You know what pisses me off?

[Goldmund]

Why does every fucking Democrat have to start his or her speech with "I'm the son of a god-worshipping miner" (like Reid last night)... "We in Blue States worship an awesome God"... bla fuckin bla. As long as they have to justify their presence, as long as they have to say, to paraphrase, "I may be a Democrat, but I'm a real Murkin too!!! I ain't no Commie, and my mommy ain't no commie either, no matter what they say!!!" they're playing defense, and the Republicans have the upper hand. And as long as that's their pitch, they will keep losing.

Oh man, that SOTU thing was like a bad sci-fi movie. The bulging eyes from Botoxed faces, standing ovations every 15 seconds... It was like Nuremberg meet Rollerball.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I agree completely

Justifying yourself is disingenous.

[K-W]

4. The problem is that people actually suspect that dems are all crazy

The dems are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They look stupid defending thier status as 'normal' americans, but they are constantly under assualt from the right trying to portray them as abnormal to marginalize them.

[K-W]

2. Because the right has marginalized and stigmatized the left

through its control of information and appeals to racism/classim/sexism etc as it presents a philosophy that justifies various hatreds and misinterpretations of the world.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. You fire their own comments back at them in the harshest terms possible.

We need to start loudly and frequently using the terms "unamerican", "liar", "traitor", "hateful", "obstructionist", and every other negative label we can use on them. This is EXACTLY what Newt Gingrich's plan was to marginalize us, and it worked. We have to fight fire with fire.

[K-W]

19. Two reasons why that wont work.

1. If we do that, what makes us different than them?
2. We dont have control over such american institutions as corporations, universities, churches, government and the media, so we dont get to define the republicans the way they define us.

[Goldmund]

21. And yet,

at least a half of the country are "us", and probably more if you include those who would vote for Democrats if they had a clue about what they stand for. And "they" get to define the rhetoric... Why is that?

One of the reasons is because "we" acknowledge it, validate it, and don't provide an alternative rhetoric (in which "they" would be representatives of all that is reactionary, backward, agressive, xenophobic in America).

[K-W]

23. We did provide an alternative, we were silenced.

Through decades of red scares, purges, bias and marginalization, the left doesnt have a voice in our culture.

What we see now is the end result of systematic attempts to weaken the left and marginalize the ideas of the left. It is because powerful people who control the institutions of our nation are deathly scared of losing control.

Yes the democrats reinforce the idea, of course they do, but the part of it you arent addressing is that the idea would be widespread anyway, so the benefit of countering it needs to be weighed against the harm of mentioning it. This is a standard PR question.

So feel free to argue that the negative effect of reminding people of the right wing talking point outweighs the positive effect of adressing it, but right now your argument is deceptive.

It isnt like this is a new right wing tactic, few of the democrats in office now were around for most of the process so blaming them and not the right wing becomes even more unfair when you look at the time frame our culture was changed in.

[Goldmund]

27. But that's like saying...

..."why don't you protest against Bin Laden?" -- well, because Bush is supposedly my president, and he supposedly has to listen to me, and I can supposedly influence him, and he does things supposedly in my name with my tax dollars. I have no influence whatsoever over Bin Laden, and I take it for granted that he's my enemy. No use in protesting against him.

Same here. These people supposedly represent my half of the country, they represent my interests and they got there with my votes. The Right is my enemy. No use in complaining about them. The only question is how we best beat them, not waxing about how bad they exactly are.

[K-W]

28. No it isnt.

Yes, if we assume that talking about faith is hurting the democrats or making them more conservative, you would have a point.

But you need to prove that first. All ive seen is american politicians talking about the things that most americans hold to be very important. It is the result of propaganda and framing of public debate to exclude certain viewpoints, and I wish most of America saw these kind of demonstrations as superficial and didnt need to have thier leaders assure them of thier respect for god, but every indication is that much of America needs to hear that, and that is just reality right now.

Until you can prove that talking god and faith and values is hurting the dems in some way or hurting us in some way, no, it isnt anything like osama bin laden or representation, its about you not liking corny politics and alot of americans liking it.

The Dems arent going to change America's relationship with god and politics by not talking about it. So they would only hurt themselves by seeming to reject religion if they didnt participate in the bullshit.

[Goldmund]

29. You're taking everything I'm saying a bit too literally.

I'm not talking about value rhetoric, or religious rhetoric. I am talking about something different: the Dems' need to address the Republican-authored stereotypes of themselves before they dare ask for the right to be heard and taken seriously. Yes, most of the time that is done through value and religious and jingoist rhetoric, but that's beside the point; I am talking strictly about their acknowledgement of Republican propaganda, not about the methods they use to do that.

In my last post, by the way, I didn't brush over anything or assume anything; I simply responded to your question "how come you're blaming the oppressed and not the oppressor".

Now, you're asking me to prove that this is hurting Dems -- although, again, to clarify, I'm not talking about value/religious/quasi-patriotic rhetoric in particular, but about playing from the perspective of Republican propaganda. Well, since this whole wave of Republican insurgence started -- I doubt anybody could argue that a direct line couldn't be drawn back to Ronald Reagan at least -- the national discourse has been totally modified to fit Republican needs. So, that the Democrats have been doing something wrong in terms of defining their rhetoric, is obvious. There hasn't been a huge shift in the actual values of the average American -- if anything, the average American is probably more liberal (in terms of pure issues) than they were 25 years ago. So, why then, has the national rhetoric made humongous shifts in the exclusively Republican direction?

Yes, you can blame the media, corporations, whatever you want. But it don't cut it, from a black-box standpoint. Until 1994, the Dems had a majority in congress; until 2001, they had a president. A half of the country votes Democratic and more than that identifies with Democratic poositions. The economy is in ruins, we are at war, bla bla bla, you know all that... And yet, they control all of the discourse. The dems are doing SOMETHING wrong in terms of defining their rhetoric -- I think that's beyond needing any proof, right?

So I'm saying, what we're talking about in this thread is one of those things.

[K-W]

31. That is an oversimplified picture of things.

It wasnt that the media said "who wants to control us" and the republicans said "us" and the democrats were sleeping. The idea that there was a fair fight at some point and the democrats just didnt try is completely and totally bogus. The fight was NEVER fair.

You have to look behind the parties. The democrats couldnt do what the republicans did because the democrats werent the chosen party of wealthy elites and corporate leaders. The democrats arent responsible for the fact that our nation is institutionally biased towards wealth and the people with the wealth oppose liberalism.

The only way the democrats could possibly fight the republicans like the republicans fight them would be to drop liberalism and become even more corporate than the conservatives.

The dems had a majority in congress because for a while grassroots movements shifted the balance of power in America by creating strong institutions that gave liberals power. Labor unions and interest groups etc. The problem is that its hard to sustain grassroots organization and it isnt hard to sustain the power of material wealth.

The democrats dont have the option of doing what the republicans did, because the republicans were given the option by corporations.

If we want the democrats to have options, we need to organize and give them options.

[Goldmund]

34. Oh, that's absolutely true.

I wasn't saying that the REASON the Dems are in a pit is their lack of rhetorical imagination. I am saying that is one of the reasons for the shift in national discourse. Yes, what you're saying about the support of Republicans by the ownership class is totally true -- and, granted, rhetoric is only a part of obtaining and maintaining power, so even if Democrats had a better rhetoric they still may not be in power (though I firmly believe that Republicans would not have the balls to be so radical so quickly -- but that's another discussion), for the reasons you listed and more. I am talking in isolated terms of the rhetoric shift alone, and the Democrats' inability to deal with it, counter it or provide an alternative rhetorical constuct.

In one of your previous posts, you made the point that it's basically down to math -- whether the hurt outweighs the benefit or the other way around... I agree that is true in terms of a single address or a single speech. But in the long run, it'll mean taking some beating on the chin in order to crawl out of this rhetorical dungeon. They do hold power, but not ALL power; they have the media, but not EVERYONE in the media; they have the money, but so do we. We have SOME power and it's up to Dems to decide what to do with the meager 15 minutes in the sun they get each day. Right now, what they're doing is spending 8 minutes of the 15 trying to convince everyone that what they say in the following 7 minutes isn't unamerican and deserves consideration.

[K-W]

38. Hindsight is 20/20

The democrats couldnt have predicted the future. They looked at the options they had and did what they thought was right. Nobody can predict the big shifts in politics, so its unreasonable to judge the democrats like that. They could neither predict how the backlash would play out nor prevent it from building.

They did what they had to do mostly, and in most cases, like now, the political atmosphere deterimed what message they used more than they did.

I think the democrats' message is fine. It isnt the problem. The idea that if they talked like us theyd win is rediculous. Its been tried. America really has been convinced that there is somethign terribly wrong with liberalism, and we, not politicians need to resell it to america.

[Goldmund]

48. Fine --

-- my schtick isn't to cast blame. I don't really care whether what they are doing is excusable or who is at fault. I'm just observing and sharing my impressions and ideas... And one of them is that I think we'd be more effective if the Dems weren't speaking with a tacit assumption that they need to prove their Americanism. Hindsight is 20/20, as you say, and therefore should not be used to cast blame; but it should be used to better the foresight.

[K-W]

50. Agreed,

I just think that the apparent weakness of the democratic message is much more a reflection of the weakness of the left to to battle the rights political and propaganda machine than it is of thier bad message choices. I think that the rights ascendence allows them to constantly back democrats against walls so they are forced into difficult positions with no easy message options.

I think we should forget about the democratic message for now because if we dont reshape the politics, it doesnt matter what theier message is, it wont be recieved, and if we do reshape politics finding messages shouldnt be that difficult.

[Goldmund]

51. So, let me see if I understand you --

-- you're saying that the American Left has, for whatever reasons, been put in a position from which it is impossible to speak out of the context of that position, and that no matter kind of a message they deliver, it will be delivered from a place from which no message can be effectively delivered? And that, therefore, we need fundamental infrastructural changes?

If that's what you're saying, then I don't think we have a disagreement. But how do we go about making those deep changes? Keep in mind that the fraction of the population that truly has the capacity for independent and creative thought is 1/10th or less. The rest will be molded by propaganda to a higher or lower degree, and the only thing that can make that propaganda ineffective is their own physical discomfort. So, "let's organize" ain't gonna work, at least not until a) People are going hungry or b) There is death on a massive scale, like a large-scale military draft or frequent terrorism on home soil. Yes, you'll bring up organized labor, civil rights, etc... But these guys learned their lessons and saw those progressive successes merely as lost battles; they took notes and got even more determined to win the war. They have a humongous informational, intellectual, material apparatus at their disposal to make sure that 51% are deluded enough to vote for them. And they will push forward with their radical agenda as fast as the 51% floor will allow them.

So what, practically, do you think we can do?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. your rebuttal

1) What makes us different? Everything except tactics.
2) They didn't have that control pre-Gingrich either.

[K-W]

26. So evil tactics are ok as long as we are the good guys?

Are you sure you arent being nominated for Attorney General right now?

They had much of that control pre-gingrich, but obviously having congress under thier control for so long has helped them consolidate power.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. So if you're not giving up, and the nice-guy methods don't work,

what exactly do you suggest?

[K-W]

33. I suggest not trying to boil everything down to cliches

This isnt about hard ball versus nice guy. Reality is a bit more complex than that.

You can be firm and agressive without ever being unfair or mean. You can be nice without compromising. The right message for any given situation is determined by the unique circumstances of that time and place, not by whether it fits into the useless generalized categories of tough or weak, hard or nice, etc.

And what we need to do about it is build up liberal institutions that can open up public debate and give our politicians room to maneuvre in public opinion.

Regardless, there is no excuse ever for becoming liars, charecter assassins, or propagandists.

We dont have to lie, mislead, and cloud peoples heads, we have the truth.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. I didn't say anything about lying or propaganda.

I said we need to use harsher terms in describing our opponent. We need to make it such that every time the word "conservative" is uttered, the connotation that goes along with it is "liar", "traitor", and "incompetent".

Take this quote, for example:

"But maybe most of all," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said," the Bush plan isn't really Social Security reform. It's more like Social Security roulette."

Social Security roulette? Good, he equated Bush's plan with a form of entertainment for millions of Americans. Not nearly good enough. Here's a better way to say it:

"But maybe most of all, the Bush plan isn't really Social Security reform. It's more like an outright mugging of every American man, woman, and child, and is just the latest example of the GOP, ultra-conservative domestic terrorism that has been going on for over a decade now."

[K-W]

39. You missed Reid's point.

His point was SS privitization = gambling.

I think its a good rhetorical point.

As far as the rest, id like to live in a world where people could speak freely and honestly all the time, but im not going to go nuts because I dont, and IM certainly not going to blame Harry Reid that most of america doesnt want the dem response to the state of the union to be as harsh as you want it.

And no, we shouldnt just become vicious partisan hacks. That is not the answer. If thats what you want, go join the republicans. We dont need two parties poisening any hope at decent american political discourse.

And seriously, the republicans can use the tone they use because of the advantages they have. If democrats did the same theyd bee seen as mean and everyone would hate them more.

You just dont get it, this isnt about message. The democrats cant craft a messsage that will change the fundemental inequities of our society that give the republicans an andvatage.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. I didn't miss Reid's point.

YOU missed MY point. Gambling is in vogue these days. The metaphor does NOT resonate. Nor does it sound very critical.

But it sounds entirely like you're just giving up. You seem to think it's hopeless with the "republican advantage".

[K-W]

44. I didnt say anything like that, try reading not spinning.

Gambling is in vogue? Give me a break. The fact that people like celebrity poker showdown does not mean that they want to gamble with thier social security money. Its a good talking point.

Im just giving up? Lol.

Fine you keep stroking your own ego by seeing sissy democrats behind every bush and think that this is all just the result of some bad message decisions.

I will continue to advocate building infrastructure on the left so that we can counter corporate interests and take back our country, our party and our government. Discussions that require a little better understanding of politics than thinking we will beat republicans by always choosing the harshest possible language in democratic messages.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. Infrastructure? What infrastructure???

With what money?

[K-W]

49. Ever heard of the labor movement? How about the civil rights movement?

If you are arguing that the masses can never fight the money... history just doesnt agree.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

52. That's pretty old history you're talking about.

Back when the media actually covered such events. Back before the advent of television advertising. Back before the de-regulation of the media.

I don't see anything today that indicates we can win the same way we fought those battles.

Today, you have to say something bold in order to get your sound byte across. You have to make yourself stand out in the sea of media, and when you finally do get some earned media, you have to make it count. During the election, did you hear John Kerry's nuanced statements or did you hear Bush's idiotic, but forceful 3 second sound bytes?

[Goldmund]

And by acknowledging that stigma,

and by playing from the vantage point of that stigma's existence -- Democrats continue to foster it.

[K-W]

22. Ignoring it wont make it go away.

Anymore than simply responding to it will. The only real solution is changing the nature of public discourse in America, a project bigger than anything Harry Reid needs to focus on right now. A project for us, not our legislators.

I agree that it is annoying, it is a reminder of how the left is oppressed, but stop blaming the oppressed for the oppression. If they didnt constantly say they liked god people would believe they didnt because the right controls perception so well.

If we can stop the right and the democrats still use this crap, then I will join you in complaining.

[Goldmund]

24. I agree with you here:

"The only real solution is changing the nature of public discourse in America, a project bigger than anything Harry Reid needs to focus on right now. A project for us, not our legislators."

and yes, if I came across as complaining about Harry Reid, then I was unclear. I'm not. I'm not complaining about a particular Dem or a particular speech. I'm complaining about the way the Democrats are dealing with their current political and cultural position.

And I agree with this: "If they didnt constantly say they liked god people would believe they didnt because the right controls perception so well."

But I believe that the right will continue to control perception as long as the Democrats are living in the same realm, same field of the same game, just a different side. I actually think that the Dems are a half of the reason why the right controls perception, and sentiments like the one we're talking about in this thread don't serve to "stop the right" -- they serve to help cement the right's image of the left in the cultural consciousness.

I'm not saying they should come out and be like "Fuck God, we like Neitzsche! Fuck the flag, pass the pipe!" or anything.... I am simply saying that they should never plead for their right to be heard, nor come across as trying to fit the image of a "true American" that the Right has imposed upon the cultural psyche. They should take their patriotism and their americanism as an unspoken assumption -- like the Republicans do, for that matter.

[Goldmund]

14. And by acknowledging that stigma,

and by playing from the vantage point of that stigma's existence -- Democrats continue to foster it.

[NV Whino]

3. Easy answer

The Dems are spineless.

[K-W]

6. No, that is a symptom, not the problem.

The problem is that people who dont bend under the pressure to conform have limited political careers, so we have a filter that only lets people who bend under that pressure achieve those positions.

It isnt thier fault the system is rigged against people who refuse to play by unjust rules anymore than it is every americans fault for allowing tyranny to manifest itself throughout our system of government.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. It's time for them to laugh and wave them off

instead of attempting to predicate statements which only serve to respond to the Wrong's extremist assertions. Let the 'hosts' make the charge (as they usually will), laugh it off and say something to the effect of, 'I'm plain old mainstream American. Are all conservatives with religious views and moral values extremists?

[killbotfactory]

8. And now let's pause for our corporate anthem

Hail Bush! Emporer of Freedom!

[autorank]

9. Doesn't bother me at all.

First, that's who he is.
Second, when you're speaking to an audience, the key to persuasion is to get the audience to identify with you, the majority of the audience. While you don't care, many out there do. So why not use it.
Third, the point of that introduction was to show a genuine connection between the speaker and the content of his speech; as opposed to the hypocrisy of rich frat boy * and the connection to the speech we'd just seen.

The point of the disarming, humble introduction was a SET UP for the hammering he did on the Republicans. I listened to Reid on the radio while driving. My first thoughts were this guy is really nailing * and the Republicans and that 'hey, this sounds like DU rhetoric' in a disarming presentation.

There's a time for Reid's approach, a time for Deans, and I hope at some point much more time for Dick Durbin who can really open a can of whup ass.

Lets see what happens and support our guy and gal (Nancy was excellent).

[Inland]

10. It's an overused device, but you are right on the money.

I can't read a letter to the editor that doesn't begin with an announcement of race, party affiliation, age, or something. What does that have to do with traffic lights?

It is because this country is so divided that nobody will listen unless you ID yourself with a background right off the top.

If Reid has to say the pledge of allegiance and kiss a crucifix in order to get the redstaters to pay attentino to a word he says, that's what he's got to do. We know he isn't going to make anyone else do the same or institute it as a test for office, and that's what makes him OUR guy fighting the theocrats.

[autorank]

11. You are nominated for "Minister of Information"

This will unfold in stages. The more intense the fight gets, the less the public cares who came from where, etc., and the more they will listen to pure argument. That's when we bring on the fire brands. Can't wait. That IL congressman (forget his name) who did the riff on what a liar * was, about two minutes of pure rock and roll, will emerge for folks like him. When the public perceives the threat, which requires identifying with the intitial messanger, then they're ready to hear the ass kidkers. Can't wait.

[Goldmund]

12. Let me ask you a simple question:

When was the last time you heard a Republican "connect to the audience" before starting the substance of their speech?

To answer my own question: Republicans approach their public persona from the point of a PRESUMED connection. They act as if it's plainly apparent that they represent traditional American values, and are defenders of those against the assaults from the left.

So while Republican speeches are stocked with God rhetoric, they use it offensively, as a way to smear Democrats; not defensively, as Democrats do: "I may be a liberal, but believe it or not, liberals are Americans too! Actually -- I can't believe I'll say it -- liberals may be even more consistent with American values! Now, I know that sounds silly, but hear me out...".

[Inland]

16. Oh, please. Republicans do exactly the same thing.

Not only is Bush's speeches to the conservative groups expressly laced with his personal committments to Jesus, but put him in front of the Urban League and you can hear him praising civil rights accomplishments like crazy.

Even the SOTU had Bush committing like crazy to social security's goals and benefits and declaring he would save it before he dropped the bomb of wanting to divert the payroll taxes to private accounts.

At some level, it's no more than saying, "it is great to be back in Tulsa, I've had some memorable times here." Let Reid butter up his audience any way he needs. I think he is probably the expert on that.

[Goldmund]

18. As I said,

the difference is in offense vs. defense. Republicans don't do it to justify their right to speak and be heard, they do it in order to rile up their base for the next economic and geopolitical suicide they have in mind. Democrats do it meekly, before they start speaking, out of context and simply pleading for their political relevance.

[Inland]

40. There isn't any difference, as I pointed out.

In front of traditionally hostile audiences, republicans do the same thing.

If Democrats have to plead for political relevance and buttering up crowds it out of context gets us there, I'm all for it. Frankly, if Reid thinks setting himself on fire would get people to listen to democrats on the issues, I'll hand him a fucking lighter.

[Goldmund]

47. "Traditionally hostile audiences"

That's exactly my point. The Democrats speak to the general public as if they were addressing a Pentecostal Church gathering. The American people should not be adressed as a "traditionally hostile audience", because that will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"if Reid thinks setting himself on fire would get people to listen to democrats on the issues, I'll hand him a fucking lighter."

If Reid thinks setting himself on fire would get people to listen to democrats on the issues, that doesn't mean that setting himself on fire WILL get people to listen to democrats on the issues.

[Inland]

53. You are in the minority, both politically and what you want to hear.

The American people ARE hostile. Culturally, socially, economically they see themselves as different from democrats. All Reid is doing is setting some sort of bond between his past and the rest of them.

And yet, for some reason, you insist that Reid pander to you---instead of to, yes, the larger country. Why?

Reid is right on the issues, we need him to be powerful and appealing, and you are rewriting his speeches to remove references to those parts of his background that will get the nation at large to listen to his positions on issues. And maybe Reid is wrong about how to do that. I doubt it. Even if the rest of the political world didn't do it, I think the guy has been around the block a few times.

[Goldmund]

54. Alright, now we've come to the crux of our disagreement.

If I believed that the American people as a whole are genuinely and inherently hostile to Democratic ideas and positions, I would think exactly like you are thinking.

I'm not insisting that Reid pander to me; I am only insisting that he not pander to anyone (well, Reid or Democrats in general), especially not to the artificially created dychotomy between a "true" American (redneck) and a commie-pinko Democrat. I am insisting that he stand for things without disclaimers and without excuses. That's all. His background had nothing to do with what he was about to say. His background had nothing to do with Bush's SOTU address -- the only relevance of his background is to provide a disclaimer, like: "Even though what you're about to hear is opposition to Reich Furer Bush, I am still a true Aryan -- I was born blond and blue-eyed.".

I don't believe that American people are inherently hostile to Democratic ideas. I think that they are, just like any large mass of people, amorphous and easily brainwashed. They need to be shown that Republican ideas are inconsistent with their traditional values -- and the way to do that is certainly not to give credibility to the brainwashing by disclaimers such as Reid's.

[Inland]

55. No, you missed it again.

"If I believed that the American people as a whole are genuinely and inherently hostile to Democratic ideas and positions, I would think exactly like you are thinking. "

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I think that the American people are on the sides of the democrats on just about all the issues.

However, cultural and social and class divides make it almost impossible to get through. There isn't a receptive audience because most Americans don't see themselves as having much in common or much to discuss with someone who lives a life that seems completely unlike theirs. You seem to miss the part about persuading people. True, Reid's positions can be announced in bullet points. But will they be persuasive? Will he get a hearing?

I think it naive and baffling that you believe that being on the right side of issues brings victory. If it was, then we wouldn't have huge campaigns and then lose. We wouldn't see huge swaths of rural and poor America voting against their own interests. We wouldn't see republicans making hay over Kerry windsurfing, or Kerry going hunting, or republicans attacking Kerry over pretending to be hunting.

And thanks for illustrating my point so beautifully with the Fuhrer. Nobody would be surprised to hear Jews speak out against the idea of Aryans as a master race. Nobody could say that the Jew's background has nothing to do with a speech regarding Hitler. And similarly, nobody can say that being an Aryan has nothing to do with his position--since when a person who is only benefitted by Hitler's bigotry speaks out against it, you know it is only on a ground other than self interest. When Soros and Buffet go against the Bush tax cuts for the rich, it means something. It makes it impossible to dismiss. It makes it credible.

And bizarrely enough, you expect Reid to show that Bush is contrary to their traditional values, without Reid shoing that he gives a crap about their traditional values. Telling people that Bush acts contrary to their religion is only intrusive and pedantic, unless you share their religion, even if right. You see it as scoring points on the religious, who still vote, don't like being scored upon, and could be convinced to vote democratic IF THAT'S WHAT IMPORTANT.

You tell me if it's important to you.

[Goldmund]

56. I think you're kinda putting words in my mouth:

<i>"True, Reid's positions can be announced in bullet points. But will they be persuasive? Will he get a hearing?"

"I think it naive and baffling that you believe that being on the right side of issues brings victory."

"And bizarrely enough, you expect Reid to show that Bush is contrary to their traditional values, without Reid shoing that he gives a crap about their traditional values."</i>

You're speaking as if the sole alternative to accepting the presumably inferior position of the Democrat and pleading for relevance before starting with the substance of your speech is to dryly enunciate your positions, back them up with numbers, show a graph or two and call it a day. That's not what I was suggesting.

Now, as far as your point(s) about my Hitler/Aryan analogy: there is one difference between the two sides of your expansion of that analogy. Being a Jew is empirical and beyond discussion; so is being rich like Buffet or Soros. Being a liberal may or may not be emprirical, but being UN-AMERICAN is definitely not. So, while for Soros it may make sense to, at least figuratively, open his speech with "I benefited from Bush's tax cuts, but I'm against them because of the following" -- since it's an empirical fact that he benefited, and he is not giving credibility to any propagandistic extrapolation by saying so -- in the case of Reid he furtively, if unconsciously, gave a nod to extrapolation of liberalism into anti-Americanism. It is more apporpriately equivalent to a Jew coming on a German info-film and showing his scalp and saying "see, I don't have horns under the yalmuka", or Soros coming on TV and whipping out financial documents and saying "look, I never got paid off by commies and muslims". You know that famous story about LBJ suggesting to one of his campaign aide to spread rumors that his opponent did something really bad -- I don't remember what, had an affair with another guy or something -- and his aide answered: "But that's not true"; LBJ came back with "Let's make the sonofabitch deny it!".

That's all I'm saying. The sonsabitches are denying it.

So yes, I have nothing against value-speak -- though, as you correctly guessed, it does subjectively grate on me -- but only if it is in the context of the political substance of a speech, and only if it's confident and self-assured. But if it's to beg for credibility, then it sets the tone of a loser.

[autorank]

17. They do it all the time. You don't understand rhetoric/persuasion

if you think Reid made a mistake. Is it unappealing to those of us who aren't small town guys, love cities, urban culture, multi cultural environments, and don't buy the BS of the Norman Rockwell persona. You bet it is. So what! This is not a contest to pick those who please us personally, it is a fight to the finish. I want a spokesman/woman who can talk to the masses and get them on their side. Your distinction is spurious. The Republican spin machine does this all the time.

Support Reid and Pelosi. This is the very best Democratic response I've seen to a Repuke SOTU. Let's be positive and support the content of what he said. If you can find me anything that isn't said here in Reid's speech (other than "I'm from Star Light"...but I just said it),
please point it out.

IT'S THE MESSAGE, NOT THE MESSENGER.

[Goldmund]

20. It's not that Reid made a mistake...

...per se, not in this speech and not him in particular. I am talking more in general terms, in terms of the whole political/cultural position that the Democrats find themselves in and that they can't seem to be able to dig out of. Republicans invoke God and Country when they want to get approval for the next idiotic adventure, like attacking Iraq or the PATRIOT act, etc. Democrats do it simply so they can make a dent in the whole "goodless elitist weakling" image the Republicans have painted of them, and by doing so, they tacitly validate that image.

[autorank]

43. I agree. It's an incremental process but accelerating.

I'll put you on my buddy list (whatever that does) and sent you a PM when Reid comes out swinging (haha, or you can nail me if he doesn't). I too am sick of our party apologizing for being right. I can't wait until the gloves come off and maybe they will when Dean gets in. Interesting times.

NB. I'm catching a quick lunch and watching Kennedy and Feingold on Gonzales. They certainly are not holding back. We will have an attorney general with unified Democratic opposition, never happened. We had a Secretary of State with the most votes against her since Henry Clay. Pretty good progress since 1/6/05 when we had only Boxer, Conyers (plus his posse). I don't think I'm overly optimistic based on the trend line of Senate votes, for example, since 1/6/05

Cheers

[Goldmund]

46. From your mouth to god's ears...

as you're probably guessing, I'm skeptical. But I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

[bunkerbuster1]

13. Until something significantly less than 84% of Americans

profess a sincere belief in a Supreme Critter, it's just smart politics to put your faith front and center.

It makes me heave sometimes, but, well, politics ain't beanbag.

[Goldmund]

15. I agree with you, but...

...that's not really what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the God rhetoric from a religious standpoint. I'm talking about the Democrats' need to address all the shit-talking Republicans do before they start speaking... It's not just the God rhetoric. It's "My daddy was a miner, not a fancy-pants elitist" and "we in the Blue States worship an awesome God, we're not godless heathens" and "I AM for strong defense, I REALLY REALLY AM!!!" -- you know? When was the last time you heard a republican say something along the lines of "My parents were from totally different families, I'm really not inbred!" or "I'm a reasonable chap, I'm not going to play with that nuk-u-lar button"?

[bunkerbuster1]

36. Agreed, we are too defensive.

I may have misread the OP a bit.

[rbnyc]

32. You're right.

It pisses me off too. Especially because in general people will respect people who are different from them as long as they show courage.

[ernstbass]

37. That's us - always on the defense - never playing offense

[K-W]

41. Yah, that was David's problem fighting Goliath

he wouldnt have needed a miracle if he just stopped being defensive. Clearly it was his defensiveness and not the Giants disproportional offense that put him on his heels.

I love how populist movements fighting the power were so successful that the democratic party became the party of liberals, helping us to fight the powerful in washington, and then when the powerful regain the upper hand we do nothing but whine about how the democrats look weak as they face off against the tremendous power of the establishment as it backlashes against liberal ideas.