The Democrats MUST accommodate the implementation of the Right wing Agenda

[Walt Starr]

I'm serious here.

Why did George Bush help Arlen Specter get re-elected?

The answer is numbingly simple. It was so Arlen Specter could chair the Judicial committee and give George Bush a harsh warning about not sending anti-abortion justices to the committee!

Arlen Specter is now the official "liberal" whipping boy of the GOP and the excuse for not delivering on the right wing agenda! And Democrats are going to fall for it yet again.

See, the Republicans "REALLY REALLY REALLY" don't want abortion to go away. This is their bread and butter issue. Republicans want to continue to blame the "moral decline" in America on the Democrats. There is no way in hell that the Democrats will be able to forever stop right wing appointments to the courts with only 44 members. To think we can just filibuster our way out of the appointments now is simple naivete.

If the Democratic Senators on the Judicial Committee are smart, they begin the term with the following:

"We, the assembled Democratic members of the Senate Judicial Committee, stand united today to say that we have heard the voters. We understand the need for unity in a nation at war. Because of this, as positions in the judiciary become available, we will graciously offer our advise to the president, and, upon his decision, we will equally be gracious in our consent."

BAM, ball is in Georgie's court and he cannot blame the Dems, they offer to give advise and their consent, the requirements in the Constitution. Everything comes down to the Republicans on the committee. It becomes an entirely Republican issue if anti-abortion justices aren't chosen just as it becomes an entirely Republican issue if they ARE chosen.

The minority party with such a weak position is really in an incredibly powerful position to force the majority party into moving to the extremes of their own rhetoric. This is part of the lesson in how the Republicans were able to build their majority in the nation. We were pushed further to the left by their acquiescence. We must push back now.

Yes, we lose a lot in the short term, but if we fight it we will lose even more in the long term. The Democratic Senate strategy must be one of "filibusters may only be instituted by Republicans." If a Republican crosses the aisle in order to institue the filibuster, the Democrats do so in the interest of bipartisanship, not obstruction.

Operating from a position of weakness will be the most powerful methodology for this minority party in the current situation. Force the blame onto the Republicans. Let the Republicans own the judiciary and activist judges are their fault.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Ancient Chinese Proverb

There are two ways to do in an enemy...

You can dig a hole and wait for him to fall in or perch him on top of a mountain and wait for him to fall off

Game

Set

Match

[KoKo]

3. Seems to me they are already at the "Summit" why be the ledge under

them? They've already done enough to hang themselves and half the voters love 'em. We have to take back the media. That's the key.

[Walt Starr]

5. We take back the media with cognitively simplistic language.

Not legislation, but language.

The reason for media desparity is the Democrats do not speak in teh sound bite. Republicans do. Sound bites sell soap. Intellectual arguments bore the viewer.

[TwilightZone]

19. Simplicity is the key.

And, at the risk of sounding simplistic, Bush is very much a simpleton and he cornered the simpleton voting block, which apparently comprises a huge chunk of the American voting public. (I'm completely serious!)

You have to make things simple for people. What we need is someone who can get the message across in short, smart phrases, yet can still appeal to those of us with more intellectual tastes in our candidates.

Oh, and being from the South wouldn't hurt. :D

Edit: typo

[SomthingsGotaGive]

20. sorry walt...

but this isn't a game.

Millions of lives are at stake and the election was stolen.

What is your rush to move on.

Do you really think that the media is going to play word games with you.

The media is complicit in the murder of hundreds of thousands.

Greg Palast does investigative news for the BBC yet no US news outlet will touch his stories ?

I will move on in ONE MONTH

Until then I will ignore "Move On" "Win in 08" "We got our Asses kicked" type threads.

They are getting in the way.

[Walt Starr]

26. This IS a game

and tehRepublicans play it better than the Democrats.

The sooner the Democrats realize the electorate is not intellectual, the better off this nation will be.

Kerry, God love him, droned on and on about deficits as far as the eye could see where our children would be paying for them forever and ever.

Two words would have worked better, "birth tax". That hits the electorate at a visceral level and describes a vile scene of a baby being born and then handed its tax bill.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

64. Great

Talk about it in ONE MONTH

Whats the rush now.

Please lend your obvious talent to wards crafting neat

"Verify the Vote"

type sound bites for those of us looking for an investigation at the very least.

Not only are you advocating moving on right now but you are even suggesting acquiescing to the right wing agenda in an attempt to out maneuver the repugs.

This will mean the blood of countless innocents while there is no evidence what soever it will even work.

You should really think about the real world consequences for a second and not only the political chess board in your mind.

[Walt Starr]

77. There will be no investigation and any attempt at it is pissing in the win

sorry to be frank, but that's the reality. Nobody will listen to "conspiracy theroy" crap.

The election is over. The sooner we move on the better off we'll all be.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

97. The sooner we move on the better off we'll all be.

Exactly how?

Conspiracy theory crap ?


You must be sleeping with the enemy.

I have asked you several times why it would better to move on immediately and you just keep repeating the same tired lines. Now you even throw in conspiracy theory crap.

I hope people aren't buying it.

[Walt Starr]

115. We have less than two years to midterms

We drop below 40 seats in the Senate, and there can be NO filibusters ragrdless of the issue. In two years you will no longer be able to count on moderate Republicans, they are targeted for termination.

And I'll let you envision the true horror. If we do not move on immediately and start work now under a comnpletely new paradigm, after they win the 2006 midterms we will be looking at a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate with 3/4 of the State Legislatures controlled by them by 2008. What does your knowledge of the constitution tell you about the power they will hold then?

But we can continue trying to do the same old things time after time while expecting a different result. Unfortunately, that's the definition of insanity.

[Mike Niendorff]

184. PAY ATTENTION TO WALT'S POST, PEOPLE.

Walt wrote:

And I'll let you envision the true horror. If we do not move on immediately and start work now under a comnpletely new paradigm, after they win the 2006 midterms we will be looking at a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate with 3/4 of the State Legislatures controlled by them by 2008. What does your knowledge of the constitution tell you about the power they will hold then?


Truer words were never spoken. THESE are the stakes now. God help us that America has come to this.


MDN

[lark]

188. It's not about us

It's about how they win. We can do everything in the world, and nothing will change. They control the media and the machines that "count" the votes. Until the machines are made to have a paper trail and until we hold them accountable for balancing the paper trail to the votes - guess what - they always win!! Unless the media makes a big case for this, nothing changes, and again - they win!

We ran a good campaign and election for the most part. We should have won, but the election was stolen. Until we make it so they can't steal anymore, they will continue to steal every important election there is - it's their nature.

lark

[Mike Niendorff]

190. Ok, and assuming that this is all true :

What do you propose to do about it?


MDN

[PsN2Wind]

72. You got it, Walt

Point out the "lives" they're saving by outlawing abortion will each be born owing $xxxx.xx for the national debt. Or to put it in Dubya's words "owning" that amount.
Since our elected Democrat Reps. will have NO say in the outcome of votes, I think they should just sit out the votes and allow them to pass with no opposing votes. The outcome will be the same and we can say the electorate has got what they wanted.
Maybe even push things a bit further to the right. The Sanctity of Marriage Amendment is too liberal. It should include an end to no-fault divorce, in fact, any divorce should have to be accompanied by a church annulment. If no annulment, subsequent marriage would be adultery and any children produced in that marriage would be bastards.
Let them stew in their own juice.

[Trekologer]

78. I like the idea of a "Birth Tax" commercial

Scene in the delivery room. Doctor hands the happy parents their newborn child. "Congratulations! Its a (boy/girl)!" And then some guy in a suit comes over. "Congratulations! Here's the bill for your (son/daughter)'s share of the national debt." Look of shock and horror on parents faces. Fade into a counter increasing the value of the national debt. Voice over: "We are selling our children's future away through record national debt. Tell your representatives in Congress to stop selling their future away."

[SeattleDem]

172. Walt, you are right - Birth Tax is a brilliant soundbite

These two words hit me in the gut. It would have been effective lingo to throw around. It's too bad our side doesn't have strategists who can think like this.

[truth2power]

91. I'll say it yet again, Walt...

Speak to the primitive brain.

[Walt Starr]

117. I support personal freedom

I'm opposed to the Republican birth tax.

:evilgrin:

[d_b]

8. Hear here!

[bhikkhu]

80. FINE...like Germany perched Hitler on the mountaintop

Yeah, lets do that...

[Walt Starr]

Bush is no Hitler. The US in 2004 is no Germany in 1933

The analogy is false on its face.

[bhikkhu]

93. Read PNAC. Read history.

There are differences, but they are fewer than the similarities. The majority love to serve power. Where has the debate been over Guantanamo? How many more do you think we will need to destroy the terrorists we are manufacturing?

[Walt Starr]

118. I've read every word and my statements stand

Believe me, if we do not shift paradigms now, by 2008 they will win the power to amend the constitution at will.

That won't be a Nazi regime because nothing like what we will see has ever existed in human history. Nothing else will be comparable because no nation has ever had the military might of a 21st century United States of America.

[bhikkhu]

163. Well enough.

I don't agree with your initial position, but we agree on the magnitude of the problem.

[KoKo]

2. A surprising post by you Walt! I just don't agree that what you say would

work. We can't go along with the Right so it can hang itself. There's been too much of that and where has it gotten us?

I may have read your post wrong...I was startled by it. Sounded like a CNN Headline or something...and I refuse to watch any media so didn't expect it..

[Walt Starr]

4. It all comes down to what scares you the most.

Are you more frightened by a mmore rightwing judiciary over the next four years or are you more firghtened by the possibility of a Republican Party with the power to amend the constitution at will?

This is serious business. If we filibuster the appoinments, there will be two words that will define the 2006 election, "Democratic Obstructionism." The evangelical base will become even more incensed and energized in the off year elections and we will lose the ability to even stop anything.

The Democratic PArty is in teh weakest position it has been in decades. Filibusters MUST be instigated by the Republicans, and believe me, byt 2006 there will be many instigated by them. The key here is, it will be Democratic bipartisanship against Republican obstructionism that defines the values issue in 2006.

This is win-win for the Democrats in the long term. The real beauty is, we will lose nothing more than if we had fought tooth and nail anyway, because we will lose those battles! If we see one blatantly rightwing appointment that gets filibustered, the next guy will be a stealth rightwing appointment we cannot. Net result, rightwing appointment. We must turn a lose-lose scenrio into win-win. We mustmake the strengths of the Republican party with the electorate their weakest link.

[President Kerry]

137. how about all the blue-collar dems that don't follow your

chess game, and will be appalled and disenchanted, and will either end up voting 3rd party or not voting at all? Not even talking about the consequences of your plan, I just don't think anybody could pull it off.

[MsTryska]

24. Oh No...let them hang themselves.....

perfect example of what's going on now:

posted by a conservative who happily voted along party lines:

"The big problem is , I NEED those dems to keep the ultra right conservatives in check that would hijack the republicans if we let them . "


Me:

dems have their own stuff to sort out. in the spirit of republican self-reliance, do it your damn self. y'all let em in, y'all need to stand up and kick them out.

[Walt Starr]

33. BINGO!

Democrats MUST capitulate short-term. Within 18 months, moderate Republicans will be the organizing and driving force behind many opposition initiatives. This puts the honus of accountability for the obstruction on Republicans and the Democrats get to claim a spirit of bipartisanship.

Again, from a position of weakness, we drive to the overall position of power. This is win-win.

[MsTryska]

37. Yes.....

let them drive the opposition, we just give the yes vote to whatever it is they can get us on board with.



It's like a game of Survivor. Whenever there's a tribe merge, there's always the odd one out, that gives their voting bloc to whoever has their best interest.

[Walt Starr]

41. The Democrats have been "Pagonged"

What the Democrats must do is afolloow the Richards of the Republicans. Whomever is in the position of power gets the collective votes of Pagong tribe.

By doing this, we allow them to eat their own and claim "weakness and bipartisanship" as our only motivating factor.

[MsTryska]

107. Holy cow you're right...we totally got pagonged!

*lol*


well it's time to for a tyranny of the minority i think.


What's the split between repub factions, do you know?

[Walt Starr]

119. Teh moderates are VERY SMALL and I believe a couple are up

for re-election in 2006.

Beleive me, they have been targeted for termination.

[MsTryska]

124. realllllly......

so if they want to stop the wackjobs they pretty much have to come begging to us.


with us plus the moderates do we wind up a majority?

[Walt Starr]

126. BINGO, and to do it means it's a Republican intiated filibuster

The Republicans become their own obtructionists and teh Democrats are only "working in the spirit of bipartisanship".

Win-win from a position of weakness.

[MsTryska]

134. hehehe....

don't blame us..we have no power. :shrug:

[Walt Starr]

160. You're getting it

It's a retreat. Continued attack from a position of weakness is a recipe for disaster. We will continue to lose seats in a big way if we continue the old paradigm.

Shift the bnlame 100% on the Republicans. Divide and conquer. They must have the moderates and the far right wing evangelicals. Their biggest strength is also tehir greatest weakness, force them to act upon the far right rhetoric they have used to great effect against us. Defang their biggest issue to energize their base.

After that, we decide the time and the place of battle. They will be divided, thus we will attack in greater numbers.

[library_max]

180. They won't do it.

Did McCain campaign for Kerry, or for Bush? And he's a ballsy maverick who hates Bush from the bottom of his heart! The moderates will either maintain absolute party loyalty in order to hang around and argue, or they'll quietly resign or retire. And it's easy enough for the party to purge any members of questionable loyalties in the primaries. Ruling parties in one-party states aren't sitting ducks, nice as it would be to believe otherwise.

[hatrack]

186. Damn, Walt - it's jiujitsu

That's EXACTLY what you're talking about.

[Walt Starr]

6. Democratic kick

:kick:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

10. so you advocate a position of strenght whereby

we lose anyway while handing a winning issue to the Republicans?

:eyes:

Do that, my friend, and we lose enough seats to allow teh Republicans to amend at will. That's the longterm loss we will suffer because we will lose anyway up front.

[Guaranteed]

11. No, we need to bring this issue back to where it was a decade ago-

where it was a matter of racism and bigotry, not "values." It's just the way it's been framed, my friend. And frames are not that difficult to change.

[Walt Starr]

12. No, we need to redefine the issue

You are using the incoreect language.

Demcrats cannot support "gay marriage". Democrats MUST support "personal freedom".

We cannot redefine the language of the issues while we are fighting losing battles. Have the debate, contribute the new language to the debate. The majority is going to win anyway, but the debate affords us the opportunity to redefine it.

In the end, we will lose the votes in the Congress. There is no doubt about it. Suck it up, buddy, because we simply cannot win under these circumstances and if we attempt to filibuster over the next year, we lose even bigger.

I guarantee you, in 2006, the moderate Republicans will be organizing the filibusters because they will become the targets. At that point, it becomes Republican Obstructionism. The Democrats will be operating within the spirit of bipartisanship when they are allowing the Republicans to win and while they participate in Republican instigated filibusters.

That's called "turning a lose-lose situation into a win-win".

[Elidor]

15. Do you remember the way they blamed Kerry for supporting IWR?

We cannot defeat the GOP by becoming the GOP! It's a pyrrhic victory. We have to entrench our positions. Your idea would make us equally culpable. Generations of McNews pundits snarking: "But the democrats went along with all this," while rational people desert the party in droves.

Pushing the GOP agenda is not an effective strategy for anything except burying the democratic party for all time. You'd have us become that which we wish to destroy.

Peace.

[Guaranteed]

21. EXACTLY.

Integrity.

[Walt Starr]

55. We don't have to vote yes

We don't have to vote no. we can always do the following:

"In the interest of national unity during a time of war, while I cannot vote in favor of this (bill, nominee, measure), I must not vote against it. I therefore abstain."

Abstention is now the most powerful weapon in our arsenal.

[Guaranteed]

9. Ahh...the Vulcan judo double-reverse roundhouse...nt

[Walt Starr]

14. Actually, no. Not doing it is slippin our heads into a collective noose

and jumping off the stool while the Republicans laugh.

Fighting a battle we will definitely lose will be political suicide in the next year.

[Guaranteed]

17. This our turf. We WIN this. Because we're RIGHT, clearly.

So cut it out.

[Walt Starr]

22. Roe vs. Wade DIED on Tuesday

The sooner we realize that and accelerate the funeral, the better the Democrats will be in terms of long term strategy.

Roe vs. Wade was not good law. It was necessary, but the premise is based upon a weak argument. A better argument WILL be made at a later date, but Roe vs. Wade is dead. If we extend the funeral, we lose in the loinger term as the Republicans WILL muster enough support to amend at will.

[Guaranteed]

25. All we have left to lose are our laws. We don't control anything.

So let's fight this, especially since we're going to win it.

[sangh0]

31. "We WIN this. Because we're RIGHT, clearly."

Really?

Is that why Kerry won the election?

[Guaranteed]

32. Is NOT fighting this why he LOST the election?

Is THAT what you're saying?

[sangh0]

39. Changing your story?

A minute ago, it was "We win because we're right"

Now, you've changed your argument to "When we fight, we win"

[Guaranteed]

44. WTF are you talking about? I said this issue is a winner for us

IF we fight.

If we concede to them, which we DID in this election, and lost, then we lose.

What don't you understand?

[sangh0]

47. You keep shifting your argument

First you claimed if we're right, we win.

Now, it's if we fight, we win.

We were right, we fought, and we lost. Fighting and being right does not garauntee victory.

[Guaranteed]

52. Okay, so find the quote for me where Kerry calls this bigotry.

Thanks!

Same argument.

[sangh0]

59. Calls what bigotry?

Your getting incoherent.

[Guaranteed]

62. LOL later. nt

[sangh0]

67. Take a powder when things get tough

not surprised

[Guaranteed]

71. ROFL how am I supposed to talk with someone who can't

follow the conversation?

[sangh0]

73. You mus think you're talking to yourself

You're claiming that there is some "issue" that Kerry didn't fight on, but you haven't stated what it is, and the only issue raised in the OP is abortion, and Kerry did more to address that than bush* did.

[Guaranteed]

79. Gay marriage. Abortion. Those are the two biggies.

And Kerry said he's against partial-birth abortion, like I said before.

[Walt Starr]

86. BAM, Kerry reacted to an argument framed by the Republicans

and did so with an intellectual argument rather than a sound bite.

BANG, we lose.

Reframe the debate by redefining the issues in new sound bites that make the opposition look evil.

"Republicans are against personal freedom."

Rinse

Repeat

[Guaranteed]

87. Why not reframe it? That's how you fight! nt

[sangh0]

94. He said we SHOULD reframe it! Don't you read?

.

[Guaranteed]

98. No, he said we SHOULDN'T FIGHT it. Do YOU read? nt

[sangh0]

101. He said we SHOULD reframe it

It's in black and white in his post, so keep denying the obvious

Post #86:

Reframe the debate by redefining the issues in new sound bites that make the opposition look evil.

[Walt Starr]

121. Thank you, we cannot win the votes

but we can redefine the issues so that when we have th opportunity to revisit them at a later date, we'll win overwhelmingly.

[Walt Starr]

35. I'm with you, sangh0

We have got to alter the entire paradigm of the Democratic opposition in the Congress. If we continue to do more of the same, we will continue to lose. It's that simple.

I've ordered several books by George Lakoff and will read them avidly. I am volunteering at a local level.

We can win, but we MUST redefine the debate. This means huge losses in the short term.

[sangh0]

40. Be suspicious of those that cling to the losing ways

and slogans like "We're right, so we'll win"

[Guaranteed]

45. What election WERE you watching? I'm sorry, did you see any

kind of RESISTANCE to this from our candidate? No, you didn't.

So, THERE'S your losing way.

And, yes, you're right: we SHOULD be very suspicious of those who cling to our losing ways.

I've got a new name for ya- Status Quo Sangh0.

[sangh0]

49. Your personal attack is a sign of a lack of argument on your part.

So is the constant sloganeering.

[Guaranteed]

57. LOL you're sitting here trying to say that Kerry actually fought this

issue. That's just ridiculous.

[sangh0]

61. Umm, wake up

"Why did George Bush help Arlen Specter get re-elected?" wasn't an issue in the campaign, nor should it have been.

Abortion was an issue in the campaign, and Kerry was very clear that his position was the reverse of bush*'s.

[Guaranteed]

68. We're talking about social issues, here, not just abortion.

And, in any case, Kerry was NOT clear that his position was the reverse of Bush's. He said he's against partial-birth abortion, and then got slammed for it because he voted against it.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

81. No, he DIDN'T fight. If he had been fighting on them

he would have called the attacks on gays what they are- bigotry.

[sangh0]

95. YOU raised social issues

no one else, but you.

[Guaranteed]

100. Abortion is only one of many social wedge issues that the Republicans

are using against us. Assumedly, Walt thinks we should roll over for them all.

[sangh0]

102. Abortion is the only issue raised in the OP

*YOU* raised the others, and even you won't deny it.

You just ignore that and hope I didn't notice.

[Walt Starr]

51. Let's see, overall strategy?

Blue state liberal Senators as nominees? how many have been elected in the past 36 years to the presidency?

ZERO!

State governors?

Let's start with James Earl Carter, move to Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again while expecting the results to change.

[Guaranteed]

54. Kerry conceded social issues to Bush! And he LOST! nt

[Walt Starr]

58. Wrong. Kerry framed the bdebate in intellectual language

The Republicans framed the debate in cognitively siplistic language and won.

Big difference.

[sangh0]

65. bush* said NOTHING about social issues in the debate

and Kerry challenged bush* on them, and bush* DODGED them. Even when asked about SCOTUS appts, bush* wouldn't commit to the pro-lifers. Meanwhile, Kerry was crystal clear on women's issues, abortion, education, privacy, etc on national TV in front of MILLIONS of Americans.

But in your universe, Kerry said nothing about social issues. It was bush* that ran around talking about social issues, and not 9/11.

[aldian159]

116. Legal Abortion is going nowhere, Walt

The GOP needs abortion to arouse the fundies. They say they hate it, but when push comes to shove, side with the Democrats in keeping it.

They need things like abortion to keep the base. I agree with your original premise, in that we should give them every opportunity to get rid of abortion, and when they don't, jump on them like a hobo on a ham sandwich.

[Walt Starr]

123. If legal abortion goes nowhere we lose even more by opposing them

Seriously, we remain teh scapegoats if we attempt to obstruct. If we allow them to move forward with tehir nominees, the base of the GOP has nobody to blame but themselves.

We run the risk of actual justices that will overturn RvW, but the risk is far greater if we become the obstructionists rather than moving out of the way.

Two possible outcomes, the court overturns RvW, which gives the RR what they want and energizes the electorate against the Republicans or the Republicans fail to deliver and the RR blames them, thus staying home or forming their own party.

Either way, moving out of the way is a win-win for us because aboriton rights will be resotred under the ausppices of personal freedom and we destroy either thier base or we move the middle over to us.

Win-win from a position of weakness.

[AuntPatsy]

13. No way Walt, your dead wrong on that one, you feed the lions

little bits of meat by hand and your band to get your hand bit off sooner or later. Your a man, no offense to you and yours but in this issue you couldn't possibly understand what that entails if they went ahead and forced the overturning of Roe Vs Wade, I for one, being a woman do not like you deciding to put my head on the platter so to speak without first checking if I've consented which I promise you I would never do....

We need to stick to the core values of the Democratic party, the hell with pandering the the weak minded fools on the right, you might as well join the other side if all one wishes is to win..

[Walt Starr]

16. I'm not adcovating feeding the lions meat by hand

I'm advocating throwing the entire carcass into the lion's den to let them fight amongst themsselves for a taste!

we lose either way. I'm looking to longterm strategy as opposed to short term losses that WILL result in a long term horror.

Edited to add: Roe Vs. Wade died on November 2, 2004. I am not interested in attempting to perform CPR on its dead carcass. Let the Republicans feed off it while an electorate sees the horror that results from it.

We have LOST the SCOTUS. The sooner we realize that and capitalize on it rather thna feeding the Republican machine, the sooner we can reinstitute it in a better decision that will be impossible to overturn.

These are generational issues now, and failure to use long term strategies will result in total victory for the Republicans. We cannot fight the inevitable, we can only accelterate it. Acceleration works in our favor.

[LeftHander]

29. Walt is right we HAVE lost everything...

Our generation is tottally screwed. Kiss social security goodbye,

Marriage constiutional amendment followed by social discrimination of gay people if not a outright return to criminalization of homosexuality

But the real danger in not fighting for every tiny inch we can is that we are one step away from leaving our children to grow up in facist theocracy the likes the world has NEVER seen.

The supreme court is all but garurenteed to become the most conservative in 60 years...the right will spin the clock back.

No....the more I think about it them more I feel America is gone.

America right now is a big bowl of shit..take a spoon and sit down or show yourself the door.

[library_max]

85. Please do remember, however, that life goes on.

America isn't really going to become a fascist theocracy the likes of which the world has never seen. Remember that the world has seen Nazi Germany and Vlad the Impaler and many much more recent nasty theocracies in the Middle East and elsewhere. All we're headed for is the return of the Robber Baron era, the Gilded Age (read Dickens and Upton Sinclair). America survived that before and we'll (eventually) survive it again, even though I probably won't live to see it (I'm 46).

And life went on in the Gilded Age. Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken, among many, many others, told the truth and shamed the devil. Art, music, and theatre survived and flourished. Most people got by one way or another, and they weren't all that much unhappier in the aggregate than people are now (although it was a hell of a time to be down on your luck or catch an unexpected reversal or be old and poor at the same time).

People adapt and adjust. Consider your own personal life - how much, really, is it going to change just because democracy in America is on hold for a few decades? I'm not saying it's not important, but we've still got our health, right? We've still got our loved ones, our friends, our homes, etc. Politics may actually get more fun now that there's absolutely no point in taking it seriously. There's an old saying I can't identify the source of, to the effect of, "The bastards want to rule the world? Well I say, give it to them, that'll teach 'em a lesson."

Anybody got a better idea, given our actual choices?

[Walt Starr]

89. Realize, though, it *could* become unrecognizable

If we do not completely turn the opposition paradigmn on its ear, the Republicans WILL get enough bodies in power to have the ability to amend the constitution at will.

Don't believe me? Look at a county map of the election results from this year.

[library_max]

109. I totally believe you.

Do you believe that Bush and Cheney and the gang really want to round up the Jews and the homosexuals and the trade unionists and put them into the gas chambers? I don't.

They want to make Christianity the de facto state religion of the United States. That's been done before - it's really the status quo from about 1830 to the Murray and Schempp cases. They want to let corporate America run roughshod over workers and consumers alike. That's nothing new - read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. What else do they want that we haven't lived through before? Military adventurism? Colonial imperialism? The subjugation of women? Hey, if they don't bring back slavery or massacre the rest of the Native Americans, we'll still be a few steps ahead of the era of James Knox Polk and Millard Fillmore.

Don't think I'm making light of what's happened and what's going to happen. Tears are running down my face as I'm typing this (no joke). But life does go on and we might as well acknowledge that fact. Historically and globally speaking, we were damned lucky bastards to have lived in a country as free and good and prosperous as America was from FDR through Clinton. And I wanted and expected it to go on just as much as any of you did. I'm not young or in particularly good health. I'm not likely to see democracy come back in my lifetime.

But to pretend that we still matter politically and that we can still fight and win (except maybe on the state level in the bluer states) is just playing into the f*ckers' hands and giving them that many more years of free ride in which they can blame us for everything that goes wrong.

[AuntPatsy]

30. I understand what you are saying and in hindsight it seems

plausible and more probable that your plan would work, but now take into account the captain at the helm of the ship you wish to do battle with, he is not a fool, and I talk not of our wanna be dictator..

Our real fight at this time is with one person, take him down and the party will falter, and how to take him down? Use the same techniques that he does so time after time...

Obviously many Americans no matter how many false votes were used in reelecting the presidential seat follow like good sheep to the slaughter when you use the issue dearest to their hearts. "Attacking their false sensibilities"...

Obviously Rove has been doing the same mo for years, with the right people who shall not falter, Bussie's Brain will soon need to survive on oxygen tanks that should never be taken for granted....

Fight fire with fire, in this case, use Rove's strategies of unfair war games against him and his...and take no prisoners by turning a deaf ear to their pleas...He is no God, he is only a man and as such bleeds like the rest of us even if he does not actually possess a beating heart.

[finecraft]

18. Walt, you hit the nail on the head

I am sick of them using us. You are right, they set us up every time,and we fall for it. They have identified us as the "angry, vindictive, obstructionist party".

[ibegurpard]

23. Regardless of whether you agree with this tactic or not

we absolutely MUST, MUST, MUST focus on the long term. Brainstorming about "who can win it for us in 2008" is pissing in the wind.
I'm not sure this tactic can work because the repukes have shown themselves quite adept at turning the truth upside down in their favor. I see no reason for that to change with the media being what it is and more on the way. I think the solution for the long term is to focus on rebuilding the local infrastructure. Create real relationships with people on the ground to counteract the built-in monolithic republibot mill that is the fundamentalist Christian churches. This also means ceding the national scene for years to come, at least in terms where to really allocate the resources.

[TwilightZone]

Maybe we'll start winning once Roe v. Wade and gay marriage are outlawed.

While that is said with mostly sarcasm, you may be right that the Republicans need hot-button issues to always be on "right" side of, so eliminating those issues would eliminate much of the power in their propaganda. Interesting thought.

I also tend to agree that filibusters aren't going to work. The Republicans always seem to manage to "persude" people like Ben Nelson and Zell Miller to cross the aisle. Doesn't take many Zell Millers in a minority of 44 to make filibusters impossible.

[MsTryska]

27. I believe the BDSM community has a name for this:

"Topping from Below"

[rockydem]

28. Would they ever actually do this?

Imagine - giving the right-wing everything they always wanted - and in spades. No more scapegoats - no more blame game.

The country would be fucked - and we'd just say - we told ya these asshats were idiots - now you know!

[AuntPatsy]

34. Sure we would and then any power we would have attained will

be nothing more than a memory much like Alice in Wonderland, you do not give an inch agains such mechanisms in this case, I believe Kerry's loss should prove that much is true...

[Walt Starr]

38. BINGO!

That's how they did it to us! We screwed up as a party and moved WAY TOO FAR TO THE LEFT. They capitalized upon their own weakness while changing our greatest strength into our greatest weakness.

It's time to turn the tables. Throw them the carcass and let them fight it out.

[rockydem]

46. I would love it

Imagine the Dem leadership saying "We are fed up with being labelled obstructionist and having it used against us for merely taking part in this Democracy. We are fed up with a media that allows them to do this. We are now officially moving all the major Republican bills pending before the Senate and House to a full vote - and we will back them. We are moving all the stalled judges to a full vote asap. Apparently the Republicans have convinced a majority of the American people that their way is the right way. Well we are now going to find out if it is indeed the right way."

[VelmaD]

53. I call bullshit

I must have been absent the day the Democratic party was "too far to thw left". When would that have been exactly?

[Walt Starr]

63. The same time the term "Liberal" became a bad word

and it is a direct result of the Democrats framing the debate in intellectual language rather than in sound bites.

Sound bites sell soap. Intellectual arguments, while apealing to the left, bore the elctorate.

[VelmaD]

69. Nice non-answer

You failed completely to address my point. When exactly did the Democrats EVER actually go to far to the left on any issue? And this time try to read the question and provide an actual answer including concrete examples.

[Walt Starr]

82. Hey, we *DID* move too far to the left

How do I know? "Liberal* is a bad word.

Elections are about perception. The perception is the Democratic Party moved too far to the left, regardless of the reality.

I didn't make the rules, I am only working within the framework of how "mob mentality" works, and elections are all about "mob mentality".

[TwilightZone]

136. You haven't answered an important part of the question: WHEN?

Liberal has been a bad word since Reagan's days. That was 24 years ago. Are you claiming we've been too far left since then?

If so, I beg to differ. Clinton certainly wasn't a liberal, and he was president for eight years.

[Walt Starr]

138. We moved too far left WHEN liberal became a "bad word"

That's the perception.

Now we must move overwhelmingly centrist.

That's the reality of the perception we must present.

[TwilightZone]

143. Ok, explain how Clinton won twice.

Sorry, Walt, but your claim makes no sense and has no validity. Reagan perfected using "liberal" as a perjorative.

We certainly have not been "too liberal" ever since, because we've had a president in the White House for eight of those years and had a majority in one or both houses of Congress for much of that time.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[Walt Starr]

151. Clinton framed the debate in sound bites

That sold soap.

Don't believe me? Listen to any Clinton speech.

[TwilightZone]

155. Ok, and what does that have to do with your claim?

You claim that we've been too far left since Reagan. (Actually, you haven't confirmed that; you just provide vague generalities.)

There is plenty of proof to the contrary.

Clinton wasn't liberal. Still isn't. Probably never will be. Won twice. Had huge approval ratings.

Gore wasn't a liberal and got in serious trouble when he tried to start running as a populist. He won the election in spite of that, not because of it.

[Walt Starr]

161. You're not seeing what I'm saying

I'm saying we are too far to the left because of *perception*. We are wacked out lefty loons because that is the *perception* in the overall electorate.

Clinton overcame that perception by reframing the debate in such a way as the perception of him was overwhelmingly moderate. This worked to his advantage in the electorate. Because of the way he redefined the debate, he could not be painted as too "liberal" by the right, and thus he won a plurality.

Al Gore, on the other hand, framed the debate in intellectual language rather than with sound bites. This served to gie a liebral perception to the electorate.

Kerry was perhaps even worse because he attempted to fram the debate in sound bites, but they were intellectual sound bites and came off as sucj to Joe Sixpack. Coupling this with a perception of "treason" painted by the SBVT, and the right wing base was energized like they were never energized before.

In electoral politcs, perception is reality regardless of the truth.

[Cats Against Frist]

179. It's actually NOT that WE've moved too far left

It's that the GOP propagandameisters have changed both the language, and the debate, and the history and the Bible, and are click clacking away on how to completely repeal the Enlightenment, empiricism, et. al.

But these are the IDEALOGUES -- the higher ups -- most of their electorate are being manipulated by them by these wedge issues, and the marginalization of us.

We take away the wedge issues, we take away the marginalization. They have very little left. Then we triangulate, and isolate the far right. There has been a war raging in the GOP between what they call "moderates" and "conservatives." The conservatives are attempting to use the "born agains" to force out the moderates -- mostly in red states, disproportionately giving them electoral votes and power.

The thing is -- they don't WANT their own policies. I agree completely with Walt. And the apathetic 80 million in the electorate that are too wrapped up in Nick & Jessica to vote DO NOT want their policies.

Part of the GOPs bread and butter is parading as a "small government" party, when we know that they are and what they want is an authoritarian right-wing police state. Call them out on it. Get radical.

Anyway -- I know what you're saying, and I agree with you, Walt -- but I do think we need to totally figure out the smartest way to do it.

INTERESTINGY enough, I've already heard one dem on Crossfire today, talk about states' rights and federalism. I think we all had a "collective conscience" moment when Kerry conceded -- many Dems immediately came up with this idea.

[MsTryska]

114. Nov 2, 2004, apparently.

maybe not too far left for us, but apparently way too far left for the rest of the asshats.

[TwilightZone]

84. Clinton was a moderate. Gore wasn't terribly liberal, either.

Kerry's liberal, but he ran more like a moderate.

Sorry, the "we moved too far to the left" argument just doesn't seem realistic to me.

[Walt Starr]

90. Oh yes the "we moved too far to the left" argument does work!

How do I know?

"Liberal" is a bad word and Al Gore was a "liberal".

Rinse

Repeat.

[VelmaD]

92. Just because you keep repeating it...

doesn't make it true.

Liberal being a bad word doesn't mean we moved too far to the left. It just means we didn't stand up for ourselves while the Repubs highjacked the language.

[TwilightZone]

103. Liberal has been a bad word since Reagan. So, are you saying we went too

left 24 years ago and are still there?

[Walt Starr]

152. Yep, that's the perception

The perception that we now must make reality is that we moved completely to the center. This is accomplished by redefining the issues into new terms.

It does not mean complete abandonment of our issues. It means short term retreat on our issues while regrouping. Once we redefine the issues in such a way as to give it a centrist perception, we attack.

[JaneDoughnut]

36. Sinking to their level

I only recently started supporting the Democratic Party precisely because they DIDN'T play the politics game as shamelessly and manipulatively as the Republican party. What Walt says makes sense and maybe is the best political strategy - but if it comes down to that, the Dem party will lose folks like myself to the third parties. A dangerous game.

[Walt Starr]

42. Maybe we will lose some to the third parties

but NOT doing it will result in an even bigger gamble.

Insanity is repeatedly doing the same things over and over again while expecting a different result.

The Democratic Party has been the "Insane Party" for the past two decades.

[HootieMcBoob]

43. This is a very intriguing idea: what might happen first is

The supreme court rules that states have the right to outlaw abortion. We know that's not going to happen in the blue states. No way will NY, CA, MA, VT or a lot of these states do that, the citizens just wouldn't let it happen.

However, as you say the ball then is in the courts of the politicians in the red states. Will they outlaw abortion in those states? I wonder if any of them have the balls to do that. I think immediately it would signal the reality of the game the GOP plays. There would be an immediate influx of people into blue states.

It may force the politicians to shit or get off the pot.

Democrats then become the party of personal freedom.

Will they write law that locks women in prisons for having abortions? I wonder.

<edit: spelling>

[Walt Starr]

48. BINGO, turn them into the "immoral" ones

See, I'm a centrist and will remain a centrist regardless of how liberal I really am. By forcing them to back up the rightwing rhetoric with actions, we will be able to make "Conservative" the nastiest term in American politics, far more nasty than they ever made "liberal".

[ibegurpard]

50. Do you or do you not agree

that the right-wing machine has such a stranglehold on the political discourse that they can "spin" this into a damaging position against the Democrats? That's the danger I see here...ceding everything for no gain because the truth gets distorted.

[Walt Starr]

66. I don't agree because of a simple strategy that has to be implemented

We must start using cognitively simplistic language.

We aren't going to see "deficits as far as the eye can see where our children and our grandchildren will be paying for them forever and ever."

Instead, "Democrats are opposed to the Republican Birth Tax."

That's a double whammy on a visceral level to the Republicans. what member of the electorate is for handing a baby a tax bill on the day of its birth? The Republicans are. They support George Bush raising taxes on our babies!

[HootieMcBoob]

110. exactly

we become centrists and the moral part of personal freedom.

remember that many people think fox news is fair and balanced because they say they're fair and balanced.

[ibegurpard]

133. And they will continue to portray us as the loony left

no matter whether we get out of their way or not. I believe that SOME of the Republicans will stand up now. They are going to need our help.

[Walt Starr]

154. Nope, because as they concentrtae on taking the bait

we redefine the issues to be centrist. We do the same thing they do. We no longer talk about "gay rights". We "stand for personal freedom" and keep talking about how "personal freedom" is the mainstream view.

It's a standard stage magician's trick. while they are looking at us moving out of the way with our right hand, we redefine the issues with our left hand.

Abracadabra, Democrats become the party of the center.

Say it enough times and the perception holds true.

Man, I'm only giiving you the same approach that Rove and Atwater used to incredible effect!

The problem is, we must get nasty. Democrats don't like being nasty.

This is war. We must treat it as such. We are outnumbered and nearly surrounded. Retreat to a position of strength, regroup, and fight another day.

[VelmaD]

56. I have an idea for you Walt...

how about you volunteer to sacrifice one of YOUR rights instead of offering up mine without my permission.

[HootieMcBoob]

74. I think the point is that the right has already been lost

No amount of filibustering is going to change it. The supreme court is going to be made over into a very right wing club. The question is how to deal with it. You can bang your head against a brick wall for a very long time and you still don't knock the wall down.

I have said for a while that I don't think they really want to outlaw abortion. The ISSUE is too important to them. Fore example: Bill Clinton was given a bill to sign that would have outlawed late term abortions. Clinton vetoed it. He said bring me a bill that includes an exception for the health/life of the mother and I'll sign it. They didn't send it to him and they held on to an issue to beat him over the head with. "Bill Clinton wants to pull babies out of a mothers womb and crush their skills."

The chimp gets the same bill and he signs it. The courts find it unconstitutional because it doesn't have an exception for the health/life of the mother. The chimp is a hero! And where are we? The same place we were before! No law against abortion but the right retains a very powerful issue!

[Walt Starr]

75. The freedom of abortion died on Tuesday

I'm sorry if you find that fact offensive, but fighting that battele now will only make matters worse.

It's a fact. There is not enough Democrats in the Senate to stop it. There are precisely enough Democrats in the Senate to oppose the inevitable and make matters even worse by handing the Republicans their wildest dream, enough bodies to amend the constitution at will.

Look at the county maps of how people voted. IF we do not alter the entire paradigm immediately, your grandchildren will lose ALL rights. If we fight for this generations freedom of prvacy over the course of teh next year, we lose for generations to come.

It's that dire of a situation. The only bright spot I can offer is there are currently enough moderate republicans in teh Senate that we may be able to stop the complete overturining of Roe before the 2006 election and tehn win, but this will still only put off the inevitable by about four years.

It's time for the republicans to deliver on tehir promises to teh radical religious right, and they are demnding it. Fighting it now will only make things worse down the road., Allowing enough of their agenda in over the enxt four to six years to demonstrate just how bad things can get will be enough to stop things and reverse course. Then we can get an even better decision based upon a more sound argument.

The fight has become generational. If you are hung up on your personal rights right now, you make it even worse for those women who will be suffering even more stringent restrictions under a constitution that will be unrecognizable in two generations.

[VelmaD]

83. I hate to say this to you..

because I used to respect you, but I'm starting to think you drank the Kool-Aid. If you don't have the balls to stand up for my rights then I have no more use for you. I think you're espousing a strategy that is easy for you to believe in...it costs you nothing while risking the rights of millions of women and gays.

You make a big assumption that it will work in our favor in the long term and that's easier for you to believe. I unfortunately see a different possibility. We cave now and the next thing I know I'm living in a world that looks like "The Handmaid's Tale".

[library_max]

96. It's just like Diebold and black box voting.

All up and down DU, people are saying Fight! But fight with what? The Republicans have the White House, both houses of Congress, the judiciary, the statehouses, the media, and, most importantly, the control of the electoral process itself. So what are we going to fight with? Dirty looks and bad language?

It's not a question of strategy. When you don't have an army, you don't need a strategy. It doesn't matter what kind of protest we mount, the government can pooh-pooh it and the media can make it disappear. What are we gonna do about it? Protest some more? Vote against them in the next "election"?

We need to get used to the idea that America is now a single-party state. The Republicans are going to do things their way for a while. That's just the way it is. The best we can do is stand back and jeer and mock and find fault when they screw things up. If we make a credible fight over any issue, the most we can hope to accomplish is to position ourselves to be the scapegoats when something related goes wrong.

We need to get our hands well away from the levers of power, so there's no mistaking who's at fault when the ship runs aground.

[KitSileya]

140. That was a very good post.

I think you're completely right. We most certainly need to "get our hands well away from the levers of power, so there's no mistaking who's at fault when the ship runs aground."

The only, only power liberals still have, is fighting with their wallets. Start researchign where and how you spend your hard-earned dollars, trying to make sure as few of them as possible end up in repuke hands. Drop cable, drop repuke newspapers, stop bying repuke products, and start saving instead. Use the time freed up from the telly to start a kitchen garden, or research other ways of becoming self-sufficient. It'll help you when things hit rock bottom, as well.

And yes, encourage your Senators and your Reps, if they're Dem, to just let the Repukes get their agenda without fighting tooth and nail, just saying "the people have shown they want this, then we won't oppose it as we listen to the people."

[HootieMcBoob]

99. It's still fighting for those rights it just a different way of fighting

and it also manages to get moderate (if they still exist) republicans to get off their asses and take on radical right wing republicans. Democrats can step in to help the moderate repub (in the spirit of bipartisanship).

We still should march in the millions on Washington and Democratic politicians should speak out on the radical rights destruction of personal freedoms. But it could be a way of ripping apart the gop machine within the red southern states.

While the red state radical right is slathering all over itself. We run personal freedom democrats who stick up for farmers and working peoples rights who are against the birth tax and for lower taxes on the working people.

It's a wild idea but given that it's only a matter of time until the supreme court shifts I think it's an idea to consider.

[Walt Starr]

105. If we don't allow them to initiate their agenda in teh short term

"The Handmaid's Tale" will seem a bedtime story by comparison to what we WILL get from a Republican Party with enough elected officials to amend the constitution at will.

You want short term gain that will result in a worse long term reality.

[VelmaD]

111. No, I just don't believe your strategy will work

I think I'll lose my rights in the short-term and never get them back. I don't think you understand how long and hard women had to fight to get their rights and I KNOW that if we abandon any of them now it will take us decades to get them back again. Frankly, after watching the board today I no longer really believe that most "liberal" men would really help us get them back since their so fucking willing to abandon us right now and lay the blame for the election on us.

[ibegurpard]

112. Okay, which is it?

That statement is in direct contradiction with what you just said here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1318068&mesg_id=1319300&page=
Are we or are we not in danger from a totalitarian regime?

Standing out of the way and thinking the public will be horrified is EXACTLY what the opposition did in 1930's Germany. Doing this will bring it about faster and will allow NO TIME to organize any resistance.

[library_max]

120. Like I asked Walt above,

do you really believe that Bush and Cheney and Rummy and the gang are itching to round up the Jews and the homosexuals and the union organizers and send them into the gas chambers? I don't.

They want Christianity as de facto state religion and corporate America to be able to run roughshod over the American worker and consumer. Pretty much exactly the conditions of the Gilded Age (aka the Robber Baron era, 1870's through 1920's). The country lived through it before. Nazi Germany and a whole lot of other places were and are a hell of a lot worse than anything Chimpy and the other little rascals are going to come up with. Gilded Age America wasn't really any worse (or any different) than the rest of the industrialized world during that time period.

Resistance, beyond mockery and finger-pointing and finding fault, just legitimizes the bastards. The more we can create the illusion that we still matter politically, the more crap they can blame on us when they screw everything up.

[Walt Starr]

130. We are in danger of a regime that cannot be described because such

a regime has never ever existed.

A Republican power base with the number of political offices required to amend the consitution at will is teh eventuality if the conditions that lead to the losses over the past three national election cycles continue.

Is it totalitarianism? Is it Fascism? I doubt eiterh will be true. I believe we are on the verge of an "ism" that has never existed in teh recorded history of man and if the Democrats continure down the road of the same old paradigm that's been used since 1998, we are doomed to expereience this never before experienced regime.

That's what I think.

[ibegurpard]

132. And your solution WAS tried

Even if the comparisons between the right-wingers here and now and Hitler don't hold true, the left DID fold up after he consolidated power.

[Walt Starr]

139. Again, wrong analogy

I am suggesting feigned retreat for one year while planting the bait. In the following year we allow the enemy's divided forces to seek us as an ally. The division will be btween the standard troops of the GOP and the "elites" (Evangelical fundamentalist Freepers).

We then do battle in late 2006 under OUR TERMS. By engaging in the debate while redefining the issues, WE determine the time and the place of the battles.

In 2006, we attack the enemy on our terms in overwhelming force.

So says Sun Tzu's Art of War:

Therefore, the principles of warfare are:

Do not attack an enemy that has the high ground;

do not attack an enemy that has his back to a hill;

do not pursue feigned retreats;

do not attack elite troops;

do not swallow the enemy's bait;

do not thwart an enemy retreating home.

If you surround the enemy, leave an outlet;

do not press an enemy that is cornered.

These are the principles of warfare.

Because of the alliance in our enemy forces, they MUST attack on our feigned retreat or they lose their "elite" forces. They MUST press us while cornered and they MUST swallow our bait or their "elite" forces go home.

Either way, we win.

[ibegurpard]

142. And if the enemy is as dangerous as some of us believe

ceding all control to them will mean that all avenues of legal resistance are gone. Like I said below, if enough moderates Republicans stand up against these guys, we need to support them. Because if that happens, it will truly be our cue that things ARE as dangerous as some of us believe.

[Walt Starr]

145. There is no "ceding all control to them". They WON control in an election

I am saying to do battle with them on our terms.

If we fall for their feigns and their bait, we continue down the current road and that leads to certain disaster.

[Cats Against Frist]

183. Here, here -- Walt! Remember this:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

--from the NYT Suskind article

Some people here seem to think that we can just "talk them out of it."

[Brewman_Jax]

60. In a nutshell

force them to live in the hell of their own construction. They'll have no way out and no one to blame.

[library_max]

70. Not accommodate, just get the hell out of the way.

Democrats at all levels need to start distancing themselves from the machinery of the federal government. If we go along to get along, we'll just be the scapegoats when things go wrong. How will they blame the minority for the majority's decisions? Hey, how did they turn a Vietnam War hero into a lying commie traitor? But they did it, now, didn't they?

You're right about letting the Republicans own the judiciary, but our role needs to be that of disloyal, not loyal, opposition. We need to point fingers, jeer, and mock at every misstatement, failure, and mistake. We need to take every cheap shot we can find. Ridicule is the only tool we have left, and we need to make the most of it. Even slaves can laugh at massa, behind his back. Not only will this keep us sane, it will keep our ideas before the public.

We need to return to the time when all politics was protest. The Republicans are now the establishment. Down with the establishment! Fight the power! We should probably run someone like Al Sharpton in 2008 - a protest candidate who will give the government party hell over everything they say and everything they do. There's a certain freedom in knowing that you can't win, and we might as well make the most of it.

[Walt Starr]

106. By "accomodating" I meant not standing in the way.

Have the debate. Offer up new terminology like "personal freedom" and when the vote comes, abstain in the interest of national unity.

Win-win over the long term.

[library_max]

113. Okay, fine. But we need to avoid terms like "bipartisan" like the plague.

We do not want to be the fall guys for these bastards' screw-ups. We need to keep our hands well away from the levers of power, so that when the ship runs aground everyone will be able to see who was responsible.

[Walt Starr]

146. Nope, "bipartisan" is perhaps the most important word of all!

And we trot it out when we are approached by their own moderates to engage in onbstructionism.

Then we redefine the issues as Republican obstructionism while we are engaged in bipartisanship.

same terms, different applications in a methodology that lets us determine the time and place of battle.

Win-win from a position of weakness.

The point is, we offer the enemy two choices, either of which allows us to win regardless of their choice.

[library_max]

153. You're assuming that they're either stupid or powerless.

They've demonstrated rather convincingly that they're neither one nor the other.

They don't have to tolerate opposition any more. They control the electoral process. They control all the possible avenues for reforming or policing that process.

When their own moderates approach us, if they are ever brave or stupid enough to do so, it'll be to save some substantial issue - abortion rights, say, or Social Security - and not to invite us to help them clean house and prosecute the cheats and malefactors. So, if we have enough votes, we will save abortion rights or Social Security. For a while. Until the next election, when the Republican Right fast-shuffles enough moderates out of office in the primaries to cut the legs out from under the rest. And then, bye-bye abortion rights, Social Security, and whatever else.

Playing the loyal opposition and acting as if we matter, even potentially, just gives them the chance to keep blaming us when things go wrong. Remember how the anti-war left lost the Vietnam War? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

[Walt Starr]

162. They are powerless. We offer two choices and they must accept one

Either way, we do battle with a divided Republican Party on our terms. Win for us.

[library_max]

178. The very, very best we can hope for is a purely temporary victory

that identifies for them all their questionably loyal colleagues, the better to purge you with my dear. Did you read all of my post? It's a purely illusory win for us at best.

They don't have to tolerate opposition and they don't have to tolerate being divided. Do you think the ones that actually have their hands on the levers of power are divided, or could be? Not over abortion or Social Security, that's for damned sure. Tell me how much internal dissension there is over the war in Iraq for example, a dead-bang loser of a policy if there ever was one. Most of the moderates will knuckle under, Powell-style, or quietly resign. Haven't you ever seen the ruling party of a one-party state in operation? They don't let the opposition parties divide them, period.

[bhikkhu]

88. Absolutely NOT

The minority is not in a weak position...the minority is the bulk of the economic base which is now to be turned to an agenda it opposes.
Without the tacit support - the economic obedience - of the Democrat, the new repug masters can do nothing.

PREEMPT THE AGENDA - BUY NOTHING. Without a strong economy they are helpless, and god knows they don't give a crap what we say as long as we keep spending like good consumers.

[bread_and_roses]

104. I don't think so

When things go to hell in a handbasket, which side do you want to be on? Unless one assumes that the RW agenda is going to produce peace and prosperity (in which case, why would we fight it?), I can't understand wanting your Party to support their agenda.

[Skinner]

108. While I have a great deal of respect for you, Walt, I gotta say...

...I think this is a terrible idea.

If we stop fighting then we share responsibility for helping pass their agenda. And we reinforce the perception that we have no backbone and no core values.

Forget this idea. It's bad policy and bad politics.

[library_max]

125. While I have a great deal of respect for you, Skinner

I think we all need to wake up and smell the kool aid. Democracy is over for the time being. It's a done deal. Our backbone and core values and politics don't make a damned bit of difference any more. The Republicans own the White House, both houses of Congress, the judiciary, the statehouses in the key states, the media, and (most importantly) the electoral process. They can stay in power as long as they like. They are the new institutional party, like the PRI was in Mexico.

The more we pursue the illusion that we matter politically, the easier we will make it for the Republicans to blame all their screw-ups on us. Remember how the anti-war left "lost" the Vietnam War? How we wouldn't let Rambo win it? Just like that.

We need to step back and confine ourselves to fault-finding and finger-pointing and cheap shots and mockery of those in power. We need to get our hands well away from the levers of power, so that when the ship runs aground they won't be able to blame it on us.

[Walt Starr]

150. If we do this, we lose the votes

If we fight them, we lose the votes.

Feign retreat while laying the bait. Give them two options. Either they ignore their elite forces (fundamentalist base) and refuse to take the bait or they take the bait and keep their elite forces happy.

In the case of refusing to take our bait, they appear to be weak to their elite forces and those elite forces go home. Win for us.

If they take the bait, their standard forces (moderates) reach out to us in bipartisanship. Win for us.

This is the strategy of divide and conquer. The elite forces are too important to ignore, yet they know that if they engage in this battle, the standard forces leave as well.

They did this to us effectively over the past decade. We must return the favor.

Please, read Sun Tzu. This and NLP has been the basis of the Republican revolution. We must engage in intelligent battle or continue to lose. Continued loss is too horrible for me to contemplate.

[ezekiel333]

158. "We must engage in intelligent battle"

Like posting your plan on the internet.

You need to re-read Sun Tzu.

[Walt Starr]

164. My plan on the internet is nothing

It is the collected rantings of a madman DUmmie.

Implementation of my plan will in no way resemble what is posted here on the surface.

I've read Sun Tzu.

Look to the plans of Newt. They were well knbown well beforehand. The ultimate implementation of the plan in no way resembled the plan itself.

We offer two choices, they must accept one. The calculation of which to accept is up to them. They will calculate on which offer gives them the smallest loss if they are wise. If they are not they will choose teh way that gives them the boggest loss. The key is, they must choose one or the other.

Either way, they lose.

[Cats Against Frist]

175. And either way,

we challenge them to pass through things like the abolition of federal income tax, federalism, etc. -- things that could actually help us regionally -- if they do it, we still benefit -- if they DON'T, we call them out on their bullshit.

Remember, the upper tiers of the GOP are serious intellectual idealogues, that have rallied masses of people with rhetoric, they themselves DO NOT want implemented. Do you honestly think that the neocons and the Christians want to give up FEDERAL power, now that they control everything? What-ev-er. The Republicans are and have always been just as "big government" and "authoritarian" as the "commie liberals" they claimed to be dominated by.

[ezekiel333]

192. Your right, your plan is nothing.

Go chase some medals.

[Cats Against Frist]

173. I agree with your dissent, and I think this needs to be fleshed out

and I think it needs to accompany de-centralization and federalism -- but think "triangulation." You have to think like them, to beat them. The worst that happens is that we keep the things we want in a number of states, instead of having Jesus Mammon roll over everything we've ever fought for.

You can't win them back. It's not a matter of "convincing." The far right is changing the language, and changing the debate, trying to rid us of objectivity, empiricism, centrism -- we have to isolate them.

Think the Pearl and Brad issue, below.

What happens when GOP Plastic-Sheet Pearl Rapture Freak tries to take away Corvette-No PC-Brad's Maxim?

It's an idea.

[unfrigginreal]

122. Wrong approach

the Republicans became the majority party by being an outspoken opposition party. If we want to win back the confidence of average Jane and Joe, than we better stand strongly for something rather than appearing weak by giving in to the GOP.

[Walt Starr]

157. Teh Republican Party was never in the position of weakness we are now in

Seriuosly. We are so weakened after Tuesday, continued attack is futile and will pick off more soldiers (elected officials).

Retreat to a position of strength, regroup, then attack on our terms.

This is a war. we must fight it as such.

[UdoKier]

127. Arlen Specter of the "magic bullet theory" promote such a conspiracy?

NEVER!

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

128. Damn is that really Walt Starr talking?

Sheeeit.

The same guy who did all that research on bush's medal?

[prayin4rain]

129. Accommodate the implementation of the Right wing Agenda?

Are you insane? I will never accommodate murderers.

[Fovea]

131. PNAC already has enough rope to hang us all

Surely that should be sufficient to hang them with?

[ibegurpard]

135. Okay, this idea sounded intriguing to me at first but now I'm wary.

If moderate Republicans make a stand against the right wing, we need to give them every ounce of help we can. Not to do so will mean the Christian Reconstructionists will have total control. Then we DO have "The Handmaid's Tale." Your solution will bring it faster.
If there are enough of them and we sense that THEY are willing to fight the right wing then we might be able to beat them back. Only if it is apparent that the "moderates" intend to go along would I ever advocate a strategy like this.

[MsTryska]

141. This is essentially what he's positing.

he and i discuss way upthread.


he's not saying lay down and take it like a bitch.



let the wackjobs battle the moderates ont he issues. let them brign the things to the table and fight amongst each other to get things done.


let them fracture.


wehn the time comes to vote on little minute changes, we abstain. when the time comes to vote to make their insanity a reality, the moderates will coem to us for the voting block, and we help them out.


the republican party acts as opposition to itself, we go along in the name of party unity, and win the fights that best suit us.


i also like mocking and jeering along the way tho.

[ibegurpard]

144. Okay

If the "moderate" Republicans stand up to the right wing, then things really ARE as bad as some of us fear. In that case, it's not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It's an issue of saving our nation from a slide into a very dangerous place. If that happens, we need to stand with them.

[MsTryska]

156. Yes Exactly.....

but not until after they "sit in their own shit" for a while first. ;-)

[TwilightZone]

147. I'm all for mocking and jeering.

Pointing and laughing work nicely, as well. ;)

:silly:

[library_max]

148. If by some miracle we could make this work,

the Republican Right would just do the Diebold shuffle (or some variation thereof) and get rid of those pesky moderate Republicans in the next primary - or at least enough of them to cut the legs out from under the rest.

They have demonstrated that they don't need to tolerate opposition. We need to wrap our minds around that fact and stop making plans that involve us having a say.

[robbedvoter]

149. The Demo- whos again?

[WilliamPitt]

159. I fear you've lost your mind

This has been your progression over the last couple of years, as best I understand it:

ABB ---> Dean ---> Only Nader ---> Anyone But Kerry ---> ABB ---> Kerry...

...and now you're advocating that we roll over for the GOP?

*sniff*

[Walt Starr]

165. Will, if we take my road, we will lose the votes.

If we fight against them, we will lose the votes.

Either way we lose the votes.

If we take the strategic long term view, we lose the votes now for long term gain.

Lay the bait while retreating. Regroup. Redefine, then attack on our terms.

There are 44 Democratic seats in the Senate. If we continue doing what we did for the past three election cycles, count on no more than 39 Democratic seats in the Senate come January of 2007.

By January of 2009, it could well be fewer than 34 seats due to red counties in blue states. At that point, the GOP amends at will.

[WilliamPitt]

171. We cannot disappear from the political landscape

If we do what you say, we will lose everything. While we 'strategize,' the public will be bombarded daily with "The Democratic Party is gone." Would you have our Senators and Congresspeople stand mute? Not represent their districts? They'd be voted out.

This is not viable in any way, shape or form.

[library_max]

182. On the contrary, we have to disappear from the political landscape.

As long as we're present and accounted for, we are the Official Lord High Scapegoat for everything that goes wrong. We won't be able to disappear right away - hell, they're still blaming Clinton for everything four years later - but that's what we need to do. Whatever party restores democracy in this country, decades from now, it won't be called the Democratic Party.

[Cats Against Frist]

169. Will, you're so smart

it's not about rolling over for the GOP. Surely you can see that, and not jump to conclusions. Even if you don't agree -- grasp the full possibilities.

[ibegurpard]

176. And what if "moderate" Republicans were waiting

for the results of the election and now they know what they have to do? I wrote to my very conservative Republican senator when the rumors of elections being cancelled were floating around. He didn't just send me back a letter. He sent me an entire packet of documents dealing with the issue.
What if these people were waiting to see if we could pull it out and now they know they HAVE to make a stand? If they DO we need to stand with them.

[bain_sidhe]

187. If they were "waiting to see if we could pull it out"

Then they're cowards. "Waiting to see" is nothing more than hoping we would give them a consequence-free out that wouldn't require them to put THEIR cojones on the line. What makes you think they'll be any braver about standing up against bu**sh** now that he's been *elected*?

[ibegurpard]

189. Like I said, we'll see.

eom

[bain_sidhe]

181. We've already been rolled, Will

I have some reservations on Walt's idea - I lean toward trying to stop them too... but the plain fact is, we CAN'T stop it. So why not USE it? I'm not behind it 100% - and I'd rather see the strategy used on economic issues - but I think it bears more consideration than just being dismissed out of hand.

I think, though, using it on economic issues would be more effective than using it on social issues (and especially the Supreme Court). One, economic issues are usually addressed by legislation rather than the courts, and tax laws are easier to repeal/overturn/modify than Supreme Court rulings. Two, letting them have their way on the social issues would just CONFIRM to the 51% (or whatever true percentage) who voted for bu**sh** that they were RIGHT to do so. Hitting the 51% in their pocket book will drive home that they were WRONG to do so.

The "soundbite" question (ok, it's more than a sound bite, but it's at least simplistic):

Which affects you more: Some guy you don't know marrying another guy you don't know, or losing your job and your house?

[Getchasome]

166. WOW, never thought of that.

That's pretty good. And what would El Rushbo and Shawn Insanity talk about on their shows. It would be 4 hours of dead air. I love it. We have to go through some pains, but we will grow very strong as a party from it.

[Cats Against Frist]

168. I thought about that one, too

Kill the propagandameisters.

You know that Rush and Hannity are not down with the religious right, they just play the propagandists on TV.

Give them federalism.
Give them the abolition of the federal income tax.
Dismantle programs on the federal level.

These will do several things -- take away some of their favorite talking points, and also MINIMIZE the power of their new "Superjesus" majority.

[Cats Against Frist]

167. Walt, I'm with you

"More of the same" is not going to get us any more power.

The way to knock the GOP table out from under them is to undermine their coalition.

Don't you think that it's an exceptionally ODD thing that the GOP manages both Pearl-Plastic-Sheet Rapture Fanatic and Brad-Corvette-Pinch ass-Maxim Reader?

Read Free Repukelick -- on one hand you have people proclaiming that Bush is God, because of his Jesus morals, and on the other you have a bunch of low-class Playboys who don't want anyone to "PC" them into viewing a woman as anything other than a vagina on wheels.

What do they have in common? What keeps them together?

For one -- they're both afraid of "big government commies," while each of them is blind to the fact that "big government right-wing authoritarians" are simultaneously undermining both of them by implementing agendas that neither of them would like IF THEY ACTUALLY HAD ANY IDEA that they were doing this.

Their thought patterns might tie them together -- the totalitarian mindset -- but for totally different reasons. Pearl is into good and evil, while Brad is into elevating himself above others to soothe his low self esteem.

What happens when Pearl wants to take away Brad's Maxim?

What would happen if the Democrats suddenly introduced a bill to abolish the federal income tax, or the FBI or the Departments (Education, Hud, etc.)?

I'll leave you to answer these question -- but the ONLY way to fix these people is to isolate the far right BEFORE they COMPLETELY overtake the party. Moderate GOPPERS aren't that bad, and could be powerful allies. The moderates may be more libertarian, but they're certainly better than the "christo-fascists."

I get what you're saying Walt, and I'm ready.

[grasswire]

170. clearly, Rove outplayed our strategists

He ran a two tier campaign.

In the top tier, he baited Dems and the press into thinking their top card would be national security. He repeatedly baited us all. Repeatedly, and cleverly.

In the second tier, he waged a whole quieter campaign with the top issue of gay marriage. Under the radar.

Our strategists never saw it coming. We, all of us, were sandbagged. An enormous deception involving their punditry, the press, and the candidates themselves was perpetrated on us.

Now it's time to think outside the box. Conventional campaigning is over.

Walt's idea is one worthy of consideration. So is the idea of starving the South of our dollars and forcing them to moderation. Even sound bites aren't going to save us. A whole new world opens up, and the old political hackery is worthless.

[MoonRiver]

174. Honestly, I hardly care anymore.

We've gone so totally over to the Dark Side that I see no advantage to fighting anymore. Let them do their will, and reap the results. We will all suffer, but clearly, resistance is futile.

[Cats Against Frist]

177. NO -- we cannot roll over

That would be the biggest mistake. This isn't about rolling over. This is about out-flanking (is that the word?) and triangulation.

It's ever conscious.

[AlCzervik]

185. Spector is backing off that claim-he's denied he made any such statement.

i heard it on the radio about an hour ago so if he was waundering off the farm he's been lassosed back in.

Here is quote from his web site

November 4th, 2004  
 
SPECTER COMMENTS ON THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION PROCESS
 
Washington, D.C. - Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) made the following comments today on the judicial confirmation process.

“Contrary to press accounts, I did not warn the President about anything and was very respectful of his Constitutional authority on the appointment of federal judges.

“As the record shows, I have supported every one of President Bush’s nominees in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion issue and, as the record shows, I have voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Kennedy and led the fight to confirm Justice Thomas.

“I have already sponsored a protocol calling for a Judiciary Committee hearing within thirty days of a nomination, a vote out of Committee thirty days later, and floor action thirty days after that. I am committed to such prompt action by the Committee on all of President Bush’s nominees.

“In light of the repeated filibusters by the Democrats in the last Senate session, I am concerned about a potential repetition of such filibusters. I expect to work well with President Bush in the judicial confirmation process in the years ahead.”

[truth2power]

191. This idea has merit.

Hatrack called it, upthread, and no one commented. It's jiujitsu. Yes, it's rolling over, but not in the way you think. It's using the enemy's own inertia to propel him over your head. Make them do what they say they want so badly to do, in spades.