logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Dog whistle politics, Still effective in 2010?
Raptavio
post Oct 7 2010, 02:27 PM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Sharron Angle's latest ad against Harry Reid has been attacked for deliberately stoking racial fears:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsVmzyDIyKs

Sen. David Vitter used one of the exact same images from Angle's ad (the three thuggish-looking Latinos) in his own attack ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plAMMiOgGsY...player_embedded

These ads and their imagerey reminded me personally of the late Sen. Jesse Helms' infamous 1990 campaign ad, "Hands":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIyewCdXMzk

Or the 1988 George H. W. Bush Presidential ad (run by a third party) using Willie Horton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y...feature=related

Now, as then, the ads have evoked responses accusing the campaigns of playing to the worst instincts of the electorate. Now, as then, the ads have their defenders, saying the issues they bring up reflect the reality of the situation and are thus fair.

Questions for debate:

Are these ads fair or are they deliberately trying to play to the racial fears of voters?

Is it smart politics to run ads like these?

What do these ads say about the campaigns of those running the ads?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 29)
Amlord
post Oct 27 2010, 07:09 PM
Post #21


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



The dog whistle used by those on the left is that Republicans are jack booted thugs who want to beat you up, are mean spirited, and the second coming of the Nazis. All during the Bush administration Bush=Hitler was dog whistle.

This dog whistle was used last night on the two MSNBC shows that I can stomach to watch: Hard Ball with Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz's show The Ed Show.

Hard Ball video

Matthews: "I don't know what to make of that but it reminds me of the '30s in another country."

The Ed Show was worse. He went off the deep end with this. I used to listen to his radio show (when Air America existed) because he made some decent arguments. Now, he's just a mini-Olbermann.

Schultz went on to complain that Rand Paul didn't speak out enough to condemn this. Firing the guy and going on television to condemn it wasn't enough for Schultz I guess (Matthews at least had the video of Paul that morning saying that this behavior was unacceptable). Schultz wanted Paul to call a press conference to apologize, even though he had already done it about 8 hours earlier.

Here's the transcript: Link

QUOTE
America, don‘t buy this crap, this both sides garbage anymore. It‘s not both sides.

It‘s coming from the right wing. It is endorsed by the Republican Party. And the Tea Party is nonstop.
Advertisement | ad info

They are Republicans at heart, and they‘re upset that we have a black president. They are upset that people won‘t back down.




I don't want to defend stomping on someone's head. That isn't acceptable and the guy should have been fired (and was).

However, a little context to the Lauren Valle incident to be found here: http://www.redstate.com/rs_insider/2010/10...head-stomp-vid/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Oct 27 2010, 07:14 PM
Post #22


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Side note, Amlord: Schultz was never on Air America. He, like Stephanie Miller, is syndicated by a different radio network and was carried by many Air America affiliates.

Main note: You don't seem to have a good grasp on what a "dog whistle" is. A dog whistle carries an implicit message that is not stated explicitly. For the Southern Strategy forward, the dog whistle with the implicit message of "black people are a threat to you and we will protect you from them" was instituted because to say that message explicitly would be political suicide, so appealing to the racial fears of whites had to be done implicitly.

What you are talking about is very explicit messages - Matthews explicitly Godwined himself (I can't stand it when people do that) by comparing an act of thuggery by a couple Rand Paul volunteers to Nazi Germany, and Schultz made an explicit statement that it is the right wing of this country that is growing increasingly violent. I don't see hidden messages there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 27 2010, 07:17 PM
Post #23


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



And Schultz's statement about some people being upset because we have a black President? He didn't explicitly say that the Republicans will attack blacks, but the innuendo is there.

Matthews never made the point that the Republicans were Nazi-esque. He just implied it. I have no idea why I still watch his show either.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Oct 27 2010, 07:23 PM
Post #24


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Oh, and your RedState video is crap, by the way. Since Paul was out of the car moments before the stomping occurred (as the video of the stomping clearly shows) and because the camera was not showing most of the vehicle for the ten to fifteen seconds prior to Paul getting out of the car and not showing the vehicle at all once he did, the video does nothing to refute what Valle says went down. Par for the course for RedState.

QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 27 2010, 02:17 PM) *
And Schultz's statement about some people being upset because we have a black President? He didn't explicitly say that the Republicans will attack blacks, but the innuendo is there.

Matthews never made the point that the Republicans were Nazi-esque. He just implied it. I have no idea why I still watch his show either.


Uh, no... you're really not "grokking" it. Think deniability. There's no way Matthews could deny that he was referring to Nazi Germany. But a complaint about "welfare queens" has deniability that they're conjuring images of lazy black women breeding irresponsibly. I think you need to take some time to understand the term better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Oct 27 2010, 10:08 PM
Post #25


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 27 2010, 02:17 PM) *
Matthews never made the point that the Republicans were Nazi-esque. He just implied it. I have no idea why I still watch his show either.

Just a question.

Was Chris Matthews implying this about the Republican Party in general or more specifically the Tea Party element within the Republican Party? Is there much difference at this point?

This post has been edited by BoF: Oct 27 2010, 10:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 27 2010, 11:38 PM
Post #26


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 27 2010, 02:56 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 27 2010, 11:36 AM) *
I'm having a bit of trouble following your Rube Goldberg-like post.

Would you mind specifying which bit(s) of the following statement of yours is/are the "salient" one(s), and which one(s) is/are the "side point(s)", please?

"Kinda like inserting the words 'post-racial' as if the term achieved common usage anywhere but within Republican circles."

'Cause the way I'm interepreting its meaning is as follows:

"Since the term 'post-racial' has only achieved common usage within Republican circles, inserting it amidst a bunch of other statements is an example of right-wing 'dog-whistle' messaging".

Or am I missing something?


Yes, you're missing something.

I said that it's used almost exclusively as a dogwhistle.
...

Er, ... no, you actually didn't "say" that. What you actually "said" is:"Kinda like inserting the words 'post-racial' as if the term achieved common usage anywhere but within Republican circles."

Which, as I mentioned in my previous post, I interpreted as meaning:"Since the term 'post-racial' has only achieved common usage within Republican circles, inserting it amidst a bunch of other statements is an example of right-wing 'dog-whistle' messaging".

I'm afraid that your response fails to address my request for confirmation on your part as to whether my interpretation of what you actually "said" is correct.

So let me try again, "Raptavio":

Is YOUR "Kinda like inserting the words 'post-racial' as if the term achieved common usage anywhere but within Republican circles" = MY "Since the term 'post-racial' has only achieved common usage within Republican circles, inserting it amidst a bunch of other statements is an example of right-wing 'dog-whistle' messaging"?

It's a simple question.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Oct 28 2010, 12:34 AM
Post #27


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Apparently, "akaCG", you and I have a failure to communicate, because I answered the question, clearly and with more detail than it deserves. You asked if the statements are equivalent or if you're missing something. I answered that you're missing something, and then explained in great detail why the two statements are not equivalent.

This failure to communicate is either because you are continuing to dodge the issue of the right-wing "post-racial President" sarcasm being a dogwhistle, or because we are genuinely not understanding one another. Either way, as my time has been (if you haven't noticed by my sparse participation) very limited, I'm out of patience with trying, so I'm going to move on. Nothing personal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Oct 28 2010, 02:05 AM
Post #28


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 27 2010, 02:17 PM) *
And Schultz's statement about some people being upset because we have a black President? He didn't explicitly say that the Republicans will attack blacks, but the innuendo is there.

Matthews never made the point that the Republicans were Nazi-esque. He just implied it. I have no idea why I still watch his show either.


I disagree Amlord. There is no implication that republicans will attack Blacks, only that Republicans as a party don't like Blacks as a group. And that statement isn't really buried in tons of innuendo. He pretty much saying it.

Unlike this commercials where I read AKACG talking about... well it looks like maybe there is a hispanic guy at the end that isn't a prowling immagrant.

You know what will be funny is when 2 to 6 months when the "Why do minorities think Republicans are racist" debate returns to ad.gif all these conservative will still be like" I don't know why minorities are duped by democrats into thinking Republicans have a problem with them."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 28 2010, 02:10 AM
Post #29


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Oct 27 2010, 08:34 PM) *
... Either way, as my time has been (if you haven't noticed by my sparse participation) very limited, I'm out of patience with trying, so I'm going to move on. Nothing personal.

Rest assured, I'm not taking it personally.

I'm pretty sure we'll be revisiting the main themes of all this again at some point. Repeatedly, I would venture to guess.

IOW, it's the kind of conversation/discussion/debate that'll "keep" just fine for at least the next 740 days.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 28 2010, 02:39 PM
Post #30


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(droop224 @ Oct 27 2010, 10:05 PM) *
QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 27 2010, 02:17 PM) *
And Schultz's statement about some people being upset because we have a black President? He didn't explicitly say that the Republicans will attack blacks, but the innuendo is there.

Matthews never made the point that the Republicans were Nazi-esque. He just implied it. I have no idea why I still watch his show either.


I disagree Amlord. There is no implication that republicans will attack Blacks, only that Republicans as a party don't like Blacks as a group. And that statement isn't really buried in tons of innuendo. He pretty much saying it.

How does this conclusion follow from the video, though? Were there some invisible blacks getting beaten up in the video? No, it was some whacko professional hell-raising white liberal. How do you watch that video and then insert the comment that these people don't like the fact that we have a black President? How did race get inserted into the viewing of this video?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: September 19th, 2018 - 02:53 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.