• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rove Predicts a Republican majority for 20-60 years...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: conjur
What majority? The 20% of the US that voted for the Bush? The 2.5% more than voted for Kerry?

And the reason that Americans don't see what this administration is doing is due to the media not doing its job properly.
Click to expand...

Oh please conjur, if the media was any more liberal and anti Bush then it would be scary, you guys just backed a loser who didn't appeal to the masses, had the dems picked a canidate that was more personable and not such an arrogant SOB who actually took a stand instead of appearing wishy washy they would have wiped the floor with Bush, to peg this on media ineffectiveness is weak at best.
 
The only reason Kerry can't positively be identified as the most liberal senator is because he hasn't made enough votes in the past year or two for anyone to rate him.

It's interesting that many on the left think conservatism is stagnation and regression... they see how society has progressed as if that's counter to conservative values. No wonder they don't have a clue.

As long as Bob Herbert, Molly Ivans, Jane Smiley, and hundreds if not thousands of others -including a bunch on P&N- continue to say that people who voted for Bush are "unteachably ignorant", all those reds states are Jesusland, and all the Hitler, fascist, racist, homophobe, etc rants... the Reps will be in charge for years to come.
 
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: conjur
What majority? The 20% of the US that voted for the Bush? The 2.5% more than voted for Kerry?

And the reason that Americans don't see what this administration is doing is due to the media not doing its job properly.
Click to expand...

Oh please conjur, if the media was any more liberal and anti Bush then it would be scary, you guys just backed a loser who didn't appeal to the masses, had the dems picked a canidate that was more personable and not such an arrogant SOB who actually took a stand instead of appearing wishy washy they would have wiped the floor with Bush, to peg this on media ineffectiveness is weak at best.
Click to expand...
Well he appealed to a huge minority of the masses. Pretty good for a Liberal. Maybe it was also the case that the Dub didn't appeal to a huge minority of the masses too.
 
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: conjur
I was wrong about the election. How does that prove this trend won't end soon? Seems to me that we're about at the peak of bigotry and social conservativism. It will come crashing down soon. This country and trended toward social liberalism over the years. Just look at our history.
Click to expand...

I disagree in that I don't think we are at the peak for any bigotry and social conservatism, instead I see their being two distinct competing forces which will constantly clash, or at least for some time...the coastal areas and urban centers are generally socially liberal wheras you have the middle states holding onto their conservatism...what you are saying is that the conservative areas will suddenly fold to the ideals of the liberals, personally I don't see it happening any time soon.
Click to expand...

True. I wouldn't expect to see any radical shifts in thinking from the red states until they themselves feel threatened by conservative policies. Given the degree of conservative popularity in alot of those states, I wouldn't expect it to happen soon.
 
Riding on the coattails of anti-European sentiment following WWI, anti-Wilsonian liberalism, and the pledge of a "return to normalcy", the Republican party swept the elections of 1920, gaining the White House and huge majorities in both houses of Congress, which they were to keep for the next 12 years.
The brand of political conservatism that the Republicans sold then was almost identical to what they sell now (moral values, lower taxes, laissez faire, and national security) except that national security then was pledged by a policy of isolationism and sky-high tariffs. Unfortunately, Coolidge was not as laissez faire as he liked to think he was, but instead allowed business to run the government and award themselves as many favors as they could. The end result, as we all know, was the Great Depression, back-to-back Democratic landslides in '32 and '36, and that 60 year Roosevelt coalition that Rove was talking about there.
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: earthman
It is pretty funny how a middle-of-the-road guy like Kerry keeps getting defined as a "whacko liberal". It shows just how uninterested the right is in any real diversity, and also that if you keep lying enough most people will just buy it.
Click to expand...

yes, but why aren't liberals using these tactics?

why isn't there a set of liberal "talking points" that we can all repeat ad nauseum?
Click to expand...

Linguistic analyst George Lakoff has some answers at http://www.berkeley.edu/news/m...003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
Do any of the Democratic Presidential candidates grasp the importance of framing?

None. They don't get it at all. ... Right now the Democratic Party is into marketing. They pick a number of issues like prescription drugs and Social Security and ask which ones sell best across the spectrum, and they run on those issues. They have no moral perspective, no general values, no identity.

People vote their identity, they don't just vote on the issues, and Democrats don't understand that. Look at Schwarzenegger, who says nothing about the issues. The Democrats ask, How could anyone vote for this guy? They did because he put forth an identity. Voters knew who he is.
Click to expand...
 
cquark, I have read The Emerging Democratic Majority... right before the 2002 election blowouts 😉 Obviously there's a lot of counter-perspectives.

Liberal commentators Judis and Teixeira predicted resounding success for the elites.. uh, I mean Dems. They predicted that Americans living in "ideopolises" (their word for large metro areas) would swamp the GOP in coming years. It didn't happen in 2002 and now it's 2004 and it seems they may have to re-think their ideas. Denial is a dangerous thing.
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
cquark, I have read The Emerging Democratic Majority... right before the 2002 election blowouts 😉 Obviously there's a lot of counter-perspectives.

Liberal commentators Judis and Teixeira predicted resounding success for the elites.. uh, I mean Dems. They predicted that Americans living in "ideopolises" (their word for large metro areas) would swamp the GOP in coming years. It didn't happen in 2002 and now it's 2004 and it seems they may have to re-think their ideas. Denial is a dangerous thing.
Click to expand...

Their predictions are for the future. Most of the demographic changes won't have a large effect until 2010 or later.
 
I say 20 years at most. I don't see how population shifts won't benefit the Democrats. Republicans are the party of the White south and nascar dads.. soon they will be an even smaller minority.
 
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: conjur
What majority? The 20% of the US that voted for the Bush? The 2.5% more than voted for Kerry?

And the reason that Americans don't see what this administration is doing is due to the media not doing its job properly.
Click to expand...

Oh please conjur, if the media was any more liberal and anti Bush then it would be scary, you guys just backed a loser who didn't appeal to the masses, had the dems picked a canidate that was more personable and not such an arrogant SOB who actually took a stand instead of appearing wishy washy they would have wiped the floor with Bush, to peg this on media ineffectiveness is weak at best.
Click to expand...
Kerry being an effective candidate or not has nothing to do with the right-wing bias of the media. Media consolidation has hurt the reporting of the truth or, at least, the reporting of various opinions.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: conjur
What majority? The 20% of the US that voted for the Bush? The 2.5% more than voted for Kerry?

And the reason that Americans don't see what this administration is doing is due to the media not doing its job properly.
Click to expand...

Oh please conjur, if the media was any more liberal and anti Bush then it would be scary, you guys just backed a loser who didn't appeal to the masses, had the dems picked a canidate that was more personable and not such an arrogant SOB who actually took a stand instead of appearing wishy washy they would have wiped the floor with Bush, to peg this on media ineffectiveness is weak at best.
Click to expand...
Kerry being an effective candidate or not has nothing to do with the right-wing bias of the media. Media consolidation has hurt the reporting of the truth or, at least, the reporting of various opinions.
Click to expand...

Ok, I've heard it all now...

The vote was hacked
Bush pandered to the dirty sheep fvcking Christians
The Republicans are stupid
Now the mainstream media is biased to the right?

Please back away from the internet
 
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Now the mainstream media is biased to the right?

Please back away from the internet
Click to expand...

I don't know if the media is biased to the right, but the liberal media bias is a myth:
In a careful 1999 study published in the academic journal Communications Research, four scholars examined the use of the "liberal media" argument and discovered a fourfold increase in the number of Americans telling pollsters that they discerned a liberal bias in their news. But a review of the media's actual ideological content, collected and coded over a twelve-year period, offered no corroboration whatever for this view. The obvious conclusion: News consumers were responding to "increasing news coverage of liberal bias media claims, which have been increasingly emanating from Republican Party candidates and officials."
Click to expand...
which Republican strategists admit to furthering:
?Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of ?liberal bias? in the media were part of ?a strategy? (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: ?If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is ?work the refs.? Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time.??
Click to expand...

While Democrats do attack Republicans, they've been unable to make conservative the type of epithet that Republicans have made the word liberal, and this combined with "working the refs" as they put it, has worked to give many pro-Republicans the impression that the center is much further to the right than it actually is. Bush is nowhere near the middle; he's as radical a POTUS toward the right as FDR was toward the left.
 
I am just amazed of all the people that say the media in the USA is liberal....... You have no idea what liberal media is. When no one in the mass media stands up and critizes OPENLY and DIRECTLY what the goverment is doing wrong, that media is not doing its job and it is not liberal. In fact, such media is just a propaganda outlet from the goverment. No media can be rated as liberal when all they do is repeat what they are told to say. When they need to analyze the information, they just say "it is thought" "it is speculated" "someone said this...." No media can be labeled as liberal without standing up and looking for the truth, demanding the truth.

Obviously, no one likes to be told "you are sheep", so they think they are "getting all the facts" because of all the redundant generic sources of "information" available. People think that just because there are many channels with news, you can get good coverage and true facts. When none of them demands the truth, and some even parrot the goverment, that is not good media, and no way that could be liberal.

Travel a little and find true liberal media.... but try to learn the language of the place you travel to. Opressed people in other countries have hope, as their bodies may not be free but their minds are. For those whose MIND is oppresed by the numbing of the goverment speech, there is no hope. The worst kind of oppression is the one that affects the MIND and the brain.


Alex
 
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: earthman
It is pretty funny how a middle-of-the-road guy like Kerry keeps getting defined as a "whacko liberal". It shows just how uninterested the right is in any real diversity, and also that if you keep lying enough most people will just buy it.
Click to expand...

yes, but why aren't liberals using these tactics?

why isn't there a set of liberal "talking points" that we can all repeat ad nauseum?
Click to expand...

Linguistic analyst George Lakoff has some answers at http://www.berkeley.edu/news/m...003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
Do any of the Democratic Presidential candidates grasp the importance of framing?

None. They don't get it at all. ... Right now the Democratic Party is into marketing. They pick a number of issues like prescription drugs and Social Security and ask which ones sell best across the spectrum, and they run on those issues. They have no moral perspective, no general values, no identity.

People vote their identity, they don't just vote on the issues, and Democrats don't understand that. Look at Schwarzenegger, who says nothing about the issues. The Democrats ask, How could anyone vote for this guy? They did because he put forth an identity. Voters knew who he is.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I've posted that link to Lakoff before. Then he was dismissed as a loonie left Berkeley commie by the Bushies here. Lakoff is spot on with his analysis of course.

You only have to look at this forum to realize how effective that "framing the issue" strategy is, and I think that is a large reason why Rove can today go out and predict a republican majority for the next several decades.

Lakoff

...
Why do conservatives like to use the phrase "liberal elite" as an epithet?

Conservatives have branded liberals, and the liberals let them get away with it: the "liberal elite," the "latte liberals," the "limousine liberals." The funny thing is that conservatives are the elite. The whole idea of conservative doctrine is that some people are better than others, that some people deserve more. To conservatives, if you're poor it's because you deserve it, you're not disciplined enough to get ahead. Conservative doctrine requires that there be an elite: the people who thrive in the free market have more money, and they should. Progressives say, "No, that's not fair. Maybe some should have more money, but no one should live in poverty. Everybody who works deserves to have a reasonable standard of living for their work." These are ideas that are progressive or liberal ideas, and progressives aren't getting them out there enough.

What progressives are promoting is not elite at all. Progressives ought to be talking about the conservative elite. They shouldn't be complaining about "tax cuts for the rich," they should be complaining about "tax cuts for the conservative elite," because that's who's getting them."
...

You've said that progressives should never use the phrase "war on terror" ? why?

There are two reasons for that. Let's start with "terror." Terror is a general state, and it's internal to a person. Terror is not the person we're fighting, the "terrorist." The word terror activates your fear, and fear activates the strict father model, which is what conservatives want. The "war on terror" is not about stopping you from being afraid, it's about making you afraid.

Next, "war." How many terrorists are there ? hundreds? Sure. Thousands? Maybe. Tens of thousands? Probably not. The point is, terrorists are actual people, and relatively small numbers of individuals, considering the size of our country and other countries. It's not a nation-state problem. War is a nation-state problem.
...
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
MR. RUSSERT: You have said that you--your ultimate goal is a permanent Republican majority. What does that mean?

MR. ROVE: Well, first of all, there are no permanent majorities in American politics. They last for about 20 or 30 or 40 or, in the case of the Roosevelt coalition, 50 or 60 years and then they disappear.
Click to expand...

Guess there won't be any need for the Democrats to change for a while😉

Buckle up conservatives, you're going to hear about stolen elections for a long time...

😀
Click to expand...

The current coholitions has been forming since the late 60's and was firmly in place by the end of nixons term. Those voting for reagan were generally the same people voting for Bush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top