If you want to undermine right-wing power, which group do you go after -first-?

[jpgray]

Before people just answer the obvious, I'd like to point out it's not such an easy question to answer. Some very smart activists such as Nader or Sheehan have made different decisions than what I would make, and I don't want this to seem a push poll. Please consider it carefully. I'm leaving it as an exclusive choice because obviously the best option is to go after each in proportion to the harm they do, their intentions, etc., and the poll would fill up with "Other" votes pretty quickly.

edit: By "go after," I mean directly attack their campaigns, attempt to get them out of office, field candidates against, etc.

[rucky]

1. It's a really good question.

I'd go after the enablers, because you have the best chance of turning them.

[Richard Steele]

2. Which one does "the Media" fall under? nm

[jpgray]

3. The media are more an outcropping of gov't being wedded to corporate power than anything else

I think they are just a reflection of the vast infrastructure (think tanks, lobbying groups, etc.) the right has in place at the moment.

[rucky]

6. Cohorts at the top, Enablers down the line. n/t

[Glorfindel]

4. Depends on what you mean by "go after"

If you mean, "Try to change their minds," then the obvious choice is the enablers. If you mean, "Wipe them out" (in the Darth Sidious context), one should go after the decision makers. So, being a peaceful sort, I voted for going after the enablers. ;)

[jpgray]

8. To the point of fielding candidates against the enablers, for example

[Igel]

5. It depends on the tactics, doesn't it?

Are you putting out a contract on them, or trying to get them to vote with you?

[jpgray]

7. Sorry if it was unclear. Hopefully the edit fixes things.

[bridgit]

9. Those who collaborate...

The Hannity's, O'Reilly's, Beck's, Limbaugh's, Savage's, and their collaborators' i.e. advertisers, drag them all out into the sunshine, be ready for the shit-storm that will ensue but drag them out; the political theater alone will make have the policy peeps drop-jawed but never take an eye off them either cause they're either next or concurrent :thumbsup:

[Tsiyu]

10. Tough call

I would have to think about that one.

Perhaps the enablers would be the easier target, meaning goals would be more attainable. I think the higher up the food chain the longer it takes to undermine the players.

Morale of the "underminers" is key to keeping pressure on the "undermined," so having small victories against an easier target would provide incentive to keep on the attack.

BTW, who is your avatar? It freaks me out.

[NuttyFluffers]

11. united we stand, divided we fall. the answer is obvious.

loyalty to a house divided is pointless, because by definition then your loyalty goes to disconnected goals.

loyalty to a coalition united is fruitful, because even different bodies can have and accomplish common goals.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

12. The Democratic congressional leadership that let the expanded FISA pass without a fight.