Great politician discourse
a skills that seems to be lost in our 30sec-attention span society.
I hope it hit some cords...
Sometimes, don't you feel we are in Back to the Future Episode 2...
where the in the Future everything seems absurdly wrong...
I feel this way with thee Bush administration.
Remember all those angry speeches Bob Dole and Jack Kemp delivered about Bill Clinton in 1997? Or the anti-Reagan orations of Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro circa 1985? Neither do we, because they didn't happen. Last year's losers, however, lack the dignity their predecessors possessed.Hold up. There is a reason Bob Dole didn't send blistering attacks on Bill Clinton after the election result, and Walter Mondale didn't attack Ronald Reagan. Its because both Reagan and Clinton were generally doing their jobs well, meeting their duties as president, exercising policies that were relatively successful economically, foreign policy wise, and domestically. This kind of defensiveness is more of the spin problem: valid criticism is seen right now as political scheming, but its not. The problems are real. Criticism is coming from both democrats and republicans. The cry of "sore losers" or "hate harpy" is just another bad case of spin to avoid accountability for actions. Politics of spin is unethical when it is about a fake facade, if it means that real actions don't matter.
There is a difference between Karl Rove's idea of politics, and Reagan and Clinton's idea of politics, and that difference has to do with accountability... responsability.
sore loser and hate harpy is just what the white house and their blind partisan hacks do - resort to personal attacks instead of discussing the issues. there is a difference between politics and governing. bush is not qualified to govern.
so to summarize some thoughts in the past few posts:
-all our problems just became real in 2000 (things were great before then). now we're in a real crisis. now, really, believe me this time when i tell you these problems need solutions!
-personal attacks (i.e. norm's 'chimpie') are okay as long as they have some sort of 'objective' foundation.
-any critics of the criticism are to be labeled 'blind' and somehow less critical than those they critique.
why don't we just dissolve all politics and choose the 10 people that care the most about solving our 'problems'. that's what everybody wants, right? they'd solve our problems and then we'd all be happy.
Thou shalt not covet...the 10 will make heeding this 10th commandment finally possible, as the 10 devise a brilliant formula: (everything in country X / population of country X) = no more coveting
spinning is just wasting energy, we could be bowing down to the 10.
NPC, one already is emasculated if they are afraid of being emasculated.
in my previous comments, i was speaking less of personality and more of our growing collective desire for a mother figure (government) to coddle and take care of us. this is what the push-back has been primarily against.
this administration created alot of the problems. and they failed to effectively to deal with the problems that really did surface after 2000. There is a difference between criticising and 'spinning'. Crisis is not new. Crises arereal. The cold war was a real crisis. Just as Katrina is a real crisis. In the face of a crisis, not responding to the crisis, denying responsability, or denying that there is a crisis is the problem. Prioritizing appearances over solutions is not good leadership. Its' like something out of Maoist China, something that in America people don't have to buy... Let me give you a couple examples of inappropriate "spin" tactics:
1. saying "now is not the time for politics" and then flying a jet fighter onto an aircraft carrier and saying "mission accomplished." or
2. saying "now is not the time for politics" and then restoring power momentarily to light up a church while posing for a photo op, only to shut down the power after you leave.
Isn't it possible that why so many Americans are angry at Bush, compared to Clinton or Reagan has to do with what he has done and what he has not done? Are you telling me that Katrina is not a crisis?
secretingredient...
explain how i have a legacy of blind partisanship. in the above discussion i have said bush is incompetent. i have said kerry is a spine-less bone-head. where is the partisanship? going back to before the war i said iraq was not a threat. is that partisan? no - it's fact. today and yesterday - i'm interested in the truth. period.
the question is asked, how did someone like bush beat someone like kerry? the answer: electioneering.
or: selling the message.
i'm going to maintain my neutrality on whether or not the message that the republicans sold in 2004 was good or not. that's not the point.
the point is that the right has learned how to go over to the other side and attract voters without altering their beliefs. the left -- has not, and in a grand-mal failure kind of way.
to start, the resurgence of the republicans/conservatives in the past 25 years was, in a large way, the work of evangelical/fundamentalist christians.
the whole life purpose of evangelicals is to convert nonbelievers. so folks, these people are used to going door-to-door. and shaping their core beliefs into a message that packs the pews. hell, jesus was as bruce barton said in the 1920s, the original adman.
now, i will admit that i am a particular fan of their jewish carpenter boss...that much i'll give. but episcopalians aren't really much into bible tracts.
the average right-leaning middle-class american prolly doesn't cotton much to "love thy neighbor" or "thou shalt not kill." can take it or leave it.
but framing the message of jesus into something that speaks to his/her self-interest ("if you don't believe in Jesus, you'll go to hell"), his/her self-righteousness ("you are the chosen people"), his/her disdain of difference and diversity in cultures and lifestyles ("god hates gays"), and ultimately his/her greed (that whole pathetic prayer of jabez crap) gets people into church on sunday.
the mile-wide and inch-deep christianity of the megachurch is like junk food: it doesn't have much substance, can often be harmful, but tastes real good and leaves you wanting more.
so the right knows how to shape and frame. the modern church does not condemn malls or rock music. it incorporates them.
just like the republicans incorporated
white "ethnics" (former democratic constituency)
catholics (former democratic constituency)
labor (former democratic constituency)
the entire motherfricking white population of the southern US save austin and athens GA (former democratic constituency)
and i know a lot of latinos who like the republican message, too, especially those who...have been persuaded to leave the catholic church for evangelicalism.
but john kerry, howard dean, al gore, and your garden-variety leftist seem to think that all they have to do is say what they believe and tell the other side why they're wrong -- and victory will ensue. if that doesn't work, explain more, repeat the speech, and hope for the best. and the left doesn't deign to frame their beliefs in a way that the OTHER SIDE will understand. (sounds like some architects i know...) they just KEEP repeating the SAME stuff OVER and OVER. if you are speaking and others are yelling -- i can't hear you once, i can't hear you ten times.
and when that doesn't work -- out come the clever bumper stickers, the protests, the chance outbursts on TV, the "documentaries." but no door-to-door, especially in the hinterlands, especially in the suburbs. because people would rather be right than president.
none of these media are shocking anymore, because nothing in the media is shocking anymore. i know gwb was reading "my pet goat" (god, i wish I had one) when 9/11 went down. i know gwb was on vacation north of me in crawford when katrina went down. doesn't shock me.
the democrat message is like a cannonball. it either knocks the crap out of you or you just jump out of the way to avoid it. the republican message is like a drug. it feels real good and you become addicted.
bRink,
it was a crisis (a situation that has reached a critical phase) before the levees broke. they broke...it became a disaster. where was the critical moment of decision for Bush? for those that drowned, it was when they didn't heed their local government's call for evacuation.
Bush spins, Clinton spins, they all spin. calling something that has been and will continue to be languishing for decades, like medicare, social security, or poverty a 'crisis' is a misleading type of spin (not framing), and that's one of the things i'm criticizing.
Bush, with his 'appearances', has learned from Clinton, who was a master at 'symbolism over substance'. Bush didn't invent the 'photo-op'. i suppose you also hold that none of Clinton's photo-ops were partially genuine?
some quotes [underlines added]: ...President Cleveland [in 1887]: "The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood...."
...In 1796, Rep. William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying that Congress didn't have a right to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require..."
<i>...Some people might say they forgot about the Constitution's general welfare clause. Here's what James Madison said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Explained Thomas Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
In 1828, South Carolina Sen. William Drayton said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?..."
ochona - that was one of the most interesting and intriguing posts I've ever seen on Archinect.
Often I read posts on archinect which are very blatantly left. To the point where I cannot stand to read anymore with my my middle-right ideals. Then I watch as the Republicans, a party I despise equally as much as the democrats, continue to win.
Obviously I haven't though through it with as much depth as you, but I for one am not surprised the republicans keep winning. Even with the shit storm Bush has brewing right now I fully expect them to win handedly in 2006. Probably 2008 as well...unless the opposition gets their shit together.... I just hope it's a 3rd party.
There I go again...wishing for things I'll never get.
it was a crisis (a situation that has reached a critical phase) before the levees broke. they broke...it became a disaster. where was the critical moment of decision for Bush? for those that drowned, it was when they didn't heed their local government's call for evacuation.Critical decisions rarely happen in a moment
. It was a critical decision to invest billions of dollars and american lives in an ideologically driven war. It was a critical decision to choose ideological agenda over real needs, over investing money to protect american citizens from disasters, but rather to sacrifice human lives threatening our country's economic welfare, and foreign relations with the rest of the world through next to unilateral military action. It was a critical decision not to invest vast amounts of money to address one of three of the country's documented most likely catastrophes in New Orleans, but instead to divert essential resources to a war that had nothing to do with the terrorists who threatened us. It is a critical decision to be fiscally responsible. It is also an ongoing critical decision to be properly prepared, rather than being focused on vacationing while people are dying, and when crisis hits, to have the response in place, to have compitent people in charge, and to be focused on that crisis, rather than focused on your own political ass. Many poor people didn't have transportation, many elderly and disabled people couldn't evacuate. Saying that they were foolish and chose to drown, that it was okay to leave them to die is complete bullshit.the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood....There was no shortage of brotherhood and strength in people in response to Katrina. What there was a lack of was emergency aid and relief for four days
on the scale of a city that had lost much of its police force, infrastructure, communications, water and energy supplies. This was a catastrophe of enormous scale, it was beyond the scope and capabilities of local responders to deal with, and many of these responders were themselves victims. FEMA and the national guard are there for just this type of large scale crisis, just as local emergency response like fire departments and ambulances are there to respond to small scale disasters.In 1828, South Carolina Sen. William Drayton said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?..."Firstly, this administration is not about conservative spending. Its about extreme spending that serves their own agenda. Secondly, this statement is another extreme. Congress approves money for general welfare. Congress is elected to represent the interests of the people. This does means allocating the taxpayers money
appropriately to serve the general welfare of people. A stronger and more secure economy, socially secure, educated, and healthy citizens are good for the country as a whole. These things are not blind generosity, and they don't deter private charity or private generousity. They strenthen private economy, and support social stability.
can anyone really believe the federal government acted aptly in regards to the Katrina disaster?
i think the federal government failed miserably and they should be criticized and held accountable. The Local and State government also failed miserably and should be criticized and held accountable.
my problem with the kerry speech (and most of the criticism right now) is that he used katrina as a stepping stone to criticize the current administrations decisions in general (tax cuts, iraq, deficit); when kerry does that, the "spin" wheels start to move, and republican electorate stop listening. when democrats speak about iraq, tax cuts, no one listens anymore.
but if criticism was focused on katrina, federal government's inability to react, FEMA's failure to anticipate and act, generally the "i don't really care" attitude portrayed by our president, as well as local and state government's shortcomings, people might actually listen.
he is f***ing shameless. now he is conflating katrina and 9.11.
"You know, something we -- I've been thinking a lot about how America has responded, and it's clear to me that Americans value human life, and value every person as important. And that stands in stark contrast, by the way, to the terrorists we have to deal with. You see, we look at the destruction caused by Katrina, and our hearts break. They're the kind of people who look at Katrina and wish they had caused it. We're in a war against these people. It's a war on terror. These are evil men who target the suffering. They killed 3,000 people on September the 11th, 2001. And they've continued to kill. See, sometimes we forget about the evil deeds of these people."
so let’s be constructive here…what future disasters have the potential to leave a disproportionate number of our poorest citizens SOL and what pre-emptive measures ought the federal government take?
-before the ‘Big One’ hits, should we relocate San Fransisco?
----
…bRink, "In 1828, South Carolina Sen. William Drayton said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?..."
the point of this quote is that most misinterpret the original intent (as expressed by Jefferson and Madison) of the general welfare clause. this misinterpretation cleared the way (beginning hundreds of years ago) for government’s free reign and unlimited power...a fatal misinterpretation for our country.
i know that the government can help people in areas beyond their strictly enumerated powers, the question is whether or not they ought to. and, if in a future country (ours already spiraling towards full socialism), a better Constitution might be written, with limitations on federal power more clearly enumerated.
Kerry's speech: "A betrayal of trust and abuse of power"
WAAAZOOOM
Great politician discourse
a skills that seems to be lost in our 30sec-attention span society.
I hope it hit some cords...
Sometimes, don't you feel we are in Back to the Future Episode 2...
where the in the Future everything seems absurdly wrong...
I feel this way with thee Bush administration.
secret:
Remember all those angry speeches Bob Dole and Jack Kemp delivered about Bill Clinton in 1997? Or the anti-Reagan orations of Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro circa 1985? Neither do we, because they didn't happen. Last year's losers, however, lack the dignity their predecessors possessed.Hold up. There is a reason Bob Dole didn't send blistering attacks on Bill Clinton after the election result, and Walter Mondale didn't attack Ronald Reagan. Its because both Reagan and Clinton were generally doing their jobs well, meeting their duties as president, exercising policies that were relatively successful economically, foreign policy wise, and domestically. This kind of defensiveness is more of the spin problem: valid criticism is seen right now as political scheming, but its not. The problems are real. Criticism is coming from both democrats and republicans. The cry of "sore losers" or "hate harpy" is just another bad case of spin to avoid accountability for actions. Politics of spin is unethical when it is about a fake facade, if it means that real actions don't matter.There is a difference between Karl Rove's idea of politics, and Reagan and Clinton's idea of politics, and that difference has to do with accountability... responsability.
sore loser and hate harpy is just what the white house and their blind partisan hacks do - resort to personal attacks instead of discussing the issues. there is a difference between politics and governing. bush is not qualified to govern.
so to summarize some thoughts in the past few posts:
-all our problems just became real in 2000 (things were great before then). now we're in a real crisis. now, really, believe me this time when i tell you these problems need solutions!
-personal attacks (i.e. norm's 'chimpie') are okay as long as they have some sort of 'objective' foundation.
-any critics of the criticism are to be labeled 'blind' and somehow less critical than those they critique.
-Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian shhhhhh!
how rich! norm, you have a 599 post legacy of blind partisanship.
some want their free speech to occur in an echo chamber...
why don't we just dissolve all politics and choose the 10 people that care the most about solving our 'problems'. that's what everybody wants, right? they'd solve our problems and then we'd all be happy.
Thou shalt not covet...the 10 will make heeding this 10th commandment finally possible, as the 10 devise a brilliant formula: (everything in country X / population of country X) = no more coveting
spinning is just wasting energy, we could be bowing down to the 10.
NPC, one already is emasculated if they are afraid of being emasculated.
in my previous comments, i was speaking less of personality and more of our growing collective desire for a mother figure (government) to coddle and take care of us. this is what the push-back has been primarily against.
nico:
this administration created alot of the problems. and they failed to effectively to deal with the problems that really did surface after 2000. There is a difference between criticising and 'spinning'. Crisis is not new. Crises are real. The cold war was a real crisis. Just as Katrina is a real crisis. In the face of a crisis, not responding to the crisis, denying responsability, or denying that there is a crisis is the problem. Prioritizing appearances over solutions is not good leadership. Its' like something out of Maoist China, something that in America people don't have to buy... Let me give you a couple examples of inappropriate "spin" tactics:
1. saying "now is not the time for politics" and then flying a jet fighter onto an aircraft carrier and saying "mission accomplished." or
2. saying "now is not the time for politics" and then restoring power momentarily to light up a church while posing for a photo op, only to shut down the power after you leave.
Isn't it possible that why so many Americans are angry at Bush, compared to Clinton or Reagan has to do with what he has done and what he has not done? Are you telling me that Katrina is not a crisis?
secretingredient...
explain how i have a legacy of blind partisanship. in the above discussion i have said bush is incompetent. i have said kerry is a spine-less bone-head. where is the partisanship? going back to before the war i said iraq was not a threat. is that partisan? no - it's fact. today and yesterday - i'm interested in the truth. period.
maybe this is better here after all:
the question is asked, how did someone like bush beat someone like kerry? the answer: electioneering.
or: selling the message.
i'm going to maintain my neutrality on whether or not the message that the republicans sold in 2004 was good or not. that's not the point.
the point is that the right has learned how to go over to the other side and attract voters without altering their beliefs. the left -- has not, and in a grand-mal failure kind of way.
to start, the resurgence of the republicans/conservatives in the past 25 years was, in a large way, the work of evangelical/fundamentalist christians.
the whole life purpose of evangelicals is to convert nonbelievers. so folks, these people are used to going door-to-door. and shaping their core beliefs into a message that packs the pews. hell, jesus was as bruce barton said in the 1920s, the original adman.
now, i will admit that i am a particular fan of their jewish carpenter boss...that much i'll give. but episcopalians aren't really much into bible tracts.
the average right-leaning middle-class american prolly doesn't cotton much to "love thy neighbor" or "thou shalt not kill." can take it or leave it.
but framing the message of jesus into something that speaks to his/her self-interest ("if you don't believe in Jesus, you'll go to hell"), his/her self-righteousness ("you are the chosen people"), his/her disdain of difference and diversity in cultures and lifestyles ("god hates gays"), and ultimately his/her greed (that whole pathetic prayer of jabez crap) gets people into church on sunday.
the mile-wide and inch-deep christianity of the megachurch is like junk food: it doesn't have much substance, can often be harmful, but tastes real good and leaves you wanting more.
so the right knows how to shape and frame. the modern church does not condemn malls or rock music. it incorporates them.
just like the republicans incorporated
white "ethnics" (former democratic constituency)
catholics (former democratic constituency)
labor (former democratic constituency)
the entire motherfricking white population of the southern US save austin and athens GA (former democratic constituency)
and i know a lot of latinos who like the republican message, too, especially those who...have been persuaded to leave the catholic church for evangelicalism.
but john kerry, howard dean, al gore, and your garden-variety leftist seem to think that all they have to do is say what they believe and tell the other side why they're wrong -- and victory will ensue. if that doesn't work, explain more, repeat the speech, and hope for the best. and the left doesn't deign to frame their beliefs in a way that the OTHER SIDE will understand. (sounds like some architects i know...) they just KEEP repeating the SAME stuff OVER and OVER. if you are speaking and others are yelling -- i can't hear you once, i can't hear you ten times.
and when that doesn't work -- out come the clever bumper stickers, the protests, the chance outbursts on TV, the "documentaries." but no door-to-door, especially in the hinterlands, especially in the suburbs. because people would rather be right than president.
none of these media are shocking anymore, because nothing in the media is shocking anymore. i know gwb was reading "my pet goat" (god, i wish I had one) when 9/11 went down. i know gwb was on vacation north of me in crawford when katrina went down. doesn't shock me.
the democrat message is like a cannonball. it either knocks the crap out of you or you just jump out of the way to avoid it. the republican message is like a drug. it feels real good and you become addicted.
bRink,
it was a crisis (a situation that has reached a critical phase) before the levees broke. they broke...it became a disaster. where was the critical moment of decision for Bush? for those that drowned, it was when they didn't heed their local government's call for evacuation.
Bush spins, Clinton spins, they all spin. calling something that has been and will continue to be languishing for decades, like medicare, social security, or poverty a 'crisis' is a misleading type of spin (not framing), and that's one of the things i'm criticizing.
Bush, with his 'appearances', has learned from Clinton, who was a master at 'symbolism over substance'. Bush didn't invent the 'photo-op'. i suppose you also hold that none of Clinton's photo-ops were partially genuine?
for those that care what the constitution has to say:
The Constitution & Disaster Relief
some quotes [underlines added]:
...President Cleveland [in 1887]: "The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood...."
...In 1796, Rep. William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying that Congress didn't have a right to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require..."
<i>...Some people might say they forgot about the Constitution's general welfare clause. Here's what James Madison said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Explained Thomas Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
In 1828, South Carolina Sen. William Drayton said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?..."
ochona - that was one of the most interesting and intriguing posts I've ever seen on Archinect.
Often I read posts on archinect which are very blatantly left. To the point where I cannot stand to read anymore with my my middle-right ideals. Then I watch as the Republicans, a party I despise equally as much as the democrats, continue to win.
Obviously I haven't though through it with as much depth as you, but I for one am not surprised the republicans keep winning. Even with the shit storm Bush has brewing right now I fully expect them to win handedly in 2006. Probably 2008 as well...unless the opposition gets their shit together.... I just hope it's a 3rd party.
There I go again...wishing for things I'll never get.
can anyone really believe the federal government acted aptly in regards to the Katrina disaster?
i think the federal government failed miserably and they should be criticized and held accountable. The Local and State government also failed miserably and should be criticized and held accountable.
my problem with the kerry speech (and most of the criticism right now) is that he used katrina as a stepping stone to criticize the current administrations decisions in general (tax cuts, iraq, deficit); when kerry does that, the "spin" wheels start to move, and republican electorate stop listening. when democrats speak about iraq, tax cuts, no one listens anymore.
but if criticism was focused on katrina, federal government's inability to react, FEMA's failure to anticipate and act, generally the "i don't really care" attitude portrayed by our president, as well as local and state government's shortcomings, people might actually listen.
he is f***ing shameless. now he is conflating katrina and 9.11.
"You know, something we -- I've been thinking a lot about how America has responded, and it's clear to me that Americans value human life, and value every person as important. And that stands in stark contrast, by the way, to the terrorists we have to deal with. You see, we look at the destruction caused by Katrina, and our hearts break. They're the kind of people who look at Katrina and wish they had caused it. We're in a war against these people. It's a war on terror. These are evil men who target the suffering. They killed 3,000 people on September the 11th, 2001. And they've continued to kill. See, sometimes we forget about the evil deeds of these people."
[wince]
...color me taken aback...
you guys are acting like you didn't see it coming.
so let’s be constructive here…what future disasters have the potential to leave a disproportionate number of our poorest citizens SOL and what pre-emptive measures ought the federal government take?
-before the ‘Big One’ hits, should we relocate San Fransisco?
----
…bRink,
"In 1828, South Carolina Sen. William Drayton said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?..."
the point of this quote is that most misinterpret the original intent (as expressed by Jefferson and Madison) of the general welfare clause. this misinterpretation cleared the way (beginning hundreds of years ago) for government’s free reign and unlimited power...a fatal misinterpretation for our country.
i know that the government can help people in areas beyond their strictly enumerated powers, the question is whether or not they ought to. and, if in a future country (ours already spiraling towards full socialism), a better Constitution might be written, with limitations on federal power more clearly enumerated.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.