On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 09:27:08PM -0400, John Pedersen wrote:
> Paul M Foster wrote:
>
> >>>The Democrat economic model is socialism (no business). The Republican
> >>>economic model is facism (government controlled business).
> >>
> >>In my opinion, you've got that backwards: it's business controlling
> >>government. Those with billions of dollars also control the media,
> >>and they pretty much decide who runs, and how successful they are.
> >
> >
> >I'll agree in part to the former, but not the latter. The press is all
> >in favor of any democrat who comes down the pike, and uses every
> >opportunity they can to push them.
>
> I think you've got a very simplistic view of things. You're basically
> saying that the PRESS are pushing toward one candidate instead of
> another. Yes, that's true, perhaps because journalists tend to be
> liberals and haven't had much experience in business--who knows. But
> the press vs candidate dynamics is only the miniscule tip of the iceberg.
>
> First of all, I said that the people who push the billions of dollars
> around will control the politicians. One way, is via the media. They
> happen to control the MEDIA, among other things, and the MEDIA isn't
> just the print press, nor just the "news" types of shows. It's MTV
> and late night Leno et al.
And I think that's an overly simplistic view. Some of what you see on TV
(or hear on radio, or read in the papers) is controlled by the opinions
of people in society. If people don't buy this crap, the media can't
sell it. The opinions of people in society is a much deeper problem. But
I will agree, the folks who pull the strings in the media are getting
farther and farther away from being in touch with Americans.
>
> But, be that as it may, I believe that by the time you're voting for
> Bush vs Kerry, 90 percent of the work is already done. They have made
> sure that the candidates who run are ones they can "work with". These
> people probably care very little who wins.
>
Umm, no. They do care who wins. They want someone they can work with.
Unfortunately for them, the American people elect their leaders, and we
don't always agree with the "power players". I suppose you could say
that by winnowing down the field of competitors to two, 90% of the work
has been done. I can't complain about that. That's the way the system
works. If you don't like it, you can always write in the Libertarian
candidate, who hasn't a prayer of getting elected as president.
> If you think that mega-biz/banker elites don't pull strings in dozens
> of ways to narrow the field of choices, just think about this: of all
> the tens of thousands of smart, polished, maybe even honest, people
> that one might put forth as candidates, are Bush and Kerry really the
> best?
>
Who said anything about one politician or another being "the best"? It's
not about the best. It's about "my team" or "your team". Each team wants
someone in there who can be elected. Someone from my team in office
forwards _my_ agenda. Someone from your team may not forward _my_
agenda. The power players may pull strings, but the way you paint it,
it sounds like one might as well not vote. Pretty dim view. Consider: at
last report, the average contribution to the Republican party was on the
order of a couple hundred dollars. It's considerably more for the
Democratic party.
The media endeavors to influence voters to pick one candidate over
another (or in the present case, to hate one candidate more than
another), including in primaries. In addition, they attempt to influence
the public's general opinion in the general direction away from
morality, ethics and any conceivable rules. The media also salivates
over anything that looks like conflict or strife.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:57:00 EDT