Another New York Times disgrace

The New York Times again directs its sarcasm at, and shows its contempt for "regular folks" by depicting the grass—roots followers of George Bush as automatons, engaging in "cult—like" behavior, reminiscent of Amway and Tupperware "cultists" selling plastic doodads. This is obvious by perusing the Sunday New York Times Magazine article titled "The Multilevel Marketing of the President" found here.

Instead of celebrating a desire to reconnect disillusioned voters to the political process, the Times treats this as some sort of well—financed Republican scheme to control the minds and behaviors of sheep—like Middle Americans. Yet, the Times treatment obscures the fact that the Democrats have historically been in the lead in this type of campaigning. While the body of the article is forced to take brief note of similar Democratic efforts, you would never knows this is a strategy shared by both parties from the cover of the magazine, which states that this is a  "G.O.P. Ground War."

More honestly, it could be entitled "Democrats and Republicans fight neighborhood turf wars". The article's treatment portrays neighborhood women as doltish homemakers, more skilled at baking in the kitchen or selling Tupperware than capable of analyzing issues. This echoes the same prejudice towards homemakers covered in the new book by Myrna Blyth, Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness and Liberalism to the Women of America. Apparently, the NY Times cannot abide the fact that individuals out in Middle America are entitled to hold views that differ from those of the elite, liberal press.
 
The writer talks of some MLMs, like the Republican effort, as imposing their "strange and insular cultures on their recruits" and avers that they often "demand a rigid kind of uniformity and loyalty." He also talks of this strategy as springing from the "same lofty impulse as 'Survivor' or 'American Idol'." Many Bush supporters, myself included, consider these shows lowbrow fodder —— as does the writer of the article. He then compares the neighborhood effort as an attempt to create a "surround sound" effect —— by repeating the message at the local level this has a synergistic effect with the national messages being broadcast on television. In other words, the Big Lie combined with a cult—like obsession yields mass brainwashing.
 
All in all, a discreditable and all too typical NY Times article which disparages the vast number of voters out there. Presumably, the mental labor of these individuals is wasted, since their opinions should come from the editorial pages (i.e., all the pages) of the New York Times.

Richard Baehr adds:

The Times is concerned that the Republican strategy of a massive ground game will work to tip elections in the battleground states. This article may be a warning to the DNC that the vaunted Democratic "ground game," relying principally on organized labor, may be outdone this time. The labor ground  game proved useless to both Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean in Iowa, the state that proved decisive in the Democratic nominating process this year.

Six million people are receiving Bush team emails. This dwarfs the Dean  "internet magic" that was the story of the race last fall. Ralph Reed perfected the 72 hour strategy in Georgia in 2002, where the GOP swept all the key races in 2002.

New York Times articles should be read as if the were written to be internal staff memos for the DNC.

The New York Times again directs its sarcasm at, and shows its contempt for "regular folks" by depicting the grass—roots followers of George Bush as automatons, engaging in "cult—like" behavior, reminiscent of Amway and Tupperware "cultists" selling plastic doodads. This is obvious by perusing the Sunday New York Times Magazine article titled "The Multilevel Marketing of the President" found here.

Instead of celebrating a desire to reconnect disillusioned voters to the political process, the Times treats this as some sort of well—financed Republican scheme to control the minds and behaviors of sheep—like Middle Americans. Yet, the Times treatment obscures the fact that the Democrats have historically been in the lead in this type of campaigning. While the body of the article is forced to take brief note of similar Democratic efforts, you would never knows this is a strategy shared by both parties from the cover of the magazine, which states that this is a  "G.O.P. Ground War."

More honestly, it could be entitled "Democrats and Republicans fight neighborhood turf wars". The article's treatment portrays neighborhood women as doltish homemakers, more skilled at baking in the kitchen or selling Tupperware than capable of analyzing issues. This echoes the same prejudice towards homemakers covered in the new book by Myrna Blyth, Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness and Liberalism to the Women of America. Apparently, the NY Times cannot abide the fact that individuals out in Middle America are entitled to hold views that differ from those of the elite, liberal press.
 
The writer talks of some MLMs, like the Republican effort, as imposing their "strange and insular cultures on their recruits" and avers that they often "demand a rigid kind of uniformity and loyalty." He also talks of this strategy as springing from the "same lofty impulse as 'Survivor' or 'American Idol'." Many Bush supporters, myself included, consider these shows lowbrow fodder —— as does the writer of the article. He then compares the neighborhood effort as an attempt to create a "surround sound" effect —— by repeating the message at the local level this has a synergistic effect with the national messages being broadcast on television. In other words, the Big Lie combined with a cult—like obsession yields mass brainwashing.
 
All in all, a discreditable and all too typical NY Times article which disparages the vast number of voters out there. Presumably, the mental labor of these individuals is wasted, since their opinions should come from the editorial pages (i.e., all the pages) of the New York Times.

Richard Baehr adds:

The Times is concerned that the Republican strategy of a massive ground game will work to tip elections in the battleground states. This article may be a warning to the DNC that the vaunted Democratic "ground game," relying principally on organized labor, may be outdone this time. The labor ground  game proved useless to both Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean in Iowa, the state that proved decisive in the Democratic nominating process this year.

Six million people are receiving Bush team emails. This dwarfs the Dean  "internet magic" that was the story of the race last fall. Ralph Reed perfected the 72 hour strategy in Georgia in 2002, where the GOP swept all the key races in 2002.

New York Times articles should be read as if the were written to be internal staff memos for the DNC.