Holst
Member
Posts: 4,786
Location:
|
Post by Holst on Aug 18, 2011 21:04:40 GMT -5
holst, there is a very interesting op-ed in the NYT today that somewhat addresses your question. Furthermore, I think that the press is instrumental is creating the impression that they are relevant because they are just waiting for a train wreck and if you want to be part of a train wreck, you have to ride the most dangerous ill-kept "wacky" train out there. www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?src=me&ref=generalSo what do Tea Partiers have in common? ...
... they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.
This inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Mrs. Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Mr. Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.
Yet it is precisely this infusion of religion into politics that most Americans increasingly oppose. While over the last five years Americans have become slightly more conservative economically, they have swung even further in opposition to mingling religion and politics. It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity. If the statistics in the article are correct then we should be seeing less of the Tea Party in the future and I am anxiously awaiting that outcome. They are a huge pimple on the complexion of any effective discourse. But we know from following Adam that familiarity as the result of constant press can often override otherwise excellent product and just like top 40 radio you end up with a feeding loop. Personally, I expect more from intellectual and political press. I prefer to be treated like an adult (with all the varied opinions that go with that) than a 14 year-old craving the next pop confection. I agree with you that there are many accomplished thoughtful women in politics but I guess they don't make good press. That these women are focused on is a shame. The article is worth a read. Thanks, LindaG. It is a relief to read that the Tea Party is not gaining support. I feel like I've been hearing more and more about it, which makes me nervous. Unfortunately, this editorial doesn't address the strange popularity of these Barbie doll women. They are even nummer than George W.  |
|
|
|
Post by LindaG23 on Aug 18, 2011 22:49:36 GMT -5
Thanks, LindaG. It is a relief to read that the Tea Party is not gaining support. I feel like I've been hearing more and more about it, which makes me nervous. Unfortunately, this editorial doesn't address the strange popularity of these Barbie doll women. They are even nummer than George W. I am going to quote another article, this time from The Economist, called, "Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann - Manufacturing irrelevance". I am skipping over the Ron Paul part although the comparison of the media coverage is very telling, but I have put the link below if you want to read it. Anyway, this article makes the point I touched on before ... Of course, poll results aren't independent of press coverage. Ms Bachmann, for reasons known only to the gods, has been lavished with media attention, even before dipping a toe in the presidential water. Yet she remains at least as unviable a candidate as Mr Paul is said to be. Indeed, had the media hivemind determined early on to treat Ms Bachmann as a badly underqualified tenderfoot legislator who was for a time the tea-party flavour of the month, chances are she'd be noshing deep-dish with Herman Cain at 5%.
... because the MSM (mainstream media) likes Michele Bachmann; it made Michele Bachmann. She's a photogenic embodiment of a certain polarising brand of conservatism that makes good copy and great TV. I think all three women fall in this category and it is the fact that they are essentially "unviable" which gives the media the wiggle room to keep commenting on them to the exclusion of more serious candidates. The more they comment, the more name recognition these women get and the feeding loop starts. I also hate to say this, but I think it is also because they are women that the press feels like they don't have to take them seriously and can get away with this kind of coverage, especially considering the Palin and McDonnell trajectory. Sarah Palin's impact on McCain's candidacy can be questioned but my opinion is that she was ultimately a negative and now has basically turned into a media impresario as opposed to a political candidate. She appears to me to be mostly interested in money and popularity and even that has limits as evidenced by her Alaskan reality show being cancelled. Hence the media needn't take her too seriously and can have fun talking about her. You also needn't worry about Christine O'Donnell because she is not going anywhere. Her deplorable record of election losses, "O'Donnell's 2010 Senate run was her third try for the office in five years. In the Senatorial election of 2008, she was the Republican nominee, losing to the incumbent, Joe Biden, by 65% to 35%. In 2006, she ran in the Republican primary for Senate, finishing third, then ran as a write-in in the general election, drawing 4 percent of the vote." (Wikipedia) guarantees that the old white men in the Republican party who control of the purse strings will never let her lose a Senate race for them again. So another unviable candidate that the press can have fun with .... witches, anyone? I hope this media strategy doesn't come back to bite them in the ass with Michelle Bachmann. MSM may think they have a Palin/McDonnell on their hands but I don't think so. Of all of them, she is a true believer and that is the most dangerous kind. The campaign is in the early stages and I expect her influence to wane, I mean they have Perry to talk about now and he is all kinds of fun from a media perspective. There are a lot of social conservatives out there but my opinion is that it is only the hardcore 20% who never gave up on Bush that wholeheartedly support Bachmann. Although I think she is weak as a national candidate (as per my previous article about tea party social conservatives), I am still sleeping with one eye open when it comes to Bachmann because ultimately she makes Bush look like a moderate. Wow, this got long. Finally I want to say that this is my opinion and I don't have any inside knowledge. www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/ron-paul-and-michele-bachmann |
|
|
|
Post by midwifespal on Aug 18, 2011 23:28:06 GMT -5
While I agree that we don't really have to worry about Bachmann being a viable candidate (indeed, I'm almost glad for her presence as I hope her immediate strength will pull her primary opponents into such absurdly right-wing positions that they will be damaged goods come the general) I don't think we can dismiss the power of the tea-party (and I don't think you were, LindaG23). The debt ceiling debacle showed very clearly the extent to which that admittedly minority portion of the GOP has the Republicans in congress firmly under it's thumb. That series of events did not go down the way mainstream-GOP wanted them to. At all. Teapartiers in Congress are completely dictating the political discourse and indeed the political achievements in this country at the moment because they are so entirely and unprecedentedly anti-government that they don't really have their own goals to bargain for. As someone on a blog I follow said, it's hard to win a game of chicken when the other car wants to crash. That's a powerful lever to hold. And I'm not sure the fact that these policies aren't actually what the rank-and-file conservative voter wants matters all that much, because anti-govt. rhetoric sells well regardless (govt. favorability ratings are at their lowest mark ever) and voters were never that alert to the issues, anyway.
(Oh, and Linda--just to be clear (and maybe this is obvs, i dunno) but the only NYTs printed in Austin are those that go to central texas; I suspect every major city daily with its own presses prints their city's NYT. But it is an awesome operation. I have had a tour of the press, which is about three stories high and the size of a football field, and it's kinda romantic, just like in the movies--big rolls of newsprint, folded papers rushing all over the place on conveyor belts, the gnash of machinery, awesome. Plus, when you go, you can literally pick up tomorrow's news today (that is, get the Sunday paper on a Saturday--"Dewey Wins" and all that). Pretty cool.)
ETA: and yes, free is very cheap *nods sagely*
|
|
|
|
Post by LindaG23 on Aug 19, 2011 0:15:27 GMT -5
I don't think we can dismiss the power of the tea-party (and I don't think you were, LindaG23). The debt ceiling debacle showed very clearly the extent to which that admittedly minority portion of the GOP has the Republicans in congress firmly under it's thumb. That series of events did not go down the way mainstream-GOP wanted them to. At all. Teapartiers in Congress are completely dictating the political discourse and indeed the political achievements in this country at the moment because they are so entirely and unprecedentedly anti-government that they don't really have their own goals to bargain for. As someone on a blog I follow said, it's hard to win a game of chicken when the other car wants to crash. That's a powerful lever to hold. And I'm not sure the fact that these policies aren't actually what the rank-and-file conservative voter wants matters all that much, because anti-govt. rhetoric sells well regardless (govt. favorability ratings are at their lowest mark ever) and voters were never that alert to the issues, anyway. You are right, I would never dismiss the Tea Party but I also don't think that the debt debacle can be laid totally at the Tea Party door. Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform and the pledge he got nearly every Republican to take vowing no new taxes (they are much better at that vow than the fidelty one LOL) was also a main driving force. Combine Tea Party fanaticism, Republican tax pledges, and the political at all costs desire to crush Obama in an election year with a complete lack of empathy for real people and you get the heinous "game of chicken" these people forced on America. All of them were complicit and my contempt for them is boundless. jeez, I better stop now before I really start railing.  |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitrabbit on Aug 19, 2011 14:33:01 GMT -5
cross-posting from the main thread: The Trevor Project is currently doing a fundraising celebration to raise 13,000$ by the end of August for their 13th birthday celebration, I just set up a page as part of their drive on stayclassy for any Adam Fan who wants to donate as inspired by him. (It's kind of a complement to the Pennyroyal necklace sale.) You can donate anonymously, although it looks like you need to create an account to leave comments, you can use a username instead of your real name though. www.stayclassy.org/fundraise?fcid=121330click on the "activity" tab to comment and see donations. I invite you to join me! Here is the link to the Trevor Project's main birthday donation invite and their short film: www.stayclassy.org/west-hollywood....-birthday/e7067 |
|
|
|
Post by LindaG23 on Aug 19, 2011 15:10:11 GMT -5
Thank you for the link rabbitrabbit, I just donated. The antidote to railing at the man is to do something good.  |
|
Holst
Member
Posts: 4,786
Location:
|
Post by Holst on Aug 20, 2011 11:36:56 GMT -5
Thanks, LindaG. It is a relief to read that the Tea Party is not gaining support. I feel like I've been hearing more and more about it, which makes me nervous. Unfortunately, this editorial doesn't address the strange popularity of these Barbie doll women. They are even nummer than George W. I am going to quote another article, this time from The Economist, called, "Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann - Manufacturing irrelevance". I am skipping over the Ron Paul part although the comparison of the media coverage is very telling, but I have put the link below if you want to read it. Anyway, this article makes the point I touched on before ... Of course, poll results aren't independent of press coverage. Ms Bachmann, for reasons known only to the gods, has been lavished with media attention, even before dipping a toe in the presidential water. Yet she remains at least as unviable a candidate as Mr Paul is said to be. Indeed, had the media hivemind determined early on to treat Ms Bachmann as a badly underqualified tenderfoot legislator who was for a time the tea-party flavour of the month, chances are she'd be noshing deep-dish with Herman Cain at 5%.
... because the MSM (mainstream media) likes Michele Bachmann; it made Michele Bachmann. She's a photogenic embodiment of a certain polarising brand of conservatism that makes good copy and great TV. I think all three women fall in this category and it is the fact that they are essentially "unviable" which gives the media the wiggle room to keep commenting on them to the exclusion of more serious candidates. The more they comment, the more name recognition these women get and the feeding loop starts. I also hate to say this, but I think it is also because they are women that the press feels like they don't have to take them seriously and can get away with this kind of coverage, especially considering the Palin and McDonnell trajectory. Sarah Palin's impact on McCain's candidacy can be questioned but my opinion is that she was ultimately a negative and now has basically turned into a media impresario as opposed to a political candidate. She appears to me to be mostly interested in money and popularity and even that has limits as evidenced by her Alaskan reality show being cancelled. Hence the media needn't take her too seriously and can have fun talking about her. You also needn't worry about Christine O'Donnell because she is not going anywhere. Her deplorable record of election losses, "O'Donnell's 2010 Senate run was her third try for the office in five years. In the Senatorial election of 2008, she was the Republican nominee, losing to the incumbent, Joe Biden, by 65% to 35%. In 2006, she ran in the Republican primary for Senate, finishing third, then ran as a write-in in the general election, drawing 4 percent of the vote." (Wikipedia) guarantees that the old white men in the Republican party who control of the purse strings will never let her lose a Senate race for them again. So another unviable candidate that the press can have fun with .... witches, anyone? I hope this media strategy doesn't come back to bite them in the ass with Michelle Bachmann. MSM may think they have a Palin/McDonnell on their hands but I don't think so. Of all of them, she is a true believer and that is the most dangerous kind. The campaign is in the early stages and I expect her influence to wane, I mean they have Perry to talk about now and he is all kinds of fun from a media perspective. There are a lot of social conservatives out there but my opinion is that it is only the hardcore 20% who never gave up on Bush that wholeheartedly support Bachmann. Although I think she is weak as a national candidate (as per my previous article about tea party social conservatives), I am still sleeping with one eye open when it comes to Bachmann because ultimately she makes Bush look like a moderate. Wow, this got long. Finally I want to say that this is my opinion and I don't have any inside knowledge. www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/ron-paul-and-michele-bachmannWow! Thanks for all the thought you put into this. I understand a bit better. Bachmann does seem to be the one to watch out for. |
|
|
|
Post by stardust on Aug 20, 2011 17:41:25 GMT -5
new civil union law “@huffingtonpost: Catholic Charities loses battle in Illinois over same-sex couples and adoption t.co/ATCiDbI” |
|
skylar
Member
Posts: 1,686
Location:
|
Post by skylar on Aug 22, 2011 19:52:10 GMT -5
|
|
skylar
Member
Posts: 1,686
Location:
|
Post by skylar on Aug 22, 2011 20:33:40 GMT -5
I was just watching Showbiz tonight and they were talking to a spokesperson from Vogue about their sexualized presentation of a 10 year old little girl. [as if this were really something new!! but that is another issue]. During the discussion they made 2 interesting comments: 1. they showed a little girl from Toddlers and Tiara's who wanted to be spraytanned to look like Beyonce. The discussion revolved in part on the fact that the child did not understand the racial reasons for Beyonce's color....not really controversial other than how and should you go into detail with this with a 4 or 5 year old... 2. this is the part that got me...they pulled in Octomom to talk about Casey Anthony..and the offensive part was not the discussion but the teaser to the spot where they exclaimed of Octomom..."and she was wearing a bikini!!! For me, that undercut the fact that they were actually quite 'kind' to octomom [sorry, I have no idea of her real name...my bad]. What possible difference does it make what she is wearing when they ask for her opinion. I missed part of it so perhaps I missed an important 30 seconds but gahhhhh..... I see red when I see the sexualization of young girls; the objectification of women; and the dismissal of women based on what they are wearing.....in situations like this....grrrrr How to relate this to Adam...hmmm...can you imagine the hue and cry if a fashion magazine dressed a young boy shirtless, with a leather vest, tight pants and eyeliner!!! Congress would be up in arms and the parents would be on a Tea only diet for life!! Mzue Love your post and wholeheartedly agree! Early sexualization is a weapon of mass destruction. Thought you might like this article www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/how-to-talk-to-little-gir_b_882510.html |
|
