Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We Are On Our Own

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
casus belli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 03:42 PM
Original message
We Are On Our Own
There is a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle about reconciliation and bipartisanship moving forward. I believe that Democrats were sincere in extending the proverbial olive branch to the GOP minority. And I believe their intention in doing so may have been to lay to rest the long-standing and politically frustrating consolidation of power around the majority which was the modus operandi of the GOP led House and Senate. However, I think the Republican calls for bi-partisanship may be nothing more than a calculated political ploy to retain some manner of influence in their new minority positions. I generally shy away from conspiracy theories that don't have a fair amount of factual evidence to sustain them. In this particular case, however, I think it is what they AREN'T saying that holds the most information pointing at some possible motives for the new minority party.

Given that AM radio, and various "news" outlets have proven to be nothing more than political bullhorns for talking points that the GOP cannot come right out and say themselves, what we are seeing from these outlets now speaks to what these same politicians are probably talking about behind closed doors. These outlets of misinformation are carefully orchestrated to feed a constant stream of talking points into the public that prove very effective at swaying the opinions of their viewers/listeners, even when the opinions are preposterous. One need look no further than the public opinion polls shortly after our invasion of Iraq that showed 50% or more of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9-11, as evidence of the effectiveness of such misinformation campaigns. Because the talking points were never DIRECTLY stated by the politicians behind the misinformation, even though they alluded to many of the same points in their speeches, they can deny any involvement in the misinformation or deny any complicity in it's dissemination even though the information ALWAYS serves to bolster public opinions about issues which would normally be a liability if not spun to their advantage.

In light of this fact, I think it's clear that the recent media campaign to portray the newly elected Democratic leadership as a squabbling, deeply divided party based on a lively debate of political appointments in the House and Senate, and the recent media caricatures of Pelosi as a whip-carrying witch with a vindictive streak, are nothing more than behind-the-scenes political planning by the minority while they smile and shake our hands and parrot our calls for unity. I think until these politicians publicly denounce such accusations and fabrications, that it would be safe to assume that they are still puppet-handling behind the scenes and biding their time until they have a real chance at taking power back from the Democrats. I think that our newly elected majority should be VERY cautious when dealing with their GOP peers and everything from them should be handled at an arms length and with a fair amount of suspicion. I think it is clear that the GOP would like nothing more than to see a Democratic majority FAIL, even if it means a failure for the American people who are counting on them to get America back on course. And it is my belief that the GOP will stop at nothing to reclaim their power and that the game plan for such is already in play behind the smiles and hand-shaking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-17-06 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. I by and large don't think the dems are sincere in
calling for bipartisanship. At least not in the meaning found in most dictionaries. Some may be. Not most.

When the repubs took over, there were calls for bipartisanship; when the dems took over, there were calls for bipartisanship; when the repubs took over again ... when * was inaugurated.... I've watched for 30 years now. My context-based definition of "bipartisanship" is "do what I want."

When the minority party calls for "bipartisanship" it usually means "please don't shut us out completely, we like having power and we want to see our agenda passed and yours thwarted."

When the majority party calls for "bipartisanship" it usually means "we know that the media and public like us to pretend to make nice, but we actually want you to support *our* agenda, losers ... or you might as well drop your pants and grab your knees now."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC