Why Democrats lose elections seems like one of the most active markets for crackpot theorizing since the Zapruder film. Democrats often use the question to bemoan lack of attention to their personal pet issue. Republicans gleefully come up with one ridiculous post hoc ergo propter hoc argument after the next. The media has long since simply internalized the message and miraculously presents every. single. story. as a potential win for the GOP. Who knew that catching the president wiretapping American citizens without a warrant would be a win for his party?
Anyhow, adding the usual caveats that free advice from anonymous sources is worth roughly what you pay for it, this definitely seems worth a read.
tBone
Am I the only one who finds the linked essay really depressing?
1. Find leftwing equivalent of Karl Rove
2.
??????Smear, lie and distort3. Profit!
Zifnab
My thoughts were:
1. Jurymander and disenfranchise western/southern voters
2.
??????Lie to your base3. Profit!
Geek, Esq.
That’s how Republicans always play national elections–and that’s how they must be defeated.
Bush’s daddy and Lee Atwater wrote the book from which Karl Rove reads. “I’m gonna strip the bark off the little bastard and make Willie Horton his running mate.”
That’s why I laugh whenever I see the Hugh Hewitt/Jeff Goldstein crowd whine about those shrill Democrats. Please.
Demdude
Although this strategy has worked for the last two Presidential Elections, I wonder if it will still work this time?
Everytime Bush speaks and throws out a new catch phrase, his rating in the polls go nowehere. This could be him as the messenger, or the strategy. Perhaps both.
I remember hearing that the issue with the military is they are always fighting the last war. I wonder if that applies to this?
I don’t have a strong opinion either way, just an observation.
Bob In Pacifica
I don’t what the hell is wrong with Tim, but at some point in his youth he must have been beaten until he promised to never believe anything that is designated as a “conspiracy theory.” It’s really tiring because it’s intellectually lazy.
To wit: “…one of the most active markets for crackpot theorizing since the Zapruder film…”
The Zapruder film was taken in Dealey Plaza at the moment that JFK was shot. It shows JFK’s brains being blown out of the back of his head. No theory, Timmy. Physics says if the back of your head is blown out you were shot from the front. Two gunmen. The government investigations of JFK’s murder. That’s just a little bit of physics and a little logic.
Napoleon wrote: “History is a series of agreed upon lies.” Stop automatically agreeing with officially agreed upon bullshit for fear of being called a “conspiracy theorist.” Cheap shots about people’s concerns for who assassinated a President are pathetic.
moflicky
Bob,
have you ever watched the zapruder film? it shows nothing of the sort. His brains sprayed forward, his head went backwards. end. of. story.
that’s not to say oswald acted alone, but the zapruder film is not proof of that. you should get your JFK conspiracy evidence from somewhere other than an oliver stone movie.
back and to the left…. back and to the left….
Pb
I’m sure there’s far too much written on the JFK assassination out there already, so here’s a link (with assassination pictures) to someone else’s research supporting the official story–I suppose that’d be as good a starting point as any for analysis or debunking–and here’s what he says about it:
Zifnab
Not to stray too far off topic on this, but yeah… I mean, there’s just so much evidence circumstantial and otherwise to suggest that maybe Kennedy wasn’t killed by a lone nut in a book depository.
That said, I got a kick out of this bit of Mickey Mouse hate. youtube.com/watch?v=eb4d5j3W7pI&mode=related&search=
matt
I know it’s lame to reduce complex issues down to a simple answer, as if it’s just “that easy”, but I really believe that this whole thing is fairly cut and dry. Democrats fight with one hand tied behind their back, and if you fight like that, you’re going to get your ass kicked.
Mac Buckets
…no I wonder why Democrats aren’t trusted with national defense.
JWeidner
Prime example of one of the points made in the essay – Perception IS reality. Republicans create a perception that they are stronger on national security and it bores its way into the public subconscious. Now, no matter what the reality of the situation is (destabilized Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran likely acting to acquire nuclear weapons, ObL at large, diminished US influence world-wide) after 5 years of consolidated Republican rule; the perception is that they are somehow stronger on national security.
fwiffo
I must need sleep. I’m actually about to express partial agreement with Mac Buckets.
The way Democrats run such defensive, soft-spoken, wonkish, cautious political campaigns (compared to Republicans’ aggressive, negative, simplistic, hyper-partisan “the defeatocrats want to get gay married to swarthy mexican Osama Bin Ladens” campaigns) does feed the perception that they’re weak. Words really do speak louder than actions.
Where I’d disagree is what Mac left unsaid. I don’t see any reason to believe that being good at running political campaigns translates into actually being good at running the country. And I think that a foreign policy run like a Karl Rove campaign is going to be a very bad foreign policy.
Dustbin Of History
Except that perception isn’t quite as much of a reality now. That sound you hear is the steady drip of American belief in Republican superiority in national defense as they squander it in Operation Iraqi Fiasco. They’re polling at somewhere above 50% or so, last I remember.
Pb
That’s a good argument for not trusting the old guard of Democratic political consultants, at least; I hope that’s the lesson that a lot of Democratic candidates have finally learned.
Par R
Oh yeah, an anonymous piece of rabid anti-Republicanism picked up from a Kos diarist…lots of credibility there. Not worth the sweat from the slope faced front of ppGaz’s head.
I for one think ppGaz should be permitted back into the fray here, along with Darrell. The knocks against both are way overblown. I mean it’s not as if anyone here ever really moved into some sort of elevated debate over serious issues. The tenor of the discussion rarely moved much beyond the broad concept that Clinton was the embodiment of the best of all things black, brown and gay, whereas Bush was the living, breathing embodiment of the worst of Hitler and Pol Pot.
Sure, ppGaz could get a little profane from time to time, but I always figured he just didn’t know any better or very many non-profane words…and Darrell often reacted to ppGaz as a bee does when its hive is poked.
Bring ’em back.
Bob In Pacifica
moflicky, you’re joking, right?
Part two of a conversation with a conformist is a reference to Oliver Stone to suppress discussion.
Here are three books, if you’re ever interested enough in the subject: DEEP POLITICS by Peter Dale Scott, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH by Dick Russell, THE ASSASSINATIONS, a collection of essays edited by Lisa Pease.
A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.
I wonder if the tight blinders encourages snark. It’s easy to be snide when you’re uninformed.
As for Pb’s reference, it also referencees as a fallback position (if you don’t buy the theory advanced) the theory that a bullet entered the head from behind, created pressure inside JFK’s skull, and then an explosion followed blowing back the head off and towards the weapon. You don’t blow someone towards you, you blow them away. If Pb gets his facts for the JFK assassination at that website and is so easily fooled by fraud his opinion on anything can be dismissed.
Bob In Pacifica
By the way, one reason that the Democrats lost the 1968 election and the 1972 election is that the two Kennedys were dead. Character assassination is just a refinement of assassination.
demimondian
Bob — Pb is right, and you’re wrong. You need to go look at the analysis — the head moves forward as the bullet moves through, and then moves backwards after the bulk of JFK’s brains decorate Jackie-O’s lap. In an inelastic collision, the behavior would be as you suggest — but the collision wasn’t inelastic.
I know, I know, you’re a zealot, and you won’t listen. That’s not the point here — other people might, and they’re worth warning off of your crackpot theories.
Dug Jay
Bob in Pacifica argues and reads just like the fellow who used to work at our local post office until he got fired for spouting his inane conspiracy theories.
Bob In Pacifica
demimondian,
JFK’s head goes back and to the left. I’ve seen the Zapruder film many times. That’s how it was reported by the witnesses in Dealey Plaza. Jackie crawled onto the back of the limo to pick up a piece of JFK’s skull blown out of the back of his head. Doctors at Parkland Hospital and Bethesda saw the huge exit wound in the back of his head.
But if one actually studies the murder of the President (something left to only zealots as opposed to gentlemen like the Pbs and the demimondians whose desultory political analysis is consonant with their conformity of thought with the dictated mainstream), the manipulation of the evidence by authorities, you will see that Oswald, who was down in the lunch room and then standing in the crowd in front of the Book Depository, wasn’t even on the Sixth Floor when JFK was shot.
The Warren Report said Jack Ruby had no connection to organized crime. How come? Oswald had a wallet on him when he was arrested. He “dropped” another next to the body of Officer Tippet. He “left” another in his room before he left for the day. Three wallets? Nevermind, just whistle past the graveyard, demi.
There is a certain stupid resoluteness with doing political analysis and ignoring assassinations. Would someone study the political succession of, say, Panama or the Dominican Republic while ignoring assassinations? Well, maybe Pb and demimondian would, perhaps ascribing the changes in leadership to shifting demographics and market forces. Killing political opponents and rivals has always been part of human history except in the minds of demi and Pb.
My guess here is that Tim doesn’t know a whole lot about the JFK assassination except for the official version. He wouldn’t waste his time or risk his intellectual correctness by looking at non-official sources. He has learned along the way that the proper way to react to someone who suggests “conspiracy,” unless it has been endorsed by proper the proper authority, is to condemn it. Then, mention “conspiracy theorists,” “Oliver Stone,” and “zealots.” Oh, those wacky zealots who fret about who’s shooting Presidents!
Back in 1930s Germany they called conspiracy theorists “alarmists.” I’m too old to be alarmed anymore, but I do get annoyed at the knee-jerk denial of political murders by lazy thinkers afraid to think beyond their blinders. If you ignore the obvious then your analysis of the rest of the room is incomplete.
Zifnab
I agree. What a despicable piece of one-liner slander. We should take every
DemocratRepublican out of the defense department and off the Senatorial Armed Services committees because, clearly, that letter in front of their names is imparing their judgements.demimondian
Bob — you’re full of shit. End. Of. Story. The physics is simple and straightforward, and you’re a fool.
moflicky
Bob,
my snark was mild compared to what I usually read here. I was only trying to ‘do as the romans do.’
my point was that you are simply wrong about the zapruder film.
the books you list are very impressive. but like all effective conspiracy theorists, the authors conveniently ignore any and all refuting evidence that doesn’t mesh with their prefered narative. getting published is not validation of a theory. the fact is, those theories have little but supposition and guesswork to back them up.
but back to the film – the effects of a rifle shell on a skull and the reaction of the skull is well documented – small hole going in, big hole coming out. look at the zapruder film again, that’s a big hole going out the front of his head. If all you’ve ever seen of the effects of a bullet to a human body is what you see in the movies, you’d expect that there would be a big “splash” of blood as the bullet enters the body. that makes for good cinema, but it makes for a very poor reality.
But more importantly, your response is atypical of all conspiracy theorists. you wave your hand at the evidence presented, diminishing it’s importance and shift the focus onto other ‘evidence’. I could follow, and discuss that too, but you would only dismiss my arguments out of hand.
critical thinking doesn’t mean always taking a view contrary to the official version. It means examining all the evidence, including the official version, giving evidence on all sides the same beginning credibility, free from preconcieved notions and biases and weighing that evidence to reach a conclusion.
as I said in my original post, I’m not convinced one way or another that oswald acted alone, only that the zapruder film is the furthest thing from evidence to that fact.
The Other Steve
Agreed.
F. Authorati
I don’t have a problem with physics, just motive. After 43 years, still no hint of what Oswalds motive was. Funny how a really unusual character ended up working right were he needed to be.
Funny how history works that way. I’m sure those types of characters never end up writing Diebold firmware.
Tulkinghorn
My theory is that Rove has a lot of photos of Shrum having sex with goats. No other way to explain such thorough incompetence.
fishbane
I love ‘net discussions. Mention a political strategy document, and end up with a discussion of JFK’s cranial matter.
Andrew
You know, what’s particularly odd is that Bill Clinton was able to run a brilliant campaign in both 1992 and 1996. The message was nice and simple, with words to the effect of “Bill Clinton will fix the worst economy in 50 years by taxing The Rich. And Bush (and later Dole) is out of touch.” In combination with being a cultural good ol’ boy, victory was easy.
This isn’t rocket science, so I have to wonder why both Gore and Kerry seem to have pretty much disregarded Clinton’s very successful playbook.
moflicky
how about being a pro-castro, pro-communist nutcase for a motive?
as I said before, i’m not convinced he acted alone, but he was in on it. Ruby killing him was too convenient.
But it’s only a hunch, and I’ve not seen any real evidence to prove it one way or another. We’ll probably never know for sure (unless one of the primaries leaves a confession in his will), and i can live with that.
now, if you want to talk CT, how about dat dere WTC7? ain’t dat sumpin’?
Zifnab
Diebold Voting Machine Flaw
Who said anything about firmware? Diebold hacking is so user-friendly, any right-wing neanderthall can use it.
F. Authorati
It is really disconcerting to see how many people are falling for this loosechange 9/11 stuff. My sister just called me today about a friend who is calling all her associates and asking them to watch the film. The friend is a Rhodes Scholar.
I must have been the only person on earth who was surprised WTC 1 & 2 lasted more than 10 seconds.
Bob In Pacifica
demimondian, bite my crank.
The CIA was generating false reports about Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in the months before the assassination. At the same time there was a “Lee Harvey Oswald” there, there was another one in New Orleans and a third in the Dallas metro area.
You can remain in ignorance if you want. Readers here who find any substance in your casual observations will find it the brownish, squishy, stinky kind.
moflicky
State’s Evidence Exhibit One. Our educational system is in freefall collapse.
ooohkay. And unnamed sources (I haven’t yet named those voices in my head – yet) tell me there’s there’s a disturbance in the force. the Masons, Knights Templar and Elders of Zion are behind it.
Bob In Pacifica
demimondian, bite my crank. Showing is better than telling, as Grandpappy Amos used to say. You can remain what you are, an apologist for state power. I don’t expect you to actually look at anything which might convince you otherwise. It’s for the benefit of other readers who may have an open mind.
Three books: THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH by Dick Russell, which documents the movements of Richard Case Nagell who is on record knowing that Oswald was going to be involved in a Presidential assassination in September of ’63. DEEP POLITICS by Peter Dale Scott, which shows the deliberate lies of both the Warren Commission and the HSCA, and in doing so would dismantle the gullible belief (like demonboy’s) of how our country (or any country) is run. Finally, THE ASSASSINATIONS, a collection of essays edited by Lisa Pease, which addresses many of the issues surrounding the four major political assassinations in the U.S. in the 1960s. Maybe most of you were children or weren’t born then, but they are essential if you are to understand the American political landscape today.
Bob In Pacifica
moflicky wrote: “the books you list are very impressive. but like all effective conspiracy theorists, the authors conveniently ignore any and all refuting evidence that doesn’t mesh with their prefered narative. getting published is not validation of a theory. the fact is, those theories have little but supposition and guesswork to back them up.”
Honestly, you never read any of those books, did you? Because if you did you wouldn’t have said that. Try to find a copy of DEEP POLITICS and read it.
fishbane: I just find it offensive that Tim used the murder of a President as a punchline. If you can live through five years of George W. Bush and not believe that state power can be manipulated, that government authority will not be used illegally and against the will of the people, then I guess Tim’s professed ignorance about political murders is the least of my worries.
Bob In Pacifica
F. Authorati, the physics are bad too. So is the fact that the witnesses in Dealey Plaza saw JFK’s jerking backward from the shot, saw the brains spill out of the back his head, the doctors at Parkland observed the read exit wound, as did the doctors at Bethesda. We’re not talking ricochet here. Then there’s the many turns of the magic bullet, which recovered and compared to fragments in Connolly, was MORE than the sum of its parts. That is, more fragments were recovered (and not counting the ones still in Connolly’s leg, than was missing from the practically intact magic bullet found on a gurney at Parkland. Everyone has their favorite fairy tale, but please…
Or Oswald leaving his wallet on the dresser in his room on the morning of the assassination, leaving another wallet next to the murdered Officer Tippet, or having a third wallet on him when he was arrested in the movie theater afterwards. How many wallets with ID does demimondian use each day?
Or, that the CIA generated false reports of a Lee Harvey Oswald visiting the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City the September before the assassination when there was another Oswald in New Orleans and a third Oswald in Dallas? Or the Oswald who in 1959 was buying trucks for Cuban revolutionaries while another Oswald was in the Soviet Union? Or the Oswald who was stationed in Atsugi AFB while another Oswald was working in New Orleans?
Maybe everyone in Dealey Plaza and Parkland Hospital were conspiracy theorists for a day, maybe The Almighty reached down and scrambled the laws of physics in Dallas for a few seconds. demimondian will make excuses for murderers. I won’t.
Bob In Pacifica
Finally, without an understanding of the political assassinations of 1960s you will not understand the world you inherited.
If it’s only a joke to you, you’ve given up understanding the world and how it works.