Predictions for Bush’s speech Tuesday night

[onthebottom]

I would hope that in times of crisis, our leaders lead. Not dance...LEAD ! That's what I expect from a leader. Thank God this group wasn't around during WWII. We'd all be goosestepping to work.

Guy

That would be true if the isolationists who didn't see Germany as a direct threat to the US and didn't think a war in Europe was any of our business had won the day.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

I think you miss the point, Truncy. Bush had an opportunity to seriously address the concerns about Iraq last night, and essentially tanked. Speaking before a military audience instead of talking directly to the American people from the White House was a huge blunder. The silence in the auditorium through much of his speech was deafening. His handlers must have told him to lighten up on the perpetual frown he usually wears when giving speeches, which he's replaced with a near perpetual goofy half grin. His whole demeanor suggests that he doesn't really give a rip.

CNN analysis last night was that it hit the mark and the troops were told to be quite so it wouldn't look like a campaign speech.

I thought he restated his long ago stated case for staying the course - only the truly irresponsible are suggesting otherwise.

OTB

 

[TOVisitor]

I thought he restated his long ago stated case for staying the course

OTB

Of course, he also restated some other stuff:

First sentence, second paragraph: September 11.

Third Paragraph: September 11.

Fourth paragraph: “New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania”.

Eighth paragraph: “Osama Bin Laden”.

Twelfth paragraph: September 11.

37th paragraph: September 11.

First full sentence, second to last Paragraph: September 11.

Things get bad? Just cry, "911." Predictable.

BTW, did you notice that the one time that he was interruptred by applause, it was his own advance team that started it?

Do you really think those guys in the auidence believed the BS he was slinging?

 

[TOVisitor]

That would be true if the isolationists who didn't see Germany as a direct threat to the US and didn't think a war in Europe was any of our business had won the day.

OTB

Those isolationists? You mean the Republican party, don't you?

 

[Asterix]

CNN analysis last night was that it hit the mark...

OTB

CNN also reported that of the people who bothered to tune in to watch this blather, there were twice as many republicans as democrats. As I said, preaching to the choir.

 

[onthebottom]

Those isolationists? You mean the Republican party, don't you?

Was then, now it's Democrats

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

CNN also reported that of the people who bothered to tune in to watch this blather, there were twice as many republicans as democrats. As I said, preaching to the choir.

What most of politics is actually - I don't think there is anything he could have said to turn TOV for instance.

OTB

 

[Truncador]

It may scandalize some to quote Hitler, but he was (along with his contemporary Roosevelt) one of the great architects of modern political communication techniques. The following principles from Mein Kampf should be self-consciously borne in mind by skeptics when evaluating Bush's speeches:

the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unfiagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.

Particularly in the field of propaganda, we must never let ourselves be led by aesthetes or people who have grown blase: not by the former, because the form and expression of our propaganda would soon, instead of being suitable for the masses, have drawing power only for literary teas; and of the second we must beware, because, lacking in any fresh emotion of their own, they are always on the lookout for new stimulation. These people are quick to weary of everything; they want variety, and they are never able to feel or understand the needs of their fellow men who are not yet so callous. They are always the first to criticize a propaganda campaign, or rather its content, which seems to them too old-fashioned, too hackneyed, too out-of-date, etc. They are always after novelty, in search of a change, and this makes them mortal enemies of any effective political propaganda. For as soon as the organization and the content of propaganda begin to suit their tastes, it loses all cohesion and evaporates completely.

The purpose of propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for blase young gentlemen, but to convince, and what I mean is to convince the masses. But the masses are slowmoving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of times will the masses finally remember them.
When there is a change, it must not alter the content of what the propaganda is driving at, but in the end must always say the same thing. For instance, a slogan must be presented from different angles, but the end of all remarks must always and immutably be the slogan itself. Only in this way can the propaganda have a unified and complete effect.

 

[Asterix]

Nice recipe for how best to successfully lie to as many people as possible.

 

[TOVisitor]

What most of politics is actually - I don't think there is anything he could have said to turn TOV for instance.

OTB

Unfortunately for you, public opinion in the US is WAY more with me than they are with you. So maybe you should be asking yourself, why are you so out of step with America?

When more in the US say that Shrub was responsible for the Iraq War than say that Saddam was responsible, you know that you are in a deep, deep hole.

But how about this ... who is correct? Cheney, when he says that the insurgency is in its last throes, or Rummy, who says that it could go on for another 5 to 12 years?

 

[TOVisitor]

It may scandalize some to quote Hitler, but he was (along with his contemporary Roosevelt) one of the great architects of modern political communication techniques. The following principles from Mein Kampf should be self-consciously borne in mind by skeptics when evaluating Bush's speeches:

From zero to Godwin's Law in one post. Thanks trunc.

 

[Truncador]

WTF are you talking about now (yes I know what Godwin's Law is)

 

[WoodPeckr]

Trunc

Originally Posted by Hitler
"the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unfiagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."

So what you are saying is that Hitler is the one responsible for inventing that GOP staple, 'The Bumper Sticker Mentality' that is so loved and admired by those in the 'right'?... Paul Harvey comes to mind, among others.....

 

[Truncador]

So what you are saying is that Hitler is the one responsible for inventing that GOP staple, 'The Bumper Sticker Mentality' that is so loved and admired by those in the 'right'?... Paul Harvey comes to mind, among others.....

Pretty much. You can't argue with results, though. Look at last year's Presidential debates. All sorts of people wrongly concluded that Bush lost at the time. I almost did too- until I recalled that passage of Hitler.

 

[Asterix]

Pretty much. You can't argue with results, though. Look at last year's Presidential debates. All sorts of people wrongly concluded that Bush lost at the time. I almost did too- until I recalled that passage of Hitler.

Exactly when did you lose your soul?

 

[WoodPeckr]

Pretty much. You can't argue with results, though. Look at last year's Presidential debates. All sorts of people wrongly concluded that Bush lost at the time. I almost did too- until I recalled that passage of Hitler.

When you put that passage of Hitler,

"the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unfiagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."

...together with Dubya's recent remark in Greece NY 5/24/05 that I've been using as a sig. line,

"I'll probably say it three more times, see, in my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda."

....it's funny how they both kinda think alike........

 

[Truncador]

Nice recipe for how best to successfully lie to as many people as possible.

It needn't be. No commercial for, say, Aspirin is going to go into the details of its chemical structure and mechanisms of action. Rather, the ads will tout "fast relief for headches, joint, and muscle pain" and be played over and over until people remember the punchline. The fact that the ads don't go into the same detail as the pharmaceutical monograph does not mean the drug company is lying, duping, or condescending to the people.

One of the reasons Kerry lost last year's debate was that he went off into ponderous technocratic expositions of his health plan and such that only specialists or hardened policy geeks would have been able to follow. When it was Bush's turn, Bush made faces at Kerry and repeated various iterations of about five keynote points enough times that you'd still be able to remember them the next day

 

[Asterix]

The fact that the ads don't go into the same detail as the pharmaceutical monograph does not mean the drug company is lying, duping, or condescending to the people.

Considering the number of drugs that have been yanked off the market because the companies did precisely that, you might have picked a better example to illustrate your point. Also the drug companies have been forced to list side effects in their ads primerly because their slogans were misleading. Wouldn't it be nice if politicians were required to do the same.

 

[Truncador]

Wouldn't it be nice if politicians were required to do the same.

That would not be in agreement with the nature of things. Drug companies do not have legitimate command of armed force; men of State do, and that privilege always goes hand-in-hand with an inference of truthfulness predicated on the ability to use force (as the ultimate guarantor of law, which is the most elementary form of truth). It's true that men are no longer subject to being boiled in oil for challenging the State's assertions of truth, but the State can never be obliged to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as defined by the very people who are subject to its authority. The idea doesn't even make any sense.

 

[Asterix]

That would not be in agreement with the nature of things. Drug companies do not have legitimate command of armed force; men of State do, and that privilege always goes hand-in-hand with an inference of truthfulness predicated on the ability to use force (as the ultimate guarantor of law, which is the most elementary form of truth). It's true that men are no longer subject to being boiled in oil for challenging the State's assertions of truth, but the State can never be obliged to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as defined by the very people who are subject to its authority. The idea doesn't even make any sense.

LOL. Do you always take things so literally? Of course I don't think the last line in my previous post could realistically apply to politicians. It was meant in jest. Next time I'll post it with a smiley so there's no confusion.