One fallacy Republicans should learn: when they're being lied to by pandering to them about enemies.
Example in point, though there are many recent examples:
Romney doesn't want to release his tax returns. It's more embarrassing that his father was the pioneer in releasing them creating a tradition followed since, releasing 12 years.
In fact, his father specifically commented that it needs to be a long history, because it's too easy to make them look better recently for the upcoming campaign.
How this should play out: the voters want transparency, to see what Romney has really done in contrast to what he says. He should look weaselly if he refuses.
How this played out in the debate clip I saw: Romney was asked if he would release 12 years' returns like his father. He first responded 'maybe', which got something of a myterious appleause, perhaps critical of the moderator as the hated 'media'. Then he started to say he's not sure how many years he'll release and the audience began to boo him, seeming to notice he was jerking them around, not being very honest.
Then he said 'he's not going to give Democrats the gift', and as he made them the 'common enemy', the audience started to loudly cheer him.
So, if he screws THEM out transparency, that's bad; but if he makes it about screwing Democrats out of transparency, that's GOOD.
These people really fall for this stuff.
Same for Gingirch in the same debate - these people will attack a Democrat up and down for a sex scandal and proclaim their 'values' all day, when used to attack their enemies.
How Gingirch's behavior should affect his candidacy is for the voters to say this guy is terrible by their standards and refuse to vote for him.
But he played the victim of the hated 'media', much like Sara Palin turned around her inability to say she read anything into an attack claiming a 'gotcha question'.
And the analysts said his attacking the media let him turn what should be a damaging fact into the biggest gain in the debate, simply be turning it into an attack on the meda.
How DARE they raise critical information about him?
And the people fall for this.
Republicans need to stop letting themselves fall for this fallacy, where something that should be criticied is sold to them simply by making the issue about some enemy.
Newt could eat a baby live on stage, and by saying the 'liberal media' had criticized him for it, would seem to have a good chance of a standing ovation.
Hint to Republicans: message that Democrats are 'all bad', that the media is 'all bad', are good lies for selling right-wing media as 'the alternative' - not for the consumers.
It's just bizarre that the candidate with the worst violations of the proclaimed 'values' is thriving anyway and even benefiting from the issue by pulling this propaganda.
Bad leaders have long used scapegoats to get away with murder (literally) - don't look at them, look at the enemy they talk about, how much you hate that enemy.
Shiow me a demagogue, and I'll show you the enemy he uses to get power and support.
Republicans were right to boo Romney for weaseling, and wrong to applaud him for weaseling against Democrats.
Example in point, though there are many recent examples:
Romney doesn't want to release his tax returns. It's more embarrassing that his father was the pioneer in releasing them creating a tradition followed since, releasing 12 years.
In fact, his father specifically commented that it needs to be a long history, because it's too easy to make them look better recently for the upcoming campaign.
How this should play out: the voters want transparency, to see what Romney has really done in contrast to what he says. He should look weaselly if he refuses.
How this played out in the debate clip I saw: Romney was asked if he would release 12 years' returns like his father. He first responded 'maybe', which got something of a myterious appleause, perhaps critical of the moderator as the hated 'media'. Then he started to say he's not sure how many years he'll release and the audience began to boo him, seeming to notice he was jerking them around, not being very honest.
Then he said 'he's not going to give Democrats the gift', and as he made them the 'common enemy', the audience started to loudly cheer him.
So, if he screws THEM out transparency, that's bad; but if he makes it about screwing Democrats out of transparency, that's GOOD.
These people really fall for this stuff.
Same for Gingirch in the same debate - these people will attack a Democrat up and down for a sex scandal and proclaim their 'values' all day, when used to attack their enemies.
How Gingirch's behavior should affect his candidacy is for the voters to say this guy is terrible by their standards and refuse to vote for him.
But he played the victim of the hated 'media', much like Sara Palin turned around her inability to say she read anything into an attack claiming a 'gotcha question'.
And the analysts said his attacking the media let him turn what should be a damaging fact into the biggest gain in the debate, simply be turning it into an attack on the meda.
How DARE they raise critical information about him?
And the people fall for this.
Republicans need to stop letting themselves fall for this fallacy, where something that should be criticied is sold to them simply by making the issue about some enemy.
Newt could eat a baby live on stage, and by saying the 'liberal media' had criticized him for it, would seem to have a good chance of a standing ovation.
Hint to Republicans: message that Democrats are 'all bad', that the media is 'all bad', are good lies for selling right-wing media as 'the alternative' - not for the consumers.
It's just bizarre that the candidate with the worst violations of the proclaimed 'values' is thriving anyway and even benefiting from the issue by pulling this propaganda.
Bad leaders have long used scapegoats to get away with murder (literally) - don't look at them, look at the enemy they talk about, how much you hate that enemy.
Shiow me a demagogue, and I'll show you the enemy he uses to get power and support.
Republicans were right to boo Romney for weaseling, and wrong to applaud him for weaseling against Democrats.
Facebook
Twitter