Why Do We Fight the Republicans? Refuse to have a battle of wits...

[mattclearing]

...with unarmed people.

I am starting to wonder why we fight them. People get the impression that we are haters...anti-Bush, anti-Christian, anti-SUV, anti anti anti.

I propose a new strategy.

Ignore them.

We will win when we start telling people what our vision is for the future. Not at the ballot box, though that will come with time.

We should never debate on their terms ever again. By allowing ourselves to be baited into engaging on their terms on issues of questionable relevance (like the Kerik nomination flameout, for instance), we discredit the fundamental tenets of our collective philosophies by muddying them with right wing madness.

Instead, we should talk about what WE want to talk about. Support initiatives that WE support. We should bring up the topics WE want to discuss on TV when the opportunity presents itself.

"What do you think about President Bush's new initiative?"

I want to vote for the person that says this:

"My vote will show what I think, but what I want to talk about is poverty, science, government's ability and obligation to help people, our mission to create a better world at home and abroad, and calling people to the higher cause of being better people and accomplishing better things."

That is the way to win.

Stop talking about them. They are predominantly ignorant and irrelevant.

I think we should be talking about us, and what we want to do.

To paraphrase someone who should know: Who cares what they think?

[JPace]

1. "Why Do We Fight the Republicans?

It is like being a passenger in a car, the car is being driven by someone you cannot trust and going to places you don't want to go to. You cannot get out of the car because they have you locked in and there is no escape. You see them making foolish and dangerous moves as well as using road hog tactics that hurt and endanger others.

"Who cares what they think?" I better care about what they think because if I have any hope of taking over this car I need to look for all opportunities....also the only thing I have is my voice and I'm going to be very noisy.

[mattclearing]

2. Why argue when you can take the wheel?

That's how I see your analogy. Eventually you have to risk crashing the car to regain your freedom.

I am as guilty as anyone, but I think we need to stop facilitating their madness by dignifying it with a response.

[JPace]

4. They have the car rigged so that if and when it crashes

they have seat belts, airbags, insurance. They own the hospitals,
legal systems and they have all the resources to buy anything they need to keep going should the car crash. You....have nothing. They may not particularly want to crash but if it does they will walk away, you on the other hand have no safety nets.

I don't want the car to crash.

[mattclearing]

6. You are proposing doing nothing to change the dynamic.

Remember Bill Clinton's wise words on the definition of insanity?

[JPace]

11. "You are proposing doing nothing to change the dynamic."

Are we still in the car or have we done away with that?

"We should bring up the topics WE want to discuss on TV when the opportunity presents itself."

They own the media, let me repeat...they OWN the media. There isn't going to be much in the way of opportunity to rationally discuss anything. They pound the left daily with skilled language developed by 30 years of think tanks until the masses have been brainwashed to vote against their own best interests. They own the media, they have the think tanks, and oh yes, they have all the voting machines that make elections go anyway they want. Until we address those things "framing" issues is like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic in hopes it may keep it afloat.

[mattclearing]

12. What's your solution?

eom

[JPace]

13. Seeing the problem, recognizing the problem...

exploring the problem, conferring with others on the problem
is a darned good beginning and I might say its far more
advanced then most of our politicians are doing. The solution
must come and it will....not by me, not by you either, but
I am ready to be involved in the solution with my money and
my energy when it comes. MoveOn.org is exploring the problem
and there is hope.

What is your solution, or don't you see the problem?

[mattclearing]

14. My solution is to re-take the debate and solve other problems than "them"

There is more to life than the crazy people hijacking our country. If we focus on selling ourselves well, they won't be able to hijack our country anymore.

You are complaining, and donating money to people, which demonstrates that you care.

I am only trying to incite people to channel that energy in a positive direction. That means not attacking crazy people for being crazy. Let them be crazy.

We can set our own course. If we don't know where we're going, we can't get anywhere.

[JPace]

15. "There is more to life than the crazy people hijacking our country"

Isn't DU an unusual place to hang out for someone who sees our country being dismantled as a low priority?

Well as we are being marginalized, stripped of power, bled of
resources and robbed of a meaningful future lets do "channel that
energy in a positive direction."

Pray tell....what direction is that anyway?

[mattclearing]

16. Read my message.

I want to talk about poverty, science, government's ability and obligation to help people, our mission to create a better world at home and abroad, and calling people to the higher cause of being better people and accomplishing better things.

You are attacking me for proposing a different strategy. Bush once said something in 2000 to the effect of, "As long as they're talking about me, and I'm talking about me, everybody's talking about me."

That's a very succinct statement of why he wins and we lose. We need people to talk about us. That means we have to STOP TALKING ABOUT THEM.

I'm not responding to you again until you think of a positive idea, rather than attacking me for seeing attacking them as our biggest problem.

[JPace]

17. "You are attacking me for proposing a different strategy."

Odd....I don't feel "attacked". I thought you put your ideas out there for consideration and debate, I thought that is what we were doing. Does disagreeing always feel like attack to you?

Next time when you post be sure to make a public notation that you only want responses that are agreeable and to your liking. Then I will know to pass....as it stands the DU site is here for lively discussions of all kinds is what I understand. I guess one can take their ball and go home if they want to, personally I'm still here.

"I'm not responding to you again until you think of a positive idea, rather than attacking me for seeing attacking them as our biggest problem."

[mattclearing]

18. Still waiting.

.

[JPace]

19. "Still waiting."

This discussion has been reduced to the intellectual level pouting ten year olds.

Goodbye

[mattclearing]

20. .

:-)

[Stinky The Clown]

3. This spot on. A slight twist on Lakoff's notion of reframing the debate

You're spot on. We need to set our own agenda, not allow them to set it. By engaging in *their* debate we are, in effect, saying their agenda is worth something.

But to quote a famous simian who's name appears frequently in the news, this is hard work. It takes real discipline to stay on *our* message when faced with the usual interrogators on the TV TawkShow circuit.

I also like the notion that it fits in with the "fog" theory of effective arguing. If you don't engage the person with whom you're arguing, all they can do is throw rocks into a fog. And they usually miss.

So this strategy would have them throwing rocks into the fog or *defensively* engaging *us* in *our* debate.

[mattclearing]

5. I haven't read Lakoff yet.

I keep hearing about it, but I'm going to school at the moment (finals week, actually, this is my procrastination), so leisure reading is kinda out for now.

[Bouncy Ball]

7. That's exactly what they do.

And it's pretty easy for them to do, given the right wing bent of the mainstream media.

They frame all the debates, they have easy access to bring up all their talking points.

I have felt for a long time that we need to stop engaging on their terms. Stop playing THEIR game.

This also includes not giving air time to people putting forth right wing views on TV and the "hatio."

There's another saying: never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience.

This is the best line in your whole post:

"I think we should be talking about us, and what we want to do."

There's not NEARLY enough of that. Dems are too damn polite. The Dems at the top need to get that message too. Start talking about WHAT WE WANT TO DO and talk about it a lot, from the rooftops, the mountaintops, buy media outlets.

What a fantasy. Hope it comes true!

[mattclearing]

10. Me too.

Thanks for this. I keep seeing arguments like "We're better off with Bush winning the election and taking the blame." That scares me...it's like saying, "I want to be the meek and inherit the Earth."

My feeling is: "Why plan to inherit the Earth when there's still an opportunity to save it, fix it, and make it better?"

[spanone]

8. Maybe it is because our Nation & Lifestyle is at stake.

[mattclearing]

9. All the more reason to stop facilitating their madness.

eom

[dogman]

21. It has been tried somewhat.

Wes Clark made a statement like, I'm not here to bash Bush, I'm here to replace him. The MSM was not interested. They frame the debate and if you don't play their game they ignore you and you are seen as a fringe candidate. Look at Kucinich. He had a lot to say and they just ignored him as if he didn't exist. They portrayed Dean as purely a Bush basher and recycled anything that confirmed their portrayal. We have a problem with getting our message out. They watched "The War Room" and realized what the Clinton campaign had done to make it's message clear. They're not likely to allow that again anytime soon. I wish I knew a better way. as long as they have Dems willing to play their game, like Lieberman and Miller and Hillary, we're in trouble. We have to present a united front with a united strategy, that's what the GOP has done so effectively. It was exposed last year when Dole said they have a phone number to call before they make the Sunday morning circuit to get them all on message.

[mattclearing]

22. Interesting.

You are right. I never heard Kucinich's Department of Peace mentioned on the news ever. You can see my post about some of my fallacious understandings of Wesley Clark based on MSM reporting.

They are not giving the media back. Ask Ted Turner. We have to create our own media and dominate it. You see that Salon has changed recently, they have made clear that they will not be questioning the election results, and have moved Sex out of their story categories. I now hear Air America is doing the same kinds of things. That both have required outside financing is likely not a coincidence.