Exactly how far has being decorous and deferential gotten the Dem Party

[MoonRiver]

over the last 20 years? Answer: NOWHERE. I, for one, refuse to cowtow to the Rethugs. Their avowed game plan is to muck rake Democrats while crying foul when we point out their horrendous offenses against Americans and humanity at large. Putting a collective ostrich head into sand just hasn't worked out folks. Presenting the truth in all its ugly reality about Repuke criminals, alive and dead, is our only shot at saving this country from the rightwing fascists. Whether DU is read by prominent pundits and/or politicians or not is beside the point. We shouldn't lie about and cover-up for what the right has done just to be pleasant. That's exactly the trap they want us to fall into!

[Liberal Veteran]

1. It's that basically how the right justifies human rights abuses in Iraq?

By saying, "Well, how do you think they would treat us?"

[MoonRiver]

2. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but

the Iraqi people have NOT treated us like we're treating them, ever! The rightwing definitely HAS abused the Democratic Party, over and over and over and over.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. And we gaily skip further down the spiral?

There is a fine line between being critical and being ugly and uncivil.

Many have crossed it.

[MoonRiver]

4. The truth is sometimes ugly.

If it is and the Rethugs have done the evil deed(s), should we just sit passively, smiling meekly and saying nothing?

[Liberal Veteran]

5. There is a time for truth......and a decent way to present it.

A few days of silence costs us nothing.

Sure it won't win over any die hard republicans nor will ugly criticism no matter how true, but it definitely won't turn off any fence sitters.

[MoonRiver]

10. Actually, my post said nothing about Reagan,

assuming that's who you're referring to. "Dead" could just as easily be referring to Nixon. Speaking of whom, is it ok now to say something factually bad about Nixon? I certainly don't want to offend anybody by dishonoring the dead mass murderers and felons of our nation. :eyes:

[noiretextatique]

13. what is the "decent way" to present the truth of the coup?

and when will it be presented? after the next one? a few years of silence, in this case.

[Carolina]

21. good point(s), noiretblu

I will not be silenced or muted just to be decorous.

I'm sick of this business about showing respect for the dead just because they're dead? No, respect the dead because in life, the person earned it.

RIP, RFK (who died on this day in 1968)
As for Reagan, I don't give a rip.

[MoonRiver]

47. Exactly.

We cower, we be devoured.

[maggrwaggr]

74. the truth ..... is ..... UGLY

and these fuckers are the ugliest of the liars.

It's time to shine the brightest light we can on these cockroaches.

They've nearly destroyed this country.

And watching 36 hours of media hero-worship of a guy who was the leader of a pack of scoundrels almost as bad as the Bush cabal .......

Well it makes me realize WE HAVEN'T BEEN FIGHTING ENOUGH.

The truth is getting buried, deeper every day, under a cascade of bought-and-paid-for propaganda.

[ElectroPrincess]

54. Nobody wins in politics by taking the high ground ...

As nasty as this sounds, it's true. Look at how the mind numbing right wing radio hosts spew out their "talking points" each day to the converted.

We have no choice but play hard, play offensive and if the information is VALID, not hesitate to slam the character of individual right wing politicians at every opportunity.

We're not only up against the right wing but also the vast majority of the corporate USA media outlets.

It's not what my momma told me about morals, but if we are to win this Presidential election, we'll have to hit the right wingers hard with factual information, and NEVER let up - no matter how negative, vow to not show an ounce of mercy for individual far right wingers when it comes outing the truth.

This election is for our continued freedoms. I guess it's up to every individual if they are motivated and ruthless enough to do whatever is legal to win. ;)

[ClassWarrior]

88. Here's a way...

...to be respectful to the dead while still holding the hate-mongers to account:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1733019

[w13rd0]

6. The abuses in Iraq....

...were a little more severe than "speaking harshly of the dead". I don't think anyone is saying (or at least they shouldn't) "they do it, so we can do it too". I'm saying, "Look, why the hell do we participate in adherence to this faux PC (patrioticly/politically/publicly correct) nonsense?" Not, why do we when they don't. But just, why?

With the whore media, and the Bush administration, and everything, I've about had it with the thin veneer of politeness and civility that thinks being a mean phuck is ok, but saying anything unseemly must be repressed and restricted, especially when it hurts someones bottom line.

Coke and Pepsi both taste like shit...
Americans ARE fat and lazy, and that's why wealthy fat, lazy CEOs are shipping their jobs overseas to be done for $5 a day...
Reagan was an insufferable bastard, and a figurehead used by GHWB for the entire duration of his second term to "prepare for the coming" of his one world corporate order that sought to keep the world safe for men like him...
Bush is an unthinking tart, duped by his advisors and deluded by his own unhinged worldview into thinking he should do anything other than put his sad legacy to an end now, before some future civilization looks back at history ("history? we'll all be dead") and snatches him out of the timestream and devises a fitting punishment...
Cheney is an apartheid supporting, far right fascist bastard being kept alive by the blood of baby seals...

[Liberal Veteran]

7. I don't think good manners, decorum, and civility are ever wasted.

But what does it accomplish to dance on someone's grave at this point in time other than to further harden the stance of the opposition?

[w13rd0]

8. I'm not dancing on any graves...

...Reagan has been dead a long time, couple decades. But his impact has been lingering. It's been a slow, painful drawn out process for lots of us, and some of us are sincerely glad it's over.

Oh, and "hardening the opposition"? What do you think would soften them, because they look like big pricks to me, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[maggrwaggr]

76. you equate telling the truth with "dancing on a grave?"

well that's the problem, isn't it?

For any of us to come out and say "YOU'RE LYING" is considered dancing on a grave.

Good GRIEF.

Take a little more of that koolaid. It tastes great.

[saracat]

14. Great Post!

I like coth coke and Pepsi and I don't think that fat lazy Americans are the reason jobs are outsourced. I'd say that blame goes to fat greedy corporate ceo's who are are only looking at their bottom line.The rest of your post was right on!

[salin]

18. the events are not similar but the rationale used to excuse it are

republicans: what happened in abu ghraib is nothing compared to what saddam did! (ergo its not a problem...)

in this argument: its nothing like what the GOP does (ergo it isn't a problem and we have no culpability as we become even more a nation of brutes, bullies and self-centered selfrighteous violent loudmouths that view others as less human because they are on ... the other side.)

[ibegurpard]

12. Lame

People are saying bad things about an old man who finally died whose policies were INCREDIBLY destructive to both this country and the world. Please show me how that compares to advocating torture or nuking the Middle East?

[maggrwaggr]

75. that's a stretch to say the least

I don't think anybody here is talking about taking Rush Limbaugh and putting a hood on his head, making him stand on a box, naked, and .......

Hmmmmmmm, he'd probably enjoy it anyway.

[lastknowngood]

9. Damn right it's time to fight with everything we can pick up buy

beg borrow or steal to destroy these Nazi Bastards. They need to be beaten back into the cesspools they arose from, back into the KKK and their Nazi birth holes, back into the depths of hell where they belong. Just my unbiased opinion.

[Vickers]

11. Will good manners be the death of us?

Sometimes I feel our genteel ways are the political equivalent of the Captain going down with the ship: a nice gesture, but you still drown.

I'll be doing anything to survive, thank you very much.

[saracat]

15. Amen!

Fight fire with fire I say. Who does the public listen to ?Alan Colmbs or Sean Hannity? Bill Press or Rush Limbaugh. Get the picture? And the only Dem who gets attention is James Carville and he is not known for being polite. He also wins!

[salin]

17. Bill Press often overshines his cohosts (like Buchanon)

and Colmes just sucks... he is not strong in offering opposition views, he is not strong in (civilly) holding his own and not getting spoken over by Hannity. It has nothing to do with his being civil - it has everything to do with his being a sucky spokesperson.

Listen to some older democratic senators... Hit opponents exceptionally hard - but always done civilly... listen to Sens Byrd and Hollings. Very effective - but also civil.

[saracat]

71. And no one listens.

They are listening to Limbaugh, O'Rially and Hannity!

[salin]

16. different words:

civility.

Compromise (and bad political strategy).

Nonresponse (to attacks).

These do not mean the same thing.

One can be civil and not make bad compromises on congressional actions. One can be civil and still forcefully call out opponents on their attacks (and disprove them).

The problem isn't civility (Watch Senator Byrd, he is very civil but gives scathing attacks). It is weak political strategy/strategists ... often borne out of being very slow to recognize and react to a drastically changed political context starting with Atwater in 1998 and culminating with the Gingrich revolution in 1994.

[jpgray]

19. Yes. Too many folks here agree with the idea of 'ends justify the means'

I remember when the idea was floated two years ago that the Democrats were setting up Bush for a disaster by voting for his policies, the progessives were absolutely livid, and declared that to be a very craven policy no matter how politically effective it was. It's perhaps not too surprising, but it's nonetheless discouraging, that these same people champ at the bit when it comes to turning the most disgusting of the Republican tricks around against those who use them. It goes against my ideals to use such tactics, and while I'm sure the right will be absolutely disgusting at the death of Clinton, that doesn't motivate me to be disgusting myself.

Incidentally, criticizing the presidency of this dead man is perfectly reasonable. Dancing on his grave, or otherwise celebrating a human death is not necessary, and is not anywhere near as effective as a more measured critique of Reagan's administration when it comes to explaining to others WHY some of us do not mourn his death.

[MoonRiver]

20. Maybe I've missed something,

but I have not read one post celebrating Reagan's death. I've read many criticizing his presidency and governorship though.

[jpgray]

22. You must not have been looking very carefully

I believe one thread title went something like 'I've waited 25 years to piss on his grave'. As I said elsewhere, there seem to be far more people deploring this behavior than displaying it, but I don't care how many are doing it--I'm free in any case to say that I disagree with those who do. Criticizing his presidency at this time is not at all inappropriate, celebrating his death doesn't make sense to me.

[MoonRiver]

25. I didn't see that post.

But 25 years of anger and frustration about outrages committed by a rightwing ideologue leaves a huge amount of bitterness. I think it's unreasonable to expect people to just smile and be polite under those circumstances. If we can't vent here, then where?

[jpgray]

26. You can vent and be as disgusting as you want

I'm not looking to stop anyone's behavior on this board. I simply disagree that such behavior is necessary--I think one can be devastatingly critical of Reagan without celebrating his death.

[Tomee450]

63. But what

I don't understand why you and others go from thread to thread constantly criticizing posters for expressing their opinions. Why not just let it go. People are not changing their minds as they have strong feelings about Reagan. I didn't hate Reagan, do not rejoice at his death and I have sympathy for his family. However his era was a nightmare for this country, especially for its minority citizens. I can understand why so many have such negative feelings about him. I fail to comprehend why it is necessary to fight with people simply because they do not share your views. How many times are you going to express your disapproval?

[jpgray]

67. You my friend, win my unintentionally hilarious post award for the night

"I don't understand why you and others go from thread to thread constantly criticizing posters for expressing their opinion"

Would you mind pointing out where I have done this? Ironically, I'm expressing my own opinion in the above posts, which you seem to have no compunction in criticizing--yours is just another opinion.

"I fail to comprehend why it is necessary to fight with people simply because they do not share your views"

Again, would you mind showing me where I am fighting with people? I consistently have stated that criticism of Reagan is fine and necessary in these times, while celebrating his death is not, in my view. You are either reading a lot into my statements that simply isn't there, or you are looking for an argument that I am not interested in providing.

Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else?

[salin]

38. there were many

of those in tone and tenor last night. I think one even including pissing on his grave as a phrase in the title of the thread. The threads today are, for the most part, far more restrained - and focusing, as they should, on the failures of the presidency (and governorship.) It is in the devolving to the things like... too late to commit torture on him... sort of phrases (read that one too) to which folks are reacting.

[salin]

37. I agree.

for some reason folks think that a suggestion per pulling back from the dancing on the grave = suggesting that one can not criticize the presidency. They are NOT the same thing.

[Vickers]

40. In all fairness, many of the "dancing on his grave" comments were first

posted by folks using that phrase to describe the (mostly) valid attacks on his presidency. It was then co-opted by the folks who were accused of it.

Ironic, eh?

[salin]

42. that true of the pissing on the grave

as well... if so, you and I read things with quite different eyes - as seemed to be pretty explicit with no need for "coopting".

[Vickers]

45. Honestly? I'd be too skeered to pee or dance on a grave

For the same reason I would never throw a Bible.

I'm not a particularly religious feller, but I don't push my luck.

:P

[ElectroPrincess]

57. Yes, that's because it works!

There's no room for "Sunday School" in politics. "The end justifies the means" is an absolute truism in political races. Negative campaigning works and if the information is validated, I for one will convey it like James Carvile = without hesitation.

[jpgray]

58. As pointed out above, this is the same rationale for torturing prisoners

If we can only beat them by being them, the victory is pretty meaningless. Fortunately, degrading ourselves to that level has never been, nor will it ever be, necessary.

[mvd]

23. I agree

We have to be strong to thwart the neo-conservatives. While we don't have to follow their every step, we must be no-nonsense. That's the way to describe it.

[rolodomo]

24. There are plenty of ways to make a stand...

without the hate-mongering I've seen by a few posters here. If we're in a straight up fight, personally I would have problems with someone on my team frothing at the mouth about how he hates this person and they got what they deserved. They're really just laying a moral trip on me. Prime example: Reagan did this, so he deserved it. Like please, get of the high horse, we've got work to do. Go talk to Falwell or something about moral theories.


Ummm, let's try to outsmart our opponents instead of out "emote" them, especially with an emotion like hatred. They've got that market cornered, why copy them on something like that. Is falling to pieces the way to win?

[JanMichael]

27. Civility SCREWED us in 2000. No doubt the worst decision in the...

...history of US politics.

[salin]

39. That wasn't civility

that was really bad advisors selling bad strategy! They most certainly could have fought harder and firmer and still been civil.

[JanMichael]

77. Let's see, the FL Dems KNEW that the Repukes were planning the

("KNEW": As in they were aware of the movement, perhaps not all of the plans) Brooks Brothers Riot. They knew these staffer punks were being shipped in to intimidate (Funny eh? Those soft shits? Anyway) county elections offices, or something shitty, surely not to attend the Strawberry Festival in Arcadia....

And it happened, and we did nothing. Nothing.

They had "protestors" out in front of the Palm Beach County Elections office, we were apparently too busy?

This isn't a semantics argument over the meaning of "Civil" or "Is", it's about the realisation that we're going to continue getting creamed until some spine transplants are performed.

[salin]

89. Come on

you know that I agree with you on that. Have been saying exactly that for years.

I don't equate gleefully posting about pissing on a dead man's grave within hours of his death - as sign of a spinal implant. Apples and Oranges.

Nor am I saying there is no place for criticism of Reagan, of the myth and of the heroism now taking place in the media. Again apples and oranges. Because one can say those things powerfully - but civilly - and in ways that actually work to counter the lovefest - becuase of phrasing in ways that make things think.

Unless one believes that the only way to fight is to say Fuck twenty times through out a single paragraph, then how does being civil in presentation of ideas have ANYTHING to do with "implanting spines" or "fighting back"?

[Just Me]

28. We can be powerful, impactful and inspirational without being vitriolic.

eom

[MoonRiver]

29. Refusing to be beaten down like a dog does not equate to vitriol.

[Just Me]

32. I don't know what you are talking about.

You response to my post makes no sense to me.

[MoonRiver]

33. You were replying to my original message, correct?

If so just where did I promote being "vitriolic"?

[salin]

41. probably in reference to the posts and threads

that led to some calls for civility and decorum, some of which were more than vitriolic (the virtues of hate being my personal favorite). Sort of point (vitriolic posts) lead to (calls for decorum) lead to (calls on why decorum is not effective) leads to Just Me's post. Or that is the progression that I see.

[Just Me]

52. Yup. You understand. Thanks, "salin".

Some of the most powerful, persuasive and influential people that have ever impacted me and my life,...seemed to have honey dripping from their words.

Martin Luther King was one well-known visionary who always operated from a position of hope and inspiration. However, I've known many people who have equally inspired me,...and they never operated out of anger or bitterness.

[ElectroPrincess]

60. Yeah, and he also shamelessly cheated on his wife, your point?

Nobody is God like and a picture perfect Zen personality. We're all human, even the leaders we most admire. MLK was a great man but every human has his/her weaknesses.

[Just Me]

64. True. So, who is your hero?

[Just Me]

49. I made a general remark with no personal assault upon anyone. n/t

[ElectroPrincess]

59. Then you must not had a great deal of experience

As a person whose competed in corporate, military and government oriented politics, I have to guess you have not had much experience with the power players. Yes, you may "inherit the earth" but you will not win one 'bout in these situations by being pure and forever civil. In fact, subdued vitrol is highly effective in these areas. If you are not willing to get your hands a little dirty, then politics is not the area for you to delve into. I'm not being harsh, just stating the reality of survival.

[Just Me]

65. I take it that you believe more in humanity's destructive powers,...

,...than humanity's capacity to create something better.

You're not harsh,...sweety,...you've just fallen into a terribly bitter, dark, destructive notion of human potential.

I'm sorry you have no hope. :cry:

[Cocoa]

30. the democratic party is still respected

Speaking for myself, if they became as idiotic as some people are demanding they become, I'd lose respect for them, and I'd be even more disgusted with politics than I am now.

The dems are the refuge from the borderline-fascist, Delay style politics of personal destruction.

[MoonRiver]

31. If you read my original post I stated we shouldn't permit cover-ups

of Rethug abuses. What do you find idiotic and disgusting about this concept?

[Cocoa]

34. "decorous" and "deferential"

that's the gist of your argument, it's emotional rather than procedural.

The dems of course are not permitting coverups, they're investigating and suing left and right, limited by their being in the minority.

[MoonRiver]

36. So I assume you agree with my premise.

[salin]

43. what does decorum have to do with procedure and strategy?

[LoZoccolo]

35. Why don't we talk about putting the Republicans in concentration camps?

Hey how far as being decorous and deferential gotten the Dem party?

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

44. Good god people

get a fucking grip.In a weekend of stupid posts this may top the list.

[MoonRiver]

46. Well, you know there are only two possibile behaviors for Dems

to engage in: decorum or brutality. The choice is ours! :eyes:

[ElectroPrincess]

62. This cracks me up ...

The choice is FAR from that simplistic. We represent a diverse range of opinions. What truly disgusts me are the people trying to play Nun or Priest to the rest of us. I wish you appeasers for the right wing would kindly find your niche and stop criticizing everybody else. We're all part of a very large political forum and I get irked by many members of what I consider the moral manners chastising those who have strong opinions. Accept the fact that we are a broad tent of perspectives, and please stop with the IMO overly self righteous displays of indignation. This only helps entertain the freepers and I don't like to accommodate the radical right wing in promoting their mission.

[Just Me]

66. Interesting language: "appeasers", "moral manners", "mission",...

,...along with demeaning those who advocate decency, dignity, hope, or (God forbid) LOVE and support.

Language,...words,...are interesting conveyances of hearts and minds.

:bounce:

[MoonRiver]

79. I hope you know that I was being sarcastic.

[GreenPartyVoter]

48. Yeah. Would be nice if the Dem leadership would speak out already.

If they don't know how to do it, they can ask Howard and Dennis.

[MoonRiver]

50. You have a good point there.

:kick:

[Nlighten1]

51. Exactly.

Taking the high road doesn't always mean you will win. Sometimes you have to punch the mother fuckers back.

[mmonk]

53. Agree

If we don't fight hard now, we may not get another chance for a long while as they consolidate their power while still slamming dems as "enemies of America". Give them NO QUARTER this election cycle or regret it.

[Solly Mack]

55. True story. Involving myself and a Bush cousin on this very subject

I've known this person for about 6 years.

his quote: "We (republicans) count on democrats being the better angels."

this was said to my comment- "so you expect to get away with just anything because the democrats will do what's best for the country, instead of dragging everyone through the mire of a prosecution?"

we had been talking about things like watergate,iran-contra..etc.
IOW, republicans do what they do knowing democrats will not put the country through all the pain and ugliness of trials, prosecutions, and all the dirty little republican secrets from coming out...of just how much they have hurt this country.

and yes, this person is a true bush cousin...and yes, he was smirking.

[Lorien]

56. It's a sad fact that in America, nice guys always

finish last-especially in politics. The 2002 elections failed to make that point to our party, and I fear the 2004 election won't be any kinder to us. :-(

[Liberal Classic]

61. A lot farther than throwing tantrums

I can tell you that much.

[sadiesworld]

68. I agree.

Some here continue to believe that logic and civil persuasion will advance our cause. The problem is that most of the republican party and the media are ABUSIVE. Abusive people are not interested in rational discourse, only in the furtherance of their own power.

One person's high road is another person's battered spouse.

[Selwynn]

69. No one is asking for decorous or deferential

...just asking for not assholish and stupid.

[genius]

70. It's gotten them Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II.

[LibertyorDeath]

72. Where has it gotten us.

America is on the edge of getting rid of the trappings of a Democracy in favor of becoming a full fledged fascist State.

This is no dress rehearsal.

Wake up & Smell the FASCISM America.

[maggrwaggr]

73. I agree. They declared war on us and we didn't notice for years

now we've noticed.

We've been getting our asses kicked.

It is time to fight back.

It is time to bloody their lying mouths.

It is time to publicly humiliate them and reveal them for the scoundrels they are.

It is time to tell the truth.

[OKNancy]

78. There is a smart way and a stupid way

Gore's fiery speech - good and smart
Using all legal means to stop Nader - good and smart
Kerry using surrogates to attack Bush - good and smart
Pissing on Reagan's grave - bad and stupid

[MoonRiver]

82. Exactly where and when did I recommend "pissing on Reagan's grave"?

I'm getting sick and tired of having that phrase attributed to me. :thumbsdown:

[OKNancy]

85. I think it's the timing

of the post. I realize you never said anything about Reagan, but it just seems that so many people equate fighting back with hateful remarks about Reagan. It's on our minds.

Peace.

[MoonRiver]

92. I understand.

I hope we can all just try and get control of our emotions here. While its not a good idea, just days after his death, to openly express our anger at Reagan's policies, I refuse to express reverence and respect toward him when I don't feel them. Frankly, I just wish the subject of Reagan would go away, as it is pretty irrelevant to what's happening policially, on the ground, today. :hug:

[sampsonblk]

80. Disagree without being Disagreeable

We don't have to spew venom like they do. But when they are wrong, its important for us to say so loudly. Dem party leaders should never have caved in on this war, or the so-called Patriot Act or so many other policies. Let's not be weak, and let's not support weak leaders.

[MoonRiver]

81. I think that's exactly the point I've been trying to make!

Yet some people (now you) are now stating that I'm recommending "pissing on Reagan's grave"! :crazy:

[salin]

90. It rather sounded like

an advocation for the in your face aggression (such as the pissing on reagan's grave thread) rather than the same thing that those being excoriated for calling for civility are saying... civility is... being able to disagree and be critical (even forceful) without being crass and so over the top that noone but the choir will ever hear it.

[MoonRiver]

91. Whatever.

You are grossly misinterpreting my message, but its clear you are determined to see things in this distorted manner. Why you choose to do so would be sheer speculation on my part, so, unlike you, I will not express broad, unsubstantiated opinions as to "motive".

[sampsonblk]

93. Its no surprise that you are a Clark supporter

same here. And I agree with your point.

[Az]

83. So you want to fight

Then figure out what the fight is. Its not about winning votes. Winning votes comes after you have won already. Our Democratic Leaders are not even fighting the right battle. They are fighting for a pitance of votes to the center in hopes of hanging on for a few more sessions. This is doom. This is fighting in the enemies territory. This, as Sun Tsu would say, is fighting on the enemies ground of death.

We need to have won before we even enter the election process. We need to have the Republicans trying to court the center using our ideology. This is how you win. This is how you win before you even have to draw your sword.

To do this we have to change the flow of dialog in the public. We need to counter every single member of the Heritage foundation with two spokespeople of our own. We need to counter every single dollar that Scaife or Coors dumps into the arena with 2 of our own. We need to champion both the truth and the lefts opinion of what to do with this knowledge. The right has a severe disadvantage in that they need to force the truth to fit their world view. The left draws its world view from the truth. We need to capitalize in this.

We may well win this upcoming election. But it is not from our efforts that this win will come. It is George's alone to lose and he is doing admirably. But even if he should lose the right continues to win the war. They can afford to lose George and may even look forward to it as he has become more of a problem than a benefit. In the end he doesn't really matter to the right. It is control and domination of the medium of ideas that they have struggled for and won. It is this that must be rested away from them if we want to see this country move in a progressive way ever again.

[LeahMira]

84. "Crying foul" doesn't help at all...

Their avowed game plan is to muck rake Democrats while crying foul when we point out their horrendous offenses against Americans and humanity at large.

I don't think the "crying foul" benefits us, if that's all we do.

We really haven't had a charismatic candidate since John Kennedy, and these days the Republicans see Democrats as only crying foul while apparently not having any better plans to offer.

Look at why they are eulogizing Reagan... because he had a single-minded vision of how the nation ought to be, because he behaved decisively, because he said things to people that he believed needed to be said, even if that might offend them, and because he "made Americans proud."

During the Kennedy administration, I felt proud to be American, and I think that whether or not people agreed with him, they thought he had class.

I think that we, as progressives, have today a clear vision of what we want for America, but unlike Reagan we are afraid of saying what we want out loud for fear that it's too scary for the right wingers to accept. So far, Senator Kerry does appear to be indecisive... although I don't know what else he could have done when he was lied to, along with the rest of our Congressional representatives, about WMDs in Iraq. Of course when you have all the facts instead of just one part of them, you are going to come to a different conclusion.

Frankly, I'm tired of seeing the Democrats not so much "act nice" as afraid to come right out and say how they feel. Howard Dean did that, and somehow he got sidelined just before people in general started thinking about what he was saying and considering that he had some decent ideas.

I think that Democrats need to learn... even from Republicans like Reagan... not to be afraid of offending a few people, and to have a clear, well-articulated, consistent vision of an America that could make everyone feel proud. I think some have that vision, but we just have to keep repeating it. When advertisers claim that consumers need to see the same ad at least nine times before it makes an impression, I think we are going to have to maybe bore ourselves silly by repeating our goals very clearly, and over and over and over again.

[Az]

86. Leadership

Pointing out George's fouls will accomplish nothing. As long as the only thing we are running on is that we are not the right then the people see little alternative. Negative campaigning works as long as there is no alternative argument. If there is no clear path opposes to the one offered by the righ then people will go where ever the stronger leadership seems to be.

There is no clear idea of what Democrats or the left stand for. There is no clear voice speaking for the left. There are a multitude of voices speaking for the right and they define the argument. As long as we are drawn into their arena we will continue to be pummeled and beaten into a pulp.

This obsession with negative campaigning only has our attention because of the utter lack of dialog of any real meaning. If there was a real discourse of ideas the negative attacks would fade away into the nonsense that they are. But as it is right now the only thing of any merit is the nonsense.

The left needs to organise. We need to set up a counter voice to the dominant right's. We need to get in the mix and be where ever they are. We need to counter their think tanks. We need to get other clear ideas out there. Its the only way. Anything else is a losing battle. We may win a few skirmishes but we are losing the war right now.

[Snellius]

87. Now that the fear of racial unrest and union muscle has abated ...

the right wing in America has started to armor themselves with the threat of vigilante violence of their own. But behind everything the reactionary right does is the fear of the "masses", and the suspicion that whenever you live in a democracy they are only a policeman away from doom.