Jane Hamsher Explains the WIDER IMPORTANCE of the Cheney Shooting Story

In my opinion, the most consistently insightful reporting this week on the Cheney shooting – Fuddgate – has been at Firedoglake (http://firedoglake.blogspot.com). Some at DU have been deploring the attention being given this story or questioned whether it had any real importance beyond what it revealed about the character of Cheney and the bizarre workings of the Bush/Cheney WH (neither of which was a surprise to us at least). While it is true that we need to ALSO focus attention and activation on other urgent topics, Jane Hamsher explains why there are harmonics in the Fuddgate affair that have important and unexpected consequences of which we need to be aware. I’ve not seen this analysis anywhere else, and I want to pass it on to you. (Several other firedoglake posts this past week have also been true gems of facts and insight.)

Basically, Jane’s insight is that everything is connected, and that the power of the various players in ALL the ongoing political wrestling matches is driven by the polls and popularity, “face” In the Chinese sense. As she sees it, Fuddgate has weakened Cheney, and this has in turn lessened his clout in strong-arming Congressional members into toeing his line., at least for now. One major issue impacted by this, Jane believes, is the status of NSA investigation.

I do recommend that you read the entire blog entry. I’ll give URLs for each of Jane’s embedded hot links. By the way, the graphic was so absolutely irresistible that I just HAD to get it hosted and share it with you; you’ll soon see the perfection of all four of the Oz character assignments. Cheney is indeed being seen as a cowardly lion this week, and it is setting back his agenda.



Jane points out the significance of someone like Chuck Hagel saying (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/13902053.htm) “If {Dick Cheney} had been in the military, he would have learned gun safety." Further, she notes, Pat Roberts is “locking horns with BushCo. over the DeWine proposal to simply exempt the whole warrantless NSA program from the requirements of FISA” (http://nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18nsa.html?hp&ex=1140325200&en=231ab42e6ca3fd9c&ei=5094&partner=homepage). Would this be happening without Cheney’s appalling behavior after the shooting? Jane thinks there’s a connection and so do I. Dick This week, Cheney has been revealed as a fool, an out-of-control blunderer, a possible careless drunk, a man disconnected from the president's circle, who has in a real sense isolated himself by his own actions. He has been weakened - at least for now - by the whole Fuddgate episode, and the Congressional and media sharks are very good at sensing blood.

Another person taking a stab at explaining why the Cheney shooting story is important is NBC’s senior WH correspondent, David Gregory:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x461201
thread title (2-18-06 GD): David Gregory: Why the Cheney Story Matters
Comment/excerpt: David Gregory is the chief WH correspondent for NBC and was involved in especially heated exchanges with McClellan over this issue and the blatant non-answers to repeated, direct questions. This OP is based on his blog. Excerpt: “Mr. Cheney, in my view, acted as if he had something to hide. He also chose to allow a witness to this accident and the White House press secretary to spend three days portraying this as the fault of the shooting victim, Harry Whittington. Wednesday, Mr. Cheney changed course and took the blame. That invites press scrutiny. This episode was also emblematic of how the Vice President chooses to communicate with the press and by extension the public. It also revealed tension within the White House between the staffs of the President and Vice President.“

But though he makes some valid points, I don’t see In his comments the depth of insight that Jane Hamsher has.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Finally, I want to remind people that I have been keeping a THREAD COMPILATION on the Cheney shooting/ Fuddgate. In the General Discussion Forum the current version is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x456727
thread title (2-17-06 GD): COMPILATION OF CHENEY SHOOTING THREADS - with comments/excerpts:
Comment/excerpt: Repost of updated thread started in this forum Feb 14. At time of posting, it is identical to the version in the Research Forum.

In the Research Forum the compilation is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=358x3133
thread title (2-14-06 RESEARCH FORUM): Compilation of threads on 2/06 Cheney shooting incident, including videos

The VIDEO THREADS are organized at the end. If you know of important threads that I overlooked – I’m sure there are a lot of them, as I DO actually have a life – post links in the GD compilation and I’ll add them in the Research Forum thread.

ed:typo

shooting someone in the face is a private matter

but a Blowjob is an impeachable offense....

behind the scenes in the R party. They are trying to get rid of Cheney and his power base so they can push Rice up. Right now their field of candidates for 08 sucks, with many of them having traceable trails of corrupt behavior. They will stick Rice out there and dare the nation to vote against a woman, and a black woman to boot. I'll be happy to vote against her since she is as corrupt and bloodstained as the rest. The rank and file of the Rs who dislike Cheney and his ways are probably pedestrian in their complaints, but the power brokers are trying to get rid of him off in anticipation of the 08 elections. Cheney loves power and he's nuts. He'll go kicking and screaming all the way. Learned at the knees of Nixon.

I read somewhere that a GOP Congress member said "the fix is already in," but whether this is true or not it seems inevitable - barring major illness or scandal - to me.

"Cheney loves power and he's nuts. He'll go kicking and screaming all the way." Oh, yeah. :crazy:

Don't forget they weren't going to tell but something changed them to tell. I think it happened without Cheney wanting it to and they could have been sending him a message. I still wonder what really happened to Mr. Whittington. Can they fake his accident? He had something on his neck that doesn't look fake.

The first essay raises several interesting points. I think the single most important is the character issue. It becomes the job of the progressive forces to use the entire incident to indict Cheney's character in the court of public opinion. The next step is to tie the most significant, and hence damaging, of the Bush administration's policies as directly to Cheney as possible. The incident gives us a vehicle to bertter do that -- his disregard for basic hunting safety with his drinking, his recklessness in shooting his friend in the face, his cowardice in not going to the hospital, and his lack of character in trying to concoct a cover story to place guilt on the victim and to avoid all responsibility for his own actions.

It would have been great if this translated into an instant change in the House and Senate's willingness to bark when Cheney says bark, and quiver with fear when Cheney threatens to bite. But we must recognize that the representatives and senators are, by and large, a collection of people lacking character, too.

Change is a slow process. But it can be accomplished. And the Cheney incident gives us some fuel.

character issue in the Cheney shooting story, here's another chance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x409282
thread title (2-13-06 GD): Character Issues & Collateral Damage
Comment/excerpt: Thoughtful H2O Man post on Whittington’s shooting by Cheney. Part of it: “Dick and friends tried to make it sound like it was the victim's fault. They said he didn't let the VP know he was coming up behind him. Please. The guy had an orange jacket. Then the story became that the sun was in Dick's eyes. You don't shoot anything (or anyone) you can't identify. But Cheney will blame his friend for his error. His friend becomes collateral damage, less important than poor Dick's reputation. These are serious character issues.”

This is the heart of the matter. Jane Hamsher is saying that it is already having a visible effect on the balance of political power.

and all his other blatant outrages.

The GOP will want to dump him and then scapegoat him as the source of all the problems. With McCain as "Mr. Clean & Sane" at the head of their political push, they will want to put Cheney firmly in the past.

Of course, McCain's dirty & dangerous & complicit as hell and we can't let this happen if that's the way they try to work it.

of people in the president's office who are becoming more open in their discussions about the problems Cheney causes for "the administration," meaning Bush. They are joining the discussions that come from the circle of power that is composed of Bush the Elder's group, Brent Scowcroft and the like. (This should be viewed as there being divisions in the republican leadership at the policy level, rather than significant differences in overall goals.)

The overall goal is to keep the three branches of government safely in the bag. The federal courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are being packed with conservatives. The House and Senate have a large combination of conservatives and weaklings, although it is the one branch that has the greatest potential for being changed. That leaves the presidency.

The idea that Cheney is not running for the presidency was originally promoted to increase his ability to work behind the scenes, and to act with a secretive yet reckless power. However, it was never true. Cheney has wanted to be president for a long time. He had formed a committee in '95 to study his chances the following year, but it fell flat. Of course, Bob Dole headed the ticket in '96, and while Bob was popular as a loyal junk yard dog, willing to guard the bankers' houses, he is the model for the reason that those same bankers will not likely give in to the prosepect of his political heir apparent, John McCain, heading the ticket, unless the democrats put up a candidate who is acceptable to the republican power circle.

Thus, the trap for the republican power circles: if Cheney stays, their party likely nominates John Dole McCain, who is like an old heavyweight contender who was passed by in his prime years, and who finally gets a title shot when he is no longer a threat. Or, they can dump the Dick, and replace him with either an elder statesman from the Elder's circle, or with a young warrior they want to promote for president in '08. Removing Cheney, however, increases the risks of sparking forces that could change the cowardly nature of the House and Senate.

Jane doesn't really make this point, but it's part of the mix in my opinion. Cheney was the one blundering around, but Bush was shown up as a weak fool who could not control his own vice-president. BUSH lost face this past week too. It was abundantly clear that he was NOT in charge, and the media-generated fiction of Bush portrayed as the powerful, decisive protector of the country is key to the GOP propaganda framing. Cheney was, as you say, supposed to be the BEHIND-THE-SCENES powermonger/operator. But he merely looked swaggering, clueless and - as you have pointed out - characterless. And mean, in all senses except "tough." He did not look intimidating or as if he were following some clever secret plan. The sharks took notice.

There really does seem to be something wrong with Cheney's judgment and mental functioning. It's not like this was such a departure from the way he's been acting these past years, it's more like it put it into the spotlight so it could not be ignored. Hard to imagine him recapturing his former reputation.

Bush could not control him, and Cheney acted like all the power was in HIS hands. You may smile at my choice of spokesmen for this, but I thought Ron Reagan Jr's energetic argument vs Hannity, Tweety & Tucker made this point so well that they could not refute it. The crescendo came when he said that Cheney OUTRANKS Bush, and I think many people saw it the same way:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x456942
thread title (2-17-06 GD): VIDEO- Ron Reagan Jr about Cheney- ONLY Ron Reagan Jr
Comment/excerpt: Liveoaktx/Can-o-fun VIDEO of Ron with Hannity, Tucker & Tweety – they couldn’t touch him, and he cracked them up. He said Cheney outranks Bush – and he’s right. Very fine and hard-hitting.

Circles and circles all right. I do think McCain is the current leading contender as the next GOP candidate, but they may yet try to dust off another younger, more charismatic-appearing figurehead. McCain does indeed have a lot of baggage, though he has been working overtime to make everyone forget that - with the help of the media:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1818584

I have nothing but respect for him. I would note, however, that Chris Matthews argued from the onset that this incident was important, because it was a character issue, and more importantly, because it showed that Cheney is running the shadow government.

McCain could end up the republican candidate, because he has gone a long way in the past 6 years to prove beyond a doubt that he will always be a faithful dog in protecting the bank. Where once there was a question if he would be guided by his conscience and by the clear knowledge of right vs wrong, John has shown he will "rise above his principles" and embrace evil, if he is rewarded with a pat on his humbly bowed head. Where once he had respect, he now has earned contempt.

",,,He has gone a long way in the past 6 years to prove beyond a doubt that he will always be a faithful dog in protecting the bank. Where once there was a question if he would be guided by his conscience and by the clear knowledge of right vs wrong, John has shown he will "rise above his principles" and embrace evil, if he is rewarded with a pat on his humbly bowed head. Where once he had respect, he now has earned contempt."

He allowed his ambition to utterly crush his integrity. Yet his major media selling point IS his integrity. The irony keeps growing.

I like Ron Reagan Jr too.

Would PNAC have enough people placed in strategic places to allow displacement of Mr. Sneer?
I am sure he will maintain control over a lot of stuff from some undisclosed place, but does he have enough Dickie-clones in place yet?

reliable to them. They cannot afford to have a fool and a loose cannon, the stakes are too high and the secrets are too hideous.

I think we'll be seeing ever more finger-pointing at Cheney, even for things that are really the fault of someone else, like RUmsfeld or Shrub himself.

But we can't just let them transfer power while retaining it. Gotta work on waking people up to what's really happening.

Especially after what happened to him in 2000! He so wants to be president from kissing Bush's ass to meeting with Jerry Falwell.

A tragedy for him, since he has to live with himself and will eventually have to deal with what he has done, but a much bigger one for the country if he gets elected. He'd continue to kiss Bushie ash, and things would just get worse.

was like watching some Highlighter God take his yellow pen and underline almost everything that`s wrong with the Bush administration.

We had secrecy, lies, contempt for law, recklessness, a lying Press Secretary, disregard for human life, misuse of the press, a MIA president and a full-throttle spin machine. Even the gated hunting compound, the choice of Fox News and Matalin`s mad scramble fit right in. Who should be surprised that the victim was blamed (remember New Orleans?)or that Bush would belatedly announce he was satisfied with Cheney`s performance? About the only thing missing was the bombing of the Corpus Cristi Times.

The media deserves some blame, not so much for how they covered this story but for all the other important stories they ignored. For all their highly paid tv stars and high-tech equipment, corporate media can handle only one in-depth news story at a time. Cheney`s disgusting behavior should have been a top story, but so should the deaths in Iraq, the new Abu Gahrib photos, the NSA scandal and a few dozen more.

So true: "like watching some Highlighter God take his yellow pen and underline almost everything that`s wrong with the Bush administration."

representative of the entire Bush Regime. They are all liars, arrogant assholes and criminals.

is that Cheney is still a drinker. Up until the shooting incident, must of us assumed that Cheney really did lay off the sauce years ago. How could a man in his condition, 4 heart attacks, clotted arteries, and a built in fibulator even think about drinking? Not only is it now apparent that Cheney not only drinks but that it is still a problem. Here's a guy with at least 2 DUI's under his belt and a history of alcohol abuse, which qualifies him has an alcoholic. When the drinking continues, despite serious health problems that are made worse by continued drinking, then you are still an alcoholic. In other words, we now know that CHENEY IS AN ALCOHOLIC. So now we have two alcoholics running the country. No wonder they can't react appropriately to emergencies and it takes hours if not days to find someone in the WH to respond anytime something bad happens. I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't want to depend upon an alcoholic to keep me safe from anything, no less al Qaeda.

It is perhaps safer to say that Bush had addiction issues in his past, that appear to contribute to "dry drunk" character issues today. There is, of course, no evidence that Bush drinks today.

Cheney had a couple drinking & driving tickets at a time when, in general, drunken driving was not taken as seriously as it is now. There is no record of how he addressed that situation. He clearly has health issues today that make drinking an obvious poor choice.

People should not drink, at all, on a day when they are planning to hunt. This does not mean drink for lunch, and hunt a few hours later. But the more serious issue may be that Dick fixed himself at least one mixed drink after shooting his friend. Drinking to deal with stress is not a good idea for anyone, much less a vice presiident. It brings back memories of the stories of Nixon, drinking heavily as the Watergate case trapped him much like Plame is trapping Cheney today, walking the halls of the White House, talking to paintings.

That the ratio of driving drunk to DUI citations is probably 1000 to 1 (probably much more). Anyone that get's multiple DUI's has a serious problem.

at a time when drinking and driving was fairly common. However, in order to get charged with a DUI, no less two, you had to be just about falling down drunk back in those days.

Since then, there is no indication of whether or not Cheney ever even tried to stop drinking. Now in light of his behavior on the day he shot his hunting companion, I get the feeling Cheney never did stop. He just hid it well. Under the circumstances, I think the public now has a right to know what is Cheney's current status in regards to alcohol.

In regards to Bush, I doubt if he ever stopped drinking. Or if he has stopped drinking, he has replace the alcohol with a cocktail of mood altering drugs. I happen to think him and Laura do both. Why do I believe this? On Sat. Dec 29, 2000 I was in Fort Myers, FL with my family eating breakfast at the local IHOP waiting for our car to finish being repaired. There was a bunch of newspapers people left behind and I grabbed one. On the front page they ran a story about the new President-elect's vacation on Gasparilla Island with the rest of the Bush clan. The reporter asked the spokesperson for the family what Bush had done that day? They said that he had gone fishing that morning with his father, then he played a round of golf and that evening he went to the store to buy a bottle of gin for his evening martini. I swear to god that's what it said and I was so astonished I even read the paragraph out loud to my husband. One of those, oh my god the bastard still drinks, moments. I wish to heck that I had saved that newspaper, because I have never been able to find that reference online. I wasn't posting at the time, so I didn't realize that having a copy of this story would be useful later on. Oh well, if someone has access to Lexus Nexus that article is out there somewhere.

cruised LexisNexis for awhile...

parameters, 12/01/2000-12/31/2000
keywords: Bush, Gasparilla, gin...
no matches found

then did Bush, Gasparilla
found 18 matches...
none of which mention gin or martinis

maybe they scrubbed it?

it is similiar but not the same has the one I read that day in print. Of course, some cleaning up and variation may have happened in different reports.



December 27, 2000

The younger Bush had said during the campaign that, if he lost the election,

he would go fishing with the "old man." Instead, Bush won the election -- and promptly flew off to go fishing with the old man.

Fishing, though, would have to wait until today. After a national security briefing, Bush went to play golf with his father and three brothers yesterday afternoon.

"Danger on the right!" Bush hollered to a pack gathered along the fifth tee of the golf course at the Gasparilla Inn.

"That's better than danger on the left!" a gallery member volleyed back, to laughs and banter all around. Bush teed up and pounded the ball off a grove of banyan trees and -- his Sunshine state luck holding true -- into the middle of the fairway.

The family then ventured off to dinner.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/27/MN11414.DTL


BTW: Thanks for looking.

That's the gist of what the 18 matches were like... though some tried to ask seriouser questions about cabinet picks etc. They all mentioned golf and fishing and vacationing. Made me angry at all these filthy rich people actually... rat bastards. As for looking, as long as i have a school account for searching databases, i will use it... especially to dig up juicy tidbits. Peace out.

but to deal with the fact that he had alcohol in his blood, and he needed to have an excuse for it. Having had that cocktail in front of witnesses, he could say that any alcohol in his blood was from that, not from any drinks he had before the shooting.

a few days before the piece I excerpted in the opening post. Apparently it's a common ploy among chronic drinkers, and once I read it, it seemed obvious in retrospect.

interpretations of the post-shooting cocktail. One of course, is that he gave a great, visible sign to anyone around that alcohol would be in his system. The second is that people of his generation and social status often do not see why they should forego drinking. Cheney, unlike Bush, has never said he stopped drinking, so far as I am aware. I'm sure he believes he uses "moderation," which is kind of like the rhythm method of birth control, only it applies to alcohol and drugs.

have raised that possibility and it probably cannot be proved or disproved at this point. Before the Whittington shooting and its aftermath, Cheney's possible drinking was not a significant topic of discussion. Now it is, even in the corporate media. Even David Letterman said (I am quoting from memory, so may be slightly off), "Maybe he was drinking when we went into Iraq, too."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=437384
thread title (2-16-06 GD): VIDEO- Letterman on Cheney Night 3
Comment/excerpt: Quail are rumored to be hiding in the mountains near Pakistan. Strong statement on the drinking aspect – was Cheney drinking before we invaded Iraq? “Heart attack!!? says Cheney, “Don’t steal MY act, bitch, or I’ll take you out!”

In another firedoglake entry, Jane Hamsher pointed out that Cheney's drinking a highball in front of everyone after the shooting parallels a well-known ploy used by chronic drinkers who are concerned about being tested for alcohol. A highly public drink can cover for the alcohol consumed earlier "offstage." This suggestion doesn't prove anything, of course, but it shows the working of doubt in this situation and is an interesting point, too.

Drinking and being 'drunk' are two different things. I did say Cheney may be an alcoholic though, but again that doesn't mean he was drunk when he shot Whittington.

Let us assume for a moment that Cheney is actually human.
He has just shot and gravely injured a friend.
One would assume that he would have been very concerned for his friend's welfare,
and ensuring that he receivd the best possible medical attention.

I'm not sure where "I need a good, stiff drink" fits into that.

He must have been drunk already.

A DUer pointed this out in a great post last week -- sorry I can't find my way back to it now.

readers could help keep this thread kicked.

--IMM

Thank you for pointing this out. It's excellent.

Cheney is a bigger story: We're all quail to Bushco!

We're the prey, the fattened game birds that that just sit in the field and get popped off by the "feudal lords." They are who they are and, despite popular opinion, they are bolder by the day.

Look at Hagel comments as she quotes them.

When you've got people like Chuck Hagel saying...

"“If had been in the military, he would have learned gun safety."

Everybody is hauling out the heavy ordinance. There is a civil war in "management." Many of the "lords" are unhappy with Cheney-Bush. We'll see more battles like this.

As for Cheney, he needs to be declared "persona non grata" -- meaning, he's simply not welcome in this country...he just has to leave...no hearings etc. Bye, bye...

Wonderful post.

but I can't. That came early in a DU poll thread. I'm not sure I can find it. If I do, I'll post a link and the name of the clever person who first called it "Fuddgate."

There WERE some photos on the web showing Elmer Fudd with Cheney's face. I think one was at firedoglake. That was before Whittington's heart attack made the seriousness of his injuries obvious and the whole thing less funny.

Cheney's the one wounded.

Let's hope, mortally, in the political sense.

Great post, Nothing Without Hope! Great graphic, too.

That is a PR mistake IMO. Cheney apologizing and his victim graciously accepting it would've given cover to his true believers, should there be any left, but the victim apologizing?
Even his true believers will have a hard time promoting that one.

Two: For the victim to apologize means they're covering up something even bigger. "Let's let bygones be bygones." Or, as Sneer would say: "Fuhgedaboudid."

What they want people not to think about, IMFO, is what happened in Dallas on 22 November 1963. I can't prove it, but Whittington being friends with the oil folk like Clint Murchison make me mighty suspicious of his friendship with George Herbert Walker Bush.

BTW: Here's what GHWB told the FBI he was doing when President Kennedy was murdered:



SOURCE: http://www.internetpirate.com/bush.htm

Murchison was friends with J Edgar Hoover and the Mafia.

This is a nice read, adds a bit to the subject:



He who lives by the sword...

to see a corporate media reporter speaking the truth so clearly - it happens all too rarely in these parts. Those "black arts of White House media management" not only produce spin, but the products are often poorly written. Perhaps not believing what you are writing takes a toll, as if the creativity and spirit (I almost said "conviction," but these days that word usually means a legal action) went somewhere else.

This is all about archetypes: their deliberate construction to sway the public and the revelation that they do NOT fit after all.

But they're still trying. The cover of Newsweek shows Cheney as the Marlborough Man and the excerpt I read in this thread sounds like spin -- archetype framing -- to me. I'll post an excerpt and photos in a separate reply.

Be the first to lie.

It takes 100 times the Truth to drive it out.

Stan Goff is the real deal.



Thanks for the heads-up on a hell of an essay.

People like you and Goff are why the good guys have a chance, Nothing Without Hope.

Blew me away. The truth is, it's our COMMUNITY that gives us good guys a chance. We don't even know each others' real names or faces for the most part, and we're all ages and backgrounds and every other variable, but it doesn't matter. We all care so profoundly and TOGETHER we refuse to give up. Now the events of this past week give us important new indications of how to devise effective communication campaigns to undermine the grip that these false, hollow posers have on the psychology of the public.

I have a bookmark folder labeled "encouraging messages." I keep it in reserve for when it's especially hard to keep at it, for when I am feeling like a fool for the work I do in online political discourse. Your message is now safely tucked away in that folder.

Thank you. (And back atcha. Why do you think I hoped you would comment on this thread?)

Although I don't believe that this incident ranks in the top 1000 worst things that Cheney has ever done, it is nevertheless good that the fact of its visibility appears to be weakening him. Thank you for putting this together.

but also for what it reveals about the real basis of the hold on the public psychology that these ciminals have - and the clues of how to further undermine it.

We need to work on media campaigns, LTTE, disccusion groups, interaction with congressional representatives (andnot only the Dems) in a way that pushes at the WEAKNESSES that have been so clearly revealed this past week. They are NOT what they seem to be. They can protect no one and would not bother to do so if they could. Oh, the reframing is crucial and what has happened this past week shows the way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x467252
thread title (2-19-06 GD): Why Cheney's hunting accident matters - By Stan Goff
Comment/excerpt: He perceives the way ARCHETYPES deliberately concocted by propaganda have been damaged by Fuddgate. Excerpt: “…This is the age of postmodern politics – the age of impression management. This is the time when the narrative is used to trump reality. No doubt perfidy has always characterized politics, but the good old days of no-bullshit thuggery and patrician patronage has given way to the construction of puerile caricatures. And many thought that Bush was the mediocre narcissist who liked to dress up in flight suits and caper across the decks of aircraft carriers. This incident exposes Cheney himself as just another costumed buffoon, and not the Darth Vader figure he and his desperately insecure admirers seemed to relish. … Dick Cheney has constructed himself as a hunter…consistent with his supposedly intimidating predator image. These are hegemonic masculinities, but only in the most theatrical sense. The cowboy and the hunter are idealized archetypes from a mythical past.

Messing with the archetypes destroys their mesmerizing power. THIS is what has happened. The Marlborough Man, the Manly, Silently Strong Hunter, the Stern and Wise Father, and ABOVE ALL, THE MAN WHO WILL PROTECT US - they've packed so many archetypes into Dick Cheney, it's a wonder he can walk. And now he's demonstrated for all to see that he doesn't fit those archetypes after all.

the cowboy and the hunter...outdated sterotypes for "strong"* (even if I was a cowboy or a hunter I wouldn't want the comparison with these buffoons).

How about other stereotypes for "strong" ?--like Cindy Sheehan and Gold Star families, or the survivors of Katrina or 9-11, or the homeless Walmart workers, etc etc etc (this list would be very long...)

How about the survivors & casualities of the B**h regime in general?

FRAMING/ARCHETYPES. Cheney has blasted some holes in his in Fuddgate, and heaven knows Shrub is no hero.

THIS is how they control the US public. Archetypes. THey stir up fear and division and then present themselves as the protectors and solution.

THIS is what we have to keep in mind constantly when we are battling the neocon propaganda. NOT by supporting the Patirot Act (my god, the Dems who say this are TRAITORS), but attacking at the roots.

but am at a loss as to how to "fight the framing archetypes" in a society that is so addicted to making decisions on the flimsiest characterization. And I don't see it ONLY as a problem with the sheeple...I have a number of intelligent friends who can be manipulated because they don't go below the surface. The mainstream media of course shamelessly perpetuates stereotypes.

I'm not as hard on the general public as some. I really think a lot of people are just treading water and overwhelmed. They want to come to the quickest conclusion..."anxious to be moving on." Not all of us can take the time to become political junkies. This jumping to conclusions is partly a problem of our frenetic times.

How do we blow the framing archetypes before they can take hold? Seems like it happens awful quick.
As soon as an image is created, it's burned in the memory banks of the entire population.

Please don't despair on this. I feel strongly that we can take the revelations of this past week - not so much what Cheney did as the response of the media and the public to it - and BUILD.

It's about synthetic archetypal character-acting versus REAL character. They have set up a situation where they tell us we must be terrifed and that only they can protect us. But they can't protect ANYONE, and wouldn't care enough to do so if they could. It's all lies and it's all bluff.

And the bluff has been called.

We need to push push push on this to the press, the US public in every way we can, and the Congress - and not just with Dems.

And now, good night! :hi:

mine are mostly rhetorical questions...how do we get people--even our own liberals--to stop taking everything at face value, to stop being so expedient, to QUESTION EVERYTHING ? Maybe that is an uncertain place to be...but it's better than delusion.

If you have any further insights on this "framing" question...maybe you would post it as a thread, Nothing W/out Hope. It would be a good discussion. These are important questions at this point...people are beginning to see how they were railroaded, used and abused.

How do we help Americans begin to prefer authenticity over caricature?

to be cont ...mg

Keith’s Barbeque Central

This is all about Jungian-style archetypes/Lakoffian framing: the spin-masters' deliberate construction of false but resonant mythic images -- and the revelation that they do NOT fit after all. But the spinners are trying to shore up their carefully constructed image of Cheney as the strong, silent, paternal figure who will protect us all:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x464705
thread title (2-19-06 GD): Newsweek Cover: Shot Heard Round the World (Cheney Shooting)
Comment/excerpt: The photos and the excerpt in the thread sound like they’re spinning like mad, trying to salvage the carefully cultivated image of Cheney as the strong, silent, paternal figure who will protect us all. Excerpt: “Feb. 27, 2006 issue - Dick Cheney has never been your normal politician. He has never seemed as eager to please, as needy for votes and approval and headlines as, say, Bill Clinton. Cheney can seem taciturn, self-contained, a little gloomy; in recent years, his manner has been not just unwelcoming but stand-offish. This is not to say, however, that he is entirely modest and self-effacing, or that he does not crave power as much as or more than any office-seeker. This, after all, is a man who, in conducting a search for George W. Bush's vice president, picked himself. Indeed, since 9/11, Cheney has struck a pose more familiar to readers of Greek tragedies than the daily Hotline. At times, he appears to be the lonely leader, brooding in his tent, knowing that doom may be inevitable, but that the battle must be fought, and that glory can be eternal….

And the Newsweek photos were carefully chosen to promote/shore up the damaged archetype/frame too:

portray Bush and Cheney as the stalwart, wise, strong men who will protect us.

Fuddgate shows that this is untrue.

We must fight the carefully constructed false ARCHETYPE.

Dick Gregory was on "Meet the Press" this morning, at the roundtable with Maureen Dowd, duking it out with Mary Matalin and Paul Gigot on the role (and ignoring) of the press after the shooting. One of the things Gregory pointed out was that if this incident had been way-back-when and had involved Al Gore as Vice President, there would have been the same flurry of hard questions asked.

Russert then proceeded to actually make one of the final points of the program about that speech Mr. Gore gave in Saudi Arabia! Granted, he did it in the context of "conservative blogs" focusing on Gore rather than Cheney, but Gigot used that opportunity to drive the negative home.

I've never been much a fan of Gore, but what he said on his trip about the abuses against Arabs was finally a step in the right direction and it was infuriating to see Russert and company ending that show slamming an attempt at diplomacy by our former Veep, when the topic was supposed to be Cheney and his skullduggery!


Here's the link to that entire discussion, in case you want to add it to your compilation:

Transcript for Meet The Press February 19 - Roundtable

:thumbsup:

I'll do it tomorrow - I'm falling asleep here and have to shut down for the night. I've got your post and any others people want to point out as important Fuddgate thread, and I've saved web archive pages from The Greatestt Page yesterday and just now. I'll go back and extract more of the most important threads and add them to the compilation.

But the center of the story isn't seen in a list of threads, even with the excerpts and the rest. We need to have a coming-together of minds on these issues. What are the important lessons and political effects of Fuddgate? And how do we use them to PUSH and DE-FOG on all the other issues that are so much more directly and obviously important?

Character issues, false archetypes, and finding ways to show these people for what they truly are have to be part of the plan. And Dem congress members who say that they have to vote for the Patriot Act because they can't seem "weak" are TRAITORS. No less. And if they really believe what they are saying - which I doubt - they are STUPID traitors.

Good night, folks. "See" you tomorrow.

but not nearly as much as Whittington lost

They're losing power now so I think if the democrats were to do anything right now would be the perfect time.

I'm loving it :kick: