without this fear process, without this defensiveness. It is one of the hallmarks of the "bleeding heart" that we feel compassion for the less fortunate. We connect with those in trouble and try to help. It does however, leave us acting often as individuals and not in groups until we form charities etc for something we see as larger than ourselves.

The conservative will cluster in their groups because misery loves company, and they hoot and holler in an attempt to bring everyone down to their level.

There is more I could post, but this is long enough and I didn't mean to write the book...

[drfemoe]

43. IOW

they are control freaks. The RW agenda gives them a sense of "control".
The liberal vision seems 'out of control' to them.

[Green Lantern]

51. Roger that

The need for control is an integral part of the process I noted. This is how they eliminate the uncertainty and insecurity they see everywhere. It is their path to the pigeonhole-the defined niche.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

54. Eh

I don't know if I buy the abuse angle since I know a load of liberals who grew up abused and neglected (myself among them) and I know a lot of conservatives who did not.

I do think if you were raised to be racist, homophobic, hateful, closed-minded, you are MUCH more likely to be republican.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

53. I should have read your post first

it's basically a more succinct, concise version of mine, LOL!

Good job!

[Chili]

24. now I see...

...how those dupe posts happen...:eyes:

[Mighty Undecided]

25. "yes, but..." has to be replaced with "no way" or else

[skip fox]

26. Another case: "ties with terrorists":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2145732

[Wapsie B]

27. They appeal to man's

baser instincts to hate and to fear anyone different than they are. No deeper thought processes involved at all. It's a simplistic message that can be repeated over and over. Bang those war drums nonstop.

[erpowers]

28. Democrats Must Fight Back

If you look into the views of people who advise Republicans you will see that they see politics as a war. Look into the writings of people like David Horowitz, Karl Rove, and the guy who wants to drown government and you will see that they do not just want to beat Democrats they want them distroyed. On the other hand Democrats are not as vicious. They only want to win in order to get their views across and put in place their policies. In addition, I think Democrats are not as ideology driven as Republicans. If you tell a Democrat they are wrong they will be willing to believe you if you give them proof. You can give a Republican all the proof you want and they will still say you are wrong.

In order to fight people like this Democrats must continually debunk the lies of the Republican Party. Democrats do not have to become like the Republicans. They just have to fight back. I believe they do not do this enough. How much time has the Democratic Party spent on telling the American people that Bush would have vetoed an alternative 87$ Billion Bill? How much time has the party spent talking about cheney's record on military spending? How much time has the party spent on debunking the lie that Kerry and Edwards are the first and fourth liberal senators in congress? Next Democrats must get their message out. What I like so much about Clinton speech was that he gave the differences between the two parties. He told people why they should vote for the Democratic Party. This must be done many more times.

[NRaleighLiberal]

29. So, the Black/White view vs shades of grey

Which aligns well with religious fanaticism - there is no grey, only black and white, right and wrong, for us or against us, etc - one of the reasons that, to me, religion is such a potentially dangerous tool, and why we have developed an aversion to organized religion (which really is nothing more than a very successful business!!!)....In college we are taught to think - that really much of the interesting stuff happens in that grey area. Black/whities fear thought, fear education - it shakes their completely immovable foundations. Odd - I see the ability to integrate new information and come to improved conclusions (flip flopping???) a strength of character. I see immovability as a sign of ignorance and fear.

[Democat]

33. Not just fight back, that means we are on the defensive

We need to be on the offensive instead of the defensive!

[tom_paine]

31. The Brutal Facsist ALWAYS lurks within us. There are those

who would expend great effort in unleashing the Barabrism for tyheir own gain.

Of course, having a $2,000,000,000+ Nazi-style Lie Laundry at your disposal helps, too.

[skygazer]

32. It is carefully crafted

And it follows a tried and true formula:

Create divisions and exploit them.

Use fear to keep the masses in control, fear of what will happen if they change leaders, fear of what will happen if they dissent.

Use and repeat catchphrases designed to mislead and misinform.

Use patriotism as a weapon, charging anyone who disagrees with a lack of patriotism.



Worked for the Nazis.

[AuntieM1957]

34. Well - Organized Evil

Unlike the playground bullies, these guys are playing for serious stakes. No less than our freedom and future are at stake.

And they will do anything to win. They are organized and willing to steam roller over everything in their way. For example...

Just for fun, I logged into georgewbush.com and signed up as a volunteer. They sent me lists of topics to write to newspapers about -and even "suggested" sample letters. Type in your zip code - and voila! - every news organization with 50 miles is listed. Just type in your contact information - and their letter goes out to all with your name. You can edit it if you want, but they don't insist upon it.

Well, being the evil undergrounder that I am - I typed my own letter instead. Listed "our" position and sent it on its merry way - a stealth bomb sent from their own web site. Now, they're inviting me to attend their online web chats to discuss their ad strategy - the fools!

[tiedye]

47. and never say War in Iraq

Propaganda specialist Frank Luntz makes a few suggestions to his republican co-conspirators. One thing is they never call it the war in Iraq. Call it the middle East conflict, call it the Arab situation, call it middle East turmoil, but never cal it War, say Luntz. This is a linguistic war on words. That is how you get lied to, by distorting the language. So... The Iraq War cannot be said enough. And we should be trying to get our politicians to say it too. Make em squirm. I called my Mayor on it last night. I told him he was using propaganda when he wrote a speech for a local vet of THE IRAQ WAR 2003-200? HE SAID ALL THAT CRAP ABOUT SACRIFICING LIFE FOR FREEDOM and human rights. I said Oh please, name one human right protected. We just slaughtered 11K innocent people based on a lie. He laughed and said you are in the minority. I said yeah, but I'm right. he said minority, minority!! I said...there comes a time when you must do what is not popular or political, but what is right. Thanks MLK, you had the words.

[Lone_Wolf]

35. It is an organized effort on the CONS part...

They have probably put hundreds of millions of dollars into Conservative Think Tanks whose function is to steer the course of public dialogue into a conservative direction.

Here's a great website that explains most of it:

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic

[Bush was AWOL]

36. It works because they just make up shit

and the sheeple repeat it as gospel.

[tiedye]

45. and FOX sends internal memos

that make sure there is not competition in the marketplace of ideas. Outfoxed showed how the memos distributed circumvent journalistic integrity. They are actors playing roles. People have lost the ability to discern good from bad journalism. People that rely heavily on the tv for news don't understand that source credibility is integral in the news reporting industry.
We just need more Indy media makers. Your commuity radio station just may be the opportunity you are looking for... create the media.
All news shows and media is constructed. Rush limbaugh is the only political show going out to the troops in Iraq. MediaMatters.org. If you have an ounce of creativity and some relative priveledge- get writing and get producing. ACLU says best way to counter obnoxious talk is with more talk. Chatter people, I want chatter.

[Cat Atomic]

37. Republicans have an easier sell. They sell greed and hatred,

while Democrats sell social responsibility. It's like PBS vs. the Spice Channel.

[greekspeak]

38. Republicanism is marketed as McPolitics

Oversimplified Soundbytes, overblown senses of excigency, bumper sticker patriotism, and empty rhetoric. Throw in a big dose of victim role, race baiting, and tax cuts for "everyone." Easily, quickly consumable politics that give you an immediate sense of comfort and satiety. BUt, like fast food's glut of empty calories and shockingly unhealthy ingredients, Republicanism is bad for the health.

[carnie_sf]

40. don't forget the news media

I also don't think we can afford to ignore the fact that the media has, in large part been consolidated into the hands of a few, mostly conservative, hands. So that the views that get widely disseminated are the fascistic views of the repukes.

[tiedye]

44. Hannity looks like

a cross between the Hulk and Jay Leno. Obviously chosen for his classic Hollywood looks (gag). How can anyone take seriously anything he says?

[Cronus Protagonist]

46. I heard that God speaks through Bush so you're WRONG!

[tiedye]

48. Fortunately, God sees through him, rather

cool grafix

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

52. You want me to list the reasons

the Republicans I personally know vote Republican?

OK, here goes:

1. The Republican party appeals to their inner racist. Now I KNOW not all Republicans are racist and there ARE racist Dems. But I would swear on my mother's life that there are FAR more Republican racists than Dem ones. By about 10 to one or more.

2. The Republican party appeals to their inner greediness where money is concerned. Their "I got mine, fuck you" attitude that many of them have, despite repeated church attendance.

3. The Republican party appeals to their sense of moral superiority. Notice I said SENSE OF. I am thinking anti-choice legislation here, etc. You would not believe the number of people I know who DO NOT like bush, but are going to vote for him STRICTLY on the abortion issue alone.

4. The Republican party appeals to their sense of inclusion/exclusion. Honestly, a lot of them don't WANT to be in a big tent party, because that means they'd have to associate with a lot of people they see as "undesirable." See #1.

5. The Republican party appeals to their sense of selfishness. This IS separate from the greed thing and here's why: the GOP doesn't urge its members or voters to think outside their little bubble of life. I know one woman who is voting for bush SOLELY on the basis of how HER family has done the last three years (even though she just got laid off from a six figure executive job!!! but that was very very recent, she might not be a bush supporter anymore). See if you are Republican you get to just think about/care about you and yours. Not anyone else. The Dems put a lot of focus (and I wish more action, maybe under Kerry) on how is the REST of the country and the WORLD doing, not just me and mine.

There's probably more, but I'm tired. Now I'm not talking about your run of the mill, fiscally conservative, live and let live, actually have a brain to think with republican with a little "r." I'm talking chest-beating bush-supporting, non-thinking Republicans.