James Carville's Advice to the President...Panic!

[LDAHL]

I can see how the throne-and-altar conservatives and free-market liberals of yesteryear would be confused by the way those terms get used today.

I would see modern American ”liberals” as better described as “Social Democrats” as understood in Western Europe, or perhaps as “Federalists”, in the way they would like to see the power of a central government expanded and used for what they view as benign purposes.

I would see modern “conservatives” more as “Anti-Federalists”, or perhaps “Constitutionalists”, suspicious of concentrated power, and looking to keep as much sovereignty as possible at the local or individual level, and limiting the central government to a strictly enumerated role.

I have trouble viewing the tea party as the creation of some plutocratic conspiracy. Its hard to believe anybody has deep enough pockets to purchase what we saw happen in 2010. I think there's something real there, however inchoate, and that it will influence US politics for some time to come.

[rosebud]

[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]I have trouble viewing the tea party as the creation of some plutocratic conspiracy. Its hard to believe anybody has deep enough pockets to purchase what we saw happen in 2010. I think there's something real there, however inchoate, and that it will influence US politics for some time to come.

I do not subscribe to most conspiracy theories. However, the fact remains that many TP events and organizations are underwritten by very, very wealthy sponsors. These sponsors most certainly have a hand in shaping the tp message, and right wing propaganda in general.

The point is not that the TP is the creation of a group of plutocrats, but it certainly does take their money and it certainly does advance their interests. And the interests of a group of plutocrats who for example refuse to countenance any raise in their taxes, does not always gibe with the interests of "main street america."

[rosebud]

Idahl,

I changed your quote to reflect MY reality:

The Right requires villains for its narrative, and President Obama, homosexuals, undocumented immigrants, transgender people, Democrats, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, and of course Muslims fit that bill. With no central platform you can pick and choose which person speaking in their name provides the most outrage. Look at how the image their enemies have test-marketed have changed over the years, from "communists" to "the homosexual agenda", to liberals who spoke out against Sarah Palin for her incendiary rhetoric following the Giffords shooting to President Obama doing his Harry Truman Schtick. If President Obama and gay people and George Soros and Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid and Code Pink and Rachel Maddow and Barbara Streisand and so on and so forth didn't exist, it would have been necessary to invent them. That's why Fox News, right wing talk radio, The Free Republic, Daily Caller, World Net Daily, and CNN will keep up their villain with a thousand faces coverage.[/QUOTE]

AS IF the right wing does not do this! OMG. You are funny!

[LDAHL]

I do not subscribe to most conspiracy theories. However, the fact remains that many TP events and organizations are underwritten by very, very wealthy sponsors. These sponsors most certainly have a hand in shaping the tp message, and right wing propaganda in general.

The point is not that the TP is the creation of a group of plutocrats, but it certainly does take their money and it certainly does advance their interests. And the interests of a group of plutocrats who for example refuse to countenance any raise in their taxes, does not always gibe with the interests of "main street america."

Perhaps not, but I think there’s a pretty common interest out there to protect oneself against an administration that feels justified in mandating health insurance premiums and viewing any income you can keep for your own use as a “tax expenditure”.

[Gregg]

I do not subscribe to most conspiracy theories. However, the fact remains that many TP events and organizations are underwritten by very, very wealthy sponsors. These sponsors most certainly have a hand in shaping the tp message, and right wing propaganda in general.

It is not at all difficult to find wealthy backers of Democratic candidates and liberal philosophies. George Soros, straight out of rosebud's quote above, comes to mind. He isn't alone: think Hollywood, for example. Wealthy people in general will support those with the combination of who most closely resembles their own philosophy and who will do them the most good if elected. Not that different from the rest of us and almost no different from left to right.

[LDAHL]

AS IF the right wing does not do this! OMG. You are funny!

Of course they do. Its just easier for them because their opposition hands them better material. Although I can't recall anyone fulminating against the Code Pink threat recently. And Rachel Maddow wishes she had Sarah Palin's name recognition.

[loosechickens]

And I bet that Sarah Palin wishes she had Rachel Maddow's brain. Not that Sarah doesn't have sufficient brainpower for everyday life, but just sayin'.........

and, of course, you'd have to wonder "name recognition" by WHO? Not everyone who knows your name is any sort of competent judge, of you or anyone else. The Kardashian sisters and Paris Hilton have way more name recognition than either of them, and what does THAT tell you?

[LDAHL]

And I bet that Sarah Palin wishes she had Rachel Maddow's brain. Not that Sarah doesn't have sufficient brainpower for everyday life, but just sayin'.........

and, of course, you'd have to wonder "name recognition" by WHO? Not everyone who knows your name is any sort of competent judge, of you or anyone else. The Kardashian sisters and Paris Hilton have way more name recognition than either of them, and what does THAT tell you?

My point was the silliness of equating the torrent of paranoid bloviation aimed at Tea Party types with whoever it is out there who's familiar enough with Rachel Maddow to be annoyed by her.

And Mrs. Palin has managed to build a nice little fortune as a left-wing bogeyperson. I wouldn't be so quick to compare her unfavorably to a basic cable talking head.

[rosebud]

Of course they do. Its just easier for them because their opposition hands them better material. Although I can't recall anyone fulminating against the Code Pink threat recently. And Rachel Maddow wishes she had Sarah Palin's name recognition.

Well, that was exactly the point. You were going on about how the left wing narrative requires a villain du jour, and I was merely pointing out that the right wing is NOTORIOUS for drumming up cash and support by creating villains, which change over the years. You do know who Frank Luntz is, right? He is a marketing expert for the right. He knows that "universal health care" doesn't make people as jumpy as "government takeover." He knows that "job creators" sounds much better than "the wealthiest people in the country." C'mon. I've been at this for a long time, I know spin, both left and right and when you strip it down you come down to policy and ethics. So, stop with the knee jerk spin already.

So, Code Pink is very yesterday. So is Hillary Clinton. Who are today's left wing villains according to the right? Soros is still popular. Obama of course ranges from the antichrist to a Nazi to unAmerican to bad for business, or all of the above according to some folks. To liberals, he is a centrist who has tried and tried to accommodate the Republican party. That's our pov.

Of course Sarah Palin has bigger name recognition than Rachel Maddow. What's your point?

You don't think the "opposition" hands us plenty of material? Are you kidding again? Michele Bachman? Rick Perry? Rush Limbaugh? 10 doozies a day each.

[rosebud]

It is not at all difficult to find wealthy backers of Democratic candidates and liberal philosophies. George Soros, straight out of rosebud's quote above, comes to mind. He isn't alone: think Hollywood, for example. Wealthy people in general will support those with the combination of who most closely resembles their own philosophy and who will do them the most good if elected. Not that different from the rest of us and almost no different from left to right.

That's true. Rich folks come in all stripes. But there are distinctions. There are some rich folks who donate soley based on personal interests. Maximizing profit is their ONLY concern and they have a very narrow understanding of how that interest is advanced, and they don't seem to give a crap about anybody else, including the people who for example will be impacted by the pollution generated by their businesses, so they tend to vote for candidates who claim they will minimize taxes on rich folks and regulatory burdens on business. In fact, the party carrying the water for these folks now calls them "job creators" which allows them to exploit the unemployment crisis for the benefit of rich folks.

There are other rich folks who have concerns beyond maximizing profits or who believe that the best way to advance profits is to advance the opportunities of other people. They might profess, say, to care about the plight of poor folks or working class folks without health insurance.

The majority of rich folks seem to be in the first category. Therefore, it is safe for me to say that in general, with some exceptions, the interests of rich folks do not align with my interests. Therefore, someone's wealth is a factor to me in determining credibility. There are of course affluent people who do seem to care about other things beyond their own finances & power. But sometimes those folks just want to impose a religious agenda on society, so I'm not too fond of that either.

Soros is rich but tends to support policies that have wider application than his bank account, including policies that might help ME. Can't say that about the Koch Brothers.