"What if Bush's base never needed to be lied to?" SFGate

[madfloridian]

This is why I think we need to be totally honest about Iraq, the reasons for it and what comes next.....and how our candidates feel.
I believe this part of the article is true.....my own relatives believe it, sadly. They think that someone will be in power....might as well be us.

Maybe we are not getting to Bush's base because they approve.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/10/RVG1T9289T1.DTL

SNIP..."What if Bush's political base never needed to be lied to? That might explain why, despite "Fahrenheit 9/11" and all the other enraged documentaries (the best of which, incidentally, is "Hijacking Catastrophe" by the Media Education Foundation), the polls keep reflecting strong popular support for Bush's "leadership" and why he continues to find cheering crowds, especially at military bases where troops give their commander-in-chief the big "hoo-ah." These people aren't deceived. They know exactly what Bush is up to -- and it's OK with them."

I was glad to hear Howard Dean say on WPR today what Richard Perle wanted.....to attack Iran just like we did Iraq. We need to do more of that.

On Edit: There are parts of this article I do not agree with, but much of it really hits home painfully.

[BJ]

1. Dr. Roszak has given us another definition of fascism.

[cally]

2. Where Did the Middle Go?

This article is intrigueing, informative, and insightful. I started a thread in Editorials on it a few days ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x78189

[madfloridian]

5. I missed that! Thanks.

Will read some of the comments now.

[TaleWgnDg]

3. So, George Walker Bush has tapped into a George Orwellian

motherlode of people who, despite their knowing, are willing to be deceived and made into fools? Uuummmmmmmmmmm, where's the logic to this? Of course irrationality has no logic but then that article would also be suggesting that GeorgeW's followers are irrational too?

Nah, it can only be said that these folks don't fully comprehend what GeorgeW is all about.


. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . it's a slooooooooooooooow process

[knowbody0]

4. i get nervous knowing these guys

share the freeway with me

[liveoaktx]

6. There's a fundie in my town that totally agrees with Bush attacking

other countries, the "let's go get 'em before they come get us". He mixes in God and Bush as well to put a religious patina over the whole thing, but I believe he's a bloodthirsty guy.

[madfloridian]

8. The "Bush was chosen by God" mantra....I hear it here.

Many really do believe it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. We are never going to touch his base.

Fortunately, he can't win with only his base. He needs the so-called 'Reagan Democrats', the independents and those who are (dis)honestly terrified to win. At least, to win legitimately.

We can bring back the Reagan Democrats, because frankly speaking, Bush is no Reagan. Reagan was able to sugarcoat his disastrous policies with his personal charm (despite my loathing of the man I'd laugh at his quips, then hate myself for it). Bush does not charm.

The independents were, in 2000, told there was virtually no difference between Dem and Rep. That has been clearly given the lie.

Those who are terrified? It's a matter of perspective. Even in 2001, with the WTC casualties, a person was liklier to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. Liklier to be hit by a bus than the victim of political violence. It isn't the terrorists that are scaring us. It's the government, spiking up the alert level whenever we start getting complacent.

His base, on the other hand, I think is largely terrified. They have a paranoid world view, which in the '80 gave rise to stories of black helicopters and UN troops training in secret camps in Wyoming. They see foreigners coming across our borders not as economic migration but as invasion.

Forget about Bush's base. Let's get our own house in order.

[Squeech]

9. "Life means nothing to them"

That's what a guy in my office (a manager no less) says about the Iraqi people, as part of his justification for the war.

Reminds me of the Vietnam-era canard that oriental people's nerves were less sensitive to pain, so napalm was justified.

But of course I've become a blame-America-firster, because not only do I speak out against Iraq and Vietnam, but I also complain about Haiti (no troops to defend the democratically-elected Aristede, but a detachment of Marines as soon as he leaves), Chile (CIA-sponsored coup takes out democratically-elected Allende), El Salvador, etc.

My point being, even if our goals are legitimate, unethical means are counterproductive: as soon as our guy is toppled in turn, the next government sees us as the enemy-- remember all those Iranians calling America the Great Satan?

Not that I convinced this particular Kool-aid drinker...

[booley]

10. I hate to say it

but that article just hit it on the head as far as I am concerned.
Cons don't give a shit.

I lost my temper recently argueing with a freeper. Normally freepers don't bother me so much but she had her act down good. She claimed she was a Wiccan, she lombasted Edwards over not doing enough about AIDS.

she almost had me fooled that I had finally met a con with an ounce of human decency. She was just uninformed. Surely that was easy to fix.

But then she gave a free pass to Bush and the cons over everything. She claimed that Bush had lost supporters becuase of his "compassion" and said that Edwards stand on AIDS was just as Bad as Cheney's, that environmental laws were just "The government pointing fingers when we should be cleaning our own mess", and basicly supporting the very people that created the problems she was fuming about. She went on that people who were unemployed for long periods of time just didn't want to work. Not that they couldn't find jobs becuase apparently we can all start a house rehabing compnay like her. (of course, as one who is tryign to do just that, it's not quite that easy) And any info we presented to contradict her beleifs about conservatism and Bush or anything, she just ignored.

And I kept wondering how she could be so uninformed?

And then I realized. She wasn't uninformed. She was willfully ignorant becuase she didn't want to know. Even if a problem like AIDS bugged her. she wasn't going to see ANYTHING as a blemish on her conservative world view. So she can blast Kerry /Edwards for not caring enough but Bush/Cheney's record on it simply wasn't relevant to the conversation.

Shrub could green light a new Inquisition against Non-Christians and this woman would probably be saying "well, Shrub is tolerant of religion"

I have grown disheartened to say the least. How do you reason with that?

[hiphopnation]

11. All the accounts on DU

of people coming in contact with freepers in the workplace or in their families - where are these people? I NEVER come across them and I wish I could because I would gladly tear into them. Of course it should be noted that I live and work in SF but lawdy there aren't any in my family, that I know of. Maybe I need to take a trip to Sacramento or Nevada. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

12. I am in central Florida. Yes, I have 3 neighbors who believe this way.

Yes, I have an uncle and his family in CA who believe it. I have another close family member in the military industrial complex who believes it. Breaks my heart.

It appears in our area to be church related....evil and good. With my uncle it is Rush-related....with the other family member it is just plain a belief. Sadly.

[shanti]

13. ha!

go up to the foothills, that's where you will find them, not necessarily the flats in sacramento. in fact, one of my coworkers is a dem and he and i commiserate constantly!