Mighty Wurlitzer Talking Points.

August 9, 2002 12:16 PM

Mighty Wurlitzer Talking Points. Get used to hearing these repeated over and over again.

"The volume covers defense, the environment, taxes, Medicare and other campaign issues. Each chapter includes a section entitled "Answering liberal critics" with suggested answers to potentially troubling questions."

...and how to lie and obfuscate effectively perhaps? There's clearly a lot of worry about being on the wrong side of many issues. I've reported, you decide.
posted by nofundy (16 comments total)

Why doesn't the AP just put the book on the Web? Their pre-digested version is just fine for newspapers, but letting people read the whole text would be even better -- and unquestionably in the public interest.
posted by jjg at 12:41 PM on August 9, 2002

"If a candidate is asked to describe a plan for Social Security, the suggested answer avoids a direct response..."

You could substitute any issue in place of the words "Social Security" and you would have the universal rule of public conduct for professional politicians.
posted by Fabulon7 at 12:42 PM on August 9, 2002

Do the Dems have a similar book? I imagine two writers, one hired by the GOP, the other hired by the Dems, each reading the latest edition of the other's list, coming up with new answers, and sending them out to be parroted by their repsective puppets. It's pull-string doll politics everyone! Sheesh. No wonder nothing ever gets accomplished.
posted by eustacescrubb at 1:11 PM on August 9, 2002

Even libertarians think "privatization" of Social Security is stupid, but not for the same reasons.
posted by insomnyuk at 1:24 PM on August 9, 2002

Right. Because lord knows every single Democrat always comes up with his talking points on the spur of the moment, and wouldn't dream of there being any central organization, or party cohesiveness.

What ever.
posted by jammer at 1:44 PM on August 9, 2002

I would comment on this, but I'm not going to engage in class warfare.
posted by Gilbert at 1:53 PM on August 9, 2002

I'm scandalized. I eagerly await the Democratic version:

Don't mention blowjobs...or Buddist Nuns who've taken poverty vows writing $5000 checks to the DNC...or "no contolling legal authority"...or white house flatware ending up at Chappaqua...whatever.
posted by Pressed Rat at 2:04 PM on August 9, 2002

Right. Because lord knows every single Democrat always comes up with his talking points on the spur of the moment...

That's funny, nobody has actually suggested that this isn't standard procedure for all political parties.

I also think it's funny that the only people who see agendas everywhere are those who have agendas themselves.
posted by jjg at 2:05 PM on August 9, 2002

Does it bother anyone else that politicians, who are paid to think about issues and reflect the wishes of their constituents are, instead, using the Cliff's Notes crib sheet approach? Write your congresspersons and tell them that you'll mobilize against them if they are caught parroting from the playbook.
posted by ahimsakid at 2:28 PM on August 9, 2002

You don't really think that politicians are paid to think about issues and reflect the wishes of their constituents do you? Politicians are figureheads, their staff listen to the constituents, while they listen to large campaign contributors, the leaders of their party and lobbyists.

People with PhD's are paid to think about issues and policy, unfortunately some of their work is funded by people with agendas and few citizens or politicians actually understand anything about how science works.
posted by jonnyp at 2:42 PM on August 9, 2002

I'll preface this by saying that yes, I am a Democrat, although not too proud; I go for the lesser of two evils argument.

You know, you can say "the Democrats are assholes too," and sure, it's true... any public official is basically a sellout. But I think it's rather telling that this guidebook has so much to say about how to avoid very important issues. Essentially it's a handbook on how to keep the general population uninformed.

Most democrats actually want to address the issues, because if they can just get said idiot population to understand them, they will probably win elections.

(By the way, if they can just get said idiot population to be allowed to get to the Florida voting booths without police cars blockading black neighborhoods and private companies throwing away several thousand legitimate ballots, that would help too.)

The major exception to this is the fabulously wealthy, who know damned well that they're voting to screw the poor, and just don't care.

I really do care about the poor, but at some point I think that they have to get off their fat asses and learn about the real issues. How hard is it to understand that Bush is a greedy oil tycoon, after all. If they fail to do that, our whole country will soon be shit, but we the intelligent/rich will still be fine. I guess that's how a Republican probably thinks: the poor are poor because they're lazy, and we might as well just give up on them. I have to say that that argument is making more and more sense these days
posted by zekinskia at 4:39 PM on August 9, 2002

How hard is it to understand that Bush is a greedy oil tycoon

I think to be an oil tycoon you have to have actually succeeded in the oil business.
posted by Ty Webb at 4:58 PM on August 9, 2002

Ty: lol

But seriously. It would be nice if we did have people who were actualy intelegent running things.
posted by delmoi at 9:00 PM on August 9, 2002

While I would like to comment, I cannot to the best of my recollection, remember anything about the subject. At this point in time the facts escape me...
posted by Mack Twain at 9:56 PM on August 9, 2002

Touché, Jesse.

So, nofundy, this is something brand new, right?

Also, only Republicans engage in spin and message control, as all good people know.
posted by dhartung at 11:46 PM on August 9, 2002

If a candidate is asked to describe a plan for Social Security, the suggested answer avoids a direct response and makes no mention of Bush's call to allow workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes privately. "There are a lot of studies, proposals and options out there right now. Of course, it is difficult ... to have an honest debate on the subject because Democrats are simply using scare tactics," says the suggested response.

GOP Senate candidate Elizabeth Dole on Saturday accused Democrats of using "scare tactics" about privatizing Social Security to win the votes of senior citizens. "Frankly, I think it's shameful," Dole said in a half-hour interview on CNN. "I am sick and tired, and I think the American people are sick and tired, of this avoidance, of scare tactics."
posted by Dean King at 11:01 AM on August 11, 2002