Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Terms Of Debate

One thing I have noticed but hesitated to mention is that some of the radical rights biggest flaws are the ones they so vociferously point out in others. For example Rush Limbaugh's tough unrelenting attack on drug users. While at the very time he was using drugs to such an extreme that he destroyed his hearing. Of course he was rich from despising others so he had the money to fix it.

Then how do they get away with it? Being guilty of the very thing they detest in others and not held to account? The truth is in the joke of the “liberal media”. The wingnut memes start with a blog post or a report on an opinion talk show. With dozens of right wing talk shows dominating AM radio in every nook and cranny of America at 3 or 4 hours a piece a day, it gets more fully advertised and sold than any other product in America. What they have done is ingrained the mindset into the “accepted” standard. It is a coordinated attack. It then moves to Fox News and off we go. Wait for the newest bumper sticker since “cut and run”...the new one is “slow bleed”. Soon all the sheep will be baying “slow bleed” in unison turning it into the accepted frame. Wouldn't slow bleed be what we are doing now with a war that was suppose to last 6 months...maybe? Isn't that what is happening to our treasury and our men and women in uniform? Slow bleed my ass. THEY are the ones guilty of slowly bleeding this entire country of blood and treasure. .....
Why is that not at least as reasonable of an assumption as the one the wingnuts are selling?

It is fine to tar large swaths of America as terrorist “enablers” and “appeasers” etc. They even come right out and say that ones that oppose the Republicons want America to lose. Apparently the reason we want America to lose is because we really hate Bush. Yes ladies and gentlemen this is what passes as logical mainstream discourse in America today. This kind of stuff is even happening in the halls of congress!!!! Of course we have Anne Coulter who wrote a book claiming admiration and claiming the smearing of Joe McCarthy so I guess one shouldn't be suprized.
I hate to stain wingnuts with the narrowminded brand but they seem to fit the description so well. They claim our division shows weakness to our enemies and aids their efforts. No it doesn't. Not to freedom loving people. The enemy may see it as weakness but the rest of the world sees it as strength. We have an open, robust and nonviolent debate, division and election. Just what we claim to want for Iraq and the rest of the world. 99% of the planet has no intent, and the vast majority of them no desire, to carry out a terrorist attack on America. We are certainly doing more good to our reputation and our standing among the people in the world by having an open debate on something that many people all over the globe question.
I am all for winning the war, occupation, the whole kit and caboodle. They keep saying the Democrats have no plan. Mainly because they don't like any that have been put forth so they just pretend those don't count. I want to know their plan. Win the damned thing already! Why are we going backwards?! What do we get for those lives and treasure?
I think you are losing the whole deal on a large scale and we need to move off the bubble and start doing other stuff so we can push this deal over the hill. We have been standing still too long. That makes me a terrorist enabler or a defeatist? Hardly. Those who so fully, flag wavingly, beam in defeat waving the bloody shirt and pretending it is victory would be a more apt description of the defeatist. Let's move this thing forward. I'm all for it. The thing is the conversation has to include something different..truly different...than what we have been doing because no matter what you are seeing, it doesn't look success to me. Of course, the right can't win because the socialists and the liberal media won't let them. They are the only thing standing in the way of victory. Of course they got virtually all they asked for for many years now to fight this thing. No matter, if it wasn't for the socialists and the liberal media.......

On to another meme they have ingrained into the populace. That of Bush haters. The logic runs along the line of ; those that are opposed to the neo con agenda are only opposed because they don't like Bush or they HAVE to take an opinion opposite Bush just because they hate him so. OOOOOOHHHHHH it is blind hate!!!!
First of all it is fine for them to hate all day everyday on radio stations all across every knook and cranny in America but it is considered uncouth for anyone else to hate. More of the media ingraining an accepted into the culture. Second, yes there are Bush haters. Unlike Clinton haters most didn't start out that way. George Bush's and Dick Cheney's actions bear responsibility just like anybody else. When you find someone act in a way you believe to be dangerous and harmful to the country, the feeling goes beyond dislike. If you don't like the word hate(since most of us really don't know them) use the word disdain. When you find incompetence that you find harmful you wonder when in the hell are we gonna get a break from these guys? Will our country survive this? Surely the Clinton haters can understand the feeling? The Bush hate that exists by in large comes down to a fundamental disagreement over the country and what it stands for to Americans and to the rest of the world. It is far from blind hate.
As long as they are able to frame the debate and set the terms those of us that think in a more liberal way will aways be the enemy. Actually I'm fine with that, but when you suggest that I am an intentional enemy of America I must come to the conclusion that you are a narrow minded, unthinking bloviator whos opinion is a dime a dozen. BAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ron, While I don't have a particular site to refer to, apparently the reason Fox News has gotten the rights to manage and broadcast the Democratic Debate in Nevada in August is because Murdoch has given money to the Clinton campaign, Sen. Reid's son is the Clinton campaign manager in Nevada and the Nevada Democratic Party apparatus is very pro-DLC.
What do you know of this? Also, is the Clinton campaign a "centrist" (DLC) Democratic/"moderate" Republican and monied interets candidacy, and perhaps even anti-populist, whether that populism is left, right or whatever? Wouldn't say that populism is always the way to go but the Clinton candidacy may turn out to be another power alignment. What do you think?

Larry in New Mexico

6:35 PM, February 22, 2007  
Blogger Ron said...

Larry, don't know about that. I think Clinton would be a poor choice on a number of levels. Not the least of those her DLC triangulating ways. Can't see that the Repubs have anybody any better but I would personally never support her in a primary considering the wonderful other choices we have at this point. I don't think she will win. I know a lot of people that feel like I do and the activists are the ones that vote/caucus in primarys. I am finding a huge groundswell for Gore. That would be fine with me but I am happy with a number of other choices we already have.

1:12 PM, February 24, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home