Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am astonished that anybody Republican or not could possibly still support Bush.
I am finding it really hard to believe that anyone could look at his record on virtually anything and not be left completely bemused by the fact that this man is not only a moron but a dangerous one at that. Despite being liberal I had a modicum of respect for Bush Senior but I'm sorry Junior has all the appeal of a comatose earth-worm and the intellect to go with it. He has taken American into a needless, and extremely expensive war, on the basis of lies, misdirected the American public, is responsible for the deaths of over 4000 American troops, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, is cruising for a bruising with other middle-east countries, seems ill informed on just about any subject, can barely string a sentence together, does not seem to have done a good job economy wise, has an appalling environmental record. Has this guy actually done anything right ?
Are some Americans really proud to have a president with the IQ of an amoeba and the language skills of a deficient monkey ?
I just do not understand it. Europe does not understand it. The world does not understand it. I am sure the Republican party is full of highly intelligent , capable , well educated, brilliant minds ( I might not agree with their ideas but it does not diminish their abilities), how on earth did this giant mistake of a man come to be elected ?
I guess your Dad being President once must help...
From a world point of view he has made our lives less safe here in Europe, and is the laughing stock of just about anywhere he hasn't bought off . I would have thought a wonderful Nation such as the US, wealthy , and powerful as it is could have their pick of brilliant men, how did this one fall through the cracks... ??? Seriously. I would be embarrassed to have him speak at a school meeting never mind a world conference. He is a loose cannon and I presume his PR people must tremble every time he opens his mouth.
I am astonished that anybody Republican or not could possibly still support Bush.
I am finding it really hard to believe that anyone could look at his record on virtually anything and not be left completely bemused by the fact that this man is not only a moron but a dangerous one at that. Despite being liberal I had a modicum of respect for Bush Senior but I'm sorry Junior has all the appeal of a comatose earth-worm and the intellect to go with it. He has taken American into a needless, and extremely expensive war, on the basis of lies, misdirected the American public, is responsible for the deaths of over 4000 American troops, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, is cruising for a bruising with other middle-east countries, seems ill informed on just about any subject, can barely string a sentence together, does not seem to have done a good job economy wise, has an appalling environmental record. Has this guy actually done anything right ?
Are some Americans really proud to have a president with the IQ of an amoeba and the language skills of a deficient monkey ?
I just do not understand it. Europe does not understand it. The world does not understand it. I am sure the Republican party is full of highly intelligent , capable , well educated, brilliant minds ( I might not agree with their ideas but it does not diminish their abilities), how on earth did this giant mistake of a man come to be elected ?
I guess your Dad being President once must help...
From a world point of view he has made our lives less safe here in Europe, and is the laughing stock of just about anywhere he hasn't bought off . I would have thought a wonderful Nation such as the US, wealthy , and powerful as it is could have their pick of brilliant men, how did this one fall through the cracks... ??? Seriously. I would be embarrassed to have him speak at a school meeting never mind a world conference. He is a loose cannon and I presume his PR people must tremble every time he opens his mouth.
Very good post, though I think I'm a bit more moderate than you are.
Insulting his intelligence is probably not the best way to get your point across, though many may agree with you. Insult what he's done, or hasn't done, his lies and manipulations. It's cost so many American's their lives.
It's incredibly sad that people here in America still support this horrific time in our history. Fifty years from now, our kids will be embarrassed for us.
So that's it, eh? Your entire approach to the complex issues of the world revolves around whether gays in the US military can note that they are gay or not? Wow! That's an eye-opener...
No, not at all. I used this as an example of a man throwing away the momentum of bipartisan support that he had bulit up by doing something that was so patently offensive to so many people. It cost him the support of many people and led to the level of cynicism that affects much of the electorate.
You really should lighten up on the ad hominems against people who disagree with you -- and learn to read more carefully.
Bush still has support partly because he won on the basis of division - Karl Rove's electoral tactic was a very aggressive 'divide and conquer' model which sought to paint the opposition as a paragon of moral bankruptcy. Political races are always contentious, but rarely like this - when Bush Senior won, for example, he won with a coalition of moderate Democrats, conservatives, and political undecideds who saw him as a stronger leader than Dukakis.
Bush Sr.'s message tracked along those lines. 'Vote for me because I'm the better man, and my ideas are better.' The campaign was rough - just look at the Willie Horton thing and the Dukakis/tank incident - but it was not based on the idea that one's vote represented a choice between good and evil.
Rove, who is by most accounts an atheist, quite cleverly and cynically used Christian rhetoric and oppositions between 'faith' and 'nonfaith' as a core part of campaigns. The political choices facing voters were portrayed as choices between good and evil, light and darkness, rather than mere political decisions. This activated Bush's 'base,' which pushed him over the top in 2004 with extremely high turnout.
This model of governance is based on creating and exploiting divisions which have been recast into quasi-Biblical oppositions. The rhetorical shift was subtle but important - the claim being made by the candidate went from "my opponent has different positions than mine because he is misguided" to "my opponent has different positions than mine because he is fundamentally immoral."
Now, this model worked for Rove until facts on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere slammed into his campaigns in November 2006.
But to understand why so many people still support Bush, perhaps part of it is because they still accept the framework of Rove's oppositions. They believe, or behave as though they believe, that disclaiming Bush necessarily means a plunge into the 'immorality' of the opposition. They aren't able to think of politics in non-oppositional terms - it is unthinkable that you could oppose a man and not, in some way, also support his opponents. And if you hate some or most of that man's opponents, it becomes a moral duty NOT to be seen as aiding them.
The Romans named a logical fallacy after this line of thinking (I've forgotten the term, but it's basically the fallacy that rejecting a proposal means accepting another). Unfortunately, logical fallacies are used because they often work, and work well, as Rove understood.
Bush still has support partly because he won on the basis of division - Karl Rove's electoral tactic was a very aggressive 'divide and conquer' model which sought to paint the opposition as a paragon of moral bankruptcy. Political races are always contentious, but rarely like this - when Bush Senior won, for example, he won with a coalition of moderate Democrats, conservatives, and political undecideds who saw him as a stronger leader than Dukakis.
Bush Sr.'s message tracked along those lines. 'Vote for me because I'm the better man, and my ideas are better.' The campaign was rough - just look at the Willie Horton thing and the Dukakis/tank incident - but it was not based on the idea that one's vote represented a choice between good and evil.
Rove, who is by most accounts an atheist, quite cleverly and cynically used Christian rhetoric and oppositions between 'faith' and 'nonfaith' as a core part of campaigns. The political choices facing voters were portrayed as choices between good and evil, light and darkness, rather than mere political decisions. This activated Bush's 'base,' which pushed him over the top in 2004 with extremely high turnout.
This model of governance is based on creating and exploiting divisions which have been recast into quasi-Biblical oppositions. The rhetorical shift was subtle but important - the claim being made by the candidate went from "my opponent has different positions than mine because he is misguided" to "my opponent has different positions than mine because he is fundamentally immoral."
Now, this model worked for Rove until facts on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere slammed into his campaigns in November 2006.
But to understand why so many people still support Bush, perhaps part of it is because they still accept the framework of Rove's oppositions. They believe, or behave as though they believe, that disclaiming Bush necessarily means a plunge into the 'immorality' of the opposition. They aren't able to think of politics in non-oppositional terms - it is unthinkable that you could oppose a man and not, in some way, also support his opponents. And if you hate some or most of that man's opponents, it becomes a moral duty NOT to be seen as aiding them.
The Romans named a logical fallacy after this line of thinking (I've forgotten the term, but it's basically the fallacy that rejecting a proposal means accepting another). Unfortunately, logical fallacies are used because they often work, and work well, as Rove understood.
Excellent post! A very accurate description of the tactics used to accomplish strategic goals.
I’m not sure which fallacy to apply to your last comment, but I do believe Rove and the Bush Administration have mastered Argumentum ad Metum (appeal to fear) and Argumentum ad Odium (appeal to hatred).
Of course, for any such arguments to gain a high level of acceptance, the target audience must be emotionally ready for emotional arguments so they won't recognize them as fallacies. I believe the science of whipping up the targets prior to loosing the tactics upon them has also been mastered by Rove et al.
I am astonished that anybody Republican or not could possibly still support Bush.
I am finding it really hard to believe that anyone could look at his record on virtually anything and not be left completely bemused by the fact that this man is not only a moron but a dangerous one at that. Despite being liberal I had a modicum of respect for Bush Senior but I'm sorry Junior has all the appeal of a comatose earth-worm and the intellect to go with it. He has taken American into a needless, and extremely expensive war, on the basis of lies, misdirected the American public, is responsible for the deaths of over 4000 American troops, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, is cruising for a bruising with other middle-east countries, seems ill informed on just about any subject, can barely string a sentence together, does not seem to have done a good job economy wise, has an appalling environmental record. Has this guy actually done anything right ?
Are some Americans really proud to have a president with the IQ of an amoeba and the language skills of a deficient monkey ?
I just do not understand it. Europe does not understand it. The world does not understand it. I am sure the Republican party is full of highly intelligent , capable , well educated, brilliant minds ( I might not agree with their ideas but it does not diminish their abilities), how on earth did this giant mistake of a man come to be elected ?
I guess your Dad being President once must help...
From a world point of view he has made our lives less safe here in Europe, and is the laughing stock of just about anywhere he hasn't bought off . I would have thought a wonderful Nation such as the US, wealthy , and powerful as it is could have their pick of brilliant men, how did this one fall through the cracks... ??? Seriously. I would be embarrassed to have him speak at a school meeting never mind a world conference. He is a loose cannon and I presume his PR people must tremble every time he opens his mouth.
Moosekeeter & tablemtn excellent posts by both of you! Bush's re-election in 2004 was fear motivated with Bin Laden's tapes coming out just before the election coupled with Rove's wedge issues at the time , e.g. Gay marriage & abortion.
Did America just go completely batty? How are gay people going to destroy America????..LMAO! I sometimes have to question the lunancy of our electorate! Abortion has been the law since the early 70's but the right wing has drummed into our heads that America was attacked on 9/11 becuase of it and we support gay rights in some areas.
I'm losing hope, we have some very serious concerns regarding our nation with education, health care, immigration, border security.
Rove, who is by most accounts an atheist, quite cleverly and cynically used Christian rhetoric and oppositions between 'faith' and 'nonfaith' as a core part of campaigns. The political choices facing voters were portrayed as choices between good and evil, light and darkness, rather than mere political decisions. This activated Bush's 'base,' which pushed him over the top in 2004 with extremely high turnout.
This model of governance is based on creating and exploiting divisions which have been recast into quasi-Biblical oppositions. The rhetorical shift was subtle but important - the claim being made by the candidate went from "my opponent has different positions than mine because he is misguided" to "my opponent has different positions than mine because he is fundamentally immoral."
Now, this model worked for Rove until facts on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere slammed into his campaigns in November 2006.
But to understand why so many people still support Bush, perhaps part of it is because they still accept the framework of Rove's oppositions. They believe, or behave as though they believe, that disclaiming Bush necessarily means a plunge into the 'immorality' of the opposition. They aren't able to think of politics in non-oppositional terms - it is unthinkable that you could oppose a man and not, in some way, also support his opponents. And if you hate some or most of that man's opponents, it becomes a moral duty NOT to be seen as aiding them.
.
that's not what I thought when I voted for him,religion had little to do with my vote.
I voted for him the first time because Clinton angered me so,and many of the DNC stood right by him as he sucked up to the UN,sent our troops on deplyment after deployment.Attacked the 2nd amendment.Disrespected the oval office by having sex in it,he could have used any other room but no.
There was no way I would vote for a Dem after him,let alone his VP Gore.Kerry followed the same mindset on issues as Clinton so forget him also.
Bush talked about limiting spending,about lessening government,about being less involved around the world.He talked about bringing respect back to the oval office,doing everything different than Clinton which angered so many people.
Now Bush has either broken or backed off many of his campaign promises along with many other Repubs elected,so that's why I supported him then and why I'm dissapointed now.Ain't got nothin' to do with him proclaiming he was Christian.
that's not what I thought when I voted for him,religion had little to do with my vote.
I voted for him the first time because Clinton angered me so,and many of the DNC stood right by him as he sucked up to the UN,sent our troops on deplyment after deployment.Attacked the 2nd amendment.Disrespected the oval office by having sex in it,he could have used any other room but no.
There was no way I would vote for a Dem after him,let alone his VP Gore.Kerry followed the same mindset on issues as Clinton so forget him also.
Bush talked about limiting spending,about lessening government,about being less involved around the world.He talked about bringing respect back to the oval office,doing everything different than Clinton which angered so many people.
Now Bush has either broken or backed off many of his campaign promises along with many other Repubs elected,so that's why I supported him then and why I'm dissapointed now.Ain't got nothin' to do with him proclaiming he was Christian.
I think his point was not christian vs non-christian, but rather 'many complex issues' vs 'one moral vs immoral', where rove skillfully made this about moral vs immoral.
If I understand his analysis, the strategy taunts at the heartstrings of the religious' mentality of good vs evil, and their necessity to put things in black and white. Once that was achieved, bush is easily seen as the savior, due to his display of strong passion, not just strong christian.
Last edited by person; 09-02-2007 at 11:12 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
