Should DeLay resign

timberlandko wrote:

Atkins wrote:
Tom DeLay is a disgusting man.

au wrote:
... The most disgusting of all sits in the oval office.

Atkins wrote:
True

In no fear the advice will be understood, let alone heeded, I offer that the mindset behind such pronouncements is of more service to The Republican Cause than is any effort undertaken by The Republicans themselves.

Does anyone understand what the writer is trying to say? Does anyone find it ironic that the writer condemns his opponents for having an opinion when he has many opinions?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

And just to clarify my reference to "mainstream liberal" press and media, I point to the likes of The NY Times, the Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times, and to the "Big 3" TV network news organizations in particular..... I don't recall any of them being gung-ho about anything concerning The Bush Administration ... least of all the ramp-up to the recent Iraq intervention.

Excuse me, but during that "ramp-up" to the Iraq invasion, presidential supporters were talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction, and painting scenarios about whole states being under clouds of poison gas.

One of the criticisms of the Hans Blix inspections system was that the Iraqis did not make known how they disposed of the poison gas from the 1991 war. This was brought up very often, and was used by hawks as a reason why the inspection process was suspect.

Yet, there were reports on the internet from 1991, by our own military, pointing out something significant: poison gas wears out. It has an expiration date. It hits a point where it is no longer harmful. And that date was early 1992.

Where was the press-the "mainstream press" as you conservatives put it? Why were they not trumpeting this fact all over the newstands and airwaves? The reports were right there. The Iraqis clearly did not have to give the details of the disposal of poison gas because the gas had been useless for a decade!!!

I didn't see any newspapers emphasizing this in the events leading up to the war. I didn't see Time or Newsweek or the NY Times doing lengthy articles on how the reasoning for the war is faulty, based on assessments of poison gas that has long since ceased to be poison.

No, the so-called "liberal mainstream media" lay back and let Bush put the country into a frenzy, let the president's supporters paint ridiculous scenarios of poison gas in America that simply could not ever happen.

I don't care what the editorial policy of the NY Times is. They dropped the ball when they did not emphasize the fallacy of much of the arguments of the president leading up to the war. they dropped the bal lwhen they did not emphasize that the poison gas left over from the first Gulf War was entirely useless.

"Mainstream liberal press". Ha! A conservative shibboleth, invented to justify the excesses of right wing talk radio maniacs. Nothing more.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

My advice to the Dems - to "wise up" - is simple; abandon denial. Wishing a thing so doesn't make it so, refusing to acknowledge an elephant doesn't make the elephant go away.

I'm not denying anything. I'm just pointing out what is happening right in front of everyone's eyes.

The right wing perfected a radio style which slams liberals at every turn. Bit by bit, the style grew popular, until the entire AM radio dial is now an arm of the Republican National Committee.

You're going to try to tell me that having a whole radio band expounding Republican ideas is not going to shift some votes?

Consider this, about the "Republican tide".

Their presidential candidate lost the popular vote the first time, and slid by with a scant 2% plurality the second time. sure, it's the Electoral College that counts-but the fact is, the Electoral vote almost always follows the popular vote. In short, Bush squeaked by, twice.

The Senate? Well, consider this-there were three million more DEMOCRATIC votes for Senate then Republican votes. Yes, the Republicans got more Senators out of it, but once more we see that this great Republican drift Timberland and others is trying to espouse just doesn't exist. Source

After years of yakking on the radio, talk radio shifted enough votes to give the Republicans the small amount they needed to get over. A small shift back,and the Democrats are in charge of the Presidency and the Senate.

0 Replies

Media doesn't create a market, it plays to one. If the market isn't there, the media doesn't play there long.

If The Democrats are to regain control of government, first they have to gain control of their own party.

0 Replies

If talk radio was able to 'swing voters' to one candidate or anothers, Bill Clinton would never have been elected. Twice. Timber is right that Talk Radio is successful purely because it does reinforce what the people already know and believe.

I think most of those who disagree with 'rightish' views don't listen to talk radio to any degree, and I would guess very few of those who do listen are actually inspired to change their ideology. I would guess a larger number are actually turned off by the rhetoric of the more vitriolic or ignorant comments of some radio talk show hosts. Most of Talk Radio is pretty well researched and well done, however.

Talk Radio is scorned and despised by the left just as those on the right are scorned and despised by many on the left in universities, in government, and even here on A2K. What the right says is infuriating to those on the left who have little or no tolerance for any point of view but their own.

The Democrats are simply out of step with what the majority of the people believe and value. So long as they pin their hopes on winning by demonizing talk radio or the leadership on the right, I think they can expect to keep on losing a lot of elections.

0 Replies

Foxfyre
Out of step? You seem to forget that Bush only garnered 51% of the popular vote. Do you as Bush seems to think that-that is a mandate. And indeed if one looks at the latest polls his "mandate' no
longer exists.

Who is out of step now??

0 Replies

Please find the word 'mandate' or any phrase suggesting a 'mandate' that I used here or anywhere, Au. But evenso, Bush's approval rating is still higher than the 43% vote that elected Bill Clinton the first time, and they are usually higher than the vote that elected him the second time. So what's your point?

My point is that the Democrats are out of step with what the majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, want, and that accounts for their losing a lot of elections since 1994. How do you account for the significant Republican success? I mean it isn't that the Republican are saints. They obviously aren't. It isn't that the Republicans are more competent. They certainly have not demonstrated that. There are more registered Democrats than there are Republicans. So why do the Republicans keep winning?

0 Replies

Among Democrats elected since FDR only LBJ was e elected by a majority.

0 Replies

timberlandko
Would that in some way indicate that those who voted for the loser do not count and have no stake in America and the American government. Is it supposed to be a winner take all situation.
What disturbs me and always has that our legislators generally vote as their party leaders [those who hold the purse strings] mandate and not their conscience. There is very little independence in congress.

0 Replies

Foxfire
I wrote

Quote:

Do you as Bush seems to think that-that is a mandate

just a question

0 Replies

So why do the Republicans keep winning?

0 Replies

Better PR???

0 Replies

No way. It is my opinion that despite their lack of sainthood and their considerable ineptness in getting the job done, the GOP at least puts real ideas and a real message out there and most of them resonate favorably with the American public.

The Dems put their whole stake in trying to discredit the GOP and have no ideas and no message of their own. And their platform that they could put out there is not palatable to the majority of Americans and the GOP is able to take advantage of that.

Hoiwever bad they are, the GOP is the party of ideas and, in comparison, the Dems look clueless. The Democrats are going to have to come up with their own version of what national policy should be to regain credibility. Their tactics of playing on fears of certain groups, the politics of personal destruction, and just saying no to the GOP isn't working for them very well any more.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If talk radio was able to 'swing voters' to one candidate or anothers, Bill Clinton would never have been elected. Twice. Timber is right that Talk Radio is successful purely because it does reinforce what the people already know and believe.

Talk radio barely existed in 92 and 96 other than Rush. Most of it was created by the 98 impeachment storm.

You are correct in that talk radio reinforces what people WANT to believe. It takes a rather forceful truth to make them wake up from their beliefs. Facts are stubborn things though. They don't go away. Someday people will have to wake up and look at what they created based on their "beliefs".

0 Replies

Parados writes

Quote:

Talk radio barely existed in 92 and 96 other than Rush. Most of it was created by the 98 impeachment storm.

Talk radio has been around since the 1940's but its current form barely existed until Rush pioneered it in the mid 80's. Almost certainly mostly due to his tremendous success, by 1990 10% of radio stations had reformatted to news and talk genre. By 1992 and 1996, many millions of Americans were tuning in to Rush, Colmes, Liddy, Barry whathisface, Larry King, and many many others. It had even caught on in the U.K.

I think it has been talk radio, supplemented by the internet, that has broken the monopoly of the big three alphabet channels who had long deviated from reporting the news and were instead in mostly the business of indoctrinating with ideology. The fact that many (most?) Americans weren't buying it ensured the success of talk radio. The media that provides real information in palatable forms still has a bright future in this country.

And I think the American public can and will handle real information that they don't want to hear. But when it becomes politics of personal destruction, the American people don't tolerate it for long. That's why I think the leftish media and Democrats are overplaying their hand on Tom Delay. He may be guilty as sin or not, but the constant barrage of attacks is starting to play in his favor. Nobody is as guilty as some wish to paint him, and a sense of fairness starts kicking in.

The GOP did the same thing when they went after Clinton. They had the authentic goods on him, but they overplayed their hand and it backfired on them. Americans still love an underdog. Smile

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Facts are stubborn things though. They don't go away. Someday people will have to wake up and look at what they created based on their "beliefs".

Yeah, pretty much. Among those stubborn facts are that DeLay has never been found to have been in violation of any law or of Congressional Rule by anyone, and that the allegations against him are purely partisan.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Media doesn't create a market, it plays to one. If the market isn't there, the media doesn't play there long.

If The Democrats are to regain control of government, first they have to gain control of their own party.

This is so naive! Media creates markets the same way Proctor and Gamble or Addidas or The Gap creates markets.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

No way. It is my opinion that despite their lack of sainthood and their considerable ineptness in getting the job done, the GOP at least puts real ideas and a real message out there and most of them resonate favorably with the American public.

The Dems put their whole stake in trying to discredit the GOP and have no ideas and no message of their own. And their platform that they could put out there is not palatable to the majority of Americans and the GOP is able to take advantage of that.

Hoiwever bad they are, the GOP is the party of ideas and, in comparison, the Dems look clueless. The Democrats are going to have to come up with their own version of what national policy should be to regain credibility. Their tactics of playing on fears of certain groups, the politics of personal destruction, and just saying no to the GOP isn't working for them very well any more.

GOP ideas include

ending social security. They've been angry at that one for 70 years. Since it is nearly impossible to own a home on one income, it will be interesting to discover what shape today's college students will be in when they are my age and have saved 25 cents.

drilling for oil everywhere there is a bare patch of ground. Talk about respect for tradition! Our grandfathers set aside wilderness lands for us years ago and the GOP wants to despoil it.

going to war because Little George Bush's nose is out of joint because his sissy dad's life was threatened by Saddam.

taking credit for things like the fall of the Soviet Union just because their old dodderer took a sufficient amount of L-Dopa to ask Gorbie to tear down the Berlin Wall.

proclaiming ketchup a vegetable. We know what kind of mother is the Republican ideal! Someone who puts Coke in a lunch box!

0 Replies

Atkins, I should introduce you to Cycloptihorn. I think you two would find a lot in common.

0 Replies

Should DeLay resign

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know