Do we need a stable consistent focus derived from a holistic rendering?

Great Debates
21

I’d like to thank you all here for what appears to be a considerable amount of indulgence.

I understood that I was asking you all to accept a lot of premises here. basically I was wondering if there was anyone out there who accepted my premises who might then accept the conclusion.

Here are the premisis and conclusion

I’ll put it into a basic syllogism:

If you believe the press is tilted conservative, and

If you believe that we are very dependent on social influences for our ideas and opinions, influences that the press is largely a part of…

then the conclusion is simple. The crux issues and discourse should surround these two issues, and the focus should be largely around these facts. Whether you accept them as facts or not is wholly up to you. If you do, then the conclusion should be getting that message out. You DON’T have to argee with the premises for the logic to be valid.

From this conclusion, it should also be suggested that if you do slightly believe that either of these two possibilities are true, then you should work on them to either prove or disprove them: focus.

Now, if you have a problem with the premises, I’d like to discuss those.

22

I understand clearly what guestforever is getting on about. When you have a political debate, it occurs via the media: radio, TV, newspapers, the Internet. The media are the playing field on which the debate occurs, the messages and speeches and so forth are the content of the debate.

Over the last couple of decades, the Pubbies have been buying and consolidating the playing field. So it doesn’t really matter what content the Dems come up with, they can’t get it before the public becuase the Pubbie-controlled media drowns out the Dem messages with their own.

Focussing on changing the Dem content will do no good until the playing field has been levelled by challenging the Pubbie media hegemony. This issue, that issue, whatever … it’s all futile because no matter what the Dems can come up with, the Pubbies can block it. THAT’S the issue the Dems should be focussing on – fix that, and all other issues become more manageable, more successful – everything else is a secondary issue.

That pretty close, guestforever?

23

That’s about right Tony, at least as far as your assessment of where I am going.

I’m not quite sure what your point in the last paragraph is. Could you clarify?

24

Dead on. As a matter of fact, from now on, can I clear all my posts through you?

25

Thank you, EC, because post #21 made no more sense to me than the OP.

I essentially agree, except that I don’t think that the media is “Pubbie-controlled” as much as the GOP has a better understanding of how to work the media and a greater willingness to do what it takes.

Of course some venues are indeed pro-GOP. But on the whole, Dems just haven’t been willing to drink the Kool-Aid and accept that you gotta do what you gotta do. Enticing the infotainment industry (and the public, for that matter) to rise to the occasion is a dubious strategy.

The GOP understands more completely the ways in which political campaigns are marketing campaigns. Your candidate is your product. Most of the Dems I came across who were passionate and active this year find this idea repugnant and refuse to bow to it, with the results we’ve seen.

The media sells time and space. Give them something that delivers eyeballs, and they’ll work with you. Give the public a consistent brand, and cause them to doubt the key claims of the competing brand, and you’ll win.

Rove’s evil genius is his willingness to attack a candidate’s strengths. The Bush campaign and their proxies went after Kerry’s war record, his elite heritage, his contribution to minority issues, etc. These were issues that the Dems didn’t dream they’d be attacked on because Bush is obviously weaker (or as weak) on them. But the strategy was brilliant – it put doubts in voters’ minds and the very sensationalism of the claims got media attention.

Welcome to the gutter.

26

The Yankees lost in the ALCS, beaten by a team with around $60 million less to spend.

Lots of things in elections are expensive, and the GOP certainly has an upper hand in fundraising and organization. These things cannot be discounted. IMHO, Kerry ran the best campaign possible given the circumstances. He said the right things. But his countenance resonated with few people, even among Democratic faithful. He said the right things, but you couldn’t get to them because his delivery sucked.

When we look back at this election, IMHO it will all be about charisma. That’s what you media dominance gets you. The media largely establishes the meme of charisma. So when Bush was testy during the debates, when he clearly misspoke and deceived, the media looked the other way, no matter how much Kerry cried foul. But when Bush cried flip-flopper and the media drummed clips of Kerry equivocating the $87 billion vote into our heads, well that resonated. Kerry started a step behind Bush’s fake down-hominess (which still turns a ton of people off) and only lost ground as the media found an opening in which to pigeonhole him and simplify him.

It happens all the time, and not only in politics. The better-looking, better-talking people are favored – it’s a base human reaction. Looking back, I believe Dean could have won this race. Clark would have lost like Kerry. Same with Lieberman and Gephart. Sharpton would have won in a landslide if he hadn’t been carrying so much baggage.

27

Yes, in fact, everyone has to do that already. Guess that wasn’t made clear when you signed on. :wink:

28

Exactly. Kerry failed to deliver a simple message to define his brand. So the GOP did it for him. After that, he had to battle against that mind-share and at the same time attack Bush’s mind-share. It’s amazing he won as many votes as he did.

Meaning what – if he hadn’t been Al Sharpton? There’s no way a black man who calls himself a “street nigger” has a snowball’s chance. Maybe Colin Powell. But Sharpton? No dice.

29

Well a feces smeared woman in a Hefty trashbag does make for a cumbersome load.

30

Especially since it seems like she smeared the feces on herself to discredit the white man. At least IIRC…

31

Sample_the_Dog

Sharpton makes some good points and he gives a helluva speech. That’s all I mean. The African-American preacher motif is a motif that can have huge resonation with conservative Christians, even in the South. I’m not exactly sure that it would offset the inherent racism around, but I think it would come close.

If we had someone who was spotless – not Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton – they could easily do it, I’m quite convinced.

Chris Matthews cut into Sharpton’s address at the DNC. But his address was by far the best, most energetic, most honest, and funniest speech of the convention. If he weren’t so easy to dismiss with just two words (Tawana Brawley), IMHO he would have been an enormously strong candidate.

32

You RC. It was quite a circus and Sharpton was one of the ringmasters.

33

What do you think of Obama’s chances after a few more turns? He’s not a preacher, but he’s an amazing orator. In fact, he brings a stylistic freshness, naturalness, and candor to the podium that someone like Jackson is sorely lacking. Every time I hear Jessie, I think, “Stop doing Martin already.”

If the Dems let him build up a good record in the Senate, and they time his nomination for a pendulum swing leftward (and even a move to center would be leftward these days) I think we could see our first African American POTUS or VP.

34

Dude, that’s your bad. I’ll admit that I did not put it concisely in the original thread. Evil seemed to figure it out pretty well dead on plus. I probably assumed too much in my original thread.

There’s clear and concise writing and then there is the ability to read. I think post 21, BEING SYLLOGISTICALY LAID OUT was as simple as it gets.

Here it is again, slightly abridged from post 21:

if a conservative media exists, and
if we are dependent on social influences and the press,
then,
we should focus on that as the problem.

Does it really get more simple than that?

I think now your just being silly.

35

I find your ideas intriguing, and I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter.

36

Well? Now you’ve decoded the ‘cryptic’ message, weigh in, por favor. I saw in another thread that you too are concerned about what a new strategy might look like and have taken your ship towards that vista. How, if the media is heavily tilted, do you get a message out without a mic? Or, do you slowly get your government back (win smaller battles in a tug of war situation) and then go for the bigger prize–the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine, Think Tank BS, right wing punditry, etc. How would an incremental strategy look?

37

I won’t get into the reasons I found post #21 ambiguous, because I believe I understand you now.

My take is, forget incrementalism. Take the gloves off. There’s a time for preaching peace, and a time for turning the moneychangers out of the temple.

Viciously and relentlessly attack people like Karl Rove. He’s a slug who avoids exposure at all costs. Don’t wait 3 years – immediately take advantage of the current disgust with the smear tactics. You can’t use the bully pulpit right now, however. You have to be subtle, begin manufacturing news and planting stories.

Use the media by playing their game, rather than demanding that they play yours. Plant sexy stories that get eyeballs. Use proxies to maintain distance and deniability.

And for God’s sake, float candidates who know how to fight, and who appeal to the center. The left wing will not abandon you as long as you don’t go too far right. But the mainstream will leave you if you go too far left of center.

Look at the piss-poor vote Nader got. 3rd parties are not a threat to you right now. Progressives are feeling the sting of being shut out of all branches of government, and are loathe to piss away a vote to make a statement. They want participation, they want power. Play to that. Take them for granted and capture the undecideds in the middle.

Bush-Rove proved that large margins mean zip. They’re just a waste of energy. Broad appeal is the winning ticket.

If the Dems want to win, they must plan their strategy now, by setting up no-win votes in the legislature for Republicans.

The politics of the media is money. They will dance to your tune if you play music that people will pay to hear played.

Or, you can take the high ground, see the gray instead of the black and white, focus on substantive issues, and find yourself drowning your sorrows again while we pick the confetti out of our champagne. Which is exactly what I believe the Dems, Socialists, Libertarians, Greens, and Natural Lawists will do.

38

I liked Obama’s speech, and he sure could be the Next Big Thing. It is a tightrope, as 2004 has taught us. Stay in the Senate too long, take too many principled stands, and you accrue a record which can be used to make you look like an idiot/coward/opportunist/whatever. The best thing about Obama is that he is comfortable with his faith.

I see him as a possible VP candidate in 2008 or 2012, and a presidential candidate afterwards (if successful or unsuccessful).

I agree that Jesse does the MLK thing, but I think that touches a nerve with a group of Southern religious voters who are accustomed to something along that dimension from every Sunday morning. I think that it would be hardest to dismiss a man of god (i.e. a Reverend, even a liberal black Reverend) as a man without morals or against moral values. Not that I think that the Democrats should be catering to what those guys think. But it is the part of the can’t-be-bought charisma that I believe will nearly always win presidential elections.

39

The DNC and their big-name supporters have a huge pot of money. That’s all it would take – buy some TV stations and such and set loose a few vicious lefty attack dogs on the right. You could even follow Fox’s lead and disguise your station as a news channel. Or set up a competitor for Clear Channel – they desperately need one.

I don’t know why the Dems haven’t done this – it’s been evident for almost a decade that this is what’s happening. They’re either dumb or cheap or both. If it weren’t for the Internet, the Dems would have been dead in the water in 2004, massively outspent. It took the Dean campaign to show them how to do it.

The lack of leadership at the top of the Democratic National Party is truly frightening. We’ve got some big media guns – Michael Moore, Al Franken and others – but we gotta get them some shps to fire from. All it takes is money. The Dems have that. But they won’t use it. Idiots.

40

It seems a little funny to be positing a conservative media bias after an election where the Halperin memo and the forged documents from CBS featured so prominently.

But, as I have posted elsewhere, if you really think that is the problem, by all means go spend all your resources on it. Maybe George Soros can pony up some for you. :smiley:

Regards,
Shodan