Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush

  • News
  • Thread starter SOS2008
  • Start date
In summary: How does that justify invading a country? This is another example of an argument that is founded more in wishful thinking than in reality. The fact is, there is no evidence that invading Iraq has anything to do with reducing the number of terrorist attacks. Intelligence officials have testified before Congress that Saddam Hussein was not behind the 9/11 attacks and had no role in 9/11. This is an argument that is founded more in wishful thinking than in reality. The fact is, there is no evidence that invading Iraq has anything to do with reducing the number of terrorist attacks.
  • #1
SOS2008
Gold Member
42
1
Since this is an umbrella topic to several threads, Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy/Republican Lies, most notably NY Times discloses secret Executive Order: NSA is spying domestically, and most recently in regard to the filibuster:

Dawguard said:
In other words, the public don't know what they're talking about. They're delibertaly turning a blind eye to the truth. You few intellegent people, you elite group, you alone understand what is really going on. Since the people are to stupid to be trusted I guess we should abandon democracy: the majority can't possibly understand enough to run a country. No, we're all just dumb, ignorant idiots. We should let you guys do whatever you want since we obviously don't have the mental capabilities you do.
Yes, the public doesn't know and is too stupid, and should listen to those damn know-it-all intellectuals instead of questionable sources of information...

This a great commentary by Roberts (Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions), which was just posted today elsewhere, but once again, very appropriate to ongoing discussions (including the disservice of FOX News, Christian radio, etc. that dominates American media these days):

Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush

By Paul Craig Roberts

01/29/06 "ICH" -- -- Two recent polls, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and a New York Times/CBS News poll, indicate why Bush is getting away with impeachable offenses. Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11696.htm

A must read.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
People not being able to understand information is compounded by all of the administrations "repeated danger slogans". In essence it is just plain brain washing.

For instance I have a sister in law who still insists that Iraq was behind 9/11. She is a retired school teacher , so I would not believe that she could be that dumb.
She is a very right wing fundamentalist Christian whitch explains a lot.

Between tricking the dumb, encouraging the religious radicals, and just plain high visibility PR to brain wash the general public with repeated danger phrases, the administration is somehow pulling off the biggest scam in American history.

The administrations method has been to use an ultimate divide and conquer technique, all wrapped around carefully worded frequently repeated danger messages. If you notice each speach or White house press release has statements for specific target audiences. Some time all audiences are covered but mostly in personal appearances the audiences will all be of one mind set.

Those mind sets being:
Hawks: who are told, war war war defend defend defend.

Fiscal conservatives: who are told, the economy is wonderful, and growing.

The wealthy: who are told, more tax breaks to come.

The religious right: who are told: no abortions and Bible prophesies will be fulfilled.

Dumb and Dumber: who are told, the bad guys are going to getch getch getcha.

Each of those audience mind sets then further spread the words among themselves. And we end up with people who still believe that Iraq was behind 9/11.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
The public being stupid doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a reason why a president would be able to commit impeachable offenses without being impeached, since it isn't up to the public to impeach a president. It's up to the Senate.
 
  • #4
loseyourname said:
The public being stupid doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a reason why a president would be able to commit impeachable offenses without being impeached, since it isn't up to the public to impeach a president. It's up to the Senate.

A republican controlled senate isn't about to impeach a rupublican president.
 
  • #5
edward said:
A republican controlled senate isn't about to impeach a rupublican president.
Correct. So what does that have to do with loseyourname's point?

Anyway, that article is just awful. The logic is just plain nonexistent. Just a couple of examples:
Yet, 53 percent approve of spying without obtaining court warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."

Why does any American think that spying without a warrant has any more effect in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant?
I can think of several reasons: time, secrecy, and expedience. Regardless, he's assuming that since he believes one thing that people don't have a reason for believing another. That's absurd. Regardless of whether or not he agrees with the reasons, reasons exist.
Americans need desperately to understand that 95 percent of all Muslim terrorists in the world were created in the past three years by Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Really? Shocking number - where does it come from? He didn't just pull that out of the air, now did he...? And let's just assume for a minute that he's right about that - the number of Muslim terrorists have increased 20-fold in the past 3 years and they haven't successfully struck the US. So either these new terrorists all suck or they are all in Iraq. Either way, I'm ok with it.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
edward said:
A republican controlled senate isn't about to impeach a rupublican president.

Which is the implicit conclusion of my post. It is a republican senate, not a stupid American populace, that is keeping Bush from being impeached.
 
  • #7
russ_watters said:
So either these new terrorists all suck or they are all in Iraq. Either way, I'm ok with it.
Luckily for you, you don't happen to live in Iraq.
 
  • #8
First, members of congress have a constituency to answer to in order to be reelected. So yes it does matter to Senators what Americans think (or fail to think) whether they like it or not.

Though the author has good credentials, it doesn’t surprise me that certain members would criticize it and say it is awful. I don’t think the polls took into account the phenomenon known as toeing the party line no matter what.

But getting back to the polls and the numbers in question, did anyone catch Meet the Press this evening? The transcripts aren’t available yet, but many of the points that are made in the article and by edward were discussed.

For example, when Americans are asked how they feel about warrantless wiretaps, they are against it. But when asked how they feel about terrorist surveillance, they are for it. If asked to weigh one against the other, many figure they aren’t sacrificing civil liberties as long as they aren’t making international calls to suspect countries. The point was specifically made on Meet the Press that these Americans do not understand the possible ramifications—they do not understand what this means!

Furthermore, what is found is there is a direct correlation between Bush’s approval ratings and the number of times BushCo repeats the words Al Qeada/terrorism–-a very well known propaganda tactic.

I doubt that Bush will be able to continue his charade for long. It will be discovered/proven that he has broken the law. When that happens, even the dumbest American will know what that means. But it’s a shame that we must go to such ends to get this through to the American public.

If people are smart they will let their Senators know to continue the investigation with no holds barred. They should want to get to the truth.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
loseyourname said:
The public being stupid doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a reason why a president would be able to commit impeachable offenses without being impeached, since it isn't up to the public to impeach a president. It's up to the Senate.

Right... it is up to congress.

Gee... with a corrupt Republican leadership... you think that will get done?

Lets hope that Specter can have his hearings... I think the republicans on the Judiciary comity are actual old school republicans who dislike to much executive power and big government and all the horrible things that the Neo-Conservatives (They are disillusioned Trotskyists... at least, the first generation was... the latter generations seems to be just plain old power hungry) have brought to the republican party.
 
  • #10
Gokul43201 said:
Luckily for you, you don't happen to live in Iraq.
That is relevant to this conversation how?
SOS2008 said:
First, members of congress have a constituency to answer to in order to be reelected. So yes it does matter to Senators what Americans think (or fail to think) whether they like it or not.
Certainly. And with Bush's popularity below 50%, doesn't that imply that if there was a good reason to impeach, now is a time they could do it without losing their seats?
I don’t think the polls took into account the phenomenon known as toeing the party line no matter what.
Agreed - but nor do you when you say things like the above. The Republican senate won't impeach Bush because they are a Republican senate - the wishes of their constituency doesn't much matter here.
For example, when Americans are asked how they feel about warrantless wiretaps, they are against it. But when asked how they feel about terrorist surveillance, they are for it. If asked to weigh one against the other, many figure they aren’t sacrificing civil liberties as long as they aren’t making international calls to suspect countries. The point was specifically made on Meet the Press that these Americans do not understand the possible ramifications—they do not understand what this means!
Neither of the questions make any claim about the possible ramifications, so how can you make the logical leap to assuming what people think about international phone calls? I am a person who would vote that way in a poll and it is not because I don't make international phone calls.

You are making unwarranted/unsubstantiated assumptions about people's motives/beliefs. And it is no surprise to me that you'd get such ill-logic from Meet-the-Press.
Furthermore, what is found is there is a direct correlation between Bush’s approval ratings and the number of times BushCo repeats the words Al Qeada/terrorism –-a very well known propaganda tactic.
I've never seen such a study, but I'd suspect that its true. So what?
 
  • #11
russ_watters said:
Just a couple of examples: I can think of several reasons: time,
FISA does a good job of that already. They can wiretap for 72 hours before they have to actually ask a judge's permission, and FISA requests have been turned down a whole 5 times in the last 30 years out of 19,000 requests.
russ_watters said:
secrecy,
FISA Court is secret... so who are they keeping secrets from? Apparently those who are designated to give oversight to these kinds of wire taps.

russ_watters said:
and expedience.
Because the easiest way is always the best way... riiight

Some advice Russ... stop listening to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Real conservatives would not stand for this crap and guess what... they aren't
 
Last edited:
  • #12
russ_watters said:
Neither of the questions make any claim about the possible ramifications, so how can you make the logical leap to assuming what people think about international phone calls? I am a person who would vote that way in a poll and it is not because I don't make international phone calls.

I think the point SOS is making is that you have news agencies framing the discussion about warantless wire taps by using the wrong polling question.

Also, may I ask, do you not find it at all disturbing that Bush has created a new buzz word for his actions that totally have no correlation as to what he is actually doing?

he is not conducting terrorist surveillance... he is drag-netting all the outbound calls and flooding the FBI will tons of irrelevant information. Not only is this counter productive to the FBI, but is breaks laws that have been on the books for a long time. Also, if FISA did not meet Bush's needs, why has he NEVER gone to congress in the last 3 years and asked congress to make a change to the FISA law? Most likely it is because Bush wanted to do things that no congress would have allowed him by law to do.
 
  • #13
Here's another thought for those of you who question the polls--per the article you can Google the polls and probably see the data for yourself.

In view of the upcoming State of the Union Speech :yuck: and the polls, security is the one area where Bush still has majority support. That's why Rove (the man behind the curtain) made a rare appearance last week to accuse Democrats of having a "pre-9/11 view of the world" for daring to question the legality of the [domestic spying <-- real term] program.

There's little doubt that in his State of the Union address, Bush will tell Americans that he is looking out for their security at a time of war. :eek: It will be a major theme of his speech. So will the need to stay in Iraq until the insurgency is under control.

Let's wager on how many times he will invoke 9-11 or use the words terrorist/terrorism, and particularly in conjunction with the word surveillance.
 
  • #14
ComputerGeek said:
Some advice Russ... stop listening to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Real conservatives would not stand for this crap and guess what... they aren't
Some advice for you: don't make assumptions about other people. I've never watched Fox News or Sean Hannity, and the only time I listen to Rush Limbaugh is if I'm in my boss's car.
 
  • #15
SOS2008 said:
Here's another thought for those of you who question the polls--per the article you can Google the polls and probably see the data for yourself.
Just to be clear: I do not question the polls. I question the interpretation being done by the liberal media and the 'anyone who doesn't agree with me is dumb' mentality on display here. Ie, Computergeek, I'm not going to argue the finer points of the opinions I listed. I was just pointing out that they are real opinions. Heck, I'm not even saying they are my opinions - you were assuming that as well.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
russ_watters said:
Some advice for you: don't make assumptions about other people. I've never watched Fox News or Sean Hannity, and the only time I listen to Rush Limbaugh is if I'm in my boss's car.

Wow... I am surprised. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying you listened to that trash. I just cannot understand how a smart guy like yourself can use such badly debunked arguments for this domestic spying program.
 
  • #17
russ_watters said:
Computergeek, I'm not going to argue the finer points of the opinions I listed. I was just pointing out that they are real opinions. Heck, I'm not even saying they are my opinions - you were assuming that as well.

Why not? Hiding behind the "its an opinion" argument for having such an opinion is foolish. If you cannot properly justify the opinions, then should you agree with them?
 
  • #18
ComputerGeek said:
Why not? Hiding behind the "its an opinion" argument for having such an opinion is foolish. If you cannot properly justify the opinions, then should you agree with them?
It's real simple, CompterGeek:
FISA does a good job of that already. They can wiretap for 72 hours before they have to actually ask a judge's permission, and FISA requests have been turned down a whole 5 times in the last 30 years out of 19,000 requests.
Surely you must see that "a good job" is an entirely subjective opinion. Maybe for some people, that isn't easy enough.
 
  • #19
Come on; let's get wagers going for the State of the Union. I say the words terrorist/terrorism will be used tens times--mixed with either "war on" or "surveillance." I say the word “security” will be used eight times, and 9-11 (in some way) will be used at least once.
 
  • #20
SOS2008 said:
Come on; let's get wagers going for the State of the Union. I say the words terrorist/terrorism will be used tens times--mixed with either "war on" or "surveillance." I say the word “security” will be used eight times, and 9-11 (in some way) will be used at least once.
Sure, why not. What's your point? You do realize that Bush is a politician, right?
 
  • #21
loseyourname said:
The public being stupid doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a reason why a president would be able to commit impeachable offenses without being impeached, since it isn't up to the public to impeach a president. It's up to the Senate.
I think it makes a lot of sense. Even republican representatives would have to look for impeachment if their voters demanded it as given the choice of Bush being out of a job or them I think they would jettison Bush in a heartbeat.

By keeping the voters dumb and ignorant it allows their elected representatives to avoid the issue.
 
  • #22
russ_watters said:
It's real simple, CompterGeek: Surely you must see that "a good job" is an entirely subjective opinion. Maybe for some people, that isn't easy enough.

Sorry... I should have said "FISA allows for that now" so as to make sure I had provided an argument devoid of opinion.

Facts are that FISA offers everything the president needs and your opinions are debunked as wrong. Unless you can come up with an argument for them that has some substance, I think you might need to reevaluate how truthful you are being to yourself. Perhaps the only way of maintaining your current political reality is by being dishonest with yourself.

Can I let you in on a little secret? 2000 was my first time I got to vote for president. I made teh mistake of voting for Bush :eek: I was fine with Bush until he began all his social crusades and the Iraq war was the lynch pin for me. It took me a while, but I came around and realized that I was ignoring a lot of bad stuff and many arguments in order that my ego would not feel the impact of me being wrong when I voted for him. The key to know when you have to make an adjustment (perhaps not as drastic as mine) is when you find yourself agreeing with actions that you cannot defend with any kind of substantive argument, but rather with semantics and "its my opinion" kind of tactics.
 
  • #23
SOS2008 said:
Come on; let's get wagers going for the State of the Union. I say the words terrorist/terrorism will be used tens times--mixed with either "war on" or "surveillance." I say the word “security” will be used eight times, and 9-11 (in some way) will be used at least once.

Terrorism/Terrorist = 40 times

Terrorist Survalance program = 10 times

War = 20 times

Security = 30 times

9/11 = 10 times
 
  • #24
Art said:
I think it makes a lot of sense. Even republican representatives would have to look for impeachment if their voters demanded it as given the choice of Bush being out of a job or them I think they would jettison Bush in a heartbeat.

By keeping the voters dumb and ignorant it allows their elected representatives to avoid the issue.
But people are predicting the Republicans will lose a number of seats in the next election - surely that is because the people are not happy with the Republicans' reaction to Bush?
 
  • #25
ComputerGeek said:
Sorry... I should have said "FISA allows for that now" so as to make sure I had provided an argument devoid of opinion.
Certainly, but the question of whether that is enough is unavoidable and completely opinion-based. Do I even need to go through the thread looking for other pure opinions? Sorry, but you set yourself and fell into your own trap...

Ooh, hey, I found another one:
Facts are that FISA offers everything the president needs and your opinions are debunked as wrong.
Everything the President needs? Does it offer him a silk robe and slippers? Computergeek - you tripped over your own opinion. There really isn't any way to undo that, but it doesn't much matter if you try to undo it, because you are still doing it!

And now I simply cannot believe that you think that you removing your opinion of the law somehow means no one can have an opinion about the law. Those numbers are facts - sure - but how do you think those numbers came to be in the first place!? :bugeye:
 
Last edited:
  • #26
russ_watters said:
Certainly, but the question of whether that is enough is unavoidable and completely opinion-based. Do I even need to go through the thread looking for other pure opinions? Sorry, but you set yourself and fell into your own trap. Everything the President needs? Does it offer him a silk robe and slippers? Computergeek - you tripped over your own opinion. There really isn't any way to undo that, but it doesn't much matter because you are still doing it.

And now I simply cannot believe that you think that you removing your opinion of the law somehow means no one can have an opinion about the law. Those numbers are facts - sure - but how do you think those numbers came to be in the first place!? :bugeye:

The difference Russ is that my opinions are back up with reasoning, where as you have YET to provide anything beyond "its my opinion". Opinions are fine as long as you can back them up with REASONING.

and please, could you stop kicking up dust when you have no argument? I mean seriously... rather than admit that I might have a reasonable stance, you protect your ego by ignoring my argument and saying "does it give him silk slippers and a robe?" In the context of the discussion, you know I meant as far as wire tapping americans to fight terror goes.

For the sake of argument I will concede that the FISA law sucks for fighting terror and did not offer bush everything he needed... Answer me this then, WHY WHY WHY did Bush NOT go to congress to change the law! 3 years, not a single petition. maybe if he had tried and failed and then tried again and failed again and continued on like that while at the same time doing his domestic spying, he MIGHT have had an argument that he has been trying to get the FISA law changed but congress kept blocking him.

Bush did not do that, he just ignored the law and did not even try to fix the law to meet what ever ambiguous and undefined needs the administration keep s sighting.
 
  • #27
russ_watters said:
But people are predicting the Republicans will lose a number of seats in the next election - surely that is because the people are not happy with the Republicans' reaction to Bush?
It's a question of degee. If people were fully informed (interested) then the republican party would be run out of town, as it is they might lose a few seats. Even that IMO will be mainly because people are concerned with the economy. They see massive amounts of money being spent, debt piling up and their jobs being outsourced to China. Even the GOPs spin machine cannot hide reality totally. Even stupid people know when they are struggling financially.
 
  • #28
russ_watters said:
That is relevant to this conversation how?
It's relevant in that it raises the possibly forgotten point that you could be impeached for injustices inflicted upon people who are not your country's citizens (ie : maybe it's not enough to say "this hasn't harmed me, an American")
 
  • #29
ComputerGeek said:
The difference Russ is that my opinions are back up with reasoning, where as you have YET to provide anything beyond "its my opinion". Opinions are fine as long as you can back them up with REASONING.
C'mon, ComputerGeek - reasoning is easy: Take this one , for example: "FISA Court is secret... so who are they keeping secrets from?" Secret from the court, of course. Bush doesn't want oversight because there is no guarantee that a judge will agree with him.

Besides - why do I need to provide support for all these opinions when I'm sure that law didn't pass unanamously? It doesn't matter if your opinion is that the opinions of others are unreasonable - it is still an opinion and you know it because you stated as such.

Lets just be clear again: the issue here isn't whether one opinion is any more or less reasonable than any other, but that they are all opinions regardless of who thinks which opinion is better. That's the whole point of opinions!
and please, could you stop kicking up dust when you have no argument? I mean seriously...
Kicking up dust? Huh? You provided the argument by which your own point failed.
rather than admit that I might have a reasonable stance,
You do have a reasonable stance - the entire point here is that that doesn't mean your opinion is the only possible reasonable opinion.
For the sake of argument I will concede that the FISA law sucks for fighting terror and did not offer bush everything he needed...
Great! So we agree that you have an opinion, other people have opinions, and neither are necessarily just plain right or just plain wrong.
Answer me this then, WHY WHY WHY did Bush NOT go to congress to change the law!
Pretty simple - he didn't want to risk losing that fight.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
russ_watters said:
Bush doesn't want oversight because there is no guarantee that a judge will agree with him...Pretty simple - he didn't want to risk losing that fight.

And you have no problem with Bush doing any of this? What is the standard for impeachable offense? A high crime? Well, a federal felony charge seems to be a high crime to me.

He broke the law. He did something highly illegal, you seem to be admitting it, he admits it, yet you do not care?
 
  • #31
President Roosevelt's buzzword was "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Kind of a stark contrast to Bush's buzzwords.

Admittedly, Roosevelt was referring to an economic crisis vs. terrorism. But I'm still surprised it has worked. Americans usually prefer the more optimistic view - consider the difference between Carter's "American malaise*" and Reagan's much more optimistic tone.

Ironically, Carter never mentioned the word malaise in his "American malaise" speech. The point of his speech was that America needed to have more confidence - he just did a very, very bad job of getting his point across.

Carter's speech said:
I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy... I do not refer to the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might.

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.
Unfortunately for Carter, he didn't come up with the bright idea of color coding America's lack of confidence. Color coding America's level of fear has been one of Bush's great successes in swaying American support for his war on terrorism.
 
  • #32
russ_watters said:
Sure, why not. What's your point? You do realize that Bush is a politician, right?
I'm glad you asked so I can explain it all again, because I realize it is hard for some Americans to understand some of things that have been going on.

As Bush prepares to deliver the State of the Union address, he knows his presidency is in trouble. Bush has spent his so-called political capital in failed attempts to overhaul social security and his so-called “democracy projects.” Hamas won by a landslide, and things don’t look much better in Iraq. What visionary topics will he have now?

Two-thirds of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction our country is going, particularly in regard to Iraq and the economy. There is no end in sight to the war, which has contributed to a budget deficit of around $337 billion—with federal spending expected to increase. Most Americans don’t feel better off than they were a year ago, or five years ago. Wages have not kept up with inflation, gas prices have increased, health care costs have exploded, and jobs are going overseas.

Bush will focus on all he has left. He will tell Americans he is looking out for their security. And he will do so by twisting illegal activities into a good thing (yeah, heh-heh, a good thing). And he will do so with the same old propaganda tactic of fear mongering via word repetition.

My point is: Are Americans dumber than Bush, or will they realize that Bush steps beyond the bounds of normal politicians by seeking to manipulate them in particularly despicable ways to cover up his numerous and apprehensible misdeeds--Or will Americans be smart enough to see through the propaganda? I’ll be interested to see how many times he uses various fear mongering words in the speech, and what happens with his approval rating afterward.
 
  • #33
ComputerGeek said:
Terrorism/Terrorist = 40 times

Terrorist Survalance program = 10 times

War = 20 times

Security = 30 times

9/11 = 10 times
Holy cow that would indicate major desperation!

I do agree with your view of opinion, and that it is unreasonable to expect members to accept one person as the authority on a matter, especially in contrast to credible sources. Granted the media in America does not do its job well, but I would still prefer this to some member’s personal opinion. To that point, here are excerpts from Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Kelly O’Donnell, let me show you some polling data and get your sense of how the White House is thinking, the beat that you cover. Los Angeles Times Bloomberg. The president’s approval/disapproval: 43 percent approval, 54 disapproval. What about the war in Iraq? Forty-one approval, 56 disapproval. Terrorism, the war. Approve 48, Bush performance on that; 49 disapprove. And economy. Only 37 percent approve, 59 disapprove. And look at this, health care. The president’s handling of it: 27; disapprove 64. Is the White House aware of those numbers?

MS. O’DONNELL: Aware and trying to respond in ways that we’ll certainly see Tuesday night. ...advisors…say he will continue to talk about the war in Iraq every single week. They learned that when they sort of shifted gears and didn’t have as much of a public message about that, it hurt them. They also know when the president acknowledged some of the mistakes there, he seemed to have a little inching up in the polls. And of late, on the spying issue for example, where he has been so assertive in his view, we now also see that the numbers have edged back ever so slightly.

MR. RUSSERT: Do State of the Union messages, do they matter, David?

MR. BRODER: Well, of course they matter. I mean, it’s the largest single audience that the president will have for any speech this year. And it also really does set the agenda. I mean, we tend to forget. A year ago, he was talking about reforming the Social Security system. It didn’t happen, but it consumed six months of the public debate. Presidents still have that capacity. And even as we can—as Kelly points out, he is at this point. His speech will set an agenda.

MR. RUSSERT: There has been a lot of discussion, as Kelly mentioned, about this whole notion of domestic eavesdropping and how the White House has been extremely aggressive trying to seize that as an issue, move it from being a civil rights and liberty issue to an anti-terrorism issue.
Again, some polling data was quite constructive. The American people, would you give up some civil liberties to prevent terrorism? Yes, 51; no, 40. What about monitoring U.S. phone calls and e-mails without a warrant? Forty-nine say acceptable, 45 say unacceptable. Would you mind if your own calls were being monitored? Fifty-three say yes, 46 percent say no. Who do you trust to protect the country against terrorism? President Bush 45, the Democrats in Congress, 32. Has the president’s policies made us more secure, 52 yes. Less secure, 21, no. No different, 25.

Byron York, has the White House politically achieved some results over the last few weeks by saying, “This is an anti-terrorism message. You heard that Osama bin Laden tape, I am the protector in chief,” in effect?

MR. YORK: Yes, they have. You know, obviously they didn’t want the leak to happen. They didn’t want this to come out. But since it has, they believe this is actually a big political winner for them. And Republican pollsters tell me it’s all in how you label this. The president’s adversaries want to call it domestic spying. The president is saying this is—we’re looking in on the international communications of people with known al-Qaeda connections. If you ask people in a poll, what do you think about warrantless domestic spying? They’re against it. If you throw in the word “al-Qaeda,” the approval goes through the roof. And so this is all a fight over how to label this.

MR. RUSSERT: The president seemed to suggest in his news conference on Thursday, Roger Simon, that he was anxious for the mid-term elections. His last one, as he said, as a sitting president. And that his message was going to be, “I will protect you and I’m going to cut your taxes.”

MR. SIMON: Sure, it’s the same message we heard at the Republican Convention. “Keep fear alive, vote for us or die.” The poll, what we like to call the Bloomberg/LA Times Poll, show that on the question of terrorism, that’s the only area in which George Bush and the Republicans get a high marks.

This is a weakened president. You saw on the show today, a majority leader, his majority leader, disagreeing with the president on a number of issues. What the president has, the last arrow in his quiver, is protecting the United States against terrorism. And that’s what he’s going to have to use.

MS. O’DONNELL: …Terrorism works for them in part because there is that fear that is hard to describe, and people do have a fear about it. And so when you bring up eavesdropping, if you say al-Qaeda, people will think, “Well, it’s not me and my phone calls. So maybe it’s OK.”

It’s hard for people to understand what domestic spying might intrude upon, because we know so little about the program. So this is a strong area for them. Will it be as strong as it was the last go-around? Probably not. But it is an area where they can continue to fight and say, ‘We will protect you more than, than the Democrats.’ And Democrats have trouble there, because when you bring up civil liberties it seems much more of a fuzzy argument to many people, because if you put that on a scale against protecting the country, often people are more willing to say, ‘I want the country secure.’
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11047820/

“I will protect you and I’m going to cut your taxes.” I forgot to mention tax cuts, which will be in the speech too.

"Only 7 percent chose reducing taxes as their No. 1 goal." -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11103804/

The top 7 percent of wealth?
 
Last edited:
  • #34
SOS2008 said:
Bush will focus on all he has left. He will tell Americans he is looking out for their security. And he will do so by twisting illegal activities into a good thing (yeah, heh-heh, a good thing). And he will do so with the same old propaganda tactic of fear mongering via word repetition.

My point is: Are Americans dumber than Bush, or will they realize that Bush steps beyond the bounds of normal politicians by seeking to manipulate them in particularly despicable ways to cover up his numerous and apprehensible misdeeds--Or will Americans be smart enough to see through the propaganda? I’ll be interested to see how many times he uses various fear mongering words in the speech, and what happens with his approval rating afterward.

With all of the color coded fear mongering Bush has made a great number of people believe something. Once people, dumb or smart, believe something it is difficult for them to change their minds. That is human nature because changing their minds would be admitting that they were wrong in the first place. Doing this is difficult for most people to do.

The power of suggestion has also been used extensively to make people believe. To the best of my knowledge Bush never made a claim that Iraq was behind the 9/11 disaster. Yet at one point well over 50% of the American people believed that it was true. A lot of them still do, including my sister in law.

I don't give Bush the credit for accomplishing this belief phenomina. Bush was just the front man. Rove and the PR people worked the process out a along time ago. And they are still using it.

The big problem is that once people believe something they quit thinking and put their brains on auto pilot. That is why we are now faced with a large number of people who do not want to look back at all of those broken promises, failed programs, and repeated fear phrases that we have been seeing and hearing for the last five years.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
SOS2008 said:
Come on; let's get wagers going for the State of the Union. I say the words terrorist/terrorism will be used tens times--mixed with either "war on" or "surveillance." I say the word “security” will be used eight times, and 9-11 (in some way) will be used at least once.

I think the term "al qaida phone calls" will be repeated at least five times.

Iran and nookler will be right up there on the charts also.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Replies
64
Views
8K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
Back
Top