Examine how the RWs are attacking the Meirs nomination for pointers:

[The Backlash Cometh]

They are very focused in their attack and very good at citing fact or quoting specific phrases to get their point across.

In one case, the worldnut goes on the defensive against Bush and goes back and picks up where Dan Rather left off, questioning Bush's military service as well as the Meier's involvement in the Texas Lottery:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=104&topic_id=4976567&mesg_id=4976567

(So it wasn't that the right disagreed that Bush's military service was in question, but that they managed to stop the investigation. If they now succeed in bringing Bush down on his military service, then CBS producers owe Dan Rather a big apology for not giving him more support.)

And now you have the WSJ quoting Alexander Hamilton to explain why cronyism is not to be used in a Supreme Court appointment:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4975720

One wonders why the Left can't be as effective. A few things come to mind:

The Right do rely on a very primitive interpretation of the constitution to justify their opinions. But regardless if you disagree with them or not, they can quote the constitution or take passages from the Founders, like priests take passages from the bible to persuade their congregations.

Why doesn't the left do the same? All you have to do is walk through the FDR Memorial in Washington D.C. and pluck passages off the wall.

And why don't the people who believe in Affirmative Action quote Hamilton to explain that Affirmative Access is the whole reason why Affirmative Action is necessary until this system of cronyism is completely eradicated?

I think in those two articles you find the meat of why the right has been so successful. They know how to stop investigations using innuendo, and because the Left doesn't know how to circle the wagons, we make it easy for them to pluck off anyone who stands up to them. Also, they know the parts of the constitution which support their cause, and they quote it like bible passages as a priest does, or primary sources as a trial lawyer would.

Perhaps we should be more pro-active, and like W.C. Fields, start reading the bible to look for loopholes.

[hippiechick]

1. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[Kagemusha]

2. Because "living constitution" advocates don't have their heart in it

That's my view. If you really think that the law should be fluid and change with the times rather than be a rock against change, it's hard to cite chapter and verse. And your constituents will suspect such moves.

Frankly, I'm more in George Will's mould without the trust in supply side economics or conservative doctrines: the Senate is there to stop cronies from getting in. Is that going to matter? Probably not. But it is not the original intent of having the Senate, that's for sure.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Right-wingers believe in the living document.

They have to believe it, because it's the only way they can move it back to where they want it to be, using precedent. They have to work within the paramaters of stare decisis, or else the law would revert back to the liberal view once the liberals got back into office - snap - that quickly.

[davepc]

10. They don't want to move it back though.

The Neoconservative movement may hate the New Deal, but they love the Federalist powers that FDR accumulated for himself, and love the power given to the executive by the abdication of Congress role in our government.

Globalized American fascism cant exist under our Constitution as written. As written the power is too decentralized, spread out among the states and the people, and the executive too limited by a strong Congress to do what they want to do.

Republics don't make for good Empires. Julius Cesar figured that out. Got killed for it.

Neoconservatives all about re-interpreting the Constitution to mean what THEY want it to mean, but what they want it to mean isn't what Jefferson or Hamilton or Washington or Franklin wanted it to mean.

Just look at Scalias recent defense of the Commerce Clause as justification for the War on (some) Drugs and the usurping of Medical Marijuana laws passed by the people of certain states.

Nothing "strict" about that judgment.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Scalia is so transparent.

You can tell he's an ideologue. He reaches a conclusion first, and then goes about reasoning that decision. If he doesn't like a law, he uses strict constructionism and narrows the definition. If he likes a law, he uses the liberal interpretations to broaden it. Actually, he can use strict constructionism to broaden a legal definition too.

When someone is that inconsistent in his logic and reasoning, you have to see why political partisanship is something that needs to be filtered out during the Congressional hearings.

[davepc]

18. He's a results based judge. But then again thats the history of the court.

I wish we had justices who acted like John Roberts *said* they should act like.

But we don't. I don't know if we ever did or ever will.

Robers and Miers will give us results based judging too...and not results that Democrats will like, probably.

[Gman]

3. For now we can use the same arguments but

remember that the RW has no reasoning powers therefore they can only understand what they read. They are incapable of reading and interpreting what they read. I would like to know if the causes of this lack of reasoning power are environmental, lack of intelligence, one induced by the other or as a result of inbreeding.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. I have no answer for you.

They've had us on the defensive for so long, that I haven't really been able to study them objectively until now.

[davepc]

4. I make a point to quote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence

every chance I get.

Heck, i did it twice today on DU! :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4976660&mesg_id=4976747
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4976270&mesg_id=4976296

But yeah, knowledge of the documents our system of government is based on, and constructed around are fundamental.

That includes Adam Smith, John Locke, Jefferson, Voltaire, Rousseau, Paine, Kant, Goethe, Descartes, etc etc

I'm not suggesting every good Democrat needs to be an enlightenment scholar, but having a passing familiarity with the concept of Natural Rights and how thats a critical lynch-pin to our entire system of government wouldn't hurt.

Also, too many Democrats I meet and engage just don't know the Federalist Papers. Plain just haven't read them. They're not always a light read, but they are as relevant today as they where when they were written.

Knowledge is power, and our government and the entire philosophy behind it is IMPORTANT TO KNOW!

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. I agree with you.

[fasttense]

5. The left does but gets very little press for it.

You can read it on the blogs, hear it on Air America, post it on DU but the media never picks up on it. Remember, a quarter of a million people surrounded the White House and what media recognition did they get? The blogs, liberal radio, a portion on C-Span and a minute on CNN. The right controls the corporate media with a stranglehold.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Then we will continue to grow on the boards.

However, repetition is everything in the media world. I'm sure at some point, we will be repeating the same things on the blogs and form one loud echo chamber.

We are, however, independents, and this may take several years to evolve.

[OnionPatch]

14. This is so true

So many times I hear people saying "Why don't the Dems say this?" or "Why don't the Dems talk about that..." and so on. THEY DO!! But no one hears it except us because it's not covered on the MSM. This is so frustrating.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. If we capture the Senate and the House in 2006, do you think we

can bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

[Supersedeas]

16. The Corporate Media caters to Marketeers--mindless reaction is the bidness

[Hobarticus]

11. The Dems need their own Reichminister of Propaganda, like the GOP....

Seriously. We need one committee devoted full-time to framing arguments and talking points.

It's shallow, and the national debate will get reduced to soundbites, but fer crissakes, they're killing us on framing the issues.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. You're right that they're better at soundbites.

But maybe we can use those soundbites as bait to much larger and thorough explanations for anyone who wants them.

[Hobarticus]

15. Agreed. Still, the masses have the attention span of a gerbil...

If Dems can't boil their positions down to short, concise, focussed, and emotionally charged points, we'll lose their attention. People don't want facts or nuanced explanations, they want to feel like they're on the correct side of an issue without having to think about it.

Goebbels knew eactly what he was doing, and so does the GOP.

Again, it stinks, it cheapens the debate and reduces complex issues down to one or two sentences, but that's the nature of the beast anymore.