Replies

It is my hope that the Pubbies that are taking the bull(sh*t media) by the horns are doing so because they have sprouted a set of their own - not because they are under the direction from Mister Big (Rove).

It is telling that while the net, talk radio, FR, the blogs and all of the rest of alternative media information streams have been breaking story after story and winning new converts in a modern and informed grass-roots war, our political betters have been so retarded in reacting to such a clear and obvious problem as monolithic media bias. It is also telling (or damning) that this 'fight-back' sea change, if it really is permanent within party ranks, was precipitated, not by a Republican, but by a Democrat - Senator Miller.

Miller resonated because he spoke to us - the people that have made this revolution happen - NOT because he said the politically expedient things that scripted party animals do. He voiced MY rage at the media bias. He shouted about MY anger over the lying duplicity of JF'ingK's campaign and record. In short, Mr. Miller spoke MY thoughts out loud and showed to me that I was right. Millions of us that have sought information and solace from each other in mutual political commiseration know this to be the case.

If what is happening in the response tactics to media bullying and lying is part of Rove's uber-genius policies, then I would say he is a day late and a dollar short. This is something that should have been done long ago - and would have been - if we had a seriously real crop of statesmen instead of political operatives.

Mr. Rove's abilities aside, I believe far too much credit is taken for the clean and righteous actions of a few and the groundswell of support from millions of mute voices back home. In my opinion, a fine example was the 1994 backlash against the RAT treason going on in the White House. Pro-2A people and anti-abortion folks tirelessly fought the krinton occupation and woke many, many of their neighbors from their deep slumber. As usual, the reigning political genius of that time, Newt Gingrich, took full credit for the November vote and spun it into an endorsement for his agenda. Hogwash. The vote in 1996 showed that this wasn't so because many recently activated voters just stayed home.

Now, I'll give credit where credit is due, too. When President Bush carried his copy of Bernard Goldberg's 'Bias' into the presidential helicopter with the cover face exposed and visible to the eye and camera lenses, I was thrilled. Of course, the media screamed about the slight. In my world, my next step would have been to put projections of the complaining journalists articles up on a screen at the next press conference and demand from the offending press members why the hell they wanted to abolish free speech and why they objected to the President keeping himself informed.

In the future, it would be wise for Republicans to sprout a set of their own and do what is right - forcefully if necessary - instead of waiting for a green light from the bowels of the White House.

Well, that's my 0.02 worth anyway.

...not because they are under the direction from Mister Big (Rove).

I agree with everything you said. But my point is that I think there's been a change in STRATEGY, not just in tactics.

Ever since Clinton, the obvious conventional wisdom has been that you ignore an interviewer's questions and simply lay out your previously prepared talking points. Conservatives have suddenly turned that CW on its head. Last week they were very specifically paying attention to the question...and then throwing it back in the asker's face. It happened too often to be a coincidence.

I don't care if it was Karl Rove or Zell Miller who came up with the strategy. All I'm saying is it's a good one and it spread too fast to be accidental.

"...It is also telling (or damning) that this 'fight-back' sea change, if it really is permanent within party ranks, was precipitated, not by a Republican, but by a Democrat - Senator Miller..."
I have to agree with most of your 0.02 worth.

Senator Miller is just now realizing what many former Democrats realized 15 to 20 years ago when the Democrat party ranks were still filled with honest, average, hard working people who valued truth and integrity.

Most people were so busy raising families, working, and volunteering in the community to pay much attention to "politics"

There was no alternative news source. It was local TV news with 10 minutes or less of National or international news or Newspapers. The average family was slowly but consistently marginalized. Being led to believe that special interest groups were taking over by power of numbers alone. The moral majority of my childhood became the silent majority of my youth, the minority of my midlife and the marginalized of my old age. At least that was the perception.
I believe that most people considered journalists to be reporting actual facts as they occurred. History books stated accurate History. Nothing more nothing less. If it was in print, it must be true. When there is no contradiction to what is reported, it is difficult to judge truth from fiction or opinion. After all, most news was local, and most news was perceived to be honest.

Consider that few had personal computers just 20 years ago!! The Internet was little understood just 15 years ago. The only access to world news was through main stream media.

Now, anyone who wants has access to news around the world in the blink of the eye. It is much easier to judge truth from fiction when both are available.

Zell Miller was right when he said he did not leave the party the party left him.

From personal experience and memory I have to say that the Republican of today is more like the Democrat of 50 years ago than most would believe. Democrats did not agree with welfare, abortion, gay rights, feminism, atheism, divorce, unwed parenthood, or cohabitation, socialism, communism, bigotry, pornography, high taxes, undisciplined children, lying, cheating or corruption. And democrats were not anti-American, anti-Military, anti-Christian or anti-school prayer.