Where did the middle go? How polarized politics and a radical GOP have p

[UpInArms]

Where did the middle go?
How polarized politics and a radical GOP have put a chill on measured debate

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2004/10/10/RVG1T9289T1.DTL&type=books

excerpt:

But what if both sides are wrong about how much can be achieved by shocking revelations on film or in print? What if Bush's political base never needed to be lied to? That might explain why, despite "Fahrenheit 9/11" and all the other enraged documentaries (the best of which, incidentally, is "Hijacking Catastrophe" by the Media Education Foundation), the polls keep reflecting strong popular support for Bush's "leadership" and why he continues to find cheering crowds, especially at military bases where troops give their commander-in-chief the big "hoo-ah." These people aren't deceived. They know exactly what Bush is up to -- and it's OK with them.

And here we have the root cause of polarization, the difference that has set political left and right in America at each other's throats. There is a fundamental moral asymmetry between left and right in the United States. Vietnam-era liberals such as me suffered through the anguish of losing faith in their party and turning against it. The crowds that demonstrated in the streets of Chicago in 1968 weren't irate conservatives; they were conscience- stricken liberals who were prepared to sacrifice an election victory -- and with it Lyndon Johnson's Great Society agenda -- on an issue of principle.

<huge snip>

By any defensible historical standard, we are living under the most ideologically aggressive regime since the 1920s. Its style comes straight out of the CEO's how-to handbook. The compulsive board-room secrecy and iron corporate discipline of this administration break all records. So, too, the entrepreneurial back-scratching of the last four years, beginning with Dick Cheney's clandestine meetings with the country's energy moguls before Bush had even been sworn into office. At those gatherings, did Cheney guarantee his cronies a free hand at bilking the public for billions -- especially the ratepayers of California? Those tapes we have of gloating Enron traders, is that the voice of the free market? And how can one not be curious about the maps of the Iraqi oilfields that were on the table at those meetings? Were those perhaps investment brochures?

<snip>

"The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain its overwhelming military superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for domination over friends and enemies alike. It says not that the United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful."

The intoxication of such a fantastic design is its most frightening aspect. Yet the plan is being turned into reality at breathtaking speed. Central to its realization is control of a major political party that wins and wins and wins because it tolerates and expects no internal dissent.

...more...

If you read nothing else tonight, read this.

[Lefty48197]

1. Remember when the Republicans started to call every single Democrat

a liberal? I think that was Reagan. To this day, anybody who hasn't drank Bush's kool aid is a "liberal". They're too damn ignorant to learn about all the different voices that make up the Democratic party.

[UpInArms]

3. '95 Newt Gingrich

http://www.fair.org/extra/9502/language-control.html

excerpt:

Since winning control of Congress, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R.-Ga.) has constantly complained about "destructive" and "negative" coverage from the "liberal elite media."

<snip>

But the clearest expression of Gingrich's philosophy of media came in a GOPAC memo entitled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control." Distributed to GOP candidates across the country, the memo's list of words for Democrats and words for Republicans was endorsed by Gingrich in a cover letter: "The words in that paper are tested language from a recent series of focus groups where we actually tested ideas and language." Next time you hear Gingrich complain about media focusing on the negative, refer back to these lists.

<snip>

Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. In addition, these words help develop the positive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!

<snip>

liberty... commitment... principle(d)... unique... duty... precious... premise... care(ing)... tough... listen... learn... help... lead... vision... success... empower(ment)... citizen... activist... mobilize... conflict... light... dream... freedom...

peace... rights... pioneer... proud/pride... building... preserve... pro-(issue): flag, children, environment... reform... workfare... eliminate good-time in prison... strength... choice/choose... fair... protect... confident... incentive... hard work... initiative... common sense... passionate

...more...

the list of "negative" words and more "positive" words can be found at the link.

How many times did *Co use "duty" and "hard work" in his 1st debate?

Was he using a code to get his "base"? The zombies that have had these words drilled into them never even know what hits 'em.

Remember when they decided that they wouldn't allow Osama's tapes to be played because he might be talking in code? Well, there's how they do it.

[otohara]

2. Whoa -

this is going to a woman I know who is on the fence - voted for Bush, but considering Kerry.

This article speaks for me - frustrated liberal, no make that frustrated citizen - how can anybody vote for Bush after all the shit he's done?