|
I define "fight" by these criteria.
1) The opposition to bad law and bad policy. NOT adding amendments to bad law to make it more palatable to the masses. Then claim victory when the bad law is passed with Democratic signatures on it.
2) Strict adherence to the spirit of the law. And when the letter is found to violate the spirit, to be prepared and able to engage in civil disobedience to uphold the spirit of the law. The Killer D's now in Nevada comes to mind. NOT to just "get over it."
3) To be a voice for the record. Davis could have slowed this recall by talking about the people who are behind it, and the people who are funding it. Who they are, and they're civic record, and even criminal record, happens to be. A few of them even have writings that may be quoted against them. This is not "going negative." It is nothing more that voicing the record.
4) Do not fear the fall out! It's one thing to say that "impeaching Bush is impossible" (because it is largely true), but I have heard a lot of Democrats say that they can't impeach Bush because of fear of the fall out. That would mean new elections, that would mean Bill Frisk (also a right wing nut) would become President. On and on and on. I am quite fond of the following quote; "let justice be done, though the heavens may fall." Such sentiments are a testament to how highly Americans regard the rule of law.
5) Speak passion to the people. Right now, I would give my left eye for some fire and brimstone from a Democrat. But fiery words are not really the point as much as the point is capturing, and holding the audience's attention. The art of the orator is truly a lost art. And the worst speaker was Bill Clinton. Now that is not to say he isn't a good speaker, or that he didn't speak to the issues. But the guy drones on and on and on, delving into numbing minutia. Our forefathers however were artful speakers. Their speakers were more like poems. In the early 20th century, humor took the podium. Martian Luther King Jr. used the same style of speaking used by black sermons of his day, but using a "second" (A second person who would stand behind him, and give a sound bite between the lines of the speech. Words like, "amen" and "I hear you, brother." It was an art form in an of itself. It also directly engaged the audience.) These speaking styles made the speech memorable, and even permitted the audience to repeat the highlights of the speech to their neighbors. A few memorably speeches have even been remembered by history, and have outlived the orators. No one speaks in such a way today.
I also define this by "speaking" to the people. In this media dominated world, we have the attitude that if the TV doesn’t say it, it never happened. This is reinforced by the candidates who seem to hold the opinion that any thing worth saying must be said on TV. Quick, where are the words "We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union," written? With the right wing dominated media today, our Dem candidates will have far better success trying to reach the people through the written word, or even MP3's over the internet.
6) To directly engage the opponent in relentless debate. In the 1999 presidential debates between Gore and Bush, I was appalled that only three were agreed to at the finally days of the campaign. Gore was even asked about this. His answer was "that was the only time they (the Republicans) would agree too." I find this unacceptable. You do not need your opponent's permission to engage them in debate. While true, you can't expect TV or radio time to debate your opponent when ever you will, but just like point #5, there is more to the media than TV and radio. The most effective means of debating and challenging your opponent is ironically also the simplest, certified mail. The resulting correspondences provide you with the record from which to quote (point #3).
7) Be in a position to politically threaten the opposition. This is where I deliver my most stinging criticism against the DLC. Like when Jim Jefferds gave the Senate to the Dems, the Dems just sat on their hands and did nothing. Even though there was the California Electric scandal just preceding the hand over, they declined to investigate the Enron/California/Bush connections, even though they HAD the power to investigate the issue. Imagine the mess that would have become when they came across Enron's debt load. They could have prevented Enron's bankruptcy. Instead, they passed. When Bush was talking about going to war with Iraq, the DLC wanted to take about education and the economy. Making the DLC look ridiculously stupid and disconnected. The DLC also allowed the fairness doctrine to be taken down. (And I think they controlled Congress at the time.) and still think showing up on the O'Rilly who some how gives them good press.
The will to fight is worthless without the ability to fight. And here, the DLC have proven time and time again to be their own worst enemy. Who are these "unnamed Democrats" who keep saying "Bush can't be beaten?" Even eating their own, such as letting down Sinthya McKenny (sp) and attacking their own bases as "radical activists" are not smart moves. In fact they are so dumb and self destructive that many on the DU have speculated that the DLC in fact works from the instructions from Carl Rove himself.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
