Bush could have easily been defeated by psychological warfare

I just finished reading "Bush on the Couch" by Justin Frank, M.D. who gave an in-depth analysis of the whack-job-in-chief. Bush is very fragile, very narcissistic, and very anxious. The magnitude of his mental illness is astounding. It is so obvious that with this knowledge (this book and others like it were out in plenty of time), the Kerry campaign could have formulated attacks that would have decimated this guy. I cannot believe we didn't do this. We are losing elections because republicans are malignant manipulators and we refuse to expose their pathology. I am frustrated beyond belief.

where everyone is too timid to expose/stand up to the abusers...

:)

:)

for sure. Welcome to Harmony.

Richard Burton, correct?


Yes, Bush on the Couch spells out the koo-koo-in-chief.

I too wonder why Kerry didn't expose this. Kerry brought him right to the edge a few times but let him off. Bush is a short fuse waiting to explode and be exposed. "I know that!"

"I am not a number! I am a free man!"

Patrick McGoohan "The Prisoner"

Be seeing you....

:)

Information.

You won't get it!

Oh, by hook or by crook, we will.

(I'm STILL trying to figure out the last episode. So weird.)

Gotta love how they borrowed that theme for an Austin Powers joke!

Poor guy never figured it out.

And if you try to stand up to one, Americans are just as likely to rally around the abuser anyway.

He can't be given bad news, see protesters or acknowledge that they exist, or hire anyone who might disagree with him. He has amassed corrupt power well beyond his office. How do you break through all that?

Bush is, of course, a coward, a liar, and a failure. He should have been directly hammered by Kerry about being AWOL and his business losses, insider trading, etc. He is also ashamed of his athletic failings. His father was smart, athletic (baseball), a business success. Kerry could have taunted him and exposed him. Michael Moore's movie did some of it, but Kerry and tv ads should have taken it much further. The evidence was all out there, video clips, records, everything but noooooo, we had to discuss issues. Well issues apparently dont' win elections.

Notice that NONE of MoveOn's ads were discussed for the issues they brought up about Bush.

Yet, the Swift Boat Liars were promoted daily on all the 24/7 networks for FOUR MONTHS STRAIGHT!

whom we can't control....the people were watching and listening and they didn't hear a thing from us that made a splash. We should have bombarded them. Are you old enough to remember our killer ad against Goldwater, the little girl with the daisy and the H-bomb...those were the days.

is taken by the candidate and the campaign. The people weren't watching THAT closely, and buy into the spin.

Do you honestly think Bush should have been able to survive those debates where Kerry decisively pummeled him even without any chicanery? The media MADE CERTAIN he survived and was not held accountable, but, did ya hear what the Swift vets are saying NOW?

ours would have been every bit as nasty but completely the truth. The media didn't do Kerry in alone, those swiftboat ads were murder to him. Even if the media shrieked about our ads, they would have been heard. Bush is so crazy and fragmented, this would have been an easy push over the edge. The Gore campaign, the Kerry campaign....we are fools to let them do this to us over and over.

ad. Don't you GET IT? It's how the media chooses to portray the ad. Kerry could have run an ad that butchers Bush into little pieces for 30-60 seconds and then all the cable shows and networks would do hours of shows saying Kerry lied or exaggerated or wasn''t fit to be president based on the tone of the ad.

F9-11 was true and that didn't stop the media from saying it was a pack of lies, did it?

and extremely fast to counter with a response that belittled the charge and then they would change the course of propaganda or fear tactic.

And that - Well issues apparently dont' win elections. - is the most important thing we need to remember.

in a way that didn't seem like it was attacking everyone - a lot of people aren't Quarterbacks, for instance or whatever - and people might see themselves being attacked if it was not specific enough.


It's all hindsight anyway. I'll always believe the exit polls. It seems to me it's mostly a matter of not having the election stolen.

Though I think it could be harder in the future - the media is still doing such an amazing job of bashing Democrats in general.

time. Just think..if he had to live in reality how stressed out he would look..he still looks like some of that bad news filtered through.

And now he's had to apologize for saying "bring it on" and "dead or alive" so you know rove has told him something about the effects those stupid words had.

The broadcast media did its best to protect Bush for their corporate masters. Bush could have had a complete breakdown during the debates (even more than he did) and the media would have run interference. Swift Boat Vets 24/7.

Yes, Bush is a sociopath, but , what media will share that with the American people?

We have to expose the GOP control of the media and the voting machines because nothing else will ever matter.

beyond his sputtering performance at the "debates." I mean swearing and raging, before his protectors can "cut away" to commercial, etc...

In other words, once the protective walls around him start to crack just a little, the Dauphin faces a mind-melding tsunami of reality crashing down on him...

So true...those are very precise and accurate words. That's how they won the election by being "malignant manipulators". They manipulated the public into thinking that a decorated courageous war hero was less than a draft-dodging, cocaine snorting brat who never saw a day of combat in his life.

Their entire campaign was destroying Kerry and terrorizing Americans into believing that Al Queda would kill their family if they didn't vote for Bush.

I wonder though...what would you suggest to remedy this? The truth didn't seem to work.

The debates brought to the surface some of Bush's pathology. Rove and his handlers keep Bush pretty encased. Remember his rallies? They were scripted and the audience was hand selected. I guess we now understand why those rallies were so uber-controlled. Bush needs scripted rigidity--or else he comes unglued. America's own bubble boy.

And I will say this for Bush---he can read off of a teleprompter and memorize sound bytes rather well. That's how he's hidden all of this.

How could we have outted his mental illness?

remember Willie Horton. That's how far they were willing to go. Why not us? We should have had ads on the lying, the failures, the AWOL. Next time put an angry shrink in charge and you'll see something worth seeing.

He can? I think he's the stupidest specimen ever to utter public address.

...Bush is about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.

In all honesty, I think he's chronically screwed up. I think the man has a major case of uber-ADD--which stems from childhood trauma, anxiety and brain damage to due alcoholism. Being raised by lying psychopaths probably doesn't help either.

I see Bush as a man in complete disarray. So, anytime I see him give a speech--I consider it a major feat. It's amazing the guy can eat a pretzel without.......oooops, scratch that.

A couple of his State-of-the-Union speeches were decent. The content was disgusting, but his delivery was ok. I believe he's able to pull this off by hyperfocusing and memorization.

I guess I consider the president pretty brain damaged. Considering that he would probably be playing with a ball of twine right now--if it weren't for his daddy's connections--I see some of his performances as miracles. I don't know how he pulls it off.

This fellow thinks he's solved the mystery of the Bush Bulges.

http://atlanta.indymedia.org/newswire/display/35360/index.php

but if the elections rigged its all for nada.

and it probably won't.

It's not so much that we REFUSE to expose their pathology, it's more like we (our side) don't even see it all that well, if at all.

Here's another really good article, btw:
THE MADNESS OF GEORGE W. BUSH: A REFLECTION OF OUR COLLECTIVE PSYCHOSIS by Paul Levy
http://www.awakeninthedream.com/georgew.html

(close up of frog with firecracker inserted into orifice). Now Bush tortures people...(close up of Abu Ghraib). Why would you vote for this man? ( I swear that is the ad I would have run..)

Was it this author who suggested that the way to win over Bush is to goad him to anger? A person with his psychological problems can be fairly easily provoked by the right questions. And application of the right questions would have revealed his nasty side even more than we saw in the debates.

I could do it myself. I lived with a narcissist for more than two decades. When I finally stopped being afraid and left, I realized that I could have tweaked him at any time.

* do therapy with Dr. Frank?? Do you really believe anybody can diagnose without meeting the patient??

Besides, calling him mentally ill lets him off the hook. Was Stalin mentally ill? Hitler? Mao? Castro? Atilla? I don't know, but it doesn't excuse any evil that they have done.

He says upfront that he can't diagnose Bush without interviews. But he CAN apply the techniques of psychological assessment that our own government agencies use to determine the mental health of people of interest. (Foreign leaders, etc.)

Providing a mental assessment surely does not excuse Bush from responsibility for his heinous actions. It isn't that he doesn't know good from evil. It's that he chooses evil.

anything but some comments about it. Although I definitely believe psychology is a bullshit pseudo-science, anyway. That's because my wife is a social worker, and several of our friends are in the business.

i think the recommended strategy was to use the knowledge of his mental vulnerabilities to push his buttons and to goad him into saying or doing something really stupid and self-destructive.

some tactics might include accusing him of trying to one-up his daddy, e.g.,

:scared:

there will be no changes in the US news that so many Americans have come to believe are the ONLY news sources for credibility. As an example, the Repubs started the media whores using and abusing the term "insurgents". If you look up that word it DOES NOT apply to what is happening in Iraq; the words "resistence fighters" would be more applicable. There is no government beyond the puppet government installed by the Bush regime, thus "insurgent" is the completely incorrect term. Yet, even Franken on Air America uses the term "insurgents".
The latest diatribe the Repubs are trying to sneak in to frame the general American belief in US media whore media is that the Dem party is a party of the past.

There are many other Repub media blitz terms and phrases that are now part of the US media whore vernacular. So, until the Dems become adamant in not allowing the Rebubs to frame the general US media terms, and go on the offensive rather than rebutting on the defensive using the Reub-termed words/phrases, the uphill climb to begin moving the US away from the fascist state the Repubs and Dems are allowing the Bush/Rove cabal to their climb for ulimate and sick power grabs.

insurgent:
Main Entry: <1>in·sur·gent
Pronunciation: -j&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise —more at SURGE
Date: 1765
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party