Proposition - We no longer have any obligation to play by the rules.

[T Wolf]

This question is a result of observing what has happened to this country in the last six (or longer) years.

Example #1: the new SD law - why shouldn't women and girls claim rape in order to qualify for an abortion? There is no need to ID the male, "I was grabbed and never saw his face."

Example #2: corruption of the electoral process - any "dirty tricks" that help to achieve the desired results are okay since the process is so flawed anyway.

Example #3: corporate warfare - if a corporation is polluting your air and water with impunity or driving small businesses under, what is wrong with directly fighting back by taking the battle to the people responsible?

Example #4: media warfare - since progressive messages almost never get exposure in the media that reaches the most people, what is wrong about doing whatever is necessary to correct this imbalance?

From my perspective, the concept of "fair play" has been dead in this country for quite a while. The only problem is that one side realizes that and one side does not. The only question that individuals have to answer is how far they are willing to go. That option ranges from doing nothing to minimal effort, e.g. writing a LttE or posting an opinion :), to illegal activities, all the way to actions that under different circumstances would be unthinkable.

The simple question is, "Do you want your children to have to live in a world that is shaped by right-wing forces or do you want them to have a chance for a good life?" Once you answer that, the next step is to see how strongly you really believe in your answer to that question.

[electropop]

1. We and our leaders have an obligation to be loud and even

viciously negative, wherever necessary. To the extent we ignore that obligation, we lose.

However, as the side of the Good Guys, we are obliged not to cheat in elections or commit crimes. There's plenty of that on their side, and they are losing the respect of their base because of it. We have to stay honest and non-violent, or we become them, and then we lose.

Loud? Yes.
Vicious (but truthful)? Absolutely.
Criminal or deceitful? No way.

[endarkenment]

2. I agree. K&R

We keep thinking that the 'game' has 'rules' that we should follow so that we don't 'sink to their level'. I say bullshit. They threw the rules out when they ran Willy Horten against Mike Dukakis. The rules have been dead for nearly 20 years and we still don't get it. Until we sink to their level and get down in the mud and kick and bite and choke and gouge, we are going to lose.

[Dhalgren]

3. In SD there is no rape exception, Mississippi changed their

proposal to exclude rape and incest or the Democrats wouldn't support it. Way to go Democrats! :sarcasm:

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. It's the Civil Disobedience debate again

Where does one draw the line for moral and/or tactical reasons? The Civil Rights struggle throughout the 50's and 60's is a good baseline to reflect on. There was no concept of "fair play" in the United States regarding Racial Justice since either 1)One century ago if you count the immediate post Civil War reconstruction era when Blacks got elected from the South OR 2) Never, not since whites first walked these lands.

Martin Luther King Jr. organized and fought back by holding to a higher standard of morality than those he opposed, and by then holding that up to their faces for the whole world to see. MLK Jr. was never "passive" but he was restrained by a public code of honor in a sense. Others took a more militant line then he.

[endarkenment]

5. Well I disagree that MLK was playing by the rules.

nonviolent civil disobedience is indeed "holding to a higher standard of morality" but it is also not playing by the rules. I'm not advocating violence, but I am sick and tired of our so-called opposition party continuing to behave as if there are rules and as if decorum is the same as "holding to a higher standard of morality".

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. I was just opening up the discussion a little further

I accept your point about MLK. He didn't just not follow their rules, he established the new rules that he would play by. That meant breaking some of "their rules" while also holding himself to a moral standard that he very openly embraced, which left his opposition exposed for what they were; hypocritical and often thuggish bigots, plus their enablers.

[endarkenment]

7. we are in nonviolent civil agreement

All we need now is MLK.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. LOL. Yup, we could really use him n/t

[Dr Fate]

10. Like when they were too frightened to filibuster a lying, racist Judge.

The perception they wanted us to have was that they were trying to "work with" liars & criminals.

I agree with you- we cant "work with" liars & criminals.

Democrats need to say so and stop pretending that it can be done.

[endarkenment]

13. That's our party leadership

Reaching out to meet intolerance and fascism half way. Every damn time.

[Dr Fate]

9. We dont need a revolution, we need blunt speaking, truth telling Democrats

who are not frightened of Bush & his media.

We have 4 or 5 of them- we need more.

We dont need dirty tricks to win- we just need to tell the blunt, unvarnished, confrontational truth about their lies & crimes.

[Road Scholar]

11. Good guys finish last. nt

[Dr Fate]

12. Wrong, "nice" guys finish last. There is a difference.

We can be righteous but we dont have to be nice.

When Bush lies, you hardly never see a Democrat going on TV saying "Bush lies about everything and you media people repeat it as fact, just like the WMDs or Katrina..." This would be an example of being the "good guy"

Instead, they are "nice guys" and dont even accuse him of lying, or if they do, they say "mis-spoke."

My point is we dont need to become dishonest, criminal smear artists like Rove, we just need to be blunt & truthful "good guys" instead of "nice guys."

[ReadTomPaine]

14. Well said. n/t