re: #299 Iron Fist

It has been said that the Republicans are the stupid Party. The Democrats are the evil Party. While that is a bit simplistic, it seems to be dead on much of the time. One of the reasons the Democrats are so good at propaganda is that the bulk of the media support them. The media lets Democrats walk on things that they would flay a Republican for. That helps, but the Democrats just plain propagandize better. They are better at playing to the emotions. Everything is for the children, of course, whether it is food stamps or gun control or another Robert C. Byrd Memorial [fill in the blank]. And Republicans want to starve old people. We can’t forget that. Cuts in rates of growth of spending are played as drastic cuts in spending. I could go on, but I think I’ve proven the point.

Depending on the Democrat in question, some of them lie better than others. The quintesential example of this is Bill Clinton. Do you remember who called him an “uncommonly good liar”? It wasn’t Newt Gingrich.

some dweeb on the internet that said that. It was Dick Durbin, D-al Qaeda, for the record from the floor of the Senate. I’m surprised Osama didn’t send him a personally engraved thank-you note for that little performance.

And the Republicans let him skate on it. As I said, the Republicans are the stupid Party.

I appreciate your discussing this in a serious manner. Regarding emotions: I understand your idea of “for the children.” After all, who wants to be against children, or might I add saving the homeless, etc… . But, aren’t the Republicans as adept at using emotional arguments? Take immigration for example. Now, surely, the effects of 12 million illegals is not a trivial matter. It is a serious topic that deserves serious consideration. But haven’t the Republicans played the emotional angle here to the upmost (John McCain not included.) For example “Shamnesty” instead of a serious debate on the facts (i.e., they are hear, they aren’t going to be deported en masse, therefore what are the possible options and consequences.) Or take the example of war. Were all those slogans and symbols (in god we trust combined with the flag, etc…) sincere displays of patriotism or political tools? Or crime exploitation, insinuating that the Democrats don’t mind crime (although this one seems to have lost its popularity I think.)

As far as the Republicans not getting the story out. Was it the media being against the Republicans combined with poor political abilities on Bush’s end, or the administration creating false expectations and changing the rationale for war? Why not say the war was in response to 9-11, not because Iraq was linked to Al Queda, but because if we clean house there, other states may get the hint and reform? Wasn’t the media’s later treatment of the war a backlash against all of these avoidable mistakes by the administration?

Finally, I am amazed at how often I hear conservatives blame the media for their losses. I was saying the other day, how does one argue against this? If the Gop wins, well that is how it should be. If they lose, it is (primarily) because of the media. Could it be the case that this has been repeated so often and for so long, it has become a false gospel? Hasn’t anything changed? The dominance of talk radio, Fox news, blogs. Sorry I took so long to respond, had to have a cigarette.