The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[3894]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

They have some operatives spread this anonymously, gullible people pick up on it, and it becomes the point of discussion rather than the legitimate budgetary concerns.

So Glenn Beck is really a DNC operative? And his wild rant about a building built by Rockefeller as full of subliminal Communist symbols is all to throw us off the trail? And Limbaugh is a DNC operative? Maybe this is why Sarah Palin quit being Alaska's Republican governor! She's really a double agent!

Continuing your hypothetical, the DNC operatives would have to know for absolute certain that the opposition is filled with (your words) "gullible people".

Wait. This last part about "gullible" is true. Especially if we add stupid, racist, and paranoid.

[Alex]

Ok. So Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Beck/Hannity/etc. would be unwitting dupes of Obama or his political handlers?

I don't recall where you stood on it then, but that strikes me as equally ridiculous to when the same sort of evil mastermindedness was attributed to Karl Rove (much of the criticism of Bush relied on simultaneously believing they were idiots and criminal super geniuses).

But you still have the issue that apparently so many at the forefront of the conservative movement are stupid enough to fall for it and their viewers go along for the ride. Of course, the same was true when Rove was spreading rumors that Bush wanted to kill all the Muslims.

[Strangler Lewis]

Given how things are playing out, I'd almost buy Scaeagles' theory with the minor adjustment that Obama's team concocted the death panel rumor in order to kill health care reform, not to pass it.

[scaeagles]

Yeah, people sure thought (think) Rove was evil, and honestly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he did things in a manner like I suggested. It's what political operatives do. I think Rahm Emmanuel is about as slimey as they come, and I wouldn't put this type of thing past them.

And I feel the need to reiterate - not for you Alex, but for others - I am not in anyway accusing Obama or his administration of starting the death panel thing. It was a hypothetical example based on a question of how this political strategy might apply to the health care debate.

As far as being unwitting dupes....yeah, to an extent. The trick is putting something out there from the bill that might, in some form of wild interpretation, be able to be interpretted that way. Since there are many who expect the worst of the other side of the political aisle (and I admittedly am one of them, as I suspect many here are whether they would like to admit it or not), including those you mention, it then becomes something that is run with. It is then an issue of wild interpretation, spin, and the general distrust that exists between the different sides.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What's "wow" about theorizing about political strategies? I said I wouldn't be surprised if political operatives on both sides of the aisle did things like this. Alex asked for a specific example of how that might apply in the health care debate, so I fabricated one, which I clearly said was a fabrication.

The thing is, Scaeagles, the 'wow' factor kicks in when one realizes that you've considered this scenario enough to write about it, even if it was with the usual 'both sides' modifier and the admission that it is a fabricated situation. It's a small step these days from a flight of fancy to fact in the public's mind, especially when it comes to the conservative pundits listed by Alex and others. I'm still waiting for a little less knee-jerk reaction to things like speeches to the kiddies and the like and a little more substantive examples to explain why you just don't like or trust the man. If I were in your brain, I wouldn't like or trust him either- he seems to be far too devious and diabolical for any oridinary man.

[Alex]

So, lacking any evidence to the contrary is it not reasonable to assume the simpler explanation that the kooks on the right (and previous kooks on the left) are home grown within their own movements? There is a word for believing that for which there is no evidence but simply because it is an explanation that makes you feel better.

And therefore, that regardless of whether they were manipulated into it or cam up with it themselves, those who put forward these ideas, or refused to treat them with the ridicule they deserved are either extremely stupid and therefore unworthy of their positions as visible philosophical leaders of the movement or acting with mendacious intent to subvert reasonable debate and therefore continuing to let them lead the movement is morally reprehensible?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

The thing is, Scaeagles, the 'wow' factor kicks in when one realizes that you've considered this scenario enough to write about it, even if it was with the usual 'both sides' modifier and the admission that it is a fabricated situation. It's a small step these days from a flight of fancy to fact in the public's mind, especially when it comes to the conservative pundits listed by Alex and others. I'm still waiting for a little less knee-jerk reaction to things like speeches to the kiddies and the like and a little more substantive examples to explain why you just don't like or trust the man. If I were in your brain, I wouldn't like or trust him either- he seems to be far too devious and diabolical for any oridinary man.

I considered that specific example only after Alex asked a specific question.

However, I don't think (and maybe I'm insane) that I'm that far off in suggesting that this is the type of thing that political operatives do. You've never considered such tricks from Rove or Delay or any other number of Republicans? If not, then not. I suspect it happens all the time.

I suppose I need to get to my long talked about rant over Obama as far as why I do not trust him. It is of course not just a lack of trust but also a dislike of his agenda.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

So, lacking any evidence to the contrary is it not reasonable to assume the simpler explanation that the kooks on the right (and previous kooks on the left) are home grown within their own movements? There is a word for believing that for which there is no evidence but simply because it is an explanation that makes you feel better.

And therefore, that regardless of whether they were manipulated into it or cam up with it themselves, those who put forward these ideas, or refused to treat them with the ridicule they deserved are either extremely stupid and therefore unworthy of their positions as visible philosophical leaders of the movement or acting with mendacious intent to subvert reasonable debate and therefore continuing to let them lead the movement is morally reprehensible?

Of course it is reasonable to assume some kook came up with it, but I don't think most, regardless of their political outlook, are smart (or devious) enough to look at a bill, say "wow! this could be twisted to say we are going to have death panels". It typically comes from a single source and spreads. Someone has to come up with the idea first.

I also do not know if I would call them stupid. The political pundits all have their own agendas as well, whether Beck or Olberman or Hannity or....the Cajun bald guy....drawing a blank for some reason, so if there is a possible interpretation, they might choose to run with it. I would suspect they also bring up budgets and cost overruns and problems with funding existing programs and whatever else. That's why I read Thomas Sowell and Wlater Williams and, to the dismay of some here, the Heritage Foundation website, because I find them to be quite reasonable as well as scholarly.

Morally reprehensible? Perhaps. Politics in general is morally reprehensible. There are not many politicians or pundits or journalists that I don't find to be morally reprehensible. I will admit that I would rather the conservative ideas that I prefer be touted rather than liberal ideas that I don't be misrepresented.

[SacTown Chronic]

Limp-wristed libs can't even properly subvert the kids.



In my day - if you wanted to scar the children with a live televised event - you gathered them in a classroom and watched a teacher get scattered over the Atlantic Ocean.

And you did it together, as a country.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Limp-wristed libs can't even properly subvert the kids.



In my day - if you wanted to scar the children with a live televised event - you gathered them in a classroom and watched a teacher get scattered over the Atlantic Ocean.

And you did it together, as a country.

Terrible. Funny, but terrible.

And submitted to quotes.