Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Though there may be one or two good points in this article, I think they are obscured by the belligerent (if not offensive) rhetoric.

And this…

We have now seen in the past few weeks psychological methods used by political tacticians in support of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the republican right-wing fringe which include incessant interruptions to break off the statements, comments, and positions taken by their counterparts on the democratic side.

…is just bad. You’re saying their sinister psychological method is to interrupt people. I’m not scared.

When I was in college there was a group called the Student Communist Youth Brigade. They were harmless enough and most of the members have by now found employment in the hospitality or fast food industries. Their main platform was that the U.S. government was so oppressive that it silenced any opposition. They stood out on the streets and said this every day. I guess this silencing thing didn’t work.

The fact that anyone openly says he thinks the U.S. is like Nazi Germany indicates that he doesn’t believe it. In Nazi Germany, you didn’t see a lot of open letters criticizing Hitler, or you didn’t see people who wrote them for very long. Sometimes when people are free and safe for a very long time, they forget what real tyranny looks like.

While the rhetoric is on the hysterical side, there’s little doubt that the administration has taken advantage of the emotional atmosphere in this country to quell dissent and paint their adversaries as craven traitors. The dark prediction that if Kerry wins there will be more terrorist attacks is a perfect example. (If they hate us merely for who we are and Bush is the embodiment of who we are, shouldn’t we have fewer, not more, attacks under Kerry?)

Anyway, how does Godwin’s Law apply when the conversation BEGINS with a Nazi reference?

Anyway, how does Godwin’s Law apply when the conversation BEGINS with a Nazi reference?

I suppose it never becomes a conversation, heh.

I don’t think Godwin’s Law states that the argument is over when one side calls the other Nazi. I just think it’s saying it’s inevitable.

Hysterical does not begin to describe this diatribe. While people have legitimate concerns about the actions of the Bush adminstration and their handling of many issues, it is irresponsible and ignorant for anyone to stoop to such propagandistic tactics as equating anything happening in the U.S. to “Nazification.”

Judging by the number of protesters during the RNC in NYC, and the daily outbursts of fringe groups with grudges (primarily) against Bush and some against Kerry, I’d say that there is no quelling of dissent occuring in our country. I’ve yet to be shown anyone hauled off to jail for expressing their freedom of speech in a law-abiding manner. (Throwing things at police and blocking major thoroughfares does not qualify as law-abiding, I should point out)

But, of course, hysterical screaming of extremists always help to energize political radicals, so I suppose this quasi-fairytale serves its purpose!

Lets see now. In your fantasy, you condemn the media for supporting the evil right. You say they promote facism and brainwash all of us sheep.
You also said “the Nazification of American Politics was THE AGENDA at the Republican National Convention.”
All in all what you are saying is that the evil media and evil “right wing” is ‘playing bully’ with peoples’ minds and undermining the fabric of our democracy” and that there should be an armed response.
But yet, when you use a form of media and post crap like this and put up a link to a ridiculous website, it is ok?
Give me a break!
Until you get the silly idea that this country is a democracy and not a Constitutional Republic out of you head, you will never have enough support.
Until you quit calling those on the right (who just happen to be the side with the most arms) Nazi’s, there will never be enough support for your armed response.

Instead of just looking for key words or phrases in the Constitution to try and support your fantasy, maybe you should try reading the whole thing.

Whoa, Bruce. Take a deep breath. Steady yourself. I think you might have been whipped into a frenzy.

Thank you for confirming all of my wildest fantasies about the real agenda of the radical left. I rest my case.

If you want to have a conversation about what freedom actually is, let’s talk.

The free market as fascism is an interesting argument. I think that’s basically your argument, right Bruce?

…the real fiasco rests with the daily barrage of a political-pimping of misinformation in the guise of ‘news’ and ‘facts’ by a few powerful media conglomerates; new kids on the block who are ‘playing bully’ with peoples’ minds and undermining the fabric of our democracy. In fact, these networks should not even be licensed as “media”, but “political action committees”.

In other words, free speech is the real fiasco? and you’re calling Republicans Nazi’s?

The following exchange took place yesterday:

Misha: “I do, however, believe a large portion of people in this election have become so bitterly partisan that they are willing to exploit ANYTHING to get their guy elected.

Bert: Yes, there are those out there who do precisely what Misha is suggesting. However, as much as I vehemently argue and oppose the opinions expressed here (especially from those of the Red Column), for the most part, I feel WatchBlog is devoid of such simple-minded intentions.

While many people here at Watchblog are nuanced (in a good way) about their views of politics, we should not forget the ignorance and hate that energizes much of the current political uproar on both sides.

Tensions build, elections diffuse them, most of the time.The civil war is the example of when that failed. I think there was serious concern about civil war during the 1960’s riots, and the use of the milita to enforce civil rights.

I don’t really sense that here. Perhaps there will be a few courtroom frays.

When the majority ignores the minority, it does so at its own risk. Republican democracies hopefully find ways to respond to their electorate.

The problem here is that the filters have gone missing in action. With no filtering devices or outright news policies that the public is aware of the media appears to have abdicated its role as a provider of information that has a high probability of truth. The Confusion that follows is demonstrable by the fact that many doubt the veracity of all the news and even reliable sources are called into question.

It brings one to the point of total frustration with the question - can one know the truth. Education of media techniques and how these are affected should be taught in every school today.

The problem here is that the filters have gone missing in action. With no filtering devices or outright news policies that the public is aware of the media appears to have abdicated its role as a provider of information that has a high probability of truth. The Confusion that follows is demonstrable by the fact that many doubt the veracity of all the news and even reliable sources are called into question.

Good point Franz. We’ve moved from being a country with a small number of news outlets, most of whom were respected for telling the truth, to…something else. You’d like to think that the rise of the web and all-news TV would make us a nation of well-informed philosophers, not a pack of rabid knee-biters, but so it goes. Nowadays any band of wingnuts can find each other and tell lies back and forth until they start believing them. What we need is more responsible sources that everone believes.

William:

Its not a good thing that the FCC is allowing media corporations to grow themselves as has been happening. The worst case scenario is a media world, in which one group controls all media, or enough of it so as to filter whatever message they choose.

The growth of the internet can help spread information, but does little to control the accuracy of the information. Anyone with an agenda and a computer can create a website that appears accurate—take for instance the websites that purport that an airliner did not hit the Pentagon or the WTC. They are full of half facts and half baked assumptions and conclusions.

I’ve found a measure of accuracy in reading dissenting view points, and then using my own brain to determine which has the most validity. While this relies on the individual’s ability to determine truths, it also provides a wider variety of sources and viewpoints from which to cull the truth.

Let’s all remember that free speech governs the dissemination of ideas, including news.

I don’t care how big any media corporation gets, as long as there are no artificial entry barriers to the market place they are free to be as partisan as they want.

Where in the constitution does it gaurantee non-partisanship or accuracy?

Just look at Dan Rather at CBS. They have obviously crossed the line into political activism in their reporting. But they have been punished by the market. I no longer trust their product. In fact, I feel downright animosity to their news product.

Eric, that is twice in a few minutes that I have seen you write that because of one anecdotal event, you will judge masses even remotely affiliated with the person in the anecdote as equally responsible and representative.

That is a sad thing to do to an otherwise rational mind. But, highly representative of the mental activity occuring on all sides of every issue. Human, to be sure: sad nonetheless, for the loss in potential that such extrapolation from the specific to the general represents.

Eric:

If a news organization becomes powerful enough to silence, or drown out, opinions other than its own, that is bad for the people. The use of the airwaves is not just a free speech issue. Its more of a public business issue.

David:

Allow my two cents on your comments to Eric. I have built a distrust of Dan Rather over the years. I find that his presentation of the news is biased. I know that he was the keynote speaker at a Democratic function—-this tells me something about his personal political thoughts. Having seen his reaction to the memo scandal, I am left with distrust of his journalistic capabilities. That he would claim that since his story is “true”, the proof of the accuracy is unimportant is simply silly.

Perhaps Eric, like me, has not made a decision about Dan Rather based only on a single incident, but instead on the breadth of information from numerous incidents. If so, your statements do not fit. For those who distrust Dan Rather solely from one incident, I would agree with your statements.

Bruce,
Although I do believe that the Bush and Cheney has tried to pull the wool over America’s Eyes, the group we need to be coverned about is the ultra right wing in the media.

For Rush and Hannity started out this rush to sway the public opinion when they went after the “Dixie Chicks.” Left unchecked, they have managed to get a certain percentage of the population to not believe their own eyes or ears.

If they didn’t listen to the truth maybe they will listen to Bush’s own words today. “Anyone who jumps to conclusions without the facts is infit to be Commander and Cheif.”

you all need to shut up for a few hours….

the red sox are on….

game 4 baby…….pleaseopleaseopleaseoplease….

Congrats Rob! I am a Braves fan from Boston, so all of my friends at sox fans. I can only imagine how happy you are right now :)

oh man…..thank you misha….

can’t stop crying………

whooo…..wow…..

red sox did it!!!!!

With the Boston Red Sox sweeping the St. Louis Cardinals, how will the MSM spin this into a Kerry win. Yes, the Cardinal fans may suffer a secound defeat due to their stadiums name. Over the next few days the political spin masters will use the World Series Champions to push Kerry over the top in the popular vote.

Although I am supporting Kerry this year, I feel sorry for the Cardinals as the Bush Stadium becomes the wallpaper of the next Kerry commercial embrassing “The Come Back Kids.” Yes, America can it be that we are about to see the end of GW Bush as president?

Well, can there be a sweep in Mass in October and November? Baseball the American Sport.

Yes, I am pretty sure John Kerry will sweep in Massachusetts and pick up all of its electoral votes :)

David,

…I have seen you write that because of one anecdotal event, you will judge masses even remotely affiliated with the person in the anecdote as equally responsible and representative.

That is a sad thing to do to an otherwise rational mind…

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said. Let me simplify if for you: I don’t trust Dan Rather. It isn’t just because of forged documents. Jeesh… Well, actually it is.

Should I ignore the fact that my accountant has just been caught embezzling from some of his clients just because it’s ‘anecdotal’. Or should I withhold my judgement about the accounting firm that just shrugs when he’s caught? I think it is perfectly appropriate for me to say I need to get a new accountant at a different accounting firm. Just as I will choose to get my news from the myriad of other non-cbs evening news sources. It is a judgement. Something that is part of survival in everyday life.

That’s competition. The marketplace. That’s how news providers who abuse their ‘customers’ are corrected.

I’m not sure I understand this whole ‘media needs to be regulated’ idea if Dan Rather is NOT an example of dangerous distortion of truth by the media.

I’m also a little incredulous that I’m being berated for being close-minded on a thread whose subject is how the Republican party is ‘Nazifying’ America.

you guys are unreal….i leave the boards for 10 minutes and you are all back at it using BASEBALL to get all pundity….

dammit guys….it was a great game…don’t screw it up with this bull….

geeeez…..yay…so what if kerry says he’s routing for the sox, you know what..i hope the yankee’s were routing for the sox cause it was a huge victory after 86 years of defeat….

and it is busch stadium, as in the beer company…

[Comment deleted for namecalling - dispense with it ROB — WatchBlog Manager]

sorry that last comment was uncalled for….my apologies…

you guys just make me so cranky…..

Rob- you realize this is an election blog, right? If you want to talk sports, why dont you go chat with Curt and Co. at Sons of Sam Horn (http://p086.ezboard.com/bsonsofsamhorn)!

…the media appears to have abdicated its role as a provider of information that has a high probability of truth.

Ain’t that the truth. It seems like all they do is report what Bush says, and then get reaction from the Kerry campaign, and vice versa. That’s not journalism, that’s just being a conduit for campaign spin.

I want the media to tell me what the facts are on the issues, not what the candidates want me to think the facts are.

Perhaps Eric, like me, has not made a decision about Dan Rather based only on a single incident, but instead on the breadth of information from numerous incidents. If so, your statements do not fit.

I gotta agree with jbod on this one. I have the same problem with Britt Hume over at FOX.

So the political process is failing us because it doesn’t produce candidates we actually want, and the media is failing us because — well, because it’s garbage.

What are we going to do about it?

Alejo:
“So the political process is failing us because it doesn’t produce candidates we actually want”

Its those weak-minded, always on the fence Swing Voters who have no opinions of their own and who need careful spoon-feeding of lukewarm ideas in nice, palatable sound bites who are producing candidates that leave something to be desired, in my opinion.

“and the media is failing us because — well, because it’s garbage.”

I think the media is failing us because they believe its more important to be close to power than it is to be close to reality.

What are we going to do about it?

“The power that is controling journalism is the same power that has been controling the government for some time now. It is Corporate Power. Therefore, We the People must take the corporate world that controls the media apart in order to bring truth back into journalism. And its not that many journalists wouldn’t like to be truthful mind you, its just that they they have to avoid stories that conflict with the financial interests of their news organizations, or with their advertisers.
Even the Republicans should want to get behind what Teddy Roosevelt knew - that the power of the corporations must be balanced with the interests of the general public, because if left unchecked, big business becomes so corrupt that it has the power to chew up our society and gnaw away at our freedom of speech until it kills off democracy entirely.

I think the media is failing us because they believe its more important to be close to power than it is to be close to reality.

In the case of TV, I think it’s more about the ratings. I actually find myself getting annoyed when CNN spends more than a couple minutes on a single story.

I read the newspaper and my internet news-ticker every day for news. I watch TV for entertainment - and that includes shows like Crossfire, Hardball, and Meet the Press. :)

AP:
“In the case of TV, I think it’s more about the ratings. I actually find myself getting annoyed when CNN spends more than a couple minutes on a single story.”

I don’t feel that way about PBS documentaries, Frontline or 60 Minutes though. Maybe because those stories aren’t delivered by a single talking head sitting at a desk - and they give both sides the chance to appear in order to state their positions.

“I read the newspaper and my internet news-ticker every day for news.”

Same here. I also try to read (virtual and actual) magazine articles from both sides of the fence - often the best place to see real hard-hitting journalism in action.

“I watch TV for entertainment - and that includes shows like Crossfire, Hardball, and Meet the Press.”

Except for the few shows I mentioned above, I agree with you.

All this talk of Nazification of American politics. Many of the contributors scoff at this suggestion. Indeed, some are greatly indignant to think that such a charge could be levelled at US politics.

The fact is, before the Nazis came to power, they did not have to power to suppress free speech. But they did use propaganda very successfully to insinuate themselves into power, and to maintain widespread support for themselves once they had donned the mantle of power. They did this by appealing to all of the fears of the German people. The fear of starvation from the twenties, the hatred of the Versailles settlement,( is not hatred just another expression of fear?) the fear of the bolsheviks etc etc. The fact is, they manipulated the German people very successfully and did not need to cow the majority of Germans by overtly oppressive behaviour. Hitler was a master of playing to the German Psyche, which was perhaps not only his greatest power, but perhaps his sole real one. We all know that in all of our Democracies, advertising people are pre eminent. They use all of the dark arts of propaganda and subtle psychological persuasion. It takes a very alert people, who take a vigorous interest in their own and international politics to keep some semblance of restraint on our politicians. It seems to be a given, which as an outsider I cannot confirm, that Americans generally do not read newspapers, they rely mostly for their news on the powerful News combines. News which is delivered in 30 second soundbites. Forgive me, but this seems to me to be a recipie for mass manipulation of the people.
Especially so as the majority of Americans know little of the world beyond the US. And again it seems to me, that despite Watergate, too many Americans too often confuse reverence for the President with reverence for the office of the President. That seems to me to be a particularly American phenomenon. And it scares the hell out of me.

I think it was Eisenhower who warned against the Military Industrial Complex. Whatever about that, corporate interests are making a largely successful play for the US electornic media, and the media is now becoming that dog that didn’t bark. Imagine supposedly independent journalists being embedded with the military during the Gulf War? Embedded? Doesn’t that mean in bed with the Military? I know that Americans have huge respect, perhaps even too much respect for their military, but surely Vietnam taught us all that an independent media is vital. Of course the Army will disagree, but then they would, wouldn’t they?

What I am perhaps long windedly trying to say, is that it is not necessary to erect the infrastructure of totalitarianism to destroy democracy, it is only necessary to suck out the lifeblood, and leave a hollow shell. Too much power resides in the hands of big business interests in our world. They pollute our political processes by corrupting politicians. They control too much of the media, and in the final analysis, are answerable to no one. I am not a loonie leftie. I believe in free enterprise. But large Corporations wield too much power. They must be brought to heel, else we will be left with the shell of Freedom, but without the substance.