Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Right. I wasn't implying anything scandalous. I was just surprised how closely the press, and most of the Bush apologists I talk to, regurgitate this stuff. Pretty much verbatim. I'd heard about this 'talking point' business, but I had no idea it was this regimented.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Basically, you posted this here in the hopes that some other anti-bushite would come along and confirm your preconceptions and spare you form the agonizing horror of the possibility that the other side of the argument might be plausible.

---

Quote:

---

And what exactly does it say to you that this document is dated 12 JUL 05? In other words anyone who might have been, as you claim, “regurgitate[ing ] this stuff . . .[ p]retty much verbatim,” could only have been doing it for about a week.

---

Quote:

---

Talking points are small arguments or phrases that political strategists issue to representatives or supporters of a party or administration to be used repeatedly in speeches, talk show appearances and debates. The strategy is to create a meme and make the idea a common assumption by means of sheer repetition. Talking points are often gross simplifications of issues, and become name calling if used too often. The most effective talking points consist of one or two words, e.g. "flip-flopper", "job loser", and "ACLU member".

Talking points should not be confused with political slogans, which are displayed and said freely and brazenly. A talking point is more often snuck into speeches and debate to seem if it should naturally be there, thus suggesting it is simple, common knowledge.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Which statement(s) in the "Talking Points" do you know to be untrue?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Which statement(s) in the "Talking Points" do you know to be untrue?

---

Lots of them actually, but that's not the point. I'm more interested in the overall strategy of 'Talking Points' and how they're used to warp political discourse (by both sides).

It seems to me, that the assumption of this strategy is that it's more important to get something repeated over and over again in the media than it is for that something to be logically compelling or even factual. In this kind of public 'debate', if you can call it that, points are chosen that are difficult to disprove (and usually just as difficult to prove), vague and evocative. The emotional kick of a phrase is far more important than it's relevance or truth.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

---

Quote:

---

I'm not sure that any of them are false. I'm waiting for the special prosecutor to come out with his findings before I make any decisions, just like any rational American should do

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Apparently Bush's latest position is that anyone in his government convicted of treason will be given a very stern talking to

---

Quote:

---

Where are the facts that Karl Rove did something wrong?

---

Quote:

---

But Cooper said he was told by Mr Rove that information was about to be “declassified” and made public to discredit the woman’s husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had accused the Bush Administration of exaggerating the threat of Iraq’s weapons.

Cooper said Mr Rove told him that Mr Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying: “I’ve already said too much.”

Cooper said yesterday: “This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting . . . but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.” Cooper also disclosed for the first time that the other White House source for an article he wrote about Mr Wilson in July 2003 was Vice-President Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter ” Libby, who also did not mention Ms Plame by name.

---

Quote:

---

Before ... confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, ... confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

I'm not sure that any of them are false. I'm waiting for the special prosecutor to come out with his findings before I make any decisions, just like any rational American should do

---

... And then you go on to discuss the case. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't be creating my own "talking points", just like the RNC? Or is it becase critics are supposed to shut up and wait for the Special Prosecutor, but you and the RNC get a pass?

---

Quote:

---

Shame on you SignyM. This is exactly what the 'Talking Points' are designed to do

---

Quote:

---

Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't be creating my own "talking points", just like the RNC? Or is it becase critics are supposed to shut up and wait for the Special Prosecutor, but you and the RNC get a pass? -SignyM
You mean you haven't- Barnstormer

---

Quote:

---

My only want is to know which talking points are true

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't be creating my own "talking points", just like the RNC? Or is it becase critics are supposed to shut up and wait for the Special Prosecutor, but you and the RNC get a pass? -SignyM
You mean you haven't- Barnstormer

---

The difference between you and me is that I'm not asking you to shut up (while continuing my spiel)

Quote:

---

My only want is to know which talking points are true

---

True, or truly criminal? The Special Prosecutor can address the last question, but not the first. BTW- at what point would YOU be satisfied that a fact was truly criminal? With an indictment? A guilty veridict? When all appeals had been exhausted?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So the question is: Can the American public mature? We are pushed in one direction by our rich fantasy life (advertizing, TV shows, fairy tales, religion) to believe in the quick fix, the hero, the ultimate good and bad. And then messy reality intrudes and 9-11 happens.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Your a bit to much of a political zealot to be taken seriously.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So- how do we get past taking AT each other and digging into reality to find the truth? How do we raise the level of discourse, not only between political parties but between political parties and their intended consituents, and even here on the board?

---

Quote:

---

You know, not changing the subject, not ignoring or dismissing or cutting off other peoples' comments, but following a line of evidence or reasoning to it's end and judging contributions along the way by some agreed-on criteria: It is factual? Is it complete? Is it relevant? Is it predictive? Does it support or weaken the hypothesis?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
"Republicans are stupid"
"Bush Lied"
"No Iraqi WMD"
"Karl Rove is evil"
"evil neocons" and its related "PNAC conspiracy"
"Bush will restart the draft"
"Republicans will destroy Social Security"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fivver:
I'll introduce a new villan here and wantlob a few smallish beagle droppings at the members of the press who are too lazy to actually investigate and report but simply regurgitate this stuff.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
Chrisisall, I don't really have a "side" on RWED per se and I do not appreciate it when you or others lump me in with other conservative posters on RWED. I am sure they don't appreciate it either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
All it says to me is that the Bush apologists don't mind being told what to think. I don't know if the democrats stoop to the same sort of groupthink tactics. They probably have some version of it. Weak.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think the Talking Points strategy is bad for political discourse. If you look carefully at the points, they are mostly distractions from the main issue, not refutations. They are carefully crafted to draw attention away from the acknowledged fact that the Bush administration was engaged in an aggressive campaign to discredit a critic. (Is this what we pay them for?)

---

Quote:

---

You haven't even acknowledged the verasity (veracity) or credibility of the documents in question and you use them to disparage the Republicans.

---

Quote:

---

I don’t think that it is groupthink. Groupthink is something different. Groupthink requires a degree of self-deception and artificial consent. The GOP stating its position on an issue is not groupthink, particularly if that position can be logically arrived at without use of this GOP document. And there’s nothing wrong with the GOP stating its position on an issue. The DNC states its position on many things, for instance the DNC talking points manual in which Democrats were advised to invent non-existent voter fraud in order to question a Republican victory at the polls. That’s not groupthink either. That’s just dirty politics. This GOP document, however, is pretty straightforward.

---

Quote:

---

Is there something wrong with the Bush administration defending its position against critics?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The issue isn't Wilson's credibility, or his wife's or even whether a law was broken. The real issue is that the administration chose to use media manipulation and 'leaks' to reporters to, rather than honestly presenting their side of things. Doesn't it bother you that they'd go to so much trouble to stifle dissent? That's what republicans ought to be questioning.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Repetition, talking points, never admitting mistakes, astroturfing, stage managing public appearances, changing labels based on public feedback while not changing policies, and other tactics are used because they are effective. But I'm disturbed by the overarching implication, that the politicians don't trust their own proposals enough to lay them out in plain English. To me, it shows an appalling lack of respect for the public. If you've got to try to fool me to get me to agree with you, well you know what they say in Arkansas .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
a democracy can be controlled just as effectively as the more traditional authoritarian models. Perhaps even more effectively, because the 'control' is transparent to so many. How can you fight an enemy, when most people won't even acknowledge it's there?

---

Quote:

---

1. You imply through the use of "talking points" that those who use arguments in or similar to the document you posted are "neo-con apologists" talking points= neocon apologists
2. You clearly imply that "neo-con apologists" are too lazy or too stupid to come up with original thoughts
3. Quotes like "acknowledged fact that the Bush administration was engaged in an aggressive campaign to discredit a critic." are more baseless attacks on President Bush's administration to imply that they, and by extension Republicans and/or conservatives, are immoral, evil, and/or stupid.
In short, you are using the very tactics you say you oppose.

---

Quote:

---

So when Wilson implied that he was sent to Niger by Cheney, which was picked up by the New York Time to insist that Cheney had sent Wilson to Niger, when in fact Cheney never gave such an order and Wilson went without official CIA support under the suggestion of his wife, that wasn’t media manipulation to boost Wilson’s credibility?
And after it was reported that Rove suggested that it was Wilson’s wife not Cheney who sent Wilson to Niger, Wilson then claimed that the government was trying to out his wife because his wife was a covert agent, thereby exposing his wife as a covert agent, that wasn’t media manipulation? Wilson may have outed his own wife in order to attack the administration.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The only thing that makes them corrosive is the inability of the recipients to question the purveyors of those talking points. When people hear the same thing from the McClellan, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Mehlman (for example) the medium (TV, radio) leaves no venue for individual responses. And if the media is controlled by any political party or any single group with a more-or-less uniform agenda, there is no room for even organized response. I'm not sure this is a problem with "talking points" per se, but the apparent control of the media.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think we are looking at the formation of a new kind of tyranny. It's taken them a while to figure out, but those who desire power over others are beginning to realize that a democracy can be controlled just as effectively as the more traditional authoritarian models. Perhaps even more effectively, because the 'control' is transparent to so many. How can you fight an enemy, when most people won't even acknowledge it's there?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Signym
Soupcatcher, with Sarge's concurrence, expanded the discussion to other potentially manipulative procedures that can be used by ANY political party (but may be more effectively used by the party in power). I would add two more manipulations of public opinion: LEAKS AND LIES.

---