One of the things about journalism in the US that gets me going is how pundits respond to anything the Republican or Democratic parties do or say. When the news covers a story, it is often framed in such a way that makes an action or phrase sound so preposterous that the party in question has done something outrageous and unheard of. The fact of the matter is, whether you're listening to Fox News or MSNBC, the facts were twisted to cater to an audience who would naturally become suckered into believing something so outrageous when it is nothing of the sort, sort of.
Let me use the recent coverage of voter purging in Florida and the Arizona Papers Please ruling to illustrate the problem. I'll first describe the pitch (the delivery) and then I'll follow through with the explanation the news completely missed.
Voter Purging
The Pitch:
First, in the voter purging situation, the "goal" at first glance was to weed out fraudulent voting. Judging by the citizens who were purged, it was clear all the wrong people were getting caught up in the mess.
The Explanation:
Behind all of that, Republicans feel justified in purging these voters who largely vote for Democrats. Why? Republicans feel that they are the victims here. They claim to be the victims of a liberal conspiracy to allow illegal immigrants the ability to vote in order to steal the election away from them. In their minds, illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly corrupting the voting process to the point where Republican candidates lose. They feel as though purging the voter rolls will result in a course correction. This is why a Republican audience applauds Mike Turzai in Pennsylvania for saying a voter purge will lead to a Romney victory. Liberals foolishly respond, pointing out how Turzai's comments were an admission of rigging an election.
On the contrary, the Republican delusion is such that they don't see it as rigging the election, but adjusting the situation away from an incorrect belief that the election was rigged to favor Democrats.
It's wrong, but it is their delusion. Liberals are left mouths agape for the wrong reason. Liberals need to begin framing unscrupulous behavior in terms of the Republican delusion and not the reasonable assertion from outside the Republican bubble.
Papers Please
The Pitch:
The Papers Please part of the Arizona law that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court has been perceived as a form of racial profiling whereby innocent Hispanic-American citizens would be stopped and accused of being an illegal immigrant just because they are hispanic.
The Explanation:
What you need to understand is, the same sort of Republican delusion exists here, too. You see, Republicans in Arizona and elsewhere believe that illegal immigrants are Democratic strongholds threatening the American way of life and unfairly victimizing (white) American citizens by taking jobs, leeching off government programs, and committing crimes. The Papers Please part of the law, to them, was not an attempt to profile at face value, but it represents Republicans who already profile all Mexican-Americans as illegals. To them, a person of color is not a legitimate American. To them, a person of color is a pawn of the liberal conspiracy against the Republican voter and of America itself.
The Conclusion:
So if you understand the delusion, then you can report on the story better. It will sound as though you are being flagrant and mean to your opposition, but it's the truth. If you admit Republicans are delusional and see the delusion for what it is, you can correctly assess their behavior. Then, you can call them on it. Anything less is feeding into the same stalemate we have come to know.
The same sort of mentality applies to their opinions toward unions and welfare. To them, Democrats are crooked SOBs. To them, a union equates to thugs. To the, welfare equates to lazy leeches. Pick a good system and they will demonize it, claiming victimization.
It's why Romney's "Sauce for the gander" comment resonated. To the, Democrats are unsavory and conspiring against them, so it's only fair to conspire right back. It's disgusting.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Santorum Super PAC plays on Islamophobia
Ads are playing right now in Louisiana for the Republican campaigns and I just happened to see one running for Rick Santorum. The ad attacks President Obama on energy policy and it was funded by the Red White and Blue Fund super PAC. As a Louisiana resident, I would prefer that people question the ads playing on our televisions. Knowing Louisiana, this isn't going to happen, so I'm going to be the one person who writes about this damn ad.
First, it attacks Obama using buzzwords, those buzzwords being "foreign oil" and "radicals." The stage was set to plant the seed of Republican American isolationism and fear from the start. From there, the ad went on to say the money we spend on oil goes to "fund radicals with bad intentions," showing a photo of obvious angry Muslim protesters with some form of Arabic language written on a sign on a building, followed by a burning American flag.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we put the gas in our gas tanks. We, American citizens, spend the money which goes to the oil companies and countries in the Middle East, not President Obama. It's our money, not his. We're to blame, Rick. It's our addiction that is the problem.
High prices are also the result of speculation, but market speculation isn't covered in the ad. If you're not talking about market speculation, then you aren't serious about gas prices. Really. You are not at all serious about gas prices.
But we also don't fund radicals. That's just factually inaccurate. Sure, I'm certain some Middle East countries have ties to terrorist organizations, but let's face it. The oil money is going to the very rich families in Saudia Arabia, for example, so that they can live lavish and luxurious lives. Our money goes to the US oil companies so that they can reinvest in research, but also so they can fill their pockets.
Santorum's solution is to investigate domestic sources, utilize natural gas, open up drilling and build pipelines to lower costs, according to the ad.
Unfortunately, these solutions will not provide any immediate relief. These are all long term plans. The Republican plan right now is to drill, baby, drill. It was the same plan they had in 2008. They haven't evolved away from that plan, aside from talking up more natural gas investments.
Americans want immediate relief. No Republican candidate can provide that level of relief with more drilling. We have to build the equipment first and that takes time. This is a promise they cannot keep, but because Americans only think in terms of immediate results, that's how the super PAC wants to play their advertising hand. We are apparently that stupid, or at least they think we're that stupid.
If you're a Republican, ask your candidates what solutions they have to lower gas prices within the next month. Yes, a month. Maybe two.
Sure, we could establish a long term plan to lower prices and increase supplies, but what does that do for you right now? Nothing. Not a damn thing, son.
First, it attacks Obama using buzzwords, those buzzwords being "foreign oil" and "radicals." The stage was set to plant the seed of Republican American isolationism and fear from the start. From there, the ad went on to say the money we spend on oil goes to "fund radicals with bad intentions," showing a photo of obvious angry Muslim protesters with some form of Arabic language written on a sign on a building, followed by a burning American flag.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we put the gas in our gas tanks. We, American citizens, spend the money which goes to the oil companies and countries in the Middle East, not President Obama. It's our money, not his. We're to blame, Rick. It's our addiction that is the problem.
High prices are also the result of speculation, but market speculation isn't covered in the ad. If you're not talking about market speculation, then you aren't serious about gas prices. Really. You are not at all serious about gas prices.
But we also don't fund radicals. That's just factually inaccurate. Sure, I'm certain some Middle East countries have ties to terrorist organizations, but let's face it. The oil money is going to the very rich families in Saudia Arabia, for example, so that they can live lavish and luxurious lives. Our money goes to the US oil companies so that they can reinvest in research, but also so they can fill their pockets.
Santorum's solution is to investigate domestic sources, utilize natural gas, open up drilling and build pipelines to lower costs, according to the ad.
Unfortunately, these solutions will not provide any immediate relief. These are all long term plans. The Republican plan right now is to drill, baby, drill. It was the same plan they had in 2008. They haven't evolved away from that plan, aside from talking up more natural gas investments.
Americans want immediate relief. No Republican candidate can provide that level of relief with more drilling. We have to build the equipment first and that takes time. This is a promise they cannot keep, but because Americans only think in terms of immediate results, that's how the super PAC wants to play their advertising hand. We are apparently that stupid, or at least they think we're that stupid.
If you're a Republican, ask your candidates what solutions they have to lower gas prices within the next month. Yes, a month. Maybe two.
Sure, we could establish a long term plan to lower prices and increase supplies, but what does that do for you right now? Nothing. Not a damn thing, son.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Will Ron Paul Split The Vote?
In modern politics right now, the more liberal media outlets are focusing most, if not all of their attention on the Republican primaries. The respective pundits hit all the high points, the Newt vs Mitt phenomenon, the Mitt vs Mitt phenomenon, and even the icky colorful Santorum Surge. These same media outlets have also mentioned that Ron Paul has largely been left out of the mainstream discussion, in part because he is not seen as a viable candidate. Yes, folks, MSNBC does cover Ron Paul, despite what your conservative friends have said.
But the coverage for Ron Paul has dropped off over the past few weeks because the primary results, while initially very strong for Paul, dwindled in comparison to the changes in the numbers for other candidates. Still, you know Paul has a strong backing by his supporters. You'll know them as the internet forumites who end their rants with "Ron Paul 2012." Sometimes they include an exclamation point. Sometimes, not.
So the support is there, right? He has a following. His supporters do not constitute a small group of people. In fact, they are quite large and in addition to that, they are extremely vocal, especially on the internet. Even one of my friends on Facebook supports old man Paul and scoffed at the notion of my perception of him as a crackpot. Sadly, he and I are no longer friends, but I can guarantee you this. Come election time, my former friend will most certainly still support Ron Paul.
With the primaries in full swing, it seems Paul has garnered more than a few delegates. When it comes time to pick a Republican nominee, what will Paul do with his amassed delegates? Will he run as an Independent? Will he run at all? Again, Ron Paul has been lost in terms of being on the media's mind, whether on Fox News or elsewhere. The voice of the Republican establishment knows Paul is a threat to them...but very few are actually asking the more important question. Will Ron Paul's presence in the 2012 Presidential election affect the outcome? Will he be to the eventual nominee what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore? Will he split the vote?
As I've already discussed, Paul supporters have lots of energy. Sadly, though, there is another group of Ron Paul supporters who pose a threat, but not to the Republican nominee. No. They pose a threat to Barack Obama. They are the liberals who want pot legalized. A woman I dated in Arkansas was one of these confused liberals. If any liberal actually goes through Ron Paul's voting record, they'll come to realize he is not very liberal at all and he would do away with many of the things these pothead liberals support. The thing is, they are angry about marijuana and they are also angry about the wars we have been fighting. Anger apparently leads to confusion, but the anger is strong enough for these liberal voters to cast their vote for Ron Paul. It isn't even a protest vote, a vote of no confidence in Barack Obama. It is a self-legitimized vote of support rooted in only a few issues, disregarding the rest of what Ron Paul stands for. These voters will split the Democratic vote, but by how much? I'm not sure I have the answer to that, but they could be a threat as well.
I'm not sure the numbers are there on the Left to negate the Paul supporters on the Right, refuting the notion that Paul supporters are negligible in the grand scheme of things. They will most certainly have an impact on the 2012 election, but because they are largely libertarian conservatives, Paul will eat into the support for the Republican nominee more than Barack Obama. Perhaps a vote for Ron Paul ends up being a vote for Barack Obama. I don't see Ron Paul supporters as rank and file conservatives, people who will vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name, justified in the sentiment that any Republican is better than any damn Democrat.
But the coverage for Ron Paul has dropped off over the past few weeks because the primary results, while initially very strong for Paul, dwindled in comparison to the changes in the numbers for other candidates. Still, you know Paul has a strong backing by his supporters. You'll know them as the internet forumites who end their rants with "Ron Paul 2012." Sometimes they include an exclamation point. Sometimes, not.
So the support is there, right? He has a following. His supporters do not constitute a small group of people. In fact, they are quite large and in addition to that, they are extremely vocal, especially on the internet. Even one of my friends on Facebook supports old man Paul and scoffed at the notion of my perception of him as a crackpot. Sadly, he and I are no longer friends, but I can guarantee you this. Come election time, my former friend will most certainly still support Ron Paul.
With the primaries in full swing, it seems Paul has garnered more than a few delegates. When it comes time to pick a Republican nominee, what will Paul do with his amassed delegates? Will he run as an Independent? Will he run at all? Again, Ron Paul has been lost in terms of being on the media's mind, whether on Fox News or elsewhere. The voice of the Republican establishment knows Paul is a threat to them...but very few are actually asking the more important question. Will Ron Paul's presence in the 2012 Presidential election affect the outcome? Will he be to the eventual nominee what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore? Will he split the vote?
As I've already discussed, Paul supporters have lots of energy. Sadly, though, there is another group of Ron Paul supporters who pose a threat, but not to the Republican nominee. No. They pose a threat to Barack Obama. They are the liberals who want pot legalized. A woman I dated in Arkansas was one of these confused liberals. If any liberal actually goes through Ron Paul's voting record, they'll come to realize he is not very liberal at all and he would do away with many of the things these pothead liberals support. The thing is, they are angry about marijuana and they are also angry about the wars we have been fighting. Anger apparently leads to confusion, but the anger is strong enough for these liberal voters to cast their vote for Ron Paul. It isn't even a protest vote, a vote of no confidence in Barack Obama. It is a self-legitimized vote of support rooted in only a few issues, disregarding the rest of what Ron Paul stands for. These voters will split the Democratic vote, but by how much? I'm not sure I have the answer to that, but they could be a threat as well.
I'm not sure the numbers are there on the Left to negate the Paul supporters on the Right, refuting the notion that Paul supporters are negligible in the grand scheme of things. They will most certainly have an impact on the 2012 election, but because they are largely libertarian conservatives, Paul will eat into the support for the Republican nominee more than Barack Obama. Perhaps a vote for Ron Paul ends up being a vote for Barack Obama. I don't see Ron Paul supporters as rank and file conservatives, people who will vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name, justified in the sentiment that any Republican is better than any damn Democrat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)