|
Edited on Mon Sep-05-05 03:37 PM by MsMagnificent
but there's nothing wrong with fighting fire with fire!
In case you haven't noticed, our "speaking truth" is LOSING. We can still Speak Truth, but it's high time we got the coverage that the Bushco pundits and cheerleaders do!
Our message is LOST. We are inundated on every side by the formidable propaganda machine the Republicans have built.
Quite plainly, we are INEFFECTIVE.
By both these faults, we are not supporting our Democratic elected officials -- as much as we complain they don't DO anything, they have no support; for they are attacked and ridiculed on every side and any TRUTH we try to defend them, in our "civilized" and 'Oh-so-gentle wo/manly-way' with is immediately gone with the wind'!
The British soldiers, when invading the colonies, knew only one way to fight... from their time-honored tradition on the battlefields of Europe which for those venues worked just fine. Things were different here. The American Revolutionaries found a better much more effective way, and the British troops were too ensconced in 'that's how we've always done it' to adapt to the circumstances. Does that tell you anything?
We can still speak TRUTH (if we didn't, we wouldn't be Democrats!) AND adapt their methods -- there's nothing wrong with that!
And with the Truth and Honor I hold with being a Democrat, I see NO problems whatsoever going after Frist, Delay, Cheney, even Bush with Swiftboat tactics. None at all, if our contentions are TRUE (unlike the Swiftboat Veterans). It's too damn bad they get to taste their own form of medicine. Boo-hoo.
I've lost ALL pity for them, and if you look around at this country and the world, the stakes and death and tragedy are much too high to be concerned with being a top-notch gentleman all the time!
The Repukes know we're like this, and have been counting on it. Well, as far as I'm concerned, the gloves are off. Like the American Revolutionaries, I'm all for guerilla tactics if they're warranted (which in this case they are) and they work (ibid).
|