|
September 22, 2006 – We will
get back to the flashes in a bit.
For now, it is important to look at the
main Bush-era GOP tool - creating temporary insanity in the nation
in the few months before the election. Each year, the Rove-led
campaigns have be extremely effective in getting people to forget
how unhappy they are with GOP policies just months before, and in
making the Democrats an alternative people don't like to consider.
There are two main tools that are used.
One, the propaganda machine. You
saw the flat out propaganda of the
Path to 9/11 debacle - 2 nights of commercial free prime time
lies, with a Bush speech right in the middle, to kick off the
campaign.
You've also read here about how Saddam
will be broken out just weeks before the election - final arguments
for his trial occurred back in July but the sentencing take place
until - yes, just weeks before the election. (see
article)
We've also seen the major manipulations
in the past, such as Bush demanding the UN vote on the Iraq War
resolution the week of the 2002 elections, or one of the worst
episodes in America war history, the Falujah PR campaign last
election, where the President cost our troops their lives and
ensured and unsuccessful operation for the sake of advancing his
campaign - and creating temporary insanity. (see
article)
But there's the much more subtle part of
the propaganda. The stories that don't really seem like
meaningful stories. There was the announcement from Chevron
that,
wow, hey, look, we found so, so much oil - maybe. No more
worries.
Notice the "maybe." It's just a
guess - a guess that came out Sept. 5.
Then the Path to 9/11 ran the next week.
Then the next week, the CEO of shell got
top billing at places like NBC not for any actual new news, but
simply to give him air to say, "Why
Oil Will Get Cheaper; The CEO of Shell says that despite all the
speculation, there is no physical shortage."
Nice, huh? That was Sept. 18.
Now, if there is no physical shortage, prices shouldn't be high to
begin with, now should they? But this is not a news story or
even an overblown report of a speculative find, like the Chevron
nonsense. This is no news at all; just a free campaign ad.
The Democrats lay out their plans for Iraq, the economy, etc., and
get ignored, but Shell's CEO gets top air - more on ignoring
Democrats in a moment.
You start to notice the pattern - every
week there is a story given high billing that is not a news story at
all but GOP campaign propaganda disguised as news.
So what was the propaganda story this
week? Pretty obvious, isn't it?
Two stories actually, both on the same
subject: That George W. Bush now says he
would attack Pakistan to get Osama. And that the Bush
admin
threatened to blow Pakistan into the stone age.
Nice, huh? Forget the fact it's
been five years and Bush has never gone into Pakistan where Osama is
believed to be - he's just about to, sure, sure he would, if you
keep the GOP in power.
And you know how people - especially the
conservative base - are upset because they think Bush and the GOP
have been too buddy buddy with Pakistan, a sicko fundamentalist
militant Muslim nation? Well here you go Rush and Hannity,
etc., you can tell everyone, see, we were lucky to have GWB in
office - his threats are why they came on board with us.
So you get the picture with this side of
things. We are almost up to breaking Saddam's sentencing out,
just a couple weeks to that. So they've addressed the oil
problem, the not going after Osama problem, and they're about to
address the Iraq problem.
Actually, they're not about to change a
single policy or take a single action with regard to any of these.
But notice how it suddenly seems like they are in the press.
In the mind of many Americans who watch the news, the three biggest
concerns of the nation - oil prices, Osama, and Iraq - are all
getting top billed snowjobs just enough to allow the belief that it
all is about to work out if you keep Bush and the GOP in charge.
That's part one. Part two is more
subtle and something most people never notice.
You ever notice how every Democrat is
labeled "likeable" or "unelectable" but GOP'ers are pushed as sure
things. Gore - unlikable. Powell - would be a great
candidate, hard to beat. Kerry, unlikable, uncharismatic.
McCain - a sure bet to win if he passes the primaries.
Hillary, unlikable, unelectable. George W. Bush - charming.
The second part of the propaganda scheme
is to make sure, even as you criticize Republicans some, that you
never say positive things about Democrats; and, in fact, that you
ignore or dismiss them all together.
A couple years ago we laid out this game
for. We reviewed right-wing liar, MSNBC talk show host Joe
Scarborough's book. Joe had written to us offended we called
him a liar. He claimed in one of the number of e-mails he sent
then that, no, he was not a lying, right-wing propagandist, but
actually, in fact, he is someone who, "is tougher on my own than
Democrats.”
As we reported back then, in
the December 2004 article about the e-mail exchange and
reviewing Joe's book (of lies):
The two most striking things about
Joe’s book are: 1) the massive lack of references and footnotes
to support his claims; 2) the complete lack of a single positive
comment about a single Democrat, never mind Democrats in general.
In fact, Scarborough’s central premise
is that all Democrats and every policy they espouse are entirely,
inherently wrong, and that they have always been wrong and never
have any chance of improving.
As he states on page 97 of his book
Rome Wasn’t Burnt In A Day, after spending some time
criticizing the GOP, “If it makes GOP party leaders or the White
House sycophants feel any better, no one is suggesting that John
Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or any other elected Democrat short of Georgia
Senator Zell Miller would spend your tax dollars more wisely.” He
adds, “This is because such a suggestion is laughable.”
Sound like he is being easier on the
Democrats? Of course not. Again and again throughout the book
Scarborough hammers away at this theme, that all Democrats by
nature are entirely wrong on every issue. And, in fact, he
frequently, throughout the book, blames Democrats for how the
Republicans are acting today.
On page two of his book he lays out
how he will actually blame the Democrats for how the GOP and Bush
have been acting, saying it is, “Democrats and their new
ideological allies on Capitol Hill,” who are responsible for the
massive deficits. This is his argument again and again throughout
the book, that all Democrats are horrible, and that the only thing
the GOP is currently doing wrong is acting too much like
Democrats.
Yes, he spends more time talking about
Republicans than Democrats, but that is because he gives them a
fair shake, his premise being Republicans are good and right by
nature but only, as he says again and again, acting like those
horrible Democrats at the moment. Democrats get much less
coverage because they are entirely dismissed from the get go, and
because Scarborough again and again refuses to acknowledge their
1990’s shift to the middle and the more fiscally responsible
platforms they have run on in the last three elections.
That is the second part of the game.
I highly recommend reading the article above. It clearly lays
out how the overt propaganda of pretending everything will be ok if
you keep the GOP around is just the front end of things. The
even more powerful part is summarily dismissing and disparaging the
Democrats so that even if people want to vote for them, they feel
like they are doing it begrudgingly.
Hillary is too liberal - even if
considers herself a moderate. While McCain, who says he is
very conservative, is a moderate. Kerry is unlikable, but
Cheney is cool, tough.
So now you have both parts of the gave.
Liberal groups that write the media often organize to protest the
false stories that prop up the GOP. But they don't even seem
to notice that they and the Democrats are disparaged daily simply by
omission of any positive comments about them, personally or
policywise.
For those who want to enjoy more on the
first part of all this, here is a story from just before last
election, laying out how it was being done back then.
Is George W. Bush the Devil
Just to note: we asked the
question back in April 2004, and do it in a more intelligent way
than Hugo Chavez. Think what you want of the Venzuelan
President, it is a valid question - or at least a valid topic for
satire.
| 
