<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Playing President&#8221;</title>
	<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/</link>
	<description>Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:25:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: EntelliMediaNet &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The multi of multi-media is pretty much assumed</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-52551</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2006 23:34:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-52551</guid>
					<description>[...] The Mahablog &amp;#8221; 2006 &amp;#8221; April Sid says, How about that place we went about a month ago. &amp;#8230; that &amp;#8220;our roads&amp;#8221; were suffering because of the 2 cents that went to mass transit. &amp;#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>[&#8230;] The Mahablog &#8221; 2006 &#8221; April Sid says, How about that place we went about a month ago. &#8230; that &#8220;our roads&#8221; were suffering because of the 2 cents that went to mass transit. &#8230; [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Donna</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7301</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:47:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7301</guid>
					<description>Kevin, thanks for 'the common good' meme. 

 I like it a lot, and, as I have written before, I compare the country to a human body.  Why should some organs or tissue cells get more nutrition than others?  Why do we think it is good for the whole to let organs compete with each other?  [I think that part of the answer here is that 'scarcity' is beloved by power/money brokers]

In the human body, any cells which feed themselves at the expense of the whole are called cancerous.  Why can't we think of special interest narrowness as pre-cancerous? Why can't we think of certain short-term-gain policies [like allowing more toxins in the environment] in the same way we understand that smoking shortens life?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Kevin, thanks for &#8216;the common good&#8217; meme. </p>
	<p> I like it a lot, and, as I have written before, I compare the country to a human body.  Why should some organs or tissue cells get more nutrition than others?  Why do we think it is good for the whole to let organs compete with each other?  [I think that part of the answer here is that &#8217;scarcity&#8217; is beloved by power/money brokers]</p>
	<p>In the human body, any cells which feed themselves at the expense of the whole are called cancerous.  Why can&#8217;t we think of special interest narrowness as pre-cancerous? Why can&#8217;t we think of certain short-term-gain policies [like allowing more toxins in the environment] in the same way we understand that smoking shortens life?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Kevin Wohlmut</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7280</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 15:54:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7280</guid>
					<description>I hate to sound defeatist, but &quot;good&quot; politicians have been searching for such an antidote unsuccessfully for decades or maybe even centuries.  

However I was impressed by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&amp;#38;name=ViewWeb&amp;#38;articleId=11424&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an article I read&lt;/a&gt; which recommended the phrase / meme &quot;The Common Good&quot; as a unifying principle for Democrats (or, I suppose, other parties opposed to the current corrupt regime).  Hopefully, such a meme could not be misused against &quot;good&quot; politicians.  I think it's very hard to actually smear or libel an individual person or candidate while at the same time making a coherent argument for &quot;The Common Good&quot;.  I suppose it might be done, but it just seems to me like any such attempt would be too transparently self-serving and voters would see the hypocrisy.

Thank you for depersonalizing my above comment and steering me back towards positive thinking and positive memes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I hate to sound defeatist, but &#8220;good&#8221; politicians have been searching for such an antidote unsuccessfully for decades or maybe even centuries.  </p>
	<p>However I was impressed by <a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&amp;name=ViewWeb&amp;articleId=11424" rel="nofollow">an article I read</a> which recommended the phrase / meme &#8220;The Common Good&#8221; as a unifying principle for Democrats (or, I suppose, other parties opposed to the current corrupt regime).  Hopefully, such a meme could not be misused against &#8220;good&#8221; politicians.  I think it&#8217;s very hard to actually smear or libel an individual person or candidate while at the same time making a coherent argument for &#8220;The Common Good&#8221;.  I suppose it might be done, but it just seems to me like any such attempt would be too transparently self-serving and voters would see the hypocrisy.</p>
	<p>Thank you for depersonalizing my above comment and steering me back towards positive thinking and positive memes.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Donna</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7271</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:46:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7271</guid>
					<description>#10, Kevin.....thanks for the link.  I had heard that folks behind Kerry and Gebhart had joined together in Iowa to trash Howard Dean. [and makes me wonder if  Gebhardt's decline and the later swift-boating of Kerry was cosmic 'chickens coming home to roost', karmically speaking] Your linked article explains some particulars.  

Thanks for the reminder to be alert to shame-on-us destructiveness  in intra-party primary cycles as well as the two-party system election cycles.  No wonder we get more of the same sloganeering leadership rather than new effective leadership. 

Can we come up with a powerful antidote to such campaign destructiveness.....a phrase that could sink deep within the consciousness to innoculate citizens against absorbing and holding and repeating vicious memes?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>#10, Kevin&#8230;..thanks for the link.  I had heard that folks behind Kerry and Gebhart had joined together in Iowa to trash Howard Dean. [and makes me wonder if  Gebhardt&#8217;s decline and the later swift-boating of Kerry was cosmic &#8216;chickens coming home to roost&#8217;, karmically speaking] Your linked article explains some particulars.  </p>
	<p>Thanks for the reminder to be alert to shame-on-us destructiveness  in intra-party primary cycles as well as the two-party system election cycles.  No wonder we get more of the same sloganeering leadership rather than new effective leadership. </p>
	<p>Can we come up with a powerful antidote to such campaign destructiveness&#8230;..a phrase that could sink deep within the consciousness to innoculate citizens against absorbing and holding and repeating vicious memes?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Kevin Wohlmut</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7267</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 10:54:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7267</guid>
					<description>Your quote laments the corrupting process of Presidential nomination, you wonder if Americans are capable of recognizing a good leader, and you wonder if too many still listen to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.  And the first nine commenters here raise excellent points.  But what I don't see mentioned here, is that voters are really running a &lt;i&gt;double&lt;/i&gt; gauntlet:  a &quot;good&quot; candidate also has to get past the conservative, pro-war, guardians of the [dismal] status-quo who compose the &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Democratic Party&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; leadership.  As, for example, when conservative Democrats who backed John Kerry -- such as former Senator Robert &quot;the Torch&quot; Torricelli, yes &lt;i&gt;that&lt;/i&gt; Torricelli -- spent &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;one million dollars&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; on slanderous attack ads, including one linking Howard Dean to Osama bin Laden, for the Iowa caucus.  

See:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=194&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=194&lt;/a&gt;

A million dollars.  A million dollars.  Spent &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;by Democrats&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; to defeat a popular &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Democrat&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; who threatened to upset the status quo.  If &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;I&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; got five percent of a million dollars as a gift in the mail, I could parlay it into savings and investments and probably be set for life.  You could comfortably employ 30 people for a whole year for one million dollars.  And this one million dollars went for no other purpose than to defame a good, honest candidate on TV.

Torricelli is gone now, but most of the people responsible for that ad are still walking the halls of power (content with their minority status so long as it brings in the bucks) right now.  Worse in my opinion, a large number of Democratic leaders as well as rank-and-file Dem voters, who found out later about this funding -- yet sat back and remained silent because &quot;Well, Dean is unelectable but Kerry is going to win!&quot; ...  &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;those&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; people still think they aren't harming America nor helping move the mainstream further Right.

As I say, we face a double gauntlet.  Rage against Bush and Rush and the rest of the Republicans is a #1 priority, but getting rid of these Vichy Democrats is a very close #2.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Your quote laments the corrupting process of Presidential nomination, you wonder if Americans are capable of recognizing a good leader, and you wonder if too many still listen to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O&#8217;Reilly.  And the first nine commenters here raise excellent points.  But what I don&#8217;t see mentioned here, is that voters are really running a <i>double</i> gauntlet:  a &#8220;good&#8221; candidate also has to get past the conservative, pro-war, guardians of the [dismal] status-quo who compose the <b><i>Democratic Party</i></b> leadership.  As, for example, when conservative Democrats who backed John Kerry &#8212; such as former Senator Robert &#8220;the Torch&#8221; Torricelli, yes <i>that</i> Torricelli &#8212; spent <b><i>one million dollars</i></b> on slanderous attack ads, including one linking Howard Dean to Osama bin Laden, for the Iowa caucus.  </p>
	<p>See:  <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=194" rel="nofollow"><a href='http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=194' rel='nofollow'>http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=194</a></a></p>
	<p>A million dollars.  A million dollars.  Spent <b><i>by Democrats</i></b> to defeat a popular <b><i>Democrat</i></b> who threatened to upset the status quo.  If <b><i>I</i></b> got five percent of a million dollars as a gift in the mail, I could parlay it into savings and investments and probably be set for life.  You could comfortably employ 30 people for a whole year for one million dollars.  And this one million dollars went for no other purpose than to defame a good, honest candidate on TV.</p>
	<p>Torricelli is gone now, but most of the people responsible for that ad are still walking the halls of power (content with their minority status so long as it brings in the bucks) right now.  Worse in my opinion, a large number of Democratic leaders as well as rank-and-file Dem voters, who found out later about this funding &#8212; yet sat back and remained silent because &#8220;Well, Dean is unelectable but Kerry is going to win!&#8221; &#8230;  <b><i>those</i></b> people still think they aren&#8217;t harming America nor helping move the mainstream further Right.</p>
	<p>As I say, we face a double gauntlet.  Rage against Bush and Rush and the rest of the Republicans is a #1 priority, but getting rid of these Vichy Democrats is a very close #2.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Swami</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7251</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:23:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7251</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;It takes a while for trusting or immature [those you call ‘not that smart’] people to comprehend how con artists ply their trade&lt;/i&gt;

They do it through language by mental imagery....&quot; I don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud&quot;.. Now, who said there was a strong potential for a nuclear attack from Iraq on the United States?..certaintly, not Condi or Cheney. I just don't know how I drew the conclusion that Saddam had to be taken out.

Seeing how Rush Limbaugh is so eager to confess his guilt as a fraud, I think I'll be big enough to confess my ignorance in not understanding how I was conned by Bush and his political machine..prior to getting educated online from writers like Maha and Digby who understood the dynamics of rhetoric and where able to illustrate the snares that the Bush machine were setting for chumps like me who prided themselves in their ability to reason. I didn't know how to identify a strawman, I didn't understand the concept framing an argument so that reason would bring you to the place the presenter of the argument wanted you to be.And I didn't understand the entrapment of hypotheticals(you know, the nuclear suitcase bomb..the one that justifies torture). Anyway, I have no shame in admitting I was duped and I'm thankful for those who set me straight to the con job that Bush pulled on me and the American public.

God bless America!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>It takes a while for trusting or immature [those you call ‘not that smart’] people to comprehend how con artists ply their trade</i></p>
	<p>They do it through language by mental imagery&#8230;.&#8221; I don&#8217;t want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud&#8221;.. Now, who said there was a strong potential for a nuclear attack from Iraq on the United States?..certaintly, not Condi or Cheney. I just don&#8217;t know how I drew the conclusion that Saddam had to be taken out.</p>
	<p>Seeing how Rush Limbaugh is so eager to confess his guilt as a fraud, I think I&#8217;ll be big enough to confess my ignorance in not understanding how I was conned by Bush and his political machine..prior to getting educated online from writers like Maha and Digby who understood the dynamics of rhetoric and where able to illustrate the snares that the Bush machine were setting for chumps like me who prided themselves in their ability to reason. I didn&#8217;t know how to identify a strawman, I didn&#8217;t understand the concept framing an argument so that reason would bring you to the place the presenter of the argument wanted you to be.And I didn&#8217;t understand the entrapment of hypotheticals(you know, the nuclear suitcase bomb..the one that justifies torture). Anyway, I have no shame in admitting I was duped and I&#8217;m thankful for those who set me straight to the con job that Bush pulled on me and the American public.</p>
	<p>God bless America!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Donna</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7248</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:55:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7248</guid>
					<description>uncledad......I read your #7 response to my earlier post and wondered about the cause of all the negatives you used.  Are you stuck and frustrated in some impossible situation? 

Seems to me that your statements about the media are based upon a  premise that a '24hr bullshit news cycle' is and will always be all-powerful,  like some severe/authority father who decides 'truth' and controls the minds and actions of the whole family.   Will the wife and kids never question his 'word' or learn of other perspectives about what 'father' tells them?  Will the public never get beyond what is 'fed' to them?

The steady and slow change I see is that citizens are questioning what they have been led to believe by politicians or by the 24hr news serving up what politicians say. It takes a while for trusting or  immature [those you call 'not that smart'] people to comprehend how con artists ply their trade, just as it takes some experience  for a starry-eyed bride or groom to learn that honeymoons are not the whole reality of marriage. 

Last comment for you.....having grown up in severe poverty [not enough food, cardboard in shoes....], I personally resent and most want to admonish you for 'and the poor had their drug dealers' prejudicial flippancy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>uncledad&#8230;&#8230;I read your #7 response to my earlier post and wondered about the cause of all the negatives you used.  Are you stuck and frustrated in some impossible situation? </p>
	<p>Seems to me that your statements about the media are based upon a  premise that a &#8216;24hr bullshit news cycle&#8217; is and will always be all-powerful,  like some severe/authority father who decides &#8216;truth&#8217; and controls the minds and actions of the whole family.   Will the wife and kids never question his &#8216;word&#8217; or learn of other perspectives about what &#8216;father&#8217; tells them?  Will the public never get beyond what is &#8216;fed&#8217; to them?</p>
	<p>The steady and slow change I see is that citizens are questioning what they have been led to believe by politicians or by the 24hr news serving up what politicians say. It takes a while for trusting or  immature [those you call &#8216;not that smart&#8217;] people to comprehend how con artists ply their trade, just as it takes some experience  for a starry-eyed bride or groom to learn that honeymoons are not the whole reality of marriage. </p>
	<p>Last comment for you&#8230;..having grown up in severe poverty [not enough food, cardboard in shoes&#8230;.], I personally resent and most want to admonish you for &#8216;and the poor had their drug dealers&#8217; prejudicial flippancy.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: uncledad</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7239</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Apr 2006 05:21:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7239</guid>
					<description>D.

Steadily and slowly will not do in the 24hr bullshit news cycle. I read your post and you have some good things to say but unfortunately you are mostly wrong. Don't fool yourself; we are not that smart (you’re included). I believe Maha's question was really is there a media left? My answer is no. Citizenship=Algebra? Blogspeak=Orwell=bullshit. There is no media left. Only corporate ConArtists and bloggers. I like to think of the media as the used to be middle class. Remember when we had rich, middle and poor? The rich didn't need media, they had money, the middle class had the networks telling us what we wanted to hear, and selling soap, and the poor had their drug dealers. Our lack of media is going to take some time to really make a difference, but it will.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>D.</p>
	<p>Steadily and slowly will not do in the 24hr bullshit news cycle. I read your post and you have some good things to say but unfortunately you are mostly wrong. Don&#8217;t fool yourself; we are not that smart (you’re included). I believe Maha&#8217;s question was really is there a media left? My answer is no. Citizenship=Algebra? Blogspeak=Orwell=bullshit. There is no media left. Only corporate ConArtists and bloggers. I like to think of the media as the used to be middle class. Remember when we had rich, middle and poor? The rich didn&#8217;t need media, they had money, the middle class had the networks telling us what we wanted to hear, and selling soap, and the poor had their drug dealers. Our lack of media is going to take some time to really make a difference, but it will.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Swami</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7235</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Apr 2006 03:02:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7235</guid>
					<description>Very nicely expressed truth, Donna.

Yeah, they're gettin' wise to his act!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Very nicely expressed truth, Donna.</p>
	<p>Yeah, they&#8217;re gettin&#8217; wise to his act!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Sam</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7220</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:12:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/28/playing-president/#comment-7220</guid>
					<description>Nicely said, Donna.  I believe I do feel that the wind is shifting just a mite.  Feels...hopeful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Nicely said, Donna.  I believe I do feel that the wind is shifting just a mite.  Feels&#8230;hopeful.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
