The illogical right wing dogma...

[Javaman]

What I think has been stymieing the Democrats or the Left is the bizarre rhetoric the is spewed out daily by the right wing.

In the past, most points could be countered, but when you face an opponent the counters their own argument, how does one go about refuting it?

For example: Last October, the Democrats were calling for rumsfelds ouster, the right cried foul and called us unAmerican.

Now, those same rightwingers are now calling for rumsfelds ouster. How does one counter this logic?

This is the basic root cause to the democrats problem, refuting the bizarre.

Yes, it is flip flopping, but the right wing calls it something else, so therefore, it's okay. But when a democrat does it, it's flip flopping.

We are and have allowed them to make the rules. And the problem is, we keep trying to play by ours, which apparently isn't working.

Do I have an answer? hell no. I'm just making an observation.

[knowbody0]

1. when the enemy lacks integrity and virtue

the playing field changes. principals matter, and in the end the truths will be evident. these are indeed difficult times

[Javaman]

2. That's just it...

They do lack integrity and virtue, and yes the truth will win out in the end, but what do we do for right now to try and refute their obtuse arguments?
I maybe to old before the truth wins out.

[indigobusiness]

3. Hypocrisy is not new to RW dogma

In fact, they perfected it long ago.

You make a good point in that the style of discourse obscures the substance. Or, more accurately, disallows it. In order to avoid the truth or embarrassment, the opposition has suckered us into playing their rigged game.

[immoderate]

4. .The 9/11 Highjackers played the advantage

that no one thought they would commandeer the planes as missiles.

People went along not even imagining what people could do. So that's what we see today. People want to believe in their leaders.

There will come some sort of awareness. Hope it's not too late.

--IMM

[Johonny]

9. That is of course an open face lie.

Of course people had thought about using planes as missiles before 9/11. But they said they didn't and people believe the lie.

Then came Anthrax and we weren't prepared for such an event. Except were did all that anthrax foam come from.

Now no one is working on securing our docks... except they have been for years.

The national labs worked on all these problems (And more) for years.


Cheney can open face lie that he never implied a connection between 9/11 and Iraq and people believe him. Jeepers they keep saying we're winning the war.

[Peter Frank]

10. Exasperating -- ain't it... n/t

[agarrett1]

5. That's your example?

You're seriously using the example of Rumsfeld? I don't think it holds up, though.

First off, let's keep in mind that it's not all of the "right wing" calling for his ouster - if it were, given that President Bush is himself right wing, Rumsfeld would already be gone. Rather, the fact is that, post-election, there are some people on the right who are calling for his ouster. Others still think he's doing a good, or at least acceptable, job.

So, the hypocricy charge is now limited to the fact that, pre-election, the people now calling for Rumsfeld to leave did not make the same call then. You might have a case for calling those people - and only those people - hypocrites if they defended Rummy at that time (being silent on the issue may or may not count in your mind.)

Even there, it isn't that hard to counter, without resorting to some claim of illogic. Trying to force out Rumsfeld before the election would, rather obviously, have hurt President Bush's chances for re-election. So, rather than saying the people now criticizing Rumsfeld are illogical, you can merely say that they prioritized.

That's never a bad lesson to learn, by the way...

Drew Garrett

[Javaman]

6. The example was just that, an example...

It was meant only as a tool to be used in this discussion. It's recent and topical. That's all.

And when I refer to right wing, I'm referring to the established rightwing spin machine. I didn't think this needed to be clarified considering, my opening statement is the illogical rightwing dogma. Dogma in the respect that it's the accepted party line, not necessarily, the general feeling of all people of the right wing.

With that said, I continue to question, how do we refute the illogical dogma of the rightwing spin machine? Owning radio stations that only preach one side of the issue is not a solution.

The question should be, how do we get the media to do their jobs, rather than them just parroting the spin of the right wing?

We have to start looking at things in a different light, arguing the details solves nothing.

Many people on here have come up with various type of concepts to combat it, but none has taken hold. Why is that? Is it because the ideas aren't based on a concept that hold up under scrutiny? Or are the ideas half hearted? Or, what I think, the ideas to combat the rightwing spin, fail because they have a hard time defining the bizarre sense of logic that is put forth as fact.

It seems to be that the rule of thumb the RW uses is an axiom by Homer Simpson, "pfff, you can prove anything with facts". And that is just my point. Their logic is derived from, transporting an argument away from the facts, muddle with observations and hearsay, so that the core of the original issue is completely lost and forgotten.

What our challenge is, I'm beginning to think is: Grabbing that core and not letting go or letting it get muddled. To keep bringing the issue front and center, even if they get tired of hearing about it.

They do this same thing, but with lesser important but more reactionary concepts. Sensationalism sells. If that is the case, the truth needs to be sensationalized, not changed, but be brought forth so it sells. Lies are intriguing, the truth most of the time is boring. We have to flip those two.

[Javaman]

11. The problem is this: Democrats continue to play by the rules...

That is what works to our disadvantage and to the republicans advantage. They know that we play by the rules so therefore it's easy for them to swim around us with anything they want to say.

We can say:
Democrat to republican: You cat is brown

And the republican refutes the charge by saying: You slept with a 14 year old!

Rather than answering the direct question, they bring up an inflammatory untruth. They don't care that it's untrue, just as long as it's said and picked up by the parroting news services.

They know perfectly well that the news relies upon attention grabbing topics to draw in their audiences. And we all have seen this ourselves, that many times, the comment they make, like the above example, relates in no way to the original topic, yet they still say it.

How many times have we watched a news program, knowing the truth from the actual source, yet still hear it spun in to a frenzy slanted towards the right? Seems pretty common now.

The question has to be asked now, other than faux news and cnn, would you consider the following:
Has news been the follower of the gop because, the gop puts out more sensational news bites, raising their ratings and thus become a tool for them?
Or have then news programs angled their programing to attracted the lowest common denominator to fill their Nealson percentages, using sound bites, slanted journalism, to fill their own private agenda?
Kinda like the chicken or the egg sort of thing.
Personally I think it's a combination of the two.

As I have been pondering this posting I started, I think the answer is two fold.

One: We have to hold the gop to the fire on all outrageous stories and accusations.
Two: we start dealing in attention grabbing sound bites.

We have to enter into the the world of the media/marketing machine, that the gop has so successfully used to their advantage.

Continuing to ring our hands hoping for the best is not going to do it. Arm yourself with the truth, bend it if you have to, to make someone think.

The half truths, and out right lies are what the republicans use to control. We can do the same with the truth, but we have to be very creative about how we use it to gain public attention.

Once you make an accusation, you can apologize and take it back, but it will take days of media attention from the person accused to scramble up and answer. This is what the republicans do.

The don't care what happens to them as long as their opponents (us) have to scramble around. And while they scramble around, others not directly associated with the original accusation, go on the attack. These new attacker don't get dirty in the process. They puff up themselves by calling for investigations, special panels and probes.

And by the time the real story comes out that nothing actually happened, the person that was the original target, (who had been innocent all along) is now disgraced thru an association of lies.

Like I said in my original post, the truth is dull. When it's exposed, people have already moved on.

A perfect example is: Iraq was part of 9/11. We all know they weren't, but many Americans, still believe that.

[mogster]

7. That's a very good observation

You could tell a lot about these people by their reactions and way of being.

Note that when Rumschfelt was in trouble earlier this year, everyone expected him to be forced to resign. That didn't happen, on the contrary; the Bush administration surrounded him in a very visual and unified way, and stood in line for him.
As if to say: - No, we're not gonna let go of him - and what are you gonna do about that?

The same thing happened when Sharon visited the US (at the time the so-called 'roadmap' was the generally accepted plan for the Middle East): Everyone expected Bush to reason with Sharon, maybe accept some of the material Sharon brought to the table, but not a total acceptance and the very visual public 'hug' these two men showed off.

There are countless examples of these precious moments of the Right, where they build a public expectance of giving in to common sense, then snuff it out in one sweep, thus moving the agenda several 'feet' to the right without having to go through endless small baby steps to get there.

And we're left floundering, shellshocked, asking ourselves the question:
I hadn't planned for this.... How CAN they?

I'll be damned if we haven't got ourselves a blitzkrieg/appeasement situation here.

[Peter Frank]

8. The right can change colors with impunity...

...as long as the opposition refrains from holding it's feet to the fire at every turn.

Kerry missed the boat (pardon the pun) by not highlighting Bush's crap-heap of inconsistencies each & every time he spewed forth from it. This would have put him on the defensive.

If the opposition leadership does this now, the result will be similar; & with a lame duck president, the erosion of credibility can be accelerated as natural entropy and the instability in Iraq take their toll.

Silence is equated with agreement or resignation. The opposition leadership cannot afford to give either impression. Now more than ever, this must remain an ongoing battle.

[FM Arouet666]

12. Defining of the Left by the GOP has always been a problem

The current election demonstrates that the Right has become much more adept at defining the Left in a negative light. A constant barrage of negative images on Faux news, and hate radio. Political figures which are fashioned like movie stars, and some which who are movie stars. The terminator, John Wayne, and G.I. Joe, all rolled up in one for republican consumption. Bigger than life, and strong enough to make America safe.

Portray the Left as the sissy, girlieman, peace loving, yellow belly, elitist, bleeding heart liberal who is afraid to fight and wants government to pay for everything. Same old rhetoric, but with a much broader means of getting out the hate speech.

The loss of the fairness doctrine, the consolidation of media outlets, and the rise of the Internet has played to the republican favor. Traditional news media seems to have become timid in the face of the republican attack machine.

How do we fix it. We, as Democrats, need to get the message out and start defining ourselves. More liberal radio, more liberal news media, more outstanding websites like the one we are on today. Democrats are running behind. Turn on your radio in any major city, and you will find right wing hate radio. Liberal radio, for most of America, the airwaves are silent. Democrats have the most powerful ally in taking back the American consciousness, the truth.

[Shopaholic]

13. I am so depressed by the whole thing--they lie their asses off

and everyone believes them. We tell the truth and we are ignored or ridiculed or both. When will the insanity end? Will it ever end? They control the media. They control the message.

I'm honestly beginning to believe that there is no turning it back around to our side. In the darkest recesses of my mind, I fear that Clinton will end up being the last Democratic president to be elected. Hell, even when we won. . .we lost.

And who was there to ensure their "victory"--the corporate-owned media. They are this administration's greatest allies. The truth is but a vague background noise now being made by a handful of committeed liberal voices still allowed on the airwaves in this country. How long before they figure out a way to silence even those?