wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] bv from new york, ny July 13, 2007 - 10:21AM

  definitely Barak Obama, definitely not: Romney the Zombie!

  
  
• [2] Fred Bachmann from Bloomfield, NJ July 13, 2007 - 12:17PM

  Was it Duke Ellington who wrote "It don't mean a thing if it don't have that swing."

  
  
• [3] jawbone from Parsippany, NJ July 13, 2007 - 12:22PM

  Hhhmmm--Edwards is my choice because he's come out for universal health care coverage and I agree strongly with his Two Americas analysis of current economonic stratefication.

  But--note that the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) seems to be in full-blown destroy Edwards' candidacy mode.

  And that is the factor I feel your guest is not fully taking into account. Gore, after the first debate, was considered by most people to have won the the debate. But, after the MCMers began taking him apart (those awful sighs!!! with video repeated over and over and over), people's perceptions changed.

  There is a huge factor in national elections which has been working against Dems for many years now, and that factor is that most MCMers, especially on cable, for some reason work mightily against Dem candidates.

  If a Republican the age of John Kerry had been seen wind surfing, a sport which requires strength, balance, skill, etc., he would lauded as a manly man, perhaps Chirs Matthews would wax poetic about the scent of sea salt you catch when you get near to this paragon of masculinity.

  Get the idea? Romney's or any attempt to find out. A Washington reporter put into a major article that Romney has shoulders you could land a 747 on. Something's in the water--and it doesn't induce raves about most Dems!

  Just this past week, a NYTimes reporter stated as fact that since Edwards is wealthy he can't be serious about wanting to help the poor.

  Drives me crazy!

  And, if the Dems take on these niggling attacks, they then become "shrill" or "whiners." And that becomes the MCM story.

  Please, I want to know how to counteract this insidious force in American politics--can your guest tell us how?

  Oh, and the result of these MCM articles/pundits jabs? Lessening of enthusiasm for a candidate some voters really like. They begin to question whether they should commit to such a fop . Or to someone who's told to wear earth tones (which didn't happen, but the MCM made it a story).

  
  
• [4] jawbone from Parsippany, NJ July 13, 2007 - 12:26PM

  I must have wiped out some words: I was asking why the MCM doesn't pay any attention to what they refer to as Romney's great hair--yet nary a query about how much he pays for haircuts.

  
  
• [5] Fatima from NYC July 13, 2007 - 12:29PM

  Exploitative?

  Guests seems to want to exploit voter emotions instead of, perhaps, leveraging them toward reason; understanding how to connect, in order to better engage them around issues/ facts...

  
  
• [6] RC from Queens July 13, 2007 - 01:09PM

  >>>I must have wiped out some words: I was asking why the MCM doesn't pay any attention to what they refer to as Romney's great hair--yet nary a query about how much he pays for haircuts.<<<

  Jawbone, its the same reason why when a republican gets busted for seeing a prostitute he gets slammed more. Or when Bill Benet was learned to have gambled in Vegas a big deal was made. When you run on morality or "family values" you will get slammed when you don't live up to it.

  When Edwards runs on poverty he creates a narrative that there are some sleazy fat cats who are stealing from the poor. He talks about the two Americas. So when he gets a haircut for 400 bucks or works for a Hedge fund he looks like a hypocrite because he is in the America that he attacks.

  And with Romney, very few people believe that the GOP cares about the poor so when they spend millions on say a yacht, no one bats and eye.

  I agree that we should use more logic when we vote and that you can be rich and care about the poor. But their has to be a core of doubt within the minds of the public for any MCM or alternative media bashing to be effective.

  Its how you carry yourself. For example you would have never been able to swift boat a guy like John Murtha. Why, because he acts like a guy who if you anger him will rip your head off.

  Kerry acted like a patrician soft country club elite. Even though the guy he ran against IS a country club elite. But that guy acted like an "average" American.

  Where the dems are effective are in areas of free trade and outsourcing. Although I am on the other side of that debate, it is a very effective emotional argument. They can be effective on the issues of CEOs making a tremendous amount of money compared to the average worker. Cases like the Delta Bankruptcy are tailored made for them.

  I am also on the other side of Al Gore on humans and carbon being the main reason for the warming of the earth. I think the science is faulty. But I am going to lose that battle because of the images of melting glaciers or a polar bear on a small sheet of ice surrounded by water.

  
  
• [7] eCAHNomics from nyc July 13, 2007 - 01:19PM

  By Greg Palast's analysis (Armed Madhouse), the Ds start out with a 6 million vote deficit courtesy of Rs' voter-suppression activities (caging, culling names of voter lists in poor areas, not counting provisional ballots, etc.) So while I agree that Ds are too cerebral and not emotional enough, they should start doing their homework and stop the R voting illegalities. They would have won quite a few more prez elections if they did.

  Just another example of how the Ds are too dumb to live.

  
  
• [8] Elena Ruiz-Diaz from Stamford, CT July 13, 2007 - 03:32PM

  Denis Kuchinish makes the most sense to me, but he has virtually no chance of winning. In the primaries, I will have my first opportunity in years to vote FOR somebody. It will be for the Democrat with the best chance of winning in the general election, where I will be voting against the Republican. It will be decades before the country recovers from the Bush administration!

  
  
• [9] Jesus A. Diaz from Elizabeth, NJ July 14, 2007 - 12:04AM

  Mindful of two differences, I submit David Hume, the influencial 18th century philosopher, anticipated Western's findings. The differences are: (1) Hume did armchair philosophy, Westen ran modern experiments and (2) Hume talked about ethics and Westen about politics. I give some cites from Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, Book III, section I:

  "Since morals, therefore, have an influence on the actions and the affection, it follows, that they cannot be derived from reason; and that because reason alone, as we have already proved, can never have such an influence. Morals excite the passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular"

  "Take any action allowed to be vicious: Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In whichever way you take it, you only find certain passions, motives, volitions, and thoughgts. There is no other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You can never find it, till you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of dispprobation, which arises in you, towards this action."

  We cannot throw reason out the window, but Westen's work and work by others on emotional IQ shows the Enlightment's devotion to reason was overdone.

  
  
• [10] Camelgirl from NJ July 20, 2007 - 01:38PM

  I'd have to say Obama, so far, has been most successful at connecting with the "political emotions" of voters. Edwards could, if he read this book! Hillary never will. Bill's got all the charisma in that family!

  I found this show/interview to be riviting and explained for me why the Democrats don't stand a chance if they don't figure out how to get voters to listen them. Even now with the Republicans flaming out all over the place.

  I loved how Watson explained that you don't have to lie or change your message, you just have to know how to phrase it to grab some attention. Kerry is a perfect example of "failure to launch". I supported Kerry & voted for him and thought he was brilliantly clear about the facts--but I practically fell asleep whenever he talked. I was VERY frustrated that he could not make his points in a fashion that ordinary people could take in. He should have "won" the swift water debacle. He made so many bad decisions during that compaign, now look at the wretched state of this country.

  It is clear that the Republicans have this concept down completely. Too bad they are complete manipulators of facts and generally just plain liars. Super con-men & women.

  The Political Brain should be required reading for every Democrat. It's time to stop giving the elections away to neocon Republicans who understand people so much better than Dems.

  If the Dems don't change their style--not substance-- we could have President Thompson in 2008!! or worse, Guiliani, who is Bush with brains. Really scary.

  I now understand why my disgust with the American voter is really about the way the Dems are just not connecting with their message. Who cares if you are right if you can't get anyone to listen.

  
  
• [11] Camelgirl from NJ July 20, 2007 - 01:41PM

  Sorry, I meant SWIFTBOAT in the previous posting.