"Inside the Mind of a Bush Voter"--right on the money

[mistertrickster]

If you haven't read the banner story on the homepage today, you should.

*********

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/intro3.html

Thirdly, like most Americans I respect clarity and decisiveness. Bush had that. He was a "compassionate conservative." Al Gore and the Democrats had been so triangulated that they appeared apologetic for any core liberal beliefs they might be accused of having. Frankly, it's pathetic when a grown man won't stand for something.

If I did not vote for Bush in 2000 my second choice would have been Nader. Indeed, reading Nader's book Crashing the Party was one reason I became a progressive. Why was I, a hardened right-winger, persuaded by Nader but not by Gore? Because Nader did not seem to apologize for his convictions. This confidence allowed him to communicate far more effectively than Gore or other centrists.

********

This is exactly the message I've been sending to the DNC everytime they want "feedback." Policy wonks (Dukkakis, Gore, Kerry) are not getting it done for us. We need some fire breathers in this party.

[meti57b]

1. EXACTLY!!!

BTW, do we have any firebreathers? ... who are they?

[mistertrickster]

4. Well, Dean showed a little fire, and got smacked by the press

for being "too angry."

Along with Iowans, dang them . . .

[denverbill]

2. Totally agree with you, and the author.

We need to keep the message simple, and on target, and focus on how our policies will benefit voters who are only concerned about their own self-interests.

[Eurobabe]

3. forwarding to all selfish REPUBES I know and those I hate....

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

5. Bush has clarity and decisiveness????????

<Thirdly, like most Americans I respect clarity and decisiveness. Bush had that>

He sure didn't show that on 9-11.

[mistertrickster]

7. He projects the image of clarity and decisiveness--that's more important

to the sheeple than actually BEING decisive. He's clear because he's incapable of complex analysis. Think Homer Simpson--"me like dough-nuts."

[Fridays Child]

10. Bingo. It's all--and I mean 100 %--about showmanship. Clear Skies?

Healthy Forests? Showmanship. Tax rebate? Showmanship. WMDs and Iraqi liberation? Showmanship. Not a scintilla of truth in any one of them, nor in any other Bush administration policy, but it matters not. Americans who voted for Bush want bread and circuses. They don't want truth. This remarkable phenomenon is what the bushistas well understand and exploit to its maximum benefit:

Put lies in pretty packages, serve them up with a small slivers of cake, and people will stand in line to get their asses kicked to kingdom come.

[springhill]

6. Excuse me............

But if you don't agree with Bush on the issues, what the hell does decisiveness mean? I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. He's decisive about wanting war? He's decisive about wanting to gut the environment? He's decisive in his desire to gut the middle class?
The most right-wing government this nation has evern seen, and he votes for him because he thinks he's decisive? Even this, if you do any kind of research is a lame excuse. Because just about everything he said he stood for in 2000 he has done just the opposite. Humble foreign policy? Oh yeh, right. When I hear people say he does what he says he's going to do, I just want to ask them, are you really that ignorant? The one and only thing he has ever done that he said he would do is lower taxes, on the rich.

[Fridays Child]

11. The key to your observation is "...if you do any kind of research ...."

That's the whole point. Most people don't do any research--some because they consciously choose not to but most because they can't. They are too tired, too undereducated, or too busy to explore the issues. They get their news exclusively from soundbites and memes, willingly and willfully served up by the mainstream media and its echo chamber denizens like Rush Limbaugh. Those who control communication, control the world. We dissenters, out here in the reality-based community, need to get that through our heads.

[NicRic]

8. Couple of repugs I know ....

and have had disagreeements with when discussing politics. They try and claim that its the "higher morals" issuse that is why they support bush. I find the whole idea that bush has high morals as laughable as him being born again, its all a bunch of B/S to keep his base . Anyway these repugs I know are the tightest people I know when it comes to the almighty dollar , perhaps thats why they have so much of it $. I know one thing foresure ,if bush wanted to raise their income tax ,cause they are in the over 200,000 per year catagorey, lets say to build new schools or help the homeless , or the working poor. They have such hi morals , they would change their minds real fast and stick to voting for who ever will give them all the tax loop holes they want ,and they are constantly looking for ! Their God is money , and their idea of high morals is letting the poor and hungry die, the survival of the fitess !

[glitch]

9. Pity the morons incapable of complex thought. When black/white thinkers

realize they've been had their only other option is white/black.
That's why extremists simply flip extremes when they are disillusioned.

[Kurovski]

12. This reminds me of the PIPA study:

"I am willing to bet that the extra three million plus voters Bush got this time around were largely motivated by the fact that:


1. They thought Bush would protect them from terror (a tangible benefit if there ever was one)"

********************************

The PIPA study revealed that Bush supporters believed many things that were not true.

Two terrorist attacks occurred on Bush's watch: 9/11 and the Anthrax mailings. We were not protected from terrorism, And that's fact.

In what county of Bizzaro World does it follow that Bush is capable of heading off terrorism? And how does a progressive deal with illogic?

It is a good article. And as mentioned in a previous post, when Dems do speak up, which they seem reluctant to do, they get a flaming tire placed around their neck. ( My man Howard Dean.)

So it would seem it goes back to holding the press accountable. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is one way of staving off the disease of "news as propaganda". Reminding Americans that the airwaves belong to us, and acting on that.

As for the "Bush got three million more votes" thingy, that remains to be seen. However, it certainly is a well-embedded meme, isn't it?

Personally, I believe that Dems did make their message clear, and we did win. We won in 2000, 2002, and in 2004. If true, it would make all the navel-gazing moot.

It's just that I'm not as certain of this as say, A Bush voter who believed Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11.

The best part of the article is urging progressives on to win "the Hearts and minds of Americans."

Having a fair press may be the first rule of order, but barring that, organised concrete strategies for undercutting the Far Right movement's dishonest, passive-aggresive ways.

Seriously, I think employing some psychologists to come up with healthy, honest strtegies to deal with the Rightist's would be a brilliant move. The right communicates in a very sick way, and all too often, Dems enable them, and in so doing, their message becomes undermined.