They need to know that we know they are doing same thing to Kerry as Gore

[kentuck]

It's important this point be in the conversation of voters. Many people need to be reminded just what they did to Gore, and to McCain, as far as that goes. And they do it well. They do it for 6-12 hours per day on talk radio. They control the conversations on cable television. They control the propaganda and the people receive what they want them to receive. It's a negative campaign, very negative, and they need to be portrayed as such. As of right now, they are floating under the radar. It has to be verbalized.

[boobooday]

1. And they aren't even revising the script

Same script, four years later.

Ridiculous.

Flip-Flop? Is that all you got?

Let's see, even if he WAS a flip-flopper (which he's not), even if he went to Vietnam and cried the whole time for his mommy (which he didn't) he would still be ten feet taller as a leader than George W. Bunk!

ARGH.

I'm cranky this morning.

[Hubert Flottz]

2. Shrub went to Texas and still cried for his Mommy!

LMAO!

[bushwakker]

6. Clinton was a flip flopper, Gore was a flip flopper, Kerry is a

flip-flopper. See a pattern? They run the same campaign every four years.

[KharmaTrain]

3. True But You Have To Be Real Specific...

To say that the "media is biased" is a strawman both sides have used in the past, and in the 80's when this was the cry against Democrats I personally didn't see it.

However in recent years I definitely can pinpoint specific things I've seen or heard and now wonder was there something I was missing then or is my radar tuned too high right now that I'm taking little things and reading biggers ones into it.

Kentuck, it's vital, if we're ever going to break the hold of the right wing media on hate radio and television, is to confront their lies and continually discredit any and all lies they make. We're starting to do that here, but there's little outside of a DU that I'm seeing that's using all these info here or calling it out from elsewhere.

When I've got a specific instance of bias...the Letterman/kid thing is a great example, where you can trace it from top to bottom...connect the dots...in a way people can visualize it, then you get a reaction. To cry "bias" in a blanket term sounds more like sour grapes than a legitimate bitch.

[kentuck]

4. But most people are familiar with how they tore down Gore...

That is the "specific" that needs to be talked about. To jump from one "specific" to another crying media bias would not work, I would agree. But they are trying the same tactics against Kerry that they used against Gore, that is enough for people to know.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Gore Is A Reference, But The Spin Is More Pinpoint Now...

How many times have we followed a lie put into the "media" through a Drudge or op/ed that then goes into the morning newscasts into hate radio and onto the evening news/food fights...going from rumor to "a story" to an issue to a lie? The sensitive issue this week is a case in point.

Also, there are people who look at Gore as Sore/Loserman (I still hear that crap)...he's not the example we want to use. There are plenty of other ways to point. Plus, it helps to enhance the discussion when you show how the media goes overboard the other way...thus that Letterman/kid thing is devestating...and amazing how little anyone paid attention to that. It was the entire spin machine in full view.

[Sparkly]

7. Agree, maybe we need a reference like this, but other names as well

I think at this point, it may resonate more to say we know they're doing what they did to Cleland, McCain, Clark, and Gore in terms of their military service... Remember, Gore had a "bodyguard" in Vietnam? :eyes: And Clark was an "opportunist" who didn't really earn his fourth star? :crazy: ... They do this consistently.

Maybe it's also what they did to both Clinton *and* Gore, as far as distorting their records, focusing on trivia and nonsense that doesn't affect people's lives rather than the BIG issues that do. It's lack of perspective and "hey, look over there!" distractions. Considering the ridiculous things they played "gotcha" with against Gore, I think there's an example there of "Does this really matter when you look at what we're up against now? Does how many meetings Kerry attended or whether he ever changed his mind amount to anything compared with soaring debt, unemployment, healthcare crises, and war?"

So I guess I say "yes and no" to drawing parallels with Gore -- yes, but expand it.

[KharmaTrain]

10. We Have To Stay Relevent...

Bringing up Clinton or Gore would be like the Repugnicans bringing up Raygun...past history. Using examples from 2000 or before only are useful after the main point has been made to amplify how this bias has developed.

Right now, it's keeping things very simple and as obvious as we can. The bias is there, and with our hightened radars, we may go over the top on things we see and others will say either "big deal" or "you're reading more into it"...specific instances (not just Kerry) are the game here.

Boy do I hate to use Rushbo as an example, but this is one of his favorite playing cards...taking an except from a TV show and cutting it to shreads. He's done it so effectively others do the same thus that one soundbite can pass through this daisy chain (Dean scream anyone???) and take on a whole different meaning.

Oh well...back to more non-Hurricane Charley non-coverage...awaiting our feckless leader to come to the rescue...:wretch:

Cheers!

[chuck555]

8. They always do it.

They:
made the roof leak.
wore out my tires
made the crankcase oil bad.
destroyed my 20 year old Tv.
put maggots in the garbage can.
It goes on and on...

BUT THEY ALWAYS DO IT.

[kentuck]

9. Don't minimize it ...

like a fucking Republican.

[BillZBubb]

12. So, Chuck, you're saying there is no merit to this argument?

That's is just a figment of imagination? That the Repugs aren't running their typical smear campaign? Do tell!

[KoKo]

11. But, what if we are asked: "Why are they allowing this to be done again?"

What do we say? "It's the media, it's the RW Repug Attack Dogs." And, when we say that in answer what if they ask: "Well you knew this was going to happen since Clinton, so why did your candidate fall into the trap?"

Then, what do we say? :shrug:

[kentuck]

13. My point is:

They are doing the same thing over and over - just like they did to Gore, to McCain, to McGovern, to Carter, to Mondale, to Dukakis, etc. It is something they do very well. They do negative politics very well. They have a lot of experience at it. But, although we recognize it automatically, we should not assume that the voters as a whole see it the way we do, unless we inform them of what is happening. They need to be told what the Bush campaign is doing and when they do it.

[KoKo]

14. I understand your point, Kentuck, but how do we here on DU inform the

"average voter" out there about this? :shrug:

[kentuck]

15. It's a meme:

It's typical Republican negative politics. If there is further explanation needed, give the above examples. We need to plant in peoples mind that this is "typical" with Republicans. If effective, it would put them on the defensive. At worst, it would permit the Democrats the opportunity to shrug off most of these attacks, rather than trying to react to each and every one.