Reply #19: Talking positive change [View All]

[PissedOffPollyana]

instead of pointing at the problems is the first change. It disturbs me to see what are considered to be upper tier candidates spending more time in the debates criticizing what GW and his handlers have done, rather than focusing on what could be done instead and what facts back the position up. So long as Dems campaign against instead of for, there will be fewer people that are inspired to get involved. We can and have always done well when there is a clear plan to get behind.

The second is staying true to progressive ideals. This includes not running away from the successes of New Deal style programs and making real commitments to election finance reform and a less corporate-based ecomony. People are truly hungry for real change, which is why so many folks run headlong into virtually any movement that markets "grass roots". They have been sold bills of goods before and get more and more cynical, less and less likely to even vote.

The last is selecting candidates based on issues and platforms, not media buzz. There is a widely held opinion that the news media is heavily biased to the right. Would that same media be credible in their coverage of the future opponent? Looking at it in a sort of theoretical way:

We know that... 1- GOP uses right wing owned media outlets as propaganda tool
thus... 2- The media reports slanted to favor GOP agenda
If we can asssume that ...3- GOP wants GW to win in 2004
then we know that... 4- GOP wants least viable contender in 2004

Would it be fair to suggest that an ergo for this chain of statements would be:
The media will throw red herrings and promote weaker candidates to make them seem more "electable" and draw attention away from candidates who have more dangerous ideas that could catch on with the public.

Just a thought...
I theorize. You decide. **hee hee**