I know Mickey and his film noir B movies.
----
Here is an essay from last November. This was before all of the recent scandals hit the junior administration. Just think how much worse the slams could be now.
Have you ever wondered why over 95% of the time you see the word hate to describe a someone or a some party it is used by a neocon to describe someone who supports Kerry or the democrat party. Read the following and you will see why they do this. It has been part of their strategy since the 80's. The trick is to accuse Kerry and his supporters of doing things which are their own worst faults. By doing this they do fool a few people but mostly they just fool themselves. It isn't working like it did in the past.
_______________________
ELECTION 2004: Analysis
“HOW DARE THEY BE ANGRY THAT I AM A LIAR WHO IS DESTROYING THE NATION!”
The Bush 2004 Re-Election Message Hits The Airwaves Big Time
by Betsy R. Vasquez
NOVEMBER, 17 - Once again, it’s time for the typical addict/abuser defense.
The problem is not that the person – in this case, President Bush – lies constantly. Nope, couldn’t be that. The problem isn’t that he has straight out robbed the national coffers, handing it all to his buddies and leaving the nation in massive debt. Uh, uh, not that. The problem isn’t that he lied to lead us to war, failed miserably in building a coalition – even worse, pretended we had a massive “coalition of the willing” when we had none – and had no plan for securing the peace, leaving our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters standing out in a sweltering desert with no real mission, sitting ducks getting picked off one, then two, then seventeen a day.
No, none of these things are the problem. The problem, according to President Bush, the Republican party, and their ballless media clone army is that people are upset about this.
We know for a fact the two biggest leaders of the Bush/Limbaughian movement – indeed, the movement’s two namesakes – are admitted addicts, one an alcoholic (and possibly coke addict,) the other a heroin-like Oxycontin addict.
So it is no surprise they act like abusive, chronically dishonest pieces of scum. The shock, however, is that they have come to define the M.O. for one of the nation’s two biggest national parties.
But that’s how it is, and so, here we go again with the abusive/addict attack model, which, this week, has been unveiled as the plan of attack and defense for the Bush re-election campaign.
As reported by Jim Morrill in the Charlotte Observer, "In a memo to GOP leaders (dated Oct. 27,) (Republican National Committee Chairman Ed) Gillespie urged them to depict Democrats as a party of "protest, pessimism and political hate speech." The memo said, "The presidential candidates have now called President Bush a `miserable failure,' a `liar,' compared him to a `gang leader' and to Saddam Hussein himself... We are a nation at war and they think the President of the United States is `the enemy.' "
And the Republicans and their pet - the media they own and operate - wasted no time in obeying orders. As reported by David Kusnet in Salon: "Last month, in response to a razzing by a heckler, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called Dean the candidate for 'hot, angry people that aren't rational and are screaming and hollering.' Over the summer, the Weekly Standard did a cover story about Bush hatred, titled 'The Democrats Go Off the Cliff,' while conservative columnists from the New York Times' David Brooks to the Washington Times' David Limbaugh warned that the Democrats are too nasty when it comes to Bush.”
This is the line of lockstep, stupid talk you will be hearing from now until the next election. He steals your money, than says to others, “See, look what an angry man he is.” He kicks your dog, crashes your car, then says, “Listen to the horrible names he calls me, see what a bad man he is?” He lies to you one more time and then, when you call him out on it, says threateningly, “Are you calling me a liar?” his voice raising intimidatingly.
Now, this should be an easy strategy to counter for the Democrats. For one thing, the strategy has been unveiled so early and obviously that the Dem hopefuls each have plenty of opportunity to sit back and craft a response.
Secondly, the strategy is so weak, juvenile, and pathetic that it would be an easy one to make fun of and to highlight how amoral (and abusive addict-like) Bush and his cronies are.
For starters, all one has to do is line up the lies – which are so numerous and easily documentable – read them off plainly before the nation, and point out that anyone who is not angered by the lies and the destruction they have wrought clearly does not care about America. Lying and saying we wouldn’t have debts if we pass his tax cut, lying and saying we had a large “coalition of the willing” and weren’t sending our sons and daughters out alone, lying and saying we had to go to war now because WMD's were about to be used, and these are just the massive ones. Americorps, Even Start, Hope VI, Headstart, example after example with inescapable quotes showing the President lied, saying one thing then doing the opposite.
But really, the best way to easily destroy this strategy is to simply point out the reality – that President Bush and his administration are the most hate spewing, name calling, epithet uttering, angry group of partisans to ever infest this nation – by linking the President to his cronies. We all know the game, the President lets talk radio, Republican operatives, newspapers, TV commentators, etc. do the nastiness for him and meanwhile pretends to just be nice, charming, and above it all. Nothing to do with him.
The Democrats all know this is a lie, and can easily make the case. By lining up a list of hateful comments by AM’ers (“Democrats would love Arnold is he was sleeping with little boys,” or, “Democratic elected officials are highly responsible for the fires burning here in LA”) and shoving them in President Bush’s face, demanding he condemn the commentaries, you ruin the game. You show these quotes, then point out the President sends his people on these shows, and so publicly challenge him. We have seen repeatedly that this works: when Michael Savage was seen by the public on an MSNBC-TV talk show he was given, he didn’t last a month, Rush Limbaugh had the same fate on ESPN.
Well, why let them get away with hiding on AM. Even more to the point, why let the President get away with using them while assailing the Democrats as hateful and angry. Simply point out the obvious, inescapable link between the hate-talk liars and President Bush – and publicly call him out to condemn the Limbaughs and Savages and Elders. If he does it, he hurts his standing with his own base and weakens one of his strongest tools. If he doesn’t, the public get to see what he really is and really is about and how his campaign really operates.
This could not be a one time thing. Throughout the campaign – just like the President does everything possible to avoid a polite discussion of the issues – attack him with quote after quote from his hate-talk legions, keeping him on the constant defensive, keeping the veil off of his thinly hidden hate and lie tactics.
This is what any useful candidate would do.
Howard Dean is the most assailed as unelectable because he is too angry. In reality, his anger is not 1/10th that of the President and his legions. Straight-talking Dean might be the only candidate astute enough to link the President and Rush Limbaugh throughout the campaign and put the President on the defensive – indeed, Dean made this linkage during the last debate.
Gephardt won’t, that is clear. Clark may, that remains to be seen. Kerry seems unlikely to do it, but with Kennedy’s chief of staff now on his team, it may be possible. Edwards? Of course not.
But, it remains to be seen. What Democrats fear most is another voiceless, all defense and no offense, strategiless campaign. Is there one in their midst who will acknowledge and deal with the abusive/addict line of defense the Bushies have been using since day one?
moderateindependent.com |
