conversation with conserv. per Plame

[salin]

a moderate repub who listens to rw radio (though in recent times listens more to money talk type radio and sports radio more than conservo radio) says to me... I hear that the whole spy/Rove thing isn't quite what meets the eye (guessing he was about to go on the "cheney requesting/not true" line that they spout as if that somehow makes the whole thing go away.)

Before he can explain to me why it "isn't what it seems..." I break in with ... "Do you know what she worked on? She headed an intel network watching the global flow - via industry - of WMDs and components - to prevent WMDs from falling into the hands of rogue states... AND this didn't just disrupt her work - but the cover company and all who worked for it - I understand that it could take up to ten years to repair the damage in terms of loss of intel information to our country. Ironic isn't it - in a political move to try to defend our (loosely used "our") claims about WMDs - they blow up a REAL intel operation trying to keep us safe from WMDs."

He didn't say anything else on the topic. Mind you for years he has always wanted to debate politics (I have begged off) and always spouts RW radio points.

We kept talking about the corruption of politics - as long as I kept on that theme - including that some dems - in seek of political $ - seem to have fallen into the same rut... he let me go on and on and didn't interrupt or argue. It was he who suddenly said - it is as if they are playing a distant political football game - trying to "win" no compromise and no concern about the good of the country.

Wow. I didn't expect that.

Later he asked what a "Service Economy" would look like - as he had just learned that we were moving into one. I told him that we were already there and that there have been discussions about this among economic policy types for years - along with questioning as to whether or not this kind of economy could be sustainable (esp with many jobs being low paying and the trend of higher paying jobs getting outsourced). He asked why, I thought, business folks (corp types) were so eager for this... when I went back to my theme of corruption and greed which has been fueled by policies and has gotten to the point where many at the top are more concerned about quick accumulation of big $$ rather than loyalty to our country. As an example I pointed out the no-bid contracts of Halliburton in Iraq and in NO - and that in both cases the importation of cheaper labor rather than hiring locals - in order to reap even GREATER profits, while in both cases there would be a greater service (and still big profits to be earned) by hiring locals at a decent Wage.

He agreed.

He views himself as a religious values voter - but not a fundie crazy. I am just starting on the theme of "GREED" (as anti christian value) - and will continue harping on this theme over the coming months. This is only significant because it is the first time in five years that he has given me an opening to begin putting information to him - without his trying to shut me down with rw talking points.

All because we started on the Plame story - and his attempt to use RW spin was completely deflated by the underlying facts of what Plame actually worked on- with the implications of what the leakers had really done per national security. Suddenly the "technicalities" spun by the RW didn't make sense to him - and clearly he has grown uncomfortable with other spin or he would have been in debate warrior mode. But he wasn't. And he listened. And without labeling me as liberal (which he often used to do as a way to dismiss me) - he just asked for more info. I didn't go all out off on Bushco - but instead on the corruption of our systems, and how messed up we are in this country because of it. This kept him listening rather than going into gop battle/debate mode.

Folks - when you find your opening - go in with facts - and if you find receptivity, I recommend not necessarily going straight into dem/rep debate mode (or straight out gop bash mode), but start with facts... and "Washington"... the more you lay out in a way that doesn't invoke the old reflexive debate wars (waged for years by rw radioheads and echoed by their listeners) - the more seeds of doubt per the spin drivel they hear daily. That - over time - can morph into the whole debate mode. We have more than a year before the midterm elections - we do a lot of one-to-one conversions... and we can take back Congress.

Thanks for letting me share.

[tsuki]

1. You can do this with moderates,

but the modern American Conservative is hardcore. Facts do not exist for them. I concentrate on ones I know are moderates. With conservatives, I just shrug and say 'whatever, it's Clinton's fault. But, where is Osama Bin Laden?' Then I walk away. They cannot stand that, for you to walk away.

[salin]

3. the hard core conservatives don't win elections - the mod voters

can be the swing voters. Indeed the more bushco is demasked, I suspect some hardcore conservs will become more moderate (as in ... well I don't like x but I still support y) and then it is only a matter of time before some of those folks, too, can be turned. Most Americans are not ideologically driven - just wanting to believe that those we elect are not SO evil to intentionally drive us into the ground, and thus they cling to the belief that we just don't understand the big picture of what the admin is doing (protecting themselves, if you will, from the cognitive dissonance between believing that folks, including elected ones, are basically good - vs the reality of what is becoming clear about todays DC based GOP).

The arrogance of absolut power by the GOP has led them to legislate more and more on their ideology AND their cynical corruption. The confluence of ugliness that is being revealed from many directions in the media (and it had to get real prevelant and real bad to finally be covered) - is doing more to push these folks into cog disonance than anything we could say. Just a matter of finding when various individuals are finally "open" to hear/learn more about the realities of the admin and congressional actions.

I used to fear that when things turned it would just be against the Bushadmin - but that the hold of the extreme GOP would remain. Now, it is beginning to appear that the arrogance of bushco - is baring the ugliness of the extreme GOP in DC - and that leaves us with grassroots work - to turning the tide not just against bushco - but against the whole darn party. I am hopeful that over the next 2-10 years there will be some serious political realignments happening in this country. Courtesy of the 8 awful years of bushco.

[tsuki]

7. I really believe that we have to convince people that they are

MODERATES. That it is okay to FLIP FLOP when new information becomes available. That STAYING THE COURSE is the same thing as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the terror of the last Conservative cabal. Roy Cohn, Joseph McCarthy & Edgar Hoover. They destroyed people. Neighbor was afraid of neighbor. Lives were ruined. They ruined the reputation of Gen. George Marshall. Blacklists of other Americans lasted well into the 1960s.

If you go to Free Republic, you will find McCarthy as an avatar.

Conservatives are evil. I have believed it all my life. I still believe it.

Moderates must learn that being a conservative is destructive. They are the people we want.

And further, there is no such thing as NeoCons. They are conservatives. It is the talking point of the conservatives that know, since they branded liberal, how damaging a branding can be.

Neocons=Conservatives=Conservatives=Neocons.

[babylonsister]

2. Thanks for sharing. It's refreshing to read there are people

out there that are receptive to facts and don't have the one mindset, like my brothers, that * is great and all-powerful. I think people are finally waking up to the idea that it's all not going so swimmingly, and it's happening because their wallets are involved. Also, the media is finally not walking in lock-step but questioning; that has got to be a good thing!

[salin]

4. believe me - this person used to reflexively argue

rw talking points. I stopped talking politics with him years ago. This is NEW. THat is - keep talking on a surface level with your bro.s to read when any of them is beginning to become open to more information. That is exactly what happened in this case.

[texpatriot2004]

5. Thanks for sharing I was wondering about how to share with

others what I know and your input is helpful.

[CTyankee]

6. you are right!

I've done the same thing (different subjects) with my relatives. If you hammer them with "I've got the facts. Where are yours?" they crumple. Usually, they are prepared with their little turf area. I like to get the rw talking points ahead of time and get the facts down and then hit them with refutations. It's great.