Why don't the Dems make more hay out of how extreme the Bushists are?

[BurtWorm]

Why is it considered gauche to point out that Cheney is as far right a politician as they come, that the Bushists believe their boy is a messenger of the Lord, that they intend to weaken the government's ability to provide equal protection under the law for individuals regardless of class and with respect to corporations? Of course this doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) their only message. Of course they should present a positive image of themselves. But why, when speaking of the Bushists, do Dems feel it necessary to show them entirely undue respect?

[proud patriot]

1. Extreme Radical Ideologues

bent on dismantling all the hard fought and won
Stability and Security of the 20th century .

[ewagner]

2. Excellent Point BurtWorm

If the fight is for "middle America" then why not label the other side for what they are: EXTREMISTS.

Middle America will not tolerate extremes on either side. So far, the repubs have been successfully labeling the Liberal side of the spectrum as the only Extremists. Time to turn the tables...quickly!

[BurtWorm]

3. Wouldn't it be great to hear this point made at least once or twice

in a big way each night of the convention. Not all Repub bashing all the time, but one or two solid hits against their extremism.

[ClassWarrior]

4. Excellent point!!

So let 'em know! They ARE our elected representatives, after all. If enough of us let 'em know we want to hear this, they'll start saying it.

[demosincebirth]

5. Because we're the party of...

"tolerance." Bullshit!! We should be like pit bulls!

[library_max]

6. Because it's a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact,

and therefore can't be proved. One of our biggest obstacles to overcome is the cognitive dissonance of people who voted for Bush in 2000 and/or supported him 100% after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Calling him an extremist is going to be like calling them extremists, and they are neither going to like it nor believe it. Better to point out (and prove) how he lied to them and how he wrecked their economy and cost them (or their relatives and friends) their jobs.

[MercutioATC]

7. Agreed. To them, most of US are extremists.

Name-calling won't gain us any votes.

[BurtWorm]

8. Name-calling might not, but what about truth telling?

Isn't it true that the Bushists want certain people to believe Bush is God's agent on earth? Hasn't Bush said as much himself? Isn't that extreme? It used to be.

[library_max]

9. It's counterproductive.

You won't win converts by, in effect, insulting the people you want to convert.

[BurtWorm]

11. Who wants to convert people who believe Bush is God's messenger?

Let Bush have them. But it would be a service to discourse in the US to say flatly that such a belief is extreme. One reason American discourse has gone right is the right make vocal their value judgments and the left does not. If you want to move the goal posts back to where they were before the right wing started running amok, you have to call the right wing on their extremism.

[MercutioATC]

10. But that's not "extreme" to a lot of people...it's a good thing.

It's all perspective. We're not going to gain any ground trying to paint Repubs as extremists, IMHO.

[BurtWorm]

12. If you don't think belief that God speaks through Bush is extreme,

you're not going to vote Democratic anyway.

[MercutioATC]

13. By the same token, people who DO think it's extreme aren't going to

vote Republican.

The result is preaching to the choir and possibly alienating some swing voters.

[tom_paine]

14. I never dreamed I'd hear you speaking like this, Mercutio

I always thought you were of the variety of Fighting Liberal I could respect.

How is it the Busheviks routinely say WHATEVER WHENEVER about us and give it not a second thought.

And we have to tiptoe around because we don't want to alienate people?

The Kerry campaign is not being run substantially different than the Gore Campaign, which is from a position of fear.

The position of the Bullied who is so afraid to do or say somethign that will fetch him (or her) another beating.

The Bullied who, no matter WHAT he or she says or does is going to get that beating just the same, for an invented infraction, if necessary.

But who still quivers and quakes and cowers nonetheless.

Well, we are fucking running out of time to find our spines and our balls! Let me ask you a question:

How come Busheviks can spew any vile Extremist crap and be unafraid of 'alienating the moderates'?

How come the Democrats are always afraid for the same reason?

Answer me that.

In other words:

How can Ruthless Dick tell Leahy to Go Fuck Himself and then NOT apologize?

How come the Democrats are bent over backwards apologizing for Whoopi Goldberg and will now do the same for Theresa Heinz?

God, I am disgusted. Not at you personally, but at the situation.

This is essentially a rerun of 2000. Maybe the same strategy now can give us a theft-proof victory because Bush is the Worst Leader Ever in Americanm/Imperial Amerikan History.

But probably not. Not theft-proof.

Time will tell but I am SICK of the Democrats showing no goddamned spine!

[BurtWorm]

15. It's separating the wheat from the chaff.

If a swing voter is offended by the idea that someone would find Bush's identification of himself with the prophets as extreme, then who needs them?

Look: Is Bush extreme or not? Is what Bush doing to the country extreme or not? What's the sin in saying what's true?