2012 American Presidential Election

[DAS]

Are people seriously still voting?

[GeorgeC]

Some of the post-election Tea Party / Republican comments I've been hearing - not just in this thread but in the wider media - remind me of the old Mad magazine joke that "a superpatriot is someone who loves his country...he just hates three-quarters of the people in it."

And by the way, I know music belongs to everyone and what you listen to may not be connected to how you vote, but it still weirds me out that angry conservatives are posting their thoughts on a Led Zeppelin forum, of all places. I suppose you can be both a right-winger and a Zep fan, as long as you disregard their long hair, hedonistic lifestyles, mystical lyrics, Occult interests, and championing of the African-American blues tradition.

Whatever happened to If we could just join hands, if we could just join hands, if we could just join hands... ?

[DAS]

For the millionth time this has to be said again. Led Zeppelin is not a liberal band. They did not sing about politics nor did they involve themselves in the politic process. I hate the socialist agenda of the Democrats and to a lesser extent the Republicans more than anyone on Earth and I have long hair and listen to Howlin' Wolf and Robert Johnson. Lots of conservative individuals do drugs and most sleep around. Mysticism and the Occult have nothing do with politics. A lot of sources I've read claim that Jimmy Page is a Republican. The championing of Blues music is more of a Republican idea truth be told since the Blues rose up in black communities after the the liberation of the slaves that the Democrats fought a war to prevent. The idea of peace and join together, etc is not a liberal idea. Everyone wants peace and being a surrendering coward who bows before tyranny does not make you more in favor of peace than anyone else.

[Strider]

Are people seriously still voting?

Maybe in Florida.

[mstork]

Some of the post-election Tea Party / Republican comments I've been hearing - not just in this thread but in the wider media - remind me of the old Mad magazine joke that "a superpatriot is someone who loves his country...he just hates three-quarters of the people in it."

And by the way, I know music belongs to everyone and what you listen to may not be connected to how you vote, but it still weirds me out that angry conservatives are posting their thoughts on a Led Zeppelin forum, of all places. I suppose you can be both a right-winger and a Zep fan, as long as you disregard their long hair, hedonistic lifestyles, mystical lyrics, Occult interests, and championing of the African-American blues tradition.

Whatever happened to If we could just join hands, if we could just join hands, if we could just join hands... ?

George, I like your music posts and love your book but how can you fail to see the irony in your stereotyping a bunch of people and then pleading "if we could just join hands"? I mean, people who support limited government don't like long hair or sex? Or African-Americans and the music they've made? Really?!?

[Strider]

This is why many bars have a rule: No politics! No religion! Hehehe.

[mstork]

For the millionth time this has to be said again. Led Zeppelin is not a liberal band. They did not sing about politics nor did they involve themselves in the politic process. I hate the socialist agenda of the Democrats and to a lesser extent the Republicans more than anyone on Earth and I have long hair and listen to Howlin' Wolf and Robert Johnson. Lots of conservative individuals do drugs and most sleep around. Mysticism and the Occult have nothing do with politics. A lot of sources I've read claim that Jimmy Page is a Republican. The championing of Blues music is more of a Republican idea truth be told since the Blues rose up in black communities after the the liberation of the slaves that the Democrats fought a war to prevent. The idea of peace and join together, etc is not a liberal idea. Everyone wants peace and being a surrendering coward who bows before tyranny does not make you more in favor of peace than anyone else.

The fact that Page is at least publicly apolitical is one of the things I love about him. I resent that so many entertainers like Springsteen denigrate so many of their fans (ask Chris Christie), and I like Bruce.

Who knows what party Jimmy leans towards? I'd have to say they didn't call him "Led Wallet" for nothing. For that matter, an awful lot of British musicians became tax exiles at some point, didn't they? :-)

[Strider]

^^^

In a very good interview Chris Saleswics? did with Jimmy in 1979 for NME, I remember Jimmy saying he voted Tory, and that he was also involved in some bid to preserve some land or village or something.

The interview was also printed in Creem that year.

[Knebby]

The fact that Page is at least publicly apolitical is one of the things I love about him. I resent that so many entertainers like Springsteen denigrate so many of their fans (ask Chris Christie), and I like Bruce.

Who knows what party Jimmy leans towards? I'd have to say they didn't call him "Led Wallet" for nothing. For that matter, an awful lot of British musicians became tax exiles at some point, didn't they? :-)

Jimmy said in 1979 he voted Tory because he believed in Heath. He may wish he hadn't said that, soon. - Talk to you over the weekend - regards - The Peanut Gallery (AKA anywhere outside of Del's US ) xx

[GeorgeC]

Couple of points: The individual members of Led Zeppelin may privately hold "conservative" views, but there's no denying that in their heyday of 1968-1980 they would pretty definitely have been identified with the youth counterculture; the yahoos who spat on or jeered at the band during their early tours of the southern US didn't do so because they thought Zeppelin were too far to the right politically, or that their hair wasn't long enough. Even into the 1980s, the crackpots who branded Zeppelin as "Satanic" would generally have been placed on the right side of the spectrum. The fact that conservatives today can enjoy Led Zeppelin's music and mystique says more about the almost universal appeal now enjoyed by classic rock 'n' roll than it does about any conservative tradition of openmindedness towards drugs or sex or the Occult.

It seems to me that a few generations ago, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, could disagree about matters of policy but still concede that their opponents were fundamentally good citizens who honestly sought the best for their country. In 2012, however, the mistrust and demonization from either side makes for the extreme polarization and legislative gridlock we now see in the US. Just as the left insisted George W. Bush was secretly behind 9/11, stole the elections of 2000 and 2004, and was leading America into a fascist theocracy, now that the tables have turned we get the same kind of apocalyptic (and for the most part completely unfounded) rhetoric from the right: Barack Obama is secretly a Marxist Muslim, stole the elections of 2008 and 2012, and is leading America into a socialist Islamic state. It would be nice if some of that earlier civility and good faith returned to political dialogue....perhaps with the help of some good weed and a cranked copy of LZIII shared among the members of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches.

[JP78]

Springsteen's music is inspired by his political views.(and Springsteen and CHristie are friends now)

and i'm pretty sure John Paul Jones is a liberal .

also British Conservatives are closer to US Dems than US Reps.

[DAS]

The fact that Page is at least publicly apolitical is one of the things I love about him. I resent that so many entertainers like Springsteen denigrate so many of their fans (ask Chris Christie), and I like Bruce.

I agree totally. I don't want political advice from my music. If one has a cause they believe in that's fine, just don't be a condescending jerk who alienates fans, but I hate singing politicians.

[DAS]

also British Conservatives are closer to US Dems than US Reps.

Personally the way I see it is if you aren't American your opinion on US politic means nothing. Rather the members came out as liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, etc it doesn't matter to me because it's their business in their country.

[Strider]

Personally the way I see it is if you aren't American your opinion on US politic means nothing. Rather the members came out as liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, etc it doesn't matter to me because it's their business in their country.

That's funny. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes the world love us so.

Americans have never been shy about telling other countries how to live. Why shouldn't other people be able to comment on the U.S.

Have you ever read Alexis de Tocqueville?

[Top Notch]

I just heard today that Bill Clinton might become the next secretary of state. Anybody else hear this?

[Strider]

I just heard today that Bill Clinton might become the next secretary of state. Anybody else hear this?

News to me. But I've just spent four hours in a theatre watching the Rolling Stones so I haven't heard anything.

Would Bill really be willing to follow Hilary's footsteps?

[Bingo]

Can we talk about religion now?

[TypeO]

I don't think it can be boiled down to 1 thing that cost him the election. First and foremost almost all of news channels were clearly in Obama's favor, which certainly is going to influence the uninformed voter. Secondly, the GOP was painted negatively on all social issues, not just immigration. Third, every time a politician opened his mouth and said something really stupid about rape, abortion, etc. it was a Repub. Lastly, in the primaries Mitt had to appeal to the base and be conservative to get the nomination. Once he got it, he had to move to the center to appeal to the broader electorate. This helped label him as a flip flopper.

Very good points.

The power of a severely biased media cannot be overlooked.

I still believe the media's early call of Florida for Gore in 2000 was no accident, but an intentional experiment to test their direct influence.

They all publicly shared the "egg on our face" mea culpas in the aftermath, but they were privately elated at the weight their message carried.

The Swift Boaters are all that stood between the media and a Kerry win in 2004, and finally, in 2008, they were able to fully manipulate public opinion on multiple levels, on everything from ignoring/marginalizing any and all negative issues revealed about this totally unknown and manufactured candidate Obama, to the rather convincing impression that the election was a foregone conclusion weeks in advance, resulting in some of the lowest Republican voter turnout in decades.

The documentary Media Malpractice, which is still currently available on Netflix, details how thoroughly the media's influence was felt in the 2008 election.

Very telling are multiple interviews with Obama voters who couldn't answer ANY reasonably simple questions regarding names, events or policies regarding the Obama campaign, yet knew every single negative point about Sarah Palin.

Below is the actual clip from the documentary.

Plus I don't think he was specific enough with some of his plans when questioned.

While somewhat true, it's also laughable in comparison to both of Obama's campaigns.

2008 was all emotion and no specifics - basically, "Hope and Change" and "I'm not Bush".

2012 was - as quantified by NBC - 85% negative/attack ads on Romney, and the other 15% recycling most of the 2008 things he couldn't accomplish in his first 4 years.

But again, a compliant media focused a tight, white-hot spotlight on Romney and every negative issue, regardless of legitimacy or relevance - e.g., tax returns, Big Bird, Binders full of women, 47% - while simultaneously ignoring Obama's own weaknesses - specifically, Benghazi, failure of his first 2 years to accomplish anything beyond heavily partisan issues when he had total control of both the House and the Senate, and his own lack of any real specifics for the future.

Frankly, Romney's "47%" remark was no more offensive or incendiary than Obama's own 2008 remark under VERY similar circumstances describing Pennsylvania voters "bitterly clinging to guns and religion".

But they certainly didn't get the same coverage.

It's my biggest complaint about the current state of our country.

I'm way more upset with the influence of a biased media than the results of it.

The results of our overtly biased media are much less surprising than our acceptance of the fact that we have an overtly biased media.

[Top Notch]

Frankly, Romney's "47%" remark was no more offensive or incendiary than Obama's own 2008 remark under VERY similar circumstances describing Pennsylvania voters "bitterly clinging to guns and religion".

But they certainly didn't get the same coverage.

There were dozens of examples of how the Obama camp used offensive language and got away with it. For example the whole "war on women" by the Obama side against Romney. As if Republicans were Taliban shooting women in the head for trying to visit a doctor or getting an education. There is NO war on women by Republicans! Not unless "war" is defined by encouraging PERSONAL responsibility.

And what about Biden's overtly racist remarks about Romney "puttin' ya'll [speaking to a mostly black audience] back in chains." The mainstream media gave Biden a complete pass on that one. It's as if a liberal can say or do anything, but if the same or similar is done by a conservative, all liberal whiny hell is going to break out. No wonder half of the country looks at liberals like they are like children.

Romney's 47% comment was not offensive unless someone saw themself as a taker. Romney's 47% was true; nearly half of this country now sees government as the answer to their personal comfort. All Romney was saying is that he was not going to get those people's vote anyway, he was correct. For the 47% (actually higher based on this last election) to EVER see conservative principles as an answer; it would take a complete generational change in perspective. It would require Americans to get back to the values of their grandparents. An acceptence of the fact that pesonal responsibilty coupled with LIBERTY and a government that does not stand in your way is the very best America can offer. Until Americans decide that government is not the answer, they will continue to flock to the party that promises them stuff that they didn't earn on their own. Or as another once's called it, "the soft bigotry of low expectations."

[GeorgeC]

I respectfully disagree.

Everyone - but everyone - uses the "media bias" argument to complain that their politics haven't been adopted by more people. This premise has never had much credibility in modern western societies, and it's especially anachronistic in the Internet age. Noam Chomsky says the media is biased in favor of the military-industrial complex (that's why we aren't living in an anarchist utopia), and Glenn Beck and the previous couple of posters say the media is biased in favor of liberal collectivists (that's why the Democrats won the election). Clearly, bias is in the eye of the beholder. I could spend twenty minutes online and come up with all kinds of media-bias conspiracy theories "explaining" why one or another cause has been completely marginalized - of course, I'll never find anyone saying that the media is biased in their favor.

Whenever someone lays the media bias line on me, I always ask them, "Well, where did you hear this? What's your evidence?" The answer is usually something like, "I saw a show / heard a lecture / checked out a website / read an article / listened to a radio program that convinced me." Uh, aren't all those things the media? If you're showing clips from a video that "proves" how distorted the press is - on the message forum of the official website of one of the most popular rock bands of all time, no less - obviously the pro-Obama censors are doing a pretty crappy job. If the media was as truly biased as people say it is, we wouldn't be able to perceive its biases. Going online, on air, or in print to say the media biased is has the same self-betraying contradiction of the statement "I am now asleep."

The best example I have of this is in one of Ann Coulter's books I was researching (while holding my stomach) a while ago. She wrote, "You simply never hear about anything that doesn't fit the [New York] Time's ideological preconceptions." On the cover of her book was the blurb, "The Instant New York Times bestseller!" "The media" is every embittered pundit's best friend when it can be derided as his or her worst enemy.

You're entitled to your opinions, and it's understandable to be angry when your side loses at the polls, but blaming some monolithic media establishment for manipulating public sentiment and electoral outcomes is just a really flimsy excuse in the age of the 500-channel universe and the World Wide Web. Give it up already.

[Strider]

I respectfully disagree.

Everyone - but everyone - uses the "media bias" argument to complain that their politics haven't been adopted by more people. This premise has never had much credibility in modern western societies, and it's especially anachronistic in the Internet age. Noam Chomsky says the media is biased in favor of the military-industrial complex (that's why we aren't living in an anarchist utopia), and Glenn Beck and the previous couple of posters say the media is biased in favor of liberal collectivists (that's why the Democrats won the election). Clearly, bias is in the eye of the beholder. I could spend twenty minutes online and come up with all kinds of media-bias conspiracy theories "explaining" why one or another cause has been completely marginalized - of course, I'll never find anyone saying that the media is biased in their favor.

Whenever someone lays the media bias line on me, I always ask them, "Well, where did you hear this? What's your evidence?" The answer is usually something like, "I saw a show / heard a lecture / checked out a website / read an article / listened to a radio program that convinced me." Uh, aren't all those things the media? If you're showing clips from a video that "proves" how distorted the press is - on the message forum of the official website of one of the most popular rock bands of all time, no less - obviously the pro-Obama censors are doing a pretty crappy job. If the media was as truly biased as people say it is, we wouldn't be able to perceive its biases. Going online, on air, or in print to say the media biased is has the same self-betraying contradiction of the statement "I am now asleep."

The best example I have of this is in one of Ann Coulter's books I was researching (while holding my stomach) a while ago. She wrote, "You simply never hear about anything that doesn't fit the [New York] Time's ideological preconceptions." On the cover of her book was the blurb, "The Instant New York Times bestseller!" "The media" is every embittered pundit's best friend when it can be derided as his or her worst enemy.

You're entitled to your opinions, and it's understandable to be angry when your side loses at the polls, but blaming some monolithic media establishment for manipulating public sentiment and electoral outcomes is just a really flimsy excuse in the age of the 500-channel universe and the World Wide Web. Give it up already.

...and a beer for you, sir!

My sentiments exactly...and you saved me the time and effort of having to type out a long post.

[LedZeppfan77]

...and a beer for you, sir!

My sentiments exactly...and you saved me the time and effort of having to type out a long post.

Strider, is this supposed to be a short post? Ha. You really kill me.

[ledded1]

For me the Republican party did little to counter the perception that it is a white only party, a xenophobic party, a racist party, a religious fundamentalist party, an anti gay party anti abortion anti poor and sexist. As I say perceptions cos I know that the majority are not like that. But Americans don't understand that your country does come across as war mongering and anti islamic and totally paranoid about any other country or religion they don't understand. And so in the name of democracy America wants the rest of the world to have the same type of democracy. We all know you can't force such a democracy on another country. Many don't understand what it means and so fear it and it is so easy for governments to portray America as wanting to dominate them and the world.

Perceptions often overrule the truth and logic and as a result many people in the world fear and mistrust America and its intentions even when they have proved that they are there to try to reduce the levels of poverty and oppression and are working for the greater good.

So I will wait to be shot at, as your gun laws allow you to shoot me for having an opinion.

[Walter]

Romney has spent the last 5 years trying to convince America to elect him and he hasn't gotten the job done. No "boogie man" theory, such as media bias, can overcome that fact.

[in_the_evening]

Myth of the liberal media:

http://pearlyabraham.tripod.com/htmls/media-quotes.html

The first two quotes are especially telling.