On Liberals And Democrats.......

<snip>

And what of the Democrats? you might well ask. There are two things to be said about them in this context. First, they've forgotten, for the most part, how to play political hardball. With apologies to James Carville, the last truly effective political infighter in Democratic politics was Bobby Kennedy -- the "bad" Bobby of pre-1963, who orchestrated his brother's ascension to the White House and then guarded his back like a pit bull on steroids. Until modern times, the Democrats always had someone like that; FDR, for all his charm, needed a Jim Farley working the back rooms, making the deals, and rabbitpunching the opposition when the ref wasn't looking. Somewhere along the line, Democrats simply lost their taste for the jugular.

The second unvarnished truth about the Democrats is that, being liberals for the most part, they are not naturally nasty and confrontational; they have to work at it. Most liberals are idealists at heart, and hitting below the belt violates their sense of themselves. Deep down, they tend to view human nature in optimistic, uplifting terms; like Jefferson, they trust in earthly progress and the goodness of man. Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, have a mostly negative -- they would say realistic -- view of human nature; they believe the worst of people, suspect their motives, and act accordingly. This mindset gives them an immense shortrun advantage when things get down and dirty.

Don't misunderstand. This is not a brief calling upon the Democratic left to adopt wholesale the thought processes and tactics of its opposition. It's possible to counter neofascist politics -- the sort of politics that took down Max Cleland in Georgia last fall -- without descending into the depths. It's a matter of knowing where to draw the line on decency, something the Republicans, increasingly dependent on a hardcore antidemocratic cadre of bullies, fanatics, and extremists, no longer grasp. In the end, that could well be their fatal Achilles heel.

<snip>

Link: http://www.populist.com/03.18.oleary.html

I agree that it's difficult for, many of us lefties to jump in the sewer with our rePuke foes, but I also agree that we must sharpen our responses to their ignorant, misleading, and biggoted positions!


BTW - I know this article is in Editorials, just thought that these last few paragraphs needed wider distribution. Hope that's OK.

:shrug:

He's been pounding Bush and the GOP mightily all around the country. The veterans' vote will definitely go AGAINST Bush in 2004.

Veterans for Kerry is the Max Cleland Revenge Tour 2004.

Democratic candidates just need to nail them with their responses BEFORE elections from now on, no???

:shrug:

It is time to take a stand...

Fix bayonets and charge.

There will be no allowances given Bush in 2004.

after he lost his damned seat. I've always liked Max and I like what I'm hearing from him now, but his 2002 campaign was a lesson in how to suck up to your opponent and still get your ass kicked. If he runs again, and I hope he does, let's all hope he learned that lesson.

Max Cleland is a sissy. Max Cleland does not back down from a fight, he lost 3 limbs in Vietnam, you know. He is a war hero, and the reason he lost in Georgia is not because he backed down from a fight, it's because he was smeared by Saxby "hickish draft-dodger" Chambliss. Get your facts straight, please.

who flat out said that he needed Chambliss so he would have a senator in Georgia who would work with him. Je-zuss, I wish I could get over that! But I still want to slap *s lips off his rotten face.

I believe that as with most things in life, here balance is once again needed. It is absolutely true that I cannot simply throw daisies around and smile at those who hate us and develop no better responses than "well, that's your opinion, and I respect your right to have it." The truth is, I do not respect the opinions of some even if they have a "right" to have it. The truth is there is a place for tough talk, for not backing down, for "righteous" indignation, and for an agressive commitment to counter-attack and attack.

However, to me the warfare analogy can be used here. We do not want to become everything that is evil under the misguided belief that in doing so we will overcome evil. We do not want to recklessly wield the weapons of our enemy, because those weapons are extremely corrupting. Just like in warfare, we may in fact consider fighting a foe like Hitler to be just, but at the same time, that doesn't mean we do everything we could do to achieve that end. We could have roudned up all "germans" and burned them in gas chambers of our own, in the name of fighting hitlers aggression. But my god, how horrifically wrong that would have been.

I do believe in fighting tyrrany, standing up to injustice, pointing out hyporcisy, resisting agression, and illuminating ignorance. However I do not believe in adding the words "by any and all possible means" to that statment, even though it sounds romantic. There are some means that have no place in the arsenal of those who fight on the side of right. And to greater or lesser degress 99.99% of us believe this to be true. We might, for instance, have no problem with agressive campaigns to discredit our opponents. But we would have a huge problem with condoning blowing up their volunteer campaign headquarters and murdering their workers. It is a basically obvious truism that we cannot indiscriminately use any conveivable tactic in our fight for right, because some (like murder) are morally wrong, and will not serve peace or justice, but only futher violence and destruction.

So.. the real question is, where is the line? What kind of tactice are part of a gutsy, bold, unafraid scrapy and yet righteous fight with the opposition? And what things cross into the realm of bad, counter-productive, destructive or downright immoral tactics? I don't have the answer to that - but I do believe its possible to seek that "golden mean" between the extremes of totally passivity and immoral action.

Between the Golden Mean and the Holy Grail (The Presidency). It's gonna be one interesting year.

Course, what's that ancient curse... "May you live in interesting times."

:scared:

I've always thought of the best image in my mind of a good, tough politician being a man (or woman) in a three piece suit with fingerless gloves and a nightstick. I like the idea of a badass but polished politician, we need someone like that as the front-runner. Not to throw any rocks here, but Howie and Al don't really seem to have that kind of temperment. While we DO need our fair share of bomb-throwers, it won't help our image to say that we have more class than the enemy while putting a bomb-thrower at the front of the ticket. We need a guy with polish as well as balls and fists and knows what both are and knows how to use them.

What makes someone liberal? It isn't the pie in ze sky idealism of the anarchists, communists, or compassionate conservatives deluded with visions of the government withering away...and with it all economic and social problems. Is it the hope that we can whine and shit, but when we close our eyes that all such problems will disappear?

Or is liberalism based on reality? It is based on the experiences of the Great Depression, the sins of slavery, knowledge of history..plagued with tyranny, and a greater sense of human nature as the acknowledgement that man is self-serving, intolerant, violent, and incompetent.

Liberalism is the recognition that humankind needs an entity controlled by the will of the majority, but sensitive to the needs of the minority. It understands that supply and demand are necessary economic forces, but must be balanced with public funding for education, healthcare, and environmental protection. We know that liberity is not possible without comman law, enforced by public servants..not private contractors who serve their own personal interests. But most importantly we understand that all government officials must be put in power by the voter...from the Pentagon to those in Congress, from the White House to the state House. We must never except anything less than this, the government is the tool of the people we are not the tools of the government.

The power of the cogent debate is apparently waning, as there is much evidence that the 'righteous' argument is laid waste by the 'righteous' cause.

Or am I just smokin Crack???

:shrug:

liberalism is action. It is presenting a healthcare plan that can be paid for, and passing it. It is based on the assumption that taxcuts are a bad idea, because a 9/11 disaster can always happen. And it means pushing longterm actions like the New Deal that may not always be popular, but are the best accomplishments within the confines of reality.

A righteous cause is nice...but if it has nothing to do with solving real problems in the real world, what good is it? :shrug:

Let's take universal healthcare. For years, through Ted Kennedy to Hillary clinton, it's been demonized by the right as some sort of Socialist\Communist endeavor. Nevermind the fact that thousands of sheeple buy into the right's argument, and vote against their own self-interest; they vote for the cause they've been conned into aligning themselvers with.

IOW - They don't sit still for the cogent argument to sink in, they just look at it in the same vein as a Yankees\Redsox game (pardon the analogy), my side over your side no matter what.

That's why our argument has to be more effective, while we see the obvious need for universal healthcare as a basic necessity, and while even many on the right basically need it as much as anybody else, they still listen to the cheap and easy propoganda laid at their feet, and we continue to wonder why we lose election after election.

Gotta go to work now...again. Lookin forward to resposes after I get back.

PEACE !!!

:hi:

I know what you mean on the healthcare debate. I still believe that had Clinton cut a deal with moderates like Jim Cooper and John Chaffee, we would have both a Democratic Congress and universal healthcare today!

But this is just MHO...

All it takes is the willingness to draw lines - on important democratic (small d) priciples - and then have the courage not to retreat from that stand.

It is not the reluctance of dem pols to get down and dirty that is the problem. It is their lack of courage to draw lines in the sand - and then be willing to do whatever it takes including shutting down the government or going to jail, etc. to enforce their convictions.

They don't need to be shrill or bombastic - just right, and firmly but quietly unyielding.

Instead we have seen retreat after retreat on important issues of principle. All political cut and run. Although lately there have been some good signs. I am so proud of the Texas state dems and their quorum denial tactics on redistricting. Unfortunately they were stabbed in the back by a puke loving coward - who should be sent packing as far as I am concerned - regardless of the consequences.

Added on edit: This example shows that it's not so important to win each skirmish - but to take a stand - like Cool Hand Luke. Besides, this one is far from over. As soon as the repukes pass that one it will be immediately challenged in court and will probably go to the supremes. Let's see what their stand on state's rights vs. equal protection is then.

But those are the kind of stands that voters admire (read the uncommitted voters in the middle) - people who are willing to take a personal hit for principles that they believe in. That is far more powerful than dirty-trick-crap-repuke tactics - that are just obvious power grabs that have nothing to do with principle.

I think many of those voters in the middle (VIM's?) figure if the dems are just into playing politics, and not standing on principle - at least the pukes are committed to doing what it takes to win - so we might as well let them.

. . since I seem to be the only one still thinking about this - I might as well think out loud.

I wonder how many times jounalists have gone along with the WH spin on some story, knowing that the dems were just playing politics with it anyway, rather than adhering to important principles?

i.e why stick your neck out journalistically, for someone or a party who is not willing to risk anything for what they say they believe in?

are until they shut up.

Im taking off the gloves....
James Carville says
HAD ENOUGH???????????????????????????????
His new book..so does Al FRanken..
No more Nice understanding liberal here..Im radical now and mad.
the gloves are off.

These guys on the right are so stupid, and just self-righteous enough, that a good cutting argument could turn them into a prezel that the squatter-in-chief would just choke on. We are that smart, right???

Off to work.

:loveya:

campaign? Not that General Clark himself reminds me of Bobby but the position he has established so quickly as one of the favorites to win the nomination. Perhaps it is the way the media assigns a certain status to General Clark? Perhaps it something undefinable? Whatever, if General Clark starts to become a threat to those already established in Washington, let us hope he does not develop enemies the way that Bobby did...I just get this feeling that he needs to be concerned about his security...which I don't feel with any other candidates...

The only thing that would be able to keep the General from sending Bush back to Texas would be a bullet with his name on it. Clark should seriously keep an eye on his personal security, Bobby didn't and we can see what that did to him.

"We need to stop having candidates like Grayyyyy Davis."

There was a reason that Chambliss' campaign smeared Cleland, morphing his face into Usama bin Laden. It was nominally because of this position that Max Cleland advocated as Senator that he was pilloried as a terrorist by the RNCC.

Take a second or three to think about it. It'll come to you.


....


Got it yet? Yeah I know you do. Wait a sec, there are others in the room, still guessing.


....


OK, for those who can't remember, Max Cleland wanted to preserve employee job security for the Dept. of Homeland Security, which was being assembled from chunks and fragments of various other departments at the time. Because he voted with his party leadership against the version of the DHS which permitted the president (bush) to hire and fire at will, Cleland, a drafter for the DHS itself, was depicted as equivalent to terrorists who orchestrated the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Job security == terrorism.

That was his crime. And the jury, the people of Georgia, voted him guilty. Or so we are told -- the VNS still refuses to release exit poll data for two Georgia 2002 races: the governorship, and Max Cleland's senate seat. Naturally, those results shouldn't be too different from what the brand new Georgia touchscreen machines recorded, so don't worry. Everything's fine in America, as long as you don't get drawn into something really sleazy like job security.

:kick: