Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Did Wilson actually submit a report to critique? Don't I recall that he didn't? He instead went to the media? I may be pipedreaming here and don't have time to look it up.

blatham:

I'm not "manipulated" by any stretch. I don't get any information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, or telephone trees.

"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them."

Yes I get information through the Internet? Don't you?

My question for you, bernie, is who is manipulating you?

BTW, thanks for posting another salon.com article. I think that answers my question.

I don't know who the "Christian Right" is unless anybody who believes in God is dumped into that tub.

Well, clearly that's a lousy definition as many Christians are "left-leaning" social democrats (not to mention such people of other theistic faiths). I recommend you procure a clarifying definition from Mr. Scanlon or Mr. DeLay, or Ralph Reed, or Jerry Falwell, or Robert Bork, or any other of the figureheads in your party who use the term.

I never listen to Christian radio, not because I have anything against it, but my radio is generally tuned to the #1 rated radio station in New Mexico which happens to be a news/talk station. To put that into perspective, New Mexico is a battleground state with razor thin margins for the winner of national elections whether Democrat or Republican and has had Democrat controlled legislatures since it became a state 93 years ago.

To the best of my knowledge, I have never received anything other than family news or local church news via a telephone tree. I do get a fair amount of information from the internet. I wonder if some big deal will be made from that, especially by those who consider Salon to be the repository of all news worthy to be reported and Chomsky to be the guru of all that is wise?

Well, clearly that's a lousy definition as many Christians are "left-leaning" social democrats (not to mention such people of other theistic faiths). I recommend you procure a clarifying definition from Mr. Scanlon or Mr. DeLay, or Ralph Reed, or Jerry Falwell, or Robert Bork, or any other of the figureheads in your party who use the term.

But you aren't off the hook yourself, tico. Note the last part of Scanlon's email..."and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them." That means you. The guy that ran DeLay's press office wishes to deceive you. He brags about it. He might think you are better/smarter than those Scanlon-identified manipulatable Christian-wackos (we aren't clear on that) but he clearly thinks you are just as manipulatable. Doesn't he?

Tico wrote:

Yes I get information through the Internet? Don't you?

That's slick. Or just careless. One imagines a Pravda reader saying to another who has a copy of the Christian Science Moniter in hand, "Well, both are ink splats on paper, what's your beef?" About half of what I read in a given day comes via the internet.

Tico wrote:

My question for you, bernie, is who is manipulating you?

BTW, thanks for posting another salon.com article. I think that answers my question.

Pick up your integrity, tico. The earlier exercise demonstrated how little I quote Salon here (2 times out of 50+ instances).

You're painting with too broad a brush, Blatham. Lumping together Bork and Falwell, for instance, is a bit odd,
Sure, if I'd done what you seem to suggest (that I equated them as to ideology). But I didn't. Foxfyre tried to assert some claim approximating that the term 'religious right' has no discernible meaning. I suggested she turn to folks happy to use that term (Bork and Falwell being two...and one wouldn't have to go far back in posts here to show that Foxfyre makes three)

.nor should one assume that all right-leaning sources and individuals are implicated by a Scanlon-exposed "conspiracy."
Absolutely. Did you meet someone recently who made such a suggestion? I didn't.

Perhaps the hardest thing for the left to accept is that American politicians - for all their flaws - may actually reflect the beliefs of the mass of Americans.
That's a left problem? Uniquely? Mainly? Is your thesis universally applicable? All politicians? Joe McCarthy? Jimmy Carter?
Is it so hard to swallow that many Americans aren't being manipulated at all?
Yes. Please forward for all of us your argument that manipulation of the electorate is not happening under this administration. If convincing, I'll reconsider.
That there isn't a conspiracy?
Please refer to the Scanlon email above and describe to me in whatever style of prose you prefer how that does not reveal conspiratorial behavior.
That the conservative ascendance reflects genuine, deeply-held beliefs? At any rate, we are all subject to manipulation by social movements and media bias. The important thing to remember is that it's a dynamic process. The media and our politicians not only shape America, but also reflect America. DeLay didn't rise from the darkness. He reflects a movement that has been growing since way before either he or Scanlon took the stage.
Oh. Well fine then. They are rather like wildflowers and ought to be allowed to thrive there in the roadside ditch.

The left will never get anywhere as long as they try to engage America with patronizing messages like "Oh, that's not your real belief; you dummies are just being manipulated." That's the line fed to us by elitist liberal gems like "What's the matter with Kansas," a book that I'm sure didn't raise as much as an eyebrow in Kansas. If you want to promote change, you need to engage people as equals (sans the manipulation bit).
There's a cute mis-reading. If you can find me a single instance in anything I've written (anywhere) where I've suggested to someone that the belief they hold is not their real belief, I'll send you a hundred cash. The real argument is, of course, that certain beliefs held will not likely stand up to scrutiny given a full and transparent accounting of the relevant information. For example, that Michael Scanlon is an ethical or trustworthy man. Or that DeLay's office functioned any differently after Scanlon was gone than it did with him in it.

Steppenwolf wrote:

The left will never get anywhere as long as they try to engage America with patronizing messages like "Oh, that's not your real belief; you dummies are just being manipulated." That's the line fed to us by elitist liberal gems like "What's the matter with Kansas," a book that I'm sure didn't raise as much as an eyebrow in Kansas. If you want to promote change, you need to engage people as equals (sans the manipulation bit).
There's a cute mis-reading. If you can find me a single instance in anything I've written (anywhere) where I've suggested to someone that the belief they hold is not their real belief, I'll send you a hundred cash. The real argument is, of course, that certain beliefs held will not likely stand up to scrutiny given a full and transparent accounting of the relevant information. For example, that Michael Scanlon is an ethical or trustworthy man. Or that DeLay's office functioned any differently after Scanlon was gone than it did with him in it.

How does it happen that folks like mysterman and tico (we have no reason to assume they aren't fine people, all in all) are so effectively manipulated that they arrive at a place where they can justify torture and defend a government which lies to them and everyone else and does so consistently?

November 2, 2005

Steppenwolf wrote:

You're painting with too broad a brush, Blatham. Lumping together Bork and Falwell, for instance, is a bit odd,
Sure, if I'd done what you seem to suggest (that I equated them as to ideology). But I didn't. Foxfyre tried to assert some claim approximating that the term 'religious right' has no discernible meaning. I suggested she turn to folks happy to use that term (Bork and Falwell being two...and one wouldn't have to go far back in posts here to show that Foxfyre makes three)

.nor should one assume that all right-leaning sources and individuals are implicated by a Scanlon-exposed "conspiracy."
Absolutely. Did you meet someone recently who made such a suggestion? I didn't.

Perhaps the hardest thing for the left to accept is that American politicians - for all their flaws - may actually reflect the beliefs of the mass of Americans.
That's a left problem? Uniquely? Mainly? Is your thesis universally applicable? All politicians? Joe McCarthy? Jimmy Carter?
Is it so hard to swallow that many Americans aren't being manipulated at all?
Yes. Please forward for all of us your argument that manipulation of the electorate is not happening under this administration. If convincing, I'll reconsider.
That there isn't a conspiracy?
Please refer to the Scanlon email above and describe to me in whatever style of prose you prefer how that does not reveal conspiratorial behavior.
That the conservative ascendance reflects genuine, deeply-held beliefs? At any rate, we are all subject to manipulation by social movements and media bias. The important thing to remember is that it's a dynamic process. The media and our politicians not only shape America, but also reflect America. DeLay didn't rise from the darkness. He reflects a movement that has been growing since way before either he or Scanlon took the stage.
Oh. Well fine then. They are rather like wildflowers and ought to be allowed to thrive there in the roadside ditch.

The left will never get anywhere as long as they try to engage America with patronizing messages like "Oh, that's not your real belief; you dummies are just being manipulated." That's the line fed to us by elitist liberal gems like "What's the matter with Kansas," a book that I'm sure didn't raise as much as an eyebrow in Kansas. If you want to promote change, you need to engage people as equals (sans the manipulation bit).
There's a cute mis-reading. If you can find me a single instance in anything I've written (anywhere) where I've suggested to someone that the belief they hold is not their real belief, I'll send you a hundred cash. The real argument is, of course, that certain beliefs held will not likely stand up to scrutiny given a full and transparent accounting of the relevant information. For example, that Michael Scanlon is an ethical or trustworthy man. Or that DeLay's office functioned any differently after Scanlon was gone than it did with him in it.

Smoking pot has nothing to do with competence in any instance, no more than drinking. But you of course know that.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Smoking pot has nothing to do with competence in any instance, no more than drinking. But you of course know that.

Cycloptichorn

If the CIA refuses to hire people who smoke pot, why LOWER the standard for Wilson, who had a critically vital CIA investigatory assignment?

They were gunning for the WH. Since when does that kind of strategic, clandestine information get sprayed all over the news?

You're painting with too broad a brush, Blatham. Lumping together Bork and Falwell, for instance, is a bit odd, nor should one assume that all right-leaning sources and individuals are implicated by a Scanlon-exposed "conspiracy."

Perhaps the hardest thing for the left to accept is that American politicians - for all their flaws - may actually reflect the beliefs of the mass of Americans. Is it so hard to swallow that many Americans aren't being manipulated at all? That there isn't a conspiracy? That the conservative ascendance reflects genuine, deeply-held beliefs? At any rate, we are all subject to manipulation by social movements and media bias. The important thing to remember is that it's a dynamic process. The media and our politicians not only shape America, but also reflect America. DeLay didn't rise from the darkness. He reflects a movement that has been growing since way before either he or Scanlon took the stage.

The left will never get anywhere as long as they try to engage America with patronizing messages like "Oh, that's not your real belief; you dummies are just being manipulated." That's the line fed to us by elitist liberal gems like "What's the matter with Kansas," a book that I'm sure didn't raise as much as an eyebrow in Kansas. If you want to promote change, you need to engage people as equals (sans the manipulation bit).

Lash wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Smoking pot has nothing to do with competence in any instance, no more than drinking. But you of course know that.

Cycloptichorn

If the CIA refuses to hire people who smoke pot, why LOWER the standard for Wilson, who had a critically vital CIA investigatory assignment?

They were gunning for the WH. Since when does that kind of strategic, clandestine information get sprayed all over the news?

They don' t actually refuse to hire people who have smoked pot. That might be the case with the FBI (I don't know), but certainly not with the CIA. It's likely a problem if you're currently a chronic pot smoker, but that isn't an issue here. Am I wrong?