I rmeember back in the 1980's watching Karl rove tweak his fund raising letters, and how the whole idea was to get a reaction out of the recipient. Karl was a genius at this. The things he would revise copy on were interesting to observe. Mostly the desire was to get the recipeint aggitated to the point where they felt compelled to give money. Mischaracterization was the primary tactic combined with gross exaggeration. For example Karl would have said that Dem resistance to the Voter ID law, was an effort to allow illegal aliens to vote and influence elections, to disinfranchise Texans and their votes! STOP ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM VOTING IN YOUR PRECINCT!!! Would be the hook line. A good image for the recipient of the mailout to see themselves as personally disinfranchised. Karl was also a genius at increasing donations via personalization of Donor amounts. If you have never given before your donation check box amounts might be $5, $10 and $25 along with a fill int he blank. Had you previously donated $25 you check boxes would be $25, $50 and $100, While this is common practice now in political fundraising it was leading edge back then. Rove's list management was in large part what built the base of the GOP's rise to power. The Dems were so outflanked in the information age that it wasn't an even match. However the outgrowth of the "Rovian" philosophy was that people slowly but surely began to believe the exaggerations and misrepresentations and " fact." The anger that was used to motivate them to donate became ingrained along with the falshoods they beleived to be true. You need look not further than this board to see the continual gross exaggerations and misinformation in so many of our right leaning friend's posts. Facts are replaced routinely with exaggerations and hyperbole and then you hear the same misinformaton repeated time and again as the repetition reinforces the belief in the falsehoods. Probably the best (easist) example was the labeling of Sotomayor as a racist. I also think that over time the better educated have simply learned not to trust the hyperbole as a smaller and smaller group beleive the repetition of misinformation. I will also say that this is not unique to the GOP and the Dems engage in this as well, but never in a manner as well orchestrated and well managed as the GOP did institutionally. The strategy certainly did work, but in the end it was unsustainable, because it was designed to not win landslides, but to find a way to win close elections. It was not a strategy of concensus, it was a strategy of riling up the crowd. Anyhow just my observations...
Again I want to make it very clear that both parties engage in this sort of hyperbole, misinformation and exaggeration. I am more pointing to the adoption of this by the GOP as a fund raising philosophy that took on a life of it's own over time within the followers of the GOP on a much larger overall scale. In a way the incredible success of fund raising in this manner sort of formed a "grass roots" basis for a larger and larger group beleiving the misinformation as fact. Sort of a victim of the success in a way.
Rove was a fundraising genius, to be certain. Rove was the first I saw do it so often with anger as the motivator.
Read the comments on the NYT blog to see how the mainstream left reacts to an elderly Nancy Reagan walking arm in arm with Obama:
Rove was not the inventor of fear tactics or scare or hate, whatever you would like to call them. Do a little research on the 1964 Presidential Election.
In my opinion, it is somewhat exaggerative to claim that those remarks prove anything more than the fact that some of those people are apparently old enough to remember what Nancy was like.
Yay partisanship! We get it: Dems think Pubs suck and vice versa. Newsflash: they all suck. Rationalizing via "the other guy did it first/does it more/does it worse" is hypocritical, tiresome, and highly ineffective at moving people from the other side of an argument to yours.
it's insane that there are people out there that would believe in a marked distinction between the two parties when it comes to misinformation & exaggeration. give me a break.
Summer, you may or may not be right about Rove, etc. I haven't studied it so I don't have a clue on that. But per your comment on the right labeling Sotomayor a racist, I'm puzzled. I don't listen to talk radio right now and I haven't seen an episode of any Fox news for months, so I don't know if the right is calling her that or not. But why would you object if they did? Obviously she is not a mean spirited vigilante out committing atrocities on members of other races, nor is she ignorant like many who are overtly racist. But her comments about the wise Latino woman with her experiences might not reach better conclusions than a white man, or in the same speech her statement that their may be "inherent physiological" differences between the races, and finally that different races have "basic differences in logic and reasoning." Please understand, I do NOT find that bothersome at all as a personal or political belief. I wish those items could be put on the table for discussion. I'd like serious intellectual debate on this and similar items. Now Summer I know you lean left and I lean right, but I feel certain if any white male judge had made those statements (except insert how white men can come to better judgments than Latino women) that the entire Left would be out for blood. I feel certain that this white judge would be labeled a racist. Please correct me if I'm wrong and provide examples. I could be missing something, but it seems to me that a women and minorities are given a huge amount of leeway to say things that would be considered racist if it came from a white male. I obviously think of Lawrence Summers at Harvard. Again, I don't find her statements bothersome (although I do question them coming from a judge), nor did I find Summers statements bothersome. But the left called for Summers head and now say that Sotomayor's comments are not racist? Thanks for your time.
I should have also said at the outset that I think a movement away theis sort of stuff institutionally is also what is going to be a large component of the rebirth of the GOP. zzzz..... puts up a bunch of stuff on Nancy Reagan from a blog. I am talking about the sort of misinformation from the Party, that is "institutionalized." And really was any of that as damning as labeling Obama a "terrorist" "terrorist friend" "socialist?" those were institutional exaggerations not blogosphere musings. Interestingly - between the time I first posted and typing this apparently Newt Gingrich is backing away from his exaggeration and misinformaiton on Sotomayor. A step in the right direction IMO. Now as far as Sotomayor is concerned it's not really the rank and file GOP doing the exagerrating for the most part, but when you kiss Rush's ring you get to endorse all the talk indirectly. Gingrich was a bigger problem playing the racism card. And he should have been smarter than that, but that's the way of thinking. Say something outlandish and hope enough folks will believe it, because sometimes they will. "Terrorists in your neighborhood" is another recent goodie, one that actually worked by the way. Anyhow just my observations. I think that as this is moved away from more, the GOP will again be able to bring more educated moderates back into the fold potentially.
Summer, it's interesting that you posted this today... In another thread we've been discussing the lie that Bush/Cheney said Iraq was behind and therefore responsible for 9/11. That enough people still believe this is just one reason why Obama is now President.
Actually Ramius I would probably more closely link the reelection of Bush and Cheney in 04 to that misinformation dissiminated by the Administration.
That Bush is hated so much I believe does indeed go back to Iraq....and much of that hate is based on a lie. ....but not the WMDs and lack thereof. That's a completely different debate. Remove the hate and what remains? A very liberal president that any dem should be proud of. Anything, and I mean anything other than Iraq that you all disliked about W is being repeated in spades by Obama. ....with the exception of tax cuts.
Ramius- I am of the opinion that the GOP manages and Crchestrates it's messages in a much better manner than the Dems on most issues, if that's of any solace for you. This is just an area where the management and orchestration has over time become a negative liability IMHO.
Ramius - You do realize that it was the misinformation and exaggeration by the Bush Administration that gave rise to the linkage beteeen Iraq and 9/11. Cheney especially pushed the link very hard. When you say Iraq and Al Qaeda repetitively in sentences relating to 9/11 that is where the exaggerations seemed to make "truth" out of fantasy. Indeed the majority of Republicans at the time believed there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. So the mission was accomplished by the Bush administration in implying, inferrring, and repetitively linking by word Iraq and 9/11. It was all very lawyer-like mind you but it fooled the masses! And as I said at the outset it has been a VERY effective strategy in the past, but the effect has waned from a positive and is now a negative.
Could the title be any more ironic? I'll try one. "DNC as home of honesty, transparency and conviction"
Summer, Have you seen the other thread? My only reason for mentioning Iraq in this thread is because that's the crutch people use for hating Bush. Without it, you libs would be hard-pressed to find fault considering was is currently happening. Oh, I realize you have a list but the irony is that you could put a check next to Obama regarding everything on the list...save for cutting taxes. ---------------------------------------
Ramius I don;t have time to do the research to inform you accurately but you will find that indeed a majority of Republicans believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11. The misinformation worked and worked in supporting the war. PLEASE do not try to assert this statement inaccurate as to do so wouold indeed be a knowingly tod lie. If you don;t know the answer and want to assume a particualr outcome that is well and good. However my statement regarding a majority is accurate. Calling my truth a lie isn't anything but a misrepresentation. I guess perhaps the exaggeration part is where you state that I know when I state the truth I actually know it's a lie. I don't work that way, and Again you will find my statement factually accurate if you do a little research from the time . Oh yeah and thanks for another example relating tot he subject matter of my initial post Ramius.
LMFAO. The DNC is just as guilty as the GOP of misinformation. How do you know when a politician is telling truth? When their mouth is not moving. Obama saying that the U.S. could be one of the largest muslim countries is the LATEST in a long string of misinformation. What about saving 150,000 jobs. Really? Did he just pull that number out of a hat? My favorite, that MANY of you spout on here when talking about Government Motors is how many people depend on GM and how bad things would be if they went under. Misinformation is used to serve an agenda. What the American people need to do is become more cognizant that this is happening and become savvy and smart enough to discern the truth.
