3 Responses to “This election is the best chance we’ve got”

1. Lloyd Gordon Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 9:57 am

   Associated Press last week announced receipt of the White House visitor’s log revealing the presence of over 100 visits by Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist during the Bush administration, two figures heavily implicated in the Jack Abramoff affair. Oregon has felt the impact of Reed and Norquist, heavily and unhappily.

   When Pat Robertson’s presidential bid failed, he used his remaining campaign assets to establish the Conservative Christian Coalition, and hired Ralph Reed to run it. Based on Robertson’s network of religious people, Reed organized chapters in all 50 states, and sought, in every state, to gain control of the Republican Party apparatus. They succeeded in Oregon in the early ‘90s, and their continued success is apparent in the Oregon GOP platform.

   After a few years, Reed left CCC and founded his own firm. Shoveling money around, much of it at the behest of Jack Abramoff, appears to have been the thrust of his firm’s efforts. Reed provides as a self description, “I want to be invisible. I do guerilla warfare. I paint my face and travel by night. You don’t know it’s over until you’re in a body bag”. Quoted from Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, November 9, 1991.

   Reed’s bright shining star has dimmed and appears to be setting in the west, partly because he is under heavy investigation in the Abramoff scandal, in which Reed appears to have been a major player.

   Grover Norquist, another member of Abramoff’s inner circle, appears the more sinister figure. He has been described as “a thumb-in-the-eye rightist” in The Nation.

   Norquist hold a ‘Wednesday Meeting’ of the Leave Us Alone Coalition, to which George W. Bush sends a representative, as does the Vice-President, GOP congressional leaders, right-leaning think tanks, conservative advocacy groups and lobbyists. It is said to be a convenient opportunity for the right to get together on policy and public relations efforts.

   Norquist has been a close friend of Abramoff since college, but not infrequently has irritated Abramoff by his sticky fingered handling of funds entrusted to him for transmission.

   Norquist has close ties with supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah, and apparently even Osama bin Laden.

   Quoting Norquist’s public statement: “We are trying to change the tones in the state capitols – and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship.” Examine that statement in connection with present practices of the Oregon GOP in the Oregon House, and you’ll see where I’m coming from.

   Like Reed, Norquist’s extremely close ties with Abramoff gives him a troubled future. Happily so.

2. Lloyd Gordon Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 10:00 am

   I neglected to mention the source of my information on Reed and Norquist. I relied on the biographical information provided by Wikipedia for the information.

3. Chris Christopherson Says:
   September 27th, 2006 at 4:26 pm

   How do Oregon voters term Oregon Democratic political stances?

   Since political terms are very important, I’m trying to get a feel for terms in which voters view Democratic candidates.

   These questions are triggered by the NPR radio broadcast today (Sept 27, 2006). (See below signature)

   “TALKING RIGHT” asks, “ARE THE DEMOCRATS SIMPLY TONE DEAF?”
   (See review below signature)

   Consider these questions…

   • WHY PARTY ELECTORAL FAILURES?
   Explain recent Democratic Party electoral failures locally, statewide, and nationally.

   • WHAT TERMS MUST PARTY USE?
   Define terms Democrats must use to win back American electorate.

   • WHAT TERMS SUPPORT PARTY?
   Define terms to create a powerful, yet simple, clear, concise and complete narrative that weaves together pro-Democratic issues to support the party.

   • DEMOCRATIC NARRATIVE NEEDS TO BE YELLED OUT LOUD
   This narrative needs to be yelled from the top of a hill.
   It needs to be a strong Democratic narrative, defined in Democratic terms and yelled out again and again.
   Not just attacks on Bush or Republican positions.

   WHAT TERMS MUST BE CLEARLY AND SIMPLY DEFINED BY DEMOCRATS?
   Consider what are the most important half dozen descriptive terms (or similar terms), listed below.

   WHAT’S THE CLEAR, SIMPLE DEFINITION?
   What’s a simple, clear, concise, complete definition of descriptive terms used? (25-75 words or less)

   DESCRIPTIVE POLITICAL TERMS
   • All people having same rights
   • Anti-constructionist
   • Business supporter
   • Capitalist
   • Charity-Christian
   • Conservationist
   • Conservative
   • Constitutionalist
   • Democrat
   • Elitist
   • Environmentalist
   • Faithist
   • Gay rights supporter
   • Government supporting people
   • Independent
   • Leftist
   • Left-wing
   • Less taxes
   • Liberal
   • Measure 37 supporter
   • Moralist
   • Neo-conservtive
   • Neo-rightist
   • Patriot
   • Pro-active
   • Pro-choice
   • Progressive
   • Radical conservative
   • Rightist
   • Right-wing
   • Taxist
   • Tree-hugger

   Thanks
   Chris Christopherson
   PEGGY’S ALASKAN CABBAGE PATCH B&B
   194 S. Second St., Lebanon, OR 97355
   B&B-Fax 541 258-1774
   http://www.Cabbage-Patch-B-and-B.com

   ————-
   NPR RADIO BROADCAST
   ————-
   “POLITICAL GLOSSARY FOR THE MID TERM ELECTIONS”

   Talk of the Nation, September 27, 2006 · Defeaticrat, culture of corruption, and security mom are all part of the election-year war of words. Guests explain the strategy behind the slogans.

   GUESTS:
   • Geoffrey Nunberg author most recently of the book, “Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show”; linguist at the School of Information at Berkeley

   • Frank Luntz, Republican pollster

   ————-
   REVIEW OF BOOK “TALKING RIGHT…”
   ————-
   http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/258

   “Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show”
   Author: Geoffrey Nunberg. Published July 3, 2006.

   ————
   If you like George Lakoff’s writings on framing, you’ll love “Talking Right.” It’s Lakoff with Tabasco sauce and wry analysis.

   How can you not love a book with the line: “It’s hard to think of any leading right-wing broadcaster whom even his most devoted fans would welcome having as a brother-in-law.” We would add the individual horror one would experience of having Ann Coulter as a sister-in-law!

   Like Lakoff, Geoffrey Nunberg, the author of “Talking Right,” is a Bay Area professor who specializes in linguistics. While Lakoff provides the brilliant theoretical context and foundation for how the right wing has “framed” the political language used to control public debates, Nunberg fills in the historical details. And he does it with an ironic eye and keen appreciation for the hypocrisy that is the backside of how the right wing has manipulated the connotations of words, phrases and slogans to their advantage.

   “As it happens, the majority of brie consumers are Republicans,” Nunberg writes. “But whoever actually buys the stuff, it stands for the Right’s stereotype of liberals – soft, pale, runny, and French.” Remember Rove’s successful effort to “Frenchify” John Kerry?

   Nunberg’s analysis of how the right wing has shifted our entire political discourse is thought provoking throughout. His dissection of how the Republicans have stifled the Democrats from discussing class issues while it is the Republicans who are conducting class warfare is essential reading.

   Of course, the Democrats could fight back, but that would take stamina and the ability to stay on message for a very long period of time. It would be helpful if the Dems could get everyone who has an income below $100,000 a year to realize that “when it comes to the crunch, the ‘freedom’ that conservatives champion for working Americans amounts to no more than the right to take a job and shove it.” That is if they can find a job that hasn’t been sent overseas.

   Indeed, as most BuzzFlash readers know, the very “gravity” of our political language has shifted so far right that a centrist now is what a conservative was in the ’60s. The Republican Party leadership now isn’t conservative; it’s radical, in the truest sense of the word.

   “Talking Right” begins by asking, “Are the Democrats simply tone deaf?”

   Nunberg hopes that they will awaken with a sense of language that embraces progressive ideals. But they will need a narrative, not just words. They will need a coherent domestic vision and world view.

   But Nunberg cautions, “Whatever they [the Democrats] come up with in the way of new and compelling ideas and a new sense of political purpose, they’ll have a hard time packaging them so long as the right has its name all over the wrapping paper.”

   Geoffrey Nunberg is an adjunct full professor at UC Berkeley’s School of Information, a researcher at the Center for the Study of Language and Information at Stanford University, and a consulting professor in the Stanford Department of Linguistics. He is also chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary. Since 1989, he has done a language feature on NPR’s “Fresh Air,” and his commentaries on language and politics are regularly seen in the Sunday New York Times and other publications. A winner of the Linguistic Society of America’s Language and the Public Interest Award, he is also the author of The Way We Talk Now and Going Nucular. Nunberg lives in San Francisco.

   BUZZFLASH REVIEWS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.