We should no longer attempt rational debate, it’s a loser.

Why do we address the issues, ever? It is a consistently losing position. We will win when we replace all actual debate with slogans and hyperbole. On judicial appointments, don’t explain that it isn’t judicial activism they hate, it’s judicial activism that isn’t fascist that bothers them. Replace the whole dialog with a slogan “Reactionary Republicans Rebuke Freedoms” on Social Security, “Republicans Spend Your Benefits Today” on terror, “Homeland security means securing the homeland, not sending the Guard overseas” There is absolutely no reason to explain our position. If you doubt it argue with one of them, after the talking point there is NO substance, so at that point they attack the person or change the subject to Clinton.

If a Republican spouts a talking point, answer with “at least Clark didn’t go AWOL” regardless of the topic. Or “Clinton didn’t treat treason as a joke like Bush is.” Alternatives like “didn’t Newt serve his first wife with divorce papers while she was getting chemo in the hospital?” Or “isn’t Cheney’s daughter lesbian” (that will totally throw them off because it has absolutely nothing to do with anything).

Arguing points is useless. It's campaign time, and logic's value is lost in the blizzard of slogans, a process encouraged by the media. The answer is to use the slogans that work for us.

You start with the premise that we're addressing issues, when we aren't! I live in Seattle, where most elected officials are Democrats - very corrupt Democrats, I might add. Their campaigns are filled with nothing but rhetoric and lies. The best example is a frighteningly corrupt moron who lost $1.1 billion, then ran a campaign consisting little more than the slogan, "The Seattle Way." He was elected Mayor.

I'm not saying we shouldn't use slogans and hyperbole. In fact, I'm a big fan of COMBAT POLITICS, going for the jugular. I'm not afraid to call corrupt officials exactly what they are: corporate whores.

But all campaigns should be based on truth, and they should include all the information that might interest truly intelligent voters. After all, it's the dedicated 5% - or 1% - who count for most reform. Also, we need to make a constant effort to encourage other citizens to throw the media in the trash and look beyond the rhetoric, scouring the Internet for good sources of news and opinion.

Combining Republican attack politics with the truth is the only way we're going to win.

If the Democrats are winning in Seattle without substance then my position that substance is a loser is validated. People don’t want to think, they want to think they know, hence the need to remove credible debate from the campaign. Make the public feel good about their political knowledge without informing them, the other side doesn’t inform them, the Republican simplistic approach is a hands down winner. Let’s make it our own.

Of course, King County Democrats are winning - but WE the people are losing!

There are few Republican candidates in Seattle. It's just a herd of corrupt Democrats and Greens. Every election merely replaces one corporate hack with another - and the public isns't educated to boot.

If just three or four honest people ran for office and put some REAL ISSUES on their campaign websites and in the Voters Pamphlet, it would educate some people. Business as usual is killing us.

since I know nothing about it. Let’s talk Washington where the same dynamic is in play. Of coarse the public is losing by buying the superficial arguments, but the strategy is a winner come Election Day.

That is my point; we can’t win by trying to educate the public. The public is way too busy to give a damn about politics, they find it boring. So lets give them what they want, simplicity. We don’t have to give up the substance behind the simplicity, just not share complexity with the world at large.

What's the #1 reason America has become such a sick joke? It's easy to blame it all on corporate corruption, but the biggest problem is PUBLIC APATHY AND STUPIDITY.

Thus, relying on empty rhetoric may get some candidates elected - or it may not. But it does nothing to educate the public, and saying the public just doesn't care is a cop out. We have to MAKE the public care, because we'll never take back our democracy as long as we're nation of morons.

Another point: How are the few people who DO care supposed to know who to vote for if all the potential goods are only spouting rhetoric? You have to give some solid information for people to make a choice.

Also, King County is indeed a freak show, but it isn't that different from Washington, D.C. in some respects. Come on, we all know that corruption is rampant in the Democratic Party! What if Dick Gephart or Joe Lieberman becomes the presidential candidate?

"That is my point; we can’t win by trying to educate the public. The public is way too busy to give a damn about politics, they find it boring."

Then it's up to us to make it interesting, and virtually no candidate in America has even tried. If you don't believe me, check out some campaign websites. What a bunch of crap! Many people complain that candidates have nothing to say but trite rhetoric. Well, give them some substance!

"We don’t have to give up the substance behind the simplicity, just not share complexity with the world at large."

If you're saying we should use slogans to hook people's interest, then lead them to websites that function as online political encyclopedias, then I agree. One way or another, we HAVE to educate the public, no matter how hard it might be. There's no other way.

First of all, on your point, “Also, King County is indeed a freak show, but it isn't that different from Washington, D.C. in some respects. Come on, we all know that corruption is rampant in the Democratic Party! What if Dick Gephart or Joe Lieberman becomes the presidential candidate?” I know no such thing; please share specifics about the National party.

Second of all, I am not suggesting that we abandon substance; I am only suggesting that it be treated as poisonous in campaigns. The Republicans win by attacking the candidates personally and by spouting rhetoric which the public wants to hear. That is the way to win. It is impossible to win an election with substance. The public doesn’t want it.

Third of all, there is abundant information available in the press which a voter could use to become informed if she chose to be. The Democrats do not have the lock on some kinds of media that the Republicans do, but if an interested voter wished to become informed she could be. It is not the responsibility of the Party to educate voters, it is (or should be) the responsibility of the party to elect Democrats.

"There is abundant information available in the press which a voter could use to become informed if she chose to be."

The press??? Are you talking about the deranged Seattle Times, which endorsed George W. Bush? The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which maintains Hearst's proud tradition of yellow journalism? The Uncle Tom Seattle Weekly? Geov Parrish, one of America's greatest left-wing media whores?

Come on! Try researching a candidate in media archives. There IS lots of information, but it takes too long to gather it all when you've got a dozen candidates to research, and the information you get is spiked with propaganda. Forget the press.

"I know no such thing; please share specifics about the National party."

Well, there's Global Crossing. Many Democrats are Microsoft whores. And how many Democrats have opposed George W. Bush?

"The Republicans win by attacking the candidates personally and by spouting rhetoric which the public wants to hear."

YES! This is what I've been saying for years! Everyone in Seattle is addicted to "civility," which is really an establishment strategy designed to discourage the very tactic you're promoting.

My only problem is that you seem to be saying we should use slogans to the EXCLUSION of substance. EVERY CAMPAIGN MUST HAVE SUBSTANCE.

"That is the way to win. It is impossible to win an election with substance. The public doesn’t want it."

I have a tough time recalling a candidate who has tried it.

"It is not the responsibility of the Party to educate voters, it is (or should be) the responsibility of the party to elect Democrats."

If the party doesn't take responsibility for educating the voters, then who will? That's a very dangerous vacuum to leave unattended. Furthermore, it isn't just a matter of educating the voters. It's also a matter of telling the voters where you stand and offering them evidence of a track record.

Any candidate who has nothing to say bur rhetoric is a question mark - perhaps good, more likely bad. And if a candidate doesn't care enough about democracy to educate the voters, then screw'em.

Finally, the Seattle branch of the League of Education Voters is corrupt. Virtually EVERY political organization in Seattle is corrupt, and I really don't believe we're that big an exception. Corporations have been hard at work infiltrating and manipulating these organizations across America. We're fighting a new kind of war, one that can only be won with educated minds.

without the Party sharing it then how do you know the truth? Either a motivated voter can find this stuff out or they can’t, you were able to find out about all these supposed outrages, why can’t anyone? Also don’t you think the best place to get information should be from sources that try to present both sides? The Party is not going to advertise credible points of the opposition, nor should it.

You’ll have to give me specific information on how Global Crossing, Microsoft and the sycophantic behavior by sorry lot of Democrats is an indictment Party, what is the connection? Also, the corruption in the League of Women Voters is news; do share the specifics of that one.

The Party has a platform and should continue to have a platform. Candidates should have positions like Arnie did in California, “Candidate X, won’t cut taxes or services, he’ll support the environment and schools. Candidate X supports growth.”

You say you have a hard time remembering a candidate who won without substance. Well, look at California last month for a perfect example. Look at Florida; look at the Republican Presidential campaign currently underway. All three are examples of campaigns without substance, based on total fabrications presented to the public as plans for the future. That is how to win an election, watch the masters at work.

"Without the Party sharing it then how do you know the truth? Either a motivated voter can find this stuff out or they can’t, you were able to find out about all these supposed outrages, why can’t anyone?"

It's a function of both time and desire. I started out as an education activist, and it took me YEARS to really get a handle on the "Education Mafia." It then took many more months to unravel the connections to the media, City Hall, etc. It isn't easy because the establishment has laid a minefield of propaganda, and much of the information we need to make decisions simply isn't there.

"Also don’t you think the best place to get information should be from sources that try to present both sides?"

Yes - but how many reputable sources present both sides?

"The Party is not going to advertise credible points of the opposition, nor should it."

Never said it did. Democrats should present THEIR side, in terms of opinion and policy. ANY party could and should report any relevant FACTS.

"You’ll have to give me specific information on how Global Crossing, Microsoft and the sycophantic behavior by sorry lot of Democrats is an indictment Party, what is the connection?"

Oh, come on! Where have you been? This is PRECISELY what we should NOT let go of substance. Ignoranct people may win elections, but they can't reform democracies.

"Also, the corruption in the League of Women Voters is news; do share the specifics of that one."

When I ran for public office three years ago, they monitored an online debate website. I thought it was a cool idea - until they started manipulating it to favor the corrupt incumbent. I decided to take a closer look, and I discovered that the head of the Seattle League of Women Voters is affiliated with a lot of very corrupt individuals. Even more interesting, they like to endorse corrupt candidates. In addition, they follow the leader in cheerleading for school levies - but they're nowhere to be found when corrupt school officials illegally divert or embezzle levy funds.

"You say you have a hard time remembering a candidate who won without substance."

If I said that, it was a misstatement. What I meant to say is I can't remember a candidate who made an effort to educate the public. You said that campaigns based on substance don't succeed; what I'm saying is, "How can you know when nobody even tries it?"

You cite Campaign 2000, George Bush's current campaign and California's Total Recall as examples of successful sloganeering. Yeah, they were successful as far as getting people elected. But what are Bush and Arnie going to do for democracy?

That's the problem: You're focusing ONLY on the election. You need to address the big picture. The only reason I maintain any loyalty to Democrats at all is the fact that Republicans are even worse. However, the margin of difference becomes smaller every year, and if Democrats degenerate into sloganeering wimps, they'll lose my support entirely.

"You’ll have to give me specific information on how Global Crossing, Microsoft and the sycophantic behavior by sorry lot of Democrats is an indictment Party, what is the connection?"

”Oh, come on! Where have you been? This is PRECISELY what we should NOT let go of substance. Ignoranct people may win elections, but they can't reform democracies.”

Now, not once have you offered any substance to your claim, only the accusation, when asked to support your position about "corruption" you attack rather than offer facts. This is exactly how we are defeated so often, when they attack we answer-- a guaranteed loss for us, we should never defend ourselves. There may be nothing to the claim but by answering we've made it something. Why be defensive, it only attracts attention.

The only response we offer should be a counter attack; God knows we have real ammunition. They say Global Cossing, we say Halliburton, they say perjury we say treason, it will work, we know that because it does word. Since we stand for something we should confine our counter attacks to actual corruption and events, we shouldn’t stoop to the level of the Republicans when they have been so generous in providing actual scandal to attack.

Your objection to campaigning like our opponents seems to stem for a concern that it doesn’t improve democracy. Well our current strategy of losing elections to folks who lie about reasons for war, mortgage our future, allow treason in the White House and steal elections isn’t improving the quality of democracy.

You say that no one runs on substance anymore and to a certain point that is true. But the Democrats still try to include too much of it. Remember the attack against Gore that Gore claimed to have “invented the Internet,” Gore never made the claim. They can’t quote it in context because what he did say it and what he did has nothing to do with the lie. Gore never should have defended himself; it made it look like there was something to the claim. What he should have done is simply say, while in the Senate I was instrumental in the development of the Information Super Highway, if they think that’s inventing the Internet then good for them. Substance and truth don’t matter, they are losers.

We want to win; the point of victory is to save the world. People can educate themselves if they please.

If you expect people to listen to your advice, then you ought to have some credentials. I assumed I was talking to someone who had a clue about current events when I said, "Oh, come on!" Are you REALLY in the dark about GLOBAL CROSSING? You aren't aware of the hold Microsoft has over Democrats and Republicans alike? And you aren't aware of corruption in the Democratic Party?

"Now, not once have you offered any substance to your claim, only the accusation, when asked to support your position about "corruption" you attack rather than offer facts."

Because I ASSUMED I was talking to someone who has a clue about these front-page issues. If I had known you were in the dark, I might have posted links to some online references.

"Why be defensive, it only attracts attention."

Actually, "Oh, come on!" is a very good answer. It says, "How could you be unaware of something so obvious?" And you can always elaborate, even thrown in some references for people who truly are clueless.

"The only response we offer should be a counter attack; God knows we have real ammunition. They say Global Cossing, we say Halliburton, they say perjury we say treason, it will work, we know that because it does word."

I agree! That's the point I've tried to make here in Seattle for years - we need to fight fire with fire! The only problem is, you're going to the other extreme, where you throw reason out the window and focus only on slogans. That is a LOSING proposition in the long run.

"Your objection to campaigning like our opponents seems to stem for a concern that it doesn’t improve democracy. Well our current strategy of losing elections to folks who lie about reasons for war, mortgage our future, allow treason in the White House and steal elections isn’t improving the quality of democracy."

Yet most Democrats campaign just like you're advising them to - substituting slogans for substance. The best example is public education. Check out education statements from 1,000 Democratic candidates, and they'll sound almost exactly like Ralph Nader's: Let's give education more money without accountability. Democrats are as clueless about education as Republicans; they need to get their act together.

"We want to win; the point of victory is to save the world. People can educate themselves if they please."

If you think a mob of corrupt Democrats, spiked with an honest individual here and there, is going to save the world, you're sadly mistaken. A democracy is only as strong as its fundamental building block, and if you aren't working to educate and rally the public, you're no better than the Republicans.

“If you expect people to listen to your advice, then you ought to have some credentials. I assumed I was talking to someone who had a clue about current events when I said, "Oh, come on!" Are you REALLY in the dark about GLOBAL CROSSING? You aren't aware of the hold Microsoft has over Democrats and Republicans alike? And you aren't aware of corruption in the Democratic Party?”

"Now, not once have you offered any substance to your claim, only the accusation, when asked to support your position about "corruption" you attack rather than offer facts."

”Because I ASSUMED I was talking to someone who has a clue about these front-page issues. If I had known you were in the dark, I might have posted links to some online references.”

See, again you have made my point. By repeating the charges even more vehemently, but offering no substance you have perfected the strategy that is employed all too often against the Democrats. The difference is that they take the bait, lending the charges credibility.
………………………………………………
"Your objection to campaigning like our opponents seems to stem for a concern that it doesn’t improve democracy. Well our current strategy of losing elections to folks who lie about reasons for war, mortgage our future, allow treason in the White House and steal elections isn’t improving the quality of democracy."

”Yet most Democrats campaign just like you're advising them to - substituting slogans for substance. The best example is public education. Check out education statements from 1,000 Democratic candidates, and they'll sound almost exactly like Ralph Nader's: Let's give education more money without accountability. Democrats are as clueless about education as Republicans; they need to get their act together.”

Since you offer no specifics I don’t have any way to reply.
…………………………………………………………….

"We want to win; the point of victory is to save the world. People can educate themselves if they please."

”If you think a mob of corrupt Democrats, spiked with an honest individual here and there, is going to save the world, you're sadly mistaken. A democracy is only as strong as its fundamental building block, and if you aren't working to educate and rally the public, you're no better than the Republicans.”

Actually I don’t think that a mob of corrupt Democrats would save the world, and I don’t remember saying that such a crew would save anything. What I am advocating is Democrats winning elections by employing Republican strategies, that’s all. The public is perfectly welcome to educate itself.

You advocate abandoning substance, yet you call yourself "TimeForTRUTH"? Whether you realize it or not, you're playing right into the hands of the corporations that run this country. They WANT the public to remain stupid (i.e. uninformed and misinformed) because stupid people are easier to control.

"See, again you have made my point. By repeating the charges even more vehemently, but offering no substance you have perfected the strategy that is employed all too often against the Democrats. The difference is that they take the bait, lending the charges credibility."

You're arguing just like a Republican - or a corrupt Democrat. I DID offer substance. If you're too lazy to type "Global Crossing" into a search engine, that's your problem. But substance can also take the form of LOGIC - anothe quality that's sadly lacking in political discourse.

ME: ”Yet most Democrats campaign just like you're advising them to - substituting slogans for substance. The best example is public education. Check out education statements from 1,000 Democratic candidates, and they'll sound almost exactly like Ralph Nader's: Let's give education more money without accountability. Democrats are as clueless about education as Republicans; they need to get their act together.”

YOU "Since you offer no specifics I don’t have any way to reply."

If you're so uninformed that you aren't even aware of this really obvious truth, then you aren't qualified to offer advice on campaign tactics.

"Actually I don’t think that a mob of corrupt Democrats would save the world, and I don’t remember saying that such a crew would save anything. What I am advocating is Democrats winning elections by employing Republican strategies, that’s all."

Oh. Well, everything makes sense now. You aren't interested in reforming anything. You just want to get a mob of Democrats elected, whether they're as corrupt as Republicans or not, and continue business as usual.

In that spirit, your initial logic makes perfect sense. Go for it.

unless you bring specifics. Your position sounds to me like you want me to research your side of the debate as well as mine, and I’m not interested. You CAN TYPE BOLD, attack my political knowledge, and call me lazy and I still won’t argue an issue that hasn’t been made. Make a point if you’d like, or not, makes no difference to me.

“YOU "Since you offer no specifics I don’t have any way to reply."

”If you're so uninformed that you aren't even aware of this really obvious truth, then you aren't qualified to offer advice on campaign tactics.”

It is truly fascinating that you seem to believe that I am to accept what you say as gospel when you only support it with personal attacks directed at me. It is interesting because it really is a trap that Democrats fall into time and again. The burden is not on me to support your allegations, if you think that stuff is true put up or shut up (or attack again, my typing skill and comma use aren’t all that hot if you need some ammunition).

You want specifics? I visited www.google.com and typed in "Global Crossing" + Democrats. I appended the first page of about 6,000 hits at the end of this post.

You say, "The burden is not on me to support your allegations." Well, that would be true if I was talking about some obscure issue. But if I tell you the sky is blue, are you going to ask me to prove it? It IS up to you to offer some credentials if you expect people to take you seriously, and no one's going to take you seriously if you've never even heard of Global Crossing. Get with the program.

For all I know, you could be working for some corporation, because you're promoting corporate policies: Keep the public stupid and encourage serious reform candidates to throw their beliefs out the window and just engage in rhetoric.

* * * * * * * * * *

Clinton Democrats Sued Over Global Crossing
Clinton Democrats Sued Over Global Crossing Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, May 8, 2002. WASHINGTON – Top Clinton Democrats ...
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/ 2002/5/7/182014.shtml - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

Global Crossing Scandal
... Monday, July 8, 2002. Clinton, Democrats Sued Over Global Crossing
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com Wednesday, May 8, 2002. Cuomo Hits McCall ...
www.newsmax.com/hottopics/ Global_Crossing_Scandal.shtml - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.newsmax.com >

McCaintainted by Global Crossing as are the Democrats"
... effort. McCaintainted by Global Crossing as are the Democrats". By
SIMON AVERY .c The Associated Press. LOS ANGELES (AP) - Sen. John ...
www.lincolnheritage.org/.../McCaintainted_by_Global_Crossi/ mccaintainted_by_global_crossi.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

BW Online | February 11, 2002 | Global Crossing Tossed More Cash ...
... Corrections and Clarifications "Global Crossing tossed more cash around town than
Enron ... contributions since 1997, Republicans pocketed 45%, and Democrats got 55 ...
www.businessweek.com/magazine/ content/02_06/c3769068.htm - 73k - Cached - Similar pages

BW Online | February 25, 2002 | Global Crossing: Where's the ...
... the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics found that Global Crossing gave $3.6
million to candidates and the parties since 1997, 55% of it to Democrats. ...
www.businessweek.com/magazine/ content/02_08/c3771076.htm - 73k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.businessweek.com >

News Alert 1/30/02: Global Crossing
... both parties. Only in 2001 did Global Crossing’s contributions begin
to trend more heavily in favor of Democrats. Click here for ...
www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/alertv6_40.asp - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

ConservativeTruth.org: The Real Scandal Is Global Crossing - Not ...
... had a cozy relationship with McAuliffe, ex-President Bill Clinton and other Democrats."
Yet neither the press nor Congress are interested in Global Crossing. ...
www.conservativetruth.org/archives/ tombarrett/03-10-02.shtml - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

The House Banking Committee Democrats, The 107th Congress
... John J. LaFalce before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Financial
Services Committee on the Failure of Global Crossing March 21, 2002. ...
www.house.gov/banking_democrats/pr_020321.htm - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

CNN.com - Equal-opportunity crisis - February 25, 2002
... Equal-opportunity crisis. The GOP hoped Global Crossing would be the Democrats'
Enron. Now it's everybody's mess. By Michael Weisskopf/Washington ...
www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2002/02/25/crossing.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

Right Wing Attacks AFL-CIO On Global Crossing
... Crossing =97 it is now mired in bankruptcy =97 hit ULLICO extremely hard, as it had
invested in an early stage in the telecom favored by wealthy Democrats such ...
lists.iww.org/pipermail/iww-news/ 2002-August/000183.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

we don’t consider Newsmax a source for news here at DU anymore than we think Rush actually used prescription drugs (we are of the opinion that maids aren’t licensed to prescribe drugs). Newsmax is a source of fiction, which the right produces for the minority of Republicans who can read, but nevertheless didn’t learn to think.

If you rely on them as your source for what is happening in the world then we really don’t have anything to say to each other, yours isn’t a world that exists in reality. It is the never world where the truth is not permitted to interfere with opinion. Either way, you haven't made a point, you have only provided a list, not good enough. Could it be you don't even know what the Democrats are supposed to have done?

It also makes it clear why you so oppose the Democrats adopting a strategy like the Republicans, you are afraid that it’s a winner.

Slogans that are backed by solid reasoning are the most effective way to score political points.

:hi:

nt

The Republicans have no substance behind a majority of their winning issues. The best example that comes to mind is the sale of the war in Iraq, not one of the shallow reasons they gave was supported by reality, but they had the public support hook, line and sinker. The list of similar cons is endless.

We have the advantage that our positions are substantive, but it is irrelevant. We should go forward as if they didn’t have validity so we can communicate simply, and pound the talking points. Our problem is that the substance is an albatross that we can’t escape, we need to act as if there is no there there and sell like hell.

;-)

Republican think-tanks have worked for two decades to refine the logic behind their talking points. Yes, the logic may be twisted, and yes it may appeal to people with an entirely different worldview, but soundbites are always stronger if they are based on solid reasoning.

even their intellectuals knew the stated reasons were false. But that’s not the point, we can keep our think tanks, continue to research valid arguments and solutions, just treat them like state secrets. There is no reason to explain the truth about the Judiciary to the public when campaigning. The candidate should know the issues, but not burden the electorate with them (although the actual value of a knowledgeable candidate can be debated in light of Governor Terminator and President Chimp).

Welcome to DU!

:toast:

Or “isn’t Cheney’s daughter lesbian” (that will totally throw them off because it has absolutely nothing to do with anything).

That pinpoints why it is so frustrating to debate someone of the opposite political belief. Repugglies are often only sloganers with no substance - in my experience. Your mileage may vary depending on your neighborhood.

.. What was slightly horrible was the streeam of sound that poured out of his mouth, it was almost impossible to distinguish a single word. Just once Winston caught a phrase - "Complete and final elimination of Goldsteinism" - jerked out very rapidly and, as it seemed, all in one piece, like a line of type cast solid. For the rest it was just noise, a quack-quack-quacking....


Political speech in an era of complete unfreedom becomes "duckspeak"

a reasonable and rational (ironic, huh?) approach to the reality of political "debate" that tells the truth about how low the level of political discourse has actually sunk.

Repukes do not discuss and debate. As long as we have tried to take the high road and convince people that our way is better, we have gotten our asses handed to us.

TfT - if only the Democrats would hear you. We might stand a chance.

I tried to argue with RW radio hosts too many times. They just talk over you and turn down your volume. So I started f*&king with their heads.

Tuesday I called O'Really (877-966-7746), said I was "Karl from Houston". They were discussing the Ronald Ray-Gun mini-series.

First off I thanked him for the job he does, he said he appreciated that. Then I continued,..."Keeping the national conversation away from subjects that might be embarrassing to the president. I think you and I both know how important it is that he's re-elected."

At this point he started yelling,"No, no ,no you don't!!! Don't give me any of that!"

He went on about how he isn't a bush supporter (yea right), kept calling me Karl, I don't think he ever caught on.

Great fun.

He gave me one last chance, so I said, "Bill, whatever you do, don't mention Joe Wilson's wife."

He accused me of early afternoon drinking.

Great fun it was!

Andy, you're a genius. Thanks for the laffs, that was brilliant.

I would agree, but modesty forbids.

Smooth, you are so smooth!!! You just gave me my first laugh of the day, thank you! :)
Karl :evilgrin:

Maybe, I should call in as Ann Courter from, NC? I for one haven't been able to stomach the hate head radio. I do appreciate people like you who can!

it's nice to be appreciated.

:shrug: I do what I can.

:loveya:

Brilliant stuff. Good job and well done!

"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth... The facts are beside the point. It's all in how you frame your argument." Frank Luntz, the top public opinion researcher for corporate lobbyists, and the architect of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America

He likely doesn't care which side he works for, just don't trust him.

that's going to win in the marketplace of ideas. I thought that we were the intelligent party. Look, I don't like the republican's ideas any more than anybody else on this board, but at least they hae some, and they are selling them to the American people. If the Rs that you are talking to can't do better than that, you need to find a better class of Republican. There are some out there. they can defend their ideas, if you accept their premises, at least for the sake of argument.

sometimes it seems to me that we are reduced to shouting "Bush lied, people died". While it is true, there is only so far that it, or similar slogans will take you. Besides, the republicans sloganee much better than we do.

OK, I've had my rant.

Your point is without merit. You said, ”Look, I don't like the republican's ideas any more than anybody else on this board, but at least they hae some, and they are selling them to the American people. If the Rs that you are talking to can't do better than that, you need to find a better class of Republican”

Republicans have slogans which have nothing to do with actual policy. They can’t represent their policy honestly because it would be wildly unpopular. The public buys the marketed position, not the policy behind it. The war is a perfect example, no a single public argument made by the Republicans to support the war was truthful. It had nothing to do with WMD, legitimacy of the UN, 9/11, Saddam “gassing his own people”or any of the other reasons given, but poll after poll shows that the public believes the lie that was presented to justify the invasion.

There is not even one major issue where the Republican sound bite represents the truth behind the issue, if you can find one please pass it along. Despite the absolute absence of substance the Republicans win because they have been effective in deception. I don't want to decive, I only want to abandon substance.

We really do have ideas that are good for the country but it makes no difference whatsoever. We need to give up on the hope that people will become engaged enough to care about substance and fight fire with fire.

the election. I find that contemptible. More important, I don't think it will win. In any contest of slogans, the Republicans do it better.

The voters are not as stupid as some people on this board think. even if they are wrong, they don't want to hear that they are stupid, and why should they. As long as we show contempt for the people, and I do it, too, sometimes, just so long we are going to get our asses handed to us by the Republicans, come election time.

If our ideas are correct, then there is a method to present them to the people and make them understand. If they are not, we will lose. That's what elections are about. The uninterested do not vote. The people that do are interested, and many of them are informed, and many of these vote against us. I don't say they are informed correctly, but we have to convince them otherwise. It will not be done by slogans. Slogans are an expression of sentiments already felt. How many people do you know that, say, started going to church because they saw a bumper sticker saying, "Jesus Saves"?. My count is zero, so far.

In fact I have no opinion on the intelligence of the voters, I do have an opinion on their knowledge of the issues and that opinion is solidly supported by the polls. People buy sound bites and sloganeering. An overwhelming proportion of the population thinks there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11, because that is the sound bite. They may be bright in some areas of their lives but they certainly are disinterested in what is going on in the government. They want to be led simply. So let’s simplify. Don’t clutter their minds with details; no issue should take more than 10 words to explain.

Those who want more can find it, but trying to explain it to those who don’t want it will keep costing us elections. You are wrong that correct ideas will win elections; correct sound bites and effective media manipulation win elections.

but many people seem to. I apologize if I have made an unwarranted assumptiom. Nevertheless, for a solgan to be effective, it has to tap a popular sentiment. This idea is a loser, in my opinion.

;-)

alliteration in the slogans. Your first slogan, for example, is excellent ("Reactionary Republicans Rebuke Freedoms") because it has all R words, except for "Freedom," and "Freedom" is in a special category of words that can be used constantly with no risk.

It's been proven that Americans love little slogans where every word starts with the same letter. Look at the cute little "segment titles" on CNN if you don't believe me.

CCCP - Conservatives Can Cripple People

OF MASS PROPAGANDA

Sadly, this is how you win fights now. Guerila Politics, hit and spin, shock and blame....or you lose. Its that simple.

Try and make a cohesive, well thought out arguments, and you just are giving the enemy more AMUNITION!

You have to communicate on his terms to get what you want.

The old story goes that, when trying to get a mule to move ahead, you must have a carrot, a lump of sugar, and a 2x4. The carrot and sugar are obviously enticements.

The 2x4 is to smack him over the head to get his attention.

Hee haw.

Now how do we go about letting everyone with the power to change strategy know this in time?

...saying a version of this since the day I signed on here. You cannot fight empty yet appealing slogans with well thought out truths. You have to find a way to put your truth into a simple sound bite, the American public has tuned out of politics and you will never reach them with true reason.

Sad, yes. We didn't create this reality but we'd better learn to work within it because we will never even get a chance to change it otherwise.

One of the greatest, deep thinking, intellectual discourses in the history of politics. ... and a winner!!! Let's not overestimate the American people. They can't be bothered even having a dinner conversation with their own children. They can't be bothered listening to what their partner is saying. Ya' think they are going to sit at the feet of Dean, Clark, Kerry, Gep, etc. and say "talk to me baby; make me think; caress me with your words; challenge me to grow in mind and spirit". That might work if you opened the dialogue with: If you will shut up and listen to me for 10 minutes I send a free case of beer to your house". I've said from the get go, shut up with the deep arguments and get a good Madison Ave. Ad person cranking out the jingles. Hell, the only memorable line from all our debates was Gep calling Bush a "miserable failure"!!!

The administration knows it works here and that’s why they have tried to hire PR firms to change the minds of populations overseas. The reason it won’t work elsewhere (yet) is that their populations are still at least marginally engaged in the workings of government, and the press isn’t intimidated by the RNC abroad.

You're right---they did try to run propaganda abroad. In fact, I remember thinking "you bastards, this is the way you work, deceive, manipulate and pander to us and now you want to do that crap to the world".. and you are correct, it didn't work because those people pay attention to what is going on since it's usually punctuated with things like bombs and goon squads. And that is why they shut down Al Jazeera (sp.) in Iraq.

Some people are dunderheads and will never change. I, however, have changed a few conservative's opinions by being calm and rational. It didn't happen overnight, but it was like I planted a seed in their head, a seed of doubt that grew and grew. A friend of mine that was once a flaming conservative (just married a liberal woman) admitted to me several years ago that he became more moderate because of all the things I pointed out to him. This from a man that had an autographed photo of Rush Limbaugh.

Change is possible. Just be wise in picking your battles.

they have power and money on their side, all we have is our belief in what we stand for.

If we negate that, we lose.

We can still stand for somthing, just don't tell anyone.

Laughed---but, my god, how true. Stand for something but just don't tell anyone about it. That's what the repukes do. They stand for the corporate big boys fucking the hell out of the rest of us; but they just refrain from mentioning that as they scream "abortion/guns/race baiting" and their usual bag of tricks. Let's get 'em on board with slogans and then let's pass legislation that actually helps these morons for once---it might just leave them in shock and awe and voting Dem for the rest of their lives.

we'd have to blindly trust the dems, which is not a good idea, and I wouldn't be able to do it.

People like Wellstone and Paul Simon and the like would not join the dems if this is the way they acted. They'd go Green. So would I.

Concerned voter organizations could publish candidate positions where no one will read them.

As for the Wellstone argument, the voters in Minnesota didn’t elect him for his views. We know that because they didn’t support those views for even minutes after Wellstone’s body cooled. In his case it was personality, and when the personality died the slogans won.

I think you might be right, but dare we go in that direction.

Where do we stop?

But you are right, Goebbels v2.0, like v1.0 depends on repetitive slogans continually repeated "over the objections of the intellectuals".

It's a lose-lose situation, as I see it, which is what Uncle Karl loves for us.

the rest are details. Truth without victory is loss.

I’m starting to think that I should start a sideline as a philosopher, what do you think?

Orwell's pig blurs.

Orwellian is calling war peace, desperation prosperity, division unity; the essence of my point is simplification, not lying.

Illinois just elected a Democratic governor for 2 reasons. 1) The previous Republican adminstration was corrupt. 2) "Rod" had a slogan of "Fiscal Responsibility". This is a major sore point with Republicans, they believe that government waste is rampant. Rod easily won here in Illinois because of these 2 factors.

Many of my suburbanite (Republican) neighbors stated they voted for 'Rod' because of the above 2 reasons.

With what do you disagree? It sounds like you think it should be kept simple.

Ted Kennedy on the Hannity board, and the moderators have yet to act. This is like a BAD nightmare. There is no rational debate with the unrational.

http://www.hannity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9717

The question was how to win over Bush so the Sheep can understand.

See this is what would happen in a debate.

Dean: Mr President during your leadership we've lost 3 million jobs, our economy has gone down while the deficit has soared.. I have a solution that would not ONLY get our economy going the basis of it would be to employ people.

Bush: *smirk smirk* hehe, 911.. Al quaida.. I am a religious man. I'm a man of the people. *smirk*

Dean: Mr President as I said not ONLY would the entire basis of this plan be to employ people, these jobs would have a guaranteed health insurance!

Bush: See.. I'm a religious man.. I'm a man of the people. 911. I want YOU to use YOUR money.. not the goverment to use it. *smirk smirk*

Election day: Bush wins with 49% of the votes

This is how it should go:

Chimp: I’m a religious man, we need to stop terra, 9/11.

Dem.: Thank God we have such a God fearing President. I’m in favor of Religion. I think terra is bad also. Republicans have brought back the deficit.

Chimp: I’m a religious man, we need to stop terra, 9/11.

Dem: Republicans ran up the deficit. We are losing Iraq.

Chimp: I’m a religious man, we need to stop terra, 9/11.

Dem.: Thank God we have such a God fearing President. I’m in favor of Religion. I think terra is bad also. There is a traitor in the White House.

Chimp: I’m a religious man, we need to stop terra, 9/11.

No rational person should have voted for Bush yet....

People just don't care. We need to exploit that fact.

. . marketing. :toast:

That is - people don't buy (into) things for logical reasons. Ever.

They do it for emotional reasons. An emotional sound byte that pushes the right buttons will win hands down - over some logical approach that requires thinking.

i.e - sell the sizzle.

There are those few who will want to look beyond the sound bytes - that's why it's good to have websites, etc. where the logic is laid out clearly. But even logical people will turn you off - if you don't push their emotional buttons first.

And if you pursuade them with your logic - it's because they are emotionally attached to rationality in their lives - and are therefore more easily affected (emotionally) by a good logical argument - not necessarily by your reasoning.

Most logical argument - even here at DU - is using rational argument to justify the ideas that we hold for emotional reasons. We seldom use reason to select the ideas that we like to identify with.

BTW This isn't a repuke conspiracy. It is human nature. The pukes just figured it out back in the late seventies and have been using it to destroy liberals and Dems since then - and we still haven't a clue.

. . it's really a good question.

It's because we lefties are biased to be open to different emotional values than the right.

We are the ones who are emotionally attached to relativism - including comprimise, reason and pragmatism - in public policy and government. As in let's reason this out - let's try to comprimise so that as many people as possible are treated as humanely as possible.

The right, by temperament, are emotionally attracted to absolutism. As in might is right, the Bible is truth, an eye-for-an-eye, abortion is murder, etc.

The values of the right are expanding in western culture (at least in the US).

We are undergoing a mini-reformation. I first heard this from Dr. Leonard Schlain (The Alphabet and the Goddess) a few years ago - and questioned his reasoning. But as time goes by - it seems he was right on the money.

That could be the underlying reason why - even though we (on the left) all know that our view of reality is more humane, more pro-life in the large sense and less destructive of human values - no matter how we try to present our values - they keep winning.

Clinton had it, he understood for the most part what he was up against and made turn-about fair play. Can't we have Clintonian training camps?

but they've lowered it for us,and it's about time we noticed.

If the people want us to hit them over the head with chairs, well I say let's do it and let's make it a LaZboy.

How do we get this message to the people who make the choices about how to spend the Party's money.

Reasons:

• it's no longer taught in schools
  
• ratings wars have driven viewership of "think" shows to new lows
  
• with the 500 channel universe, most people are watching the other 499 rather than PBS
  
• people are so rushed working three jobs or driving their kids from soccer to judo to dance to music that they don't have time to think
  
• they've had it beaten into their heads that "thinking is bad"
  
• religious leaders have declared "thinking" sinful and wrong
  

with this entire thread. What I'm reading seems to say that the people here only believe we can win if we don't let the American voters know what we intend to do with the power of government if they give it to us. Is this interpretation correct?? Because if it is, then we are in deep doo-doo, no shit.

This is wrong. If the Republicans do it, we rightly call them on it. What makes it right for us? I am very disturbed, here.

we should change our strategy to a winning one. There is no reason to change our positions on anything. No need for deception, we just don’t have to advertise how complicated the world really is.

Hey, we can keep doing what we have been but being right but losing really doesn't stop war.

People only read headlines. If they want, they can read the story.

We need to hit them over the head with headlines. If they then feel so inclined, they can find out the actual truth behind the headline.

You gotta get their attention somehow.

facts dont matter as much as the story the facts tell.

whoever can weave their programs and positions into a narrative that is easy for people to relate to has the advantage because the narrative is stronger than any single fact (or mis-fact).

for this reason, the facts dont matter as much as the story.

right now the gop has better stories to tell and until the dems can respond with their own, they will always face having the facts on their side and still lose.

"The majority of the American Public is no long capable of rational thought."

True; that's precisely why we have to do everything we can to educate them - and to simply slap them awake.

Reasons...

"It's no longer taught in schools."

And that's something you can't blame entirely on Republicans. I spent sixteen years in public education in liberal Seattle, and I can tell you that the Democrats are PIGS on education issues. Ditto for the Green Party. Virtually NO ONE in America is speaking the truth about education; we've met the enemy, and he is us.

"People are so rushed working three jobs or driving their kids from soccer to judo to dance to music that they don't have time to think."

True; however, I've also observed that people use that as a cop out. I've attempted to engage people in political conversations on countless occasions when they DID have time - in a teachers lounge, on vacation, etc. They often say, "Oh, I just don't have time to follow the news." When I counter, "But you have time now," they instantly reach for another cop out. People DO have time to think; they just don't give a damn.


Forgethell wrote, "I have a serious problem with this entire thread. What I'm reading seems to say that the people here only believe we can win if we don't let the American voters know what we intend to do with the power of government if they give it to us. Is this interpretation correct?? Because if it is, then we are in deep doo-doo, no shit."

Amen. This thread could be a textbook example of corporate manipulation.


Kodi wrote, "Right now the gop has better stories to tell..."

Baloney. There are many fabulous stories to tell; Democrats just don't have enough guts to tell them.

"I'll raise you taxes" and see where that got him. Baloney?... Hardly.

You are 100000000% correct, sir

It's like trying to have an actual debate with a WWF wrest.er

It's a complete waste of time, and not what the audience is paying to see!

you could pass that suggestion along....

Thank you for the compliment.

There are plenty of Dem celebs to choose from - have the real statesmen pulling the strings behind the scenes - just like Repukes have for Ray-gun, Chimp, and will for Ah-nulled.

The neocons, religious right, freeper, dittohead hordes are a mob. They are profoundly irrational.

One can not reason with a mob

:thumbsup: Laughed my ass off.

We need to start a movement.

Do it better than I do, but do it nonetheless. Gotta fight fire with fire or flame-suppressant...either way, it must be done.