my good friend, defiant infidel, says he's for fred, but he's afraid that not enough other people are supporting fred - mostly because he's listing to the lame stream media and believing the pollaganda message. for anyone not wholly familiar, mark alexander and his crew at the patriot post use the federalist dictionary to define it as thus:
Pollaganda -- n. 1. Media polling used to manipulate public opinion and advance a particular bias. This is primarily accomplished by television networks, on which most people rely for daily news. (Those who rely on print media for information are less likely to be subjected to extreme bias, and more inclined to discriminate between balanced and biased reporting.)
Pollagandize -- v. 1. To engage in pollaganda. 2. The systematic propagation of television media polls to manipulate public opinion by: first, saturating viewers with "reporting" which reflects a doctrinal bias; second, designing and conducting public opinion surveys which reflect that bias; and third, further proselytizing viewers by treating media poll results as "news." 3. Using pollaganda to induce "bandwagon psychology" (the human tendency to aspire to the side perceived to be in the majority), thus driving public opinion toward the original media bias.
this is exactly what has been happening throughout this campaign and others before it. remember 2000 when every poll (including the "exit interviews") showed al gore would win the election? same in 2004 with john kerry. and some times, as in the case of "news" anchor, dan rather they just flat out lie to put forth their position.
mark goes to further explain in this essay how it's applied in today's political cycle:
Pollaganda -- Outcome-based polling; instruments designed to generate a preferential outcome, which can be used to manipulate public opinion by advancing the perception that a particular issue or candidate has majority support. Pollagandize -- To utilize instruments of pollaganda, or selective poll reporting (reporting mostly favorable polls), to advance a particular bias.
Pollaganda Cycle -- The intentional propagation of a particular bias by Leftmedia mainstream television and print outlets to manipulate public opinion by first saturating viewers with "reporting" that reflects a particular bias; second, conducting public opinion polls in concert with like-minded organizations or campaigns, which will reflect that bias; third, further proselytizing viewers by treating these poll results as "news"; and fourth, using pollaganda to induce "bandwagon psychology" (the human tendency of those who do not have a strong ideological foundation to aspire to the side perceived to be in the majority), thus driving public opinion toward the original media bias.
ABC's George Stephanopoulos, a key strategist in Bill Clinton's campaigns and one of many Leftists who have repeatedly passed through the looking glass between political camps and their news fronts, noted that political scientists "talk about the bandwagon effect, that once a candidate gets in the zone, all of the coverage is good, almost no matter what happens...."
Indeed, Leftmedia pollagandizing of the electorate is an intentional undermining of the democratic process. Pollaganda not only creates a targeted constituency; at the same time it can discourage voter turnout, turning the electoral process into a spectator sport.
sound familiar to anyone out there besides me?
to be fair, now-a-days, this system is used for more than just selecting political candidates. polls are used to try to effect nearly every part of our political and legislative process. why, just this year, it's been used to put forth the msm's views on social security, schip, gun control, foreign policy, war strategy and illegal immigration control.
with the mccain/kennedy immigration reform bill the pollaganda actually failed - but that is definitely NOT the norm. finally, we the people, stood up and said "NO!" and regardless of what the "polls" showed, congress [and president bush] had to back down or risk all out revolt. personally, i was hoping for a revolution, but apparently we're just not far enough in the trash for enough others to join with me yet...
anyway, whilst di and i were chatting he lamented that he's not seeing from fred what he hoped to be seeing from fred by now. not getting any airplay, not seeming to have any "fire in his belly", not being aggressive enough. all perceptions based on what he "doesn't" see in the mainstream media or even on faux news channel. and that's an especially unfortunate example of how pollaganda and the execution thereof subverts the political process in this country - well probably in other countries as well, but i'm concerned only about here for this post.
i attempted to give di encouragement of what the history of the iowa caucuses is - pertaining to polls and the proper prediction of who will place in the top three - but he remained saddened. then i began telling him that so many stories are coming out about people who are switching their support to fred and i began to see a glimmer of hope that this man - the best man for the job in my and di's (and many other's) opinion has a shot.
so then i told him "fred's not being lazy or quite - he's just not playing the sound bite game." i went on further, saying, think back to 1980 and bush, the elder, was "the man" and no way would reagan get the nomination because heck even hollywood wasn't supporting him. the press and [supposedly] "everyone" was saying "he's too lazy." "he's too old." "he's not being aggressive enough." in short he was too too.
reagan finished second in iowa when every poll showed him to be in fourth or maybe even fifth. then he went on to take new hampshire. and the rest is history.
funny thing about those iowa voters - they don't pay much attention to polls - how else do you explain that over and over, at least as long as anyone has been paying attention to iowa, the top three in iowa don't line up with what the polls predicted ahead of time?
di said that the reagan scenario is history that needs to be repeated with fred thompson for 2008 and i replied: "we can and we will if only everyone who 'likes fred but doesn't know if everyone else does' would just start screaming his name from the rooftops." and i believe it to be true.
in an article for the weekly standard stephen f. hayes tells a story of thompson stopping in waterloo [iowa] and asks if he is napoleon or wellington - it's a great article and there are few personal notes in there - just a start of some stories to warm our hearts:
Brad Gade, an insurance representative from nearby Cedar Falls, asked Thompson to autograph a "Days of Thunder" DVD box, and "Big John" obliges. Gade says he is a conservative Republican who recently decided to caucus for Thompson on January 3. He says Thompson seems "down to earth and easy to relate to." That's something he hasn't found in other candidates. "I looked a lot at Huckabee--but that recent stuff that's come out. . . " What stuff? "He's so heavily into religion," says Gade, wrinkling his nose. "Not my cup of tea."
Later, I spoke to Scott and Chelle Adkins, a young couple from Waterloo. Chelle is the secretary of the Blackhawk County Republican party, and Scott has had a leadership position with the party, too. Like Brad Gade, they have considered other candidates. "Mitt Romney came close for me," says Scott. "But there was just something missing. Huckabee appeals because of social issues, but I'm not so sure about fiscal issues."
Chelle jumps in. "A month ago, Huckabee looked like he might be a great candidate. But the more I research his positions, the less comfortable I become." I asked her for specifics. "Two things--illegal immigration and the taxes. I'd seen lots of advertising on how he raised taxes, how he was for a cigarette tax. I was really turned off on illegal immigration, too."
"You can't trust what you get from the media," Scott said, as I furiously took notes. "So we researched it."
imagine that. research. not what the average voter does, i know, but it seems to be what the average voter in iowa does. i'm certain this is why no one, from either party, gets the nomination unless they finish in the top three in iowa.
"I visited friends & family this weekend.
One man is a very conservative business owner with no time for politics at this point and really doesn’t know who Fred?! is. But he knows this; “My liberal inlaws say the only Republican candidate that scares them is Fred. Therefore, I support Fred.” He then asked; “You know this stuff, is he any good?”
My reply; “Everyone in the traditional media hates him. He will not be manipulated and is not playing by their rules. Yeah, he’s good.”
Something about; ‘The enemy of my enemy….’ "
and still another one. just yesterday "whiterabbits" posted in response to a thread over at powerline calling people to switch to huckabee:
"Huckabee is a good man, a solid man. However, I’ve come to realize he is out of his element. Look at the gaffs his staff makes on a daily basis. Pick someone else.
Might I offer Uncle Fred. Yes, he’s about as exciting as cottage cheese, but his policy positions look good and very conservative and his campaign staff seem to be at the very least, competent. He’s honest, as far as I can tell from all I’ve read. That may be a drawback initially, but Uncle Fred will catch on. It’s OK to spin once in awhile. Uncle Fred and put it to bed!"
now i don't hold with whiterabbits' characterization of huckabee, but the rest of the sentiment is spot on.
there are so many more stories out there about people who are supporting fred. i found this link through patrick (born again redneck) and decided to include it here. fred wrote in to set the story straight about what really happened in burlington iowa. in his piece he alludes to what i've been discussing here.
Every once in a while I am more thankful than ever for today’s technology which allows me to talk to you directly instead of having to go through the filter of the main stream media.
Some of them are intent on making the outcome of the campaign dependent upon their pre-conceived notions. Every once in a while their incomplete and slanted coverage makes this clear.
Today I had this story written about me regarding what I said at a Town Hall event in Burlington, Iowa by a reporter who wasn’t even at the event. Incidentally, I declined to be interviewed by this particular reporter yesterday for reasons which will soon be apparent.
In referring to me, she reported “he doesn’t like modern campaigning, isn’t interested in running for President, and will not be devastated” if he doesn’t win.
over at patrick's site, he lists several comments in response to fred's post over at redstate and you can go there to check out his faves, and i love every single one he did and more - it was a hard choice, but here is my favorite of all:
"The comments I have read above are all true about you. It is so very difficult to add any more without being duplicative. What I do want to say comes straight from my heart. I had given up on politics and politicians for quite some time. The surreal atmosphere of blarney was just too much to consume. I had to spend too much time overcoming health problems like Pancreatic Cancer to think of things around me; my country, my citizenry, our future as a nation. You, dear Senator have opened my eyes and my heart once again. You have made me feel like an American, a proud American who can hold my head high and give NO EXCUSE FOR OUR COUNTRY. Thank you for what you have already given to me. Thank you for what you have done and what you will do for this great Nation."
one final thing - check out this from channel 3000 (wisctv) which finds fred leading in the republican field in wisconsin. i know, i know - wisconsin's primary isn't until 19 february 2008 - long after more than 30 states will have already voted - including super tuesday on 5 february 2008. but it could be a portend of things to come...