There are apparently some liberals, and some Democrats, and some independents out there, who claim that the media is not only not "liberally biased," but that it in general slants its coverage in order to make the facts come across as less biased to the right and far right. (Most often accomplished, so this claim goes, by largely ignoring or glossing over them, but other times, by miscontruing them or simply parroting misleading arguments with little objective context.)
I just heard Mike Malloy talk about the theft of President Jimmy Carter's briefing papers in 1980 and Malloy's sardonic "We're Republicans. We wouldn't cheat!"
Well, they certainly did but it didn't come out until years later. I had forgotten all about it.
Who can we trust with our money?
Seems to me that the Obama campaign could make some progress with older 65 and over voters with a clear and simple line of attack.
WE SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION
They cannot be trusted with your money.
Since 1980 the National debt has increased by 10 Trillion Dollars
1.5 Trillion during the Democratic administration of Clinton/Gore vs 8.5 Trillion during the Republican Administrations of Reagan Bush and Bush
Clinton/Gore slowed the growth of debt to zero during their second term and had Al Gore taken the office to which he was elected it is reasonable to assume that he could have lowered the debt by refusing to give massive tax breaks to the corporations and the very wealthy. DO THE MATH and elect fiscally responsible Democrats who understand that a strong dollar and balanced budget puts the interests of the country above the personal financial gain of the very wealthy.
USSR is back to flexing it's muscles, unnoposed thanks to GW stupidity and squandering of US resources.
GOP loves to sell the myth that Reagan "won" the cold war. Well, if that is true, then who has just "lost it" all over again ? Their idiot in chief!
From the front page:
Ronald D. Asmus and Richard Holbrooke believe that:
We have arrived at a watershed moment in the West's post-Cold War relations with Russia. [...]
Weak Western diplomacy and lack of transatlantic unity failed to prevent an avoidable war. Only strong transatlantic unity can stop this war and begin to repair the immense damage done. Otherwise, we can add one more issue to the growing list of this administration's foreign policy failures.
It is undeniable: GW's over committing of US forces and money with his fake wars left a void where Putin could regain Russia's old power. GW squandered Reagan's "hard work"!
Back when the Beatles were new and hogging the charts they were literally taking the bread out of the mouths of the top songwriters of the day who were used to writing the stuff that the top 40 singers recorded and these writers all got an OK living on the royalties...
The new singer-songwriter era messed up a good thing for the status quo. So The old guard got together with some producers and others interested in coming up with a vehicle to get back in the game. And the marketing and TV thing they came up with became the Monkees and it was a very successful tool that got these guys back on the gravy train. And why not. They were by and large good songwriters and the Monkees had a market and were entertaining and relatively harmless. I watched the shows back then and bought the records...I liked the Beatles and most of the "real" acts more. (shows you how ancient I am...) The downside is that the formula has been improved on and reinvented over and over again and music has suffered ever since as the labels and producers manipulate and control what we are supposed to like.
There has been plenty of coverage of John McCain's negative ad right in the middle of the Olympic Opening Ceremony. There has been little about how it calls on us to believe a defunct Economic theory or that it wants us to assume that Barack Obama has already taken the bunk into his calculations.
That Sen. Bomb Bomb Iran expects to get away with these gross misrepresentations shows that for all his supporters' whining about the media coverage, they're depending that the media will not give the ad the serious scrutiny it deserves.
By now we've all heard the reasons Democrats have lost elections for the past four decades. Frames. Memes. Defined by opponents. Attack ads. Political capitulations. Weak on defense. And crime. And the voters are stupid. Oh, and the media are biased.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that all of the above are the politics of mass distraction. The real reason Democrats lost elections for the past four decades? Just three:
Yesterday, John McCain unveiled a disingenuous new ad touting himself as the "Original Maverick." Designed to distance himself from President Bush, the spot portrays McCain as a rebel battling the special interests in his own party. Of course, during the Republican primaries McCain was telling a much different story. Then, the original Maverick was a "True Conservative."
Barack Obama...? Nope, Ronald Reagan. Many Kossacks will view this video with some pause, I think it is effective and actually parallels well with the DKos story from yesterday 1980 Redux.
The above named politicians have something very important in common. Say each name out loud or in your head to yourself. What is the first thought that comes to your mind as you say the name? If it's a republican talking point, this article is for you. Ever since the Reagan administration, I have tried unsuccessfully to get people to see a pattern in the behavior of the republican party and how it approaches elections. I did a paper in college analyzing Reagan's communication style for use of power and control. Power and control is a form of communication that is linked to violent behavior. This comes from The Duluth Model, http://www.sarpn.org.za/... that assesses violent behavior in domestic violence. My thesis since Reagan has been the the republicans use attacks to constantly put the democratic opponent in a one down situation. Most of us, know this has been going on but do not understand the extent or even the degree to which we have been influenced by this tactic. If Obama wants to win he needs to understand this dynamic and keep his republican opponent on the defense.
I'm frustrated with lack of hard-hitting ads on McCain. The "Pocket's" a good start. But, I think there's sort of general cynicism that every pol's in someone's pocket, so it becomes a "six of one, half dozen of the other" choice in voter's minds. I don't think it's an issue that will resonate with voters. McCain's image as a "straight talking, honorable man" (even in the face of so much contrary evidence) inoculates him from this attack.
I'd like to see some hard hitting attacks on McCain's voting record. This is a way to educate people that McCain is largely getting by on good press and an image that is no longer accurate (if EVER was).
But absent Obama's desire, or will (?) to do this, I'm curious why, aside from the Move On "Alex" ad, we've seen so few independent 527s launching any campaigns.
I have run across this well-produced, grass-roots response to "Celebrity" ad.
While wasting away my weekend in front of my computer in the air conditioning, watching the hot Texas summer day out my big window (sorry, McCain camp, no dark basement), I've been considering the campaigns of Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama thus far. So many KOS diaries point out the contradictions in Sen. McCain's words and actions, but it doesn't seem to make a difference to the larger population. To the frustration of the McCain camp, the soaring words and the inspiring images of Sen. Obama reach the voters - no matter how often Sen. McCain says "too young, too inexperienced."
I ran across an excellent article from 2004 regarding Ronald Reagan which seems very applicable to the 2008 campaign. Did Pres. Reagan demonstrate that it was only the pictures that mattered, no matter what he actually said? Or did his success in persuading the public demonstrate something more?
McCain's relentless yapping at Obama's heels seems to have accomplished one thing: turned the focus of the campaign away from him, McCain, and onto Obama.
Some responses to the criticism of Barack Obama that has followed his speech in Berlin last week. Summary: I think the criticisms all show a poor understanding of history, and the nature of politics, rhetoric, and fame.
Charles Krauthammer has been widely quoted as saying Obama didn't "earn" the right to speak in Berlin, as did JFK and Reagan.
My response: Speakers - whether Presidents or Presidential candidates, or anyone - don't "earn" the right to speak by their credentials beforehand. Rather, they are invited, if the host sees fit. And they may or may not attract a large audience. Obama attracted a huge audience of 200,000. By that measure, not to mention the audience's reaction, Obama eminently earned his right to speak in Berlin.
I think it’s time for Senator Barack Obama to talk about his race and how it gives him a different perspective on life.
Yesterday, Senator Barack Obama was reported as saying the following at a rally:
"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."
As much as conservatives claim to love Reagan, why would McCain raising the social security tax rate bother them? After all, Reagan doubled the social security tax while giving the wealthiest Americans the biggest tax cut in American history.
On top of that he STILL had to borrow more money than all presidents (from George Washington to Jimmy Carter) combined, thus tripling the national debt.
