Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

the practice — in which administrations, lobbies, and public relations departments create the false appearance of broad-based grassroots support or easily refuted dissent — was first perfected by President Richard Nixon’s administration.In addition to coining the term “silent majority,” Nixon speechwriter and adviser Pat Buchanan initiated “a ‘discreet’ letter-writing operation at the Republican National Committee on a permanent basis,” according to political scientist John Anthony Maltese.

You guys are just hilarious, but I do appreciate that you keep proving my point. Let me state it again for anyone who might not have been following:

You won't find a single conservative who supported Nixon's abuse of power, or his deception. Nixon lost all support and credibility in the eyes of his political base.

However, on the Democrat side of the aisle this kind of behavior (and indeed any kind of corruption) is what gets you nominated to be the Presidential candidate! Their devoted worshippers will defend any evil, and knowingly cover for liars. It's consider "cool" by their base.


Thanks for giving us a way to judge the stark differences of the political base of the two corrupt parties.


.

VelbertonVineerian wrote:And the Bush's still have LOTS of republican support, "devoted worshippers".. maybe even enough to elect Jeb.

There is a difference between "republican" and "conservative". Of course the GOP Establishment supports Bush, just like they supported Dole or Romney.

But did you notice that a lot of conservatives stayed home in those elections? They would rather allow Obama than vote against their conscience.

I see such "devoted worshippers", of either party's corruptions as equally bad.

Then we are brothers in arms.

Could it be that despite all the non-partisan speak that you preach, you are still so partisan-minded that you see a special halo above the head of every fellow republican?

It's a fair question. My honest answer is that I don't give the GOP a pass either.

I usually have to vote for the least sleazy candidate, or the one whom I catch in the least amount of lies. That means I can count the Democrats I've voted for since 1992 on my fingers....without using my thumbs! But if there is an independent candidate who isn't a far leftist, they will usually get my vote.

That is the entire attraction of the Tea Party, btw. There are lots of disaffected republicans and democrats voting to slow down the establishment.

Bush, 41 or 43, take your pick, along with Cheney and Rumsfeld etc. were easily as corrupt and liars as the Clintons or Obama.

I disagree, but only by a matter of degree. Their lies weren't designed to destroy the foundations of America, both in foreign policy and domestically. Seems like an important distinction.

All of those you mention at least worked within the law as opposed to trying to find ways around it, or suppress the will of the people. There was a balance of power between the three branches of government, and a robust debate on every issue. For all the bad things you can say about Bush, you never had to wonder what his real position was. He'd say what he was going to do, let it come to a vote, then do exactly what he said. Obama doesn't do any of that....




.

Not voting is a vote. I haven't voted from someone that I actually liked since the first term of Reagan in 1980.

My only preference for the GOP at the moment is based on their predictable greed/corruption for American business vs the utter destruction of every strata of American society that the Democrats are bringing quickly. Either way we are driving into a brick wall...we just hit it sooner with the Democrats.

Cheney and Bush initiated the Patriot Act that has been the basis for undermining the constitutional rights of US citizens ever since. Obama made no attempt to undo their excesses, as a gesture of 'bi-partisan cooperation', and has assumed more powers that he can now pass on to Jeb or Hillary.

Yes, it is the scourge that will be America's plunge into fascism soon.

I'm not going to defend those bastages, but as written, the (temporary) Patriot Act made sense and even seemed necessary to defend the country from terrorist cells already here. I didn't realize that such a law could be altered so easily afterward, and therefore supported the idea at the time.

Though he initiated it, Bush didn't use this law against civilians (as so many on the left said would happen) and he didn't abuse it as a tool against his political opposition. I believe that no republican President would get away with that, but Clinton and Obama have shown that they will do any underhanded treasonous thing to hold onto power and the fawning liberal media gives them cover for any tyranny the desire.

When the Democrat Congress made the Patriot Act permanent, we all became "criminals" until proven innocent. It will take a Republican, or Tea Party President to undo that.

Fat chance, under current scenarios but we can always hope for a revolution.



.