Are DU activists becoming strategists?

[WilliamPitt]

I've seen this question posed a bunch of times over the last few days.

My response: I f*cking well hope so.

See, for all the anguish and anger and frustration we have been forced to endure since December 2000 and the SCOTUS decision, we have had one luxury.

We haven't had to govern.

We've been in the minority, unable to even get a bill out of a House committee, unable to hold a hearing anywhere besides a basement in the Rayburn building, unable to do anything but yell and organize and wait for a chance to change things in an election.

Hard? Check my gray hair. Hell, check yours.

Is governing harder? Absolutely.

Why? Because you have to compromise, which requires strategic thinking. You have to outflank those who would stop even the most minimal reform, which requires strategic thinking. You have to sell your policy ideas to the American people, which requires strategic thinking.

We haven't had to do even a little bit of this for quite a while now - not since Jeffords woke up on the wrong side of the bed - and the strain of it is evident. I haven't wanted to touch DU with a ten-foot keyboard since before the weekend. But that's how it is, and how it has to be, unless we prefer the powerless status we've endured.

Does this mean we abandon our precious principles? Of course not. But does this mean our principles have to get bent a little bit in order to govern effectively? Absolutely it does.

If you cannot abide the bending of your precious principles, then a time machine is what you require. Beam yourself back to November 6th, back when your principles were all you had, back when your principles were not threatened because you couldn't do anything with them. They were safe, and so were you.

We aren't safe anymore. We're in charge, right in the spotlight, the folks in the driver's seat...and if you'll forgive a driving analogy, sometimes you have to turn right a little bit to avoid a crash.

Are we becoming strategists?

Yes, if we're smart.

(/rant)

[Fierce]

1. I often wonder when Democrats

decided to fear being in power.

[blm]

3. And when they decided to start giving in to RW lies instead of fighting them.

.

[nolies32fouettes]

2. I've taken a lot of bashing at my blog--because I've had to 'nail'

in how awful the Republicans are right now and that people should get out and vote. But I have been attacked by freepers. I've been attacked by the middle. And I have heard "you just don't like Bush..."

The point is that I've done what I needed to do to activate the college population and to make them see that this Republican party is not what they learned about in school; the media is not unbiased and is not a legitimate media; and the facism that we're facing is a dangerous thing.

General blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nolies32fouettes Please scroll through and you'll see. Go to before November 7th and you'll see the type of strategy I've done. And compare it to post-November 7th to see that as well.

Example: http://www.progressiveu.org/230521-tussle-over-democratic-leadership-sideshow-compared-to-the-brewing-bloodbath-between-bush-and-his-party

http://www.progressiveu.org/031013-talk-about-integrity-rumsfeld-was-on-the-board-of-company-that-sold-korea-nuclear-reactors-two-years-before-axis-of-evil

http://www.progressiveu.org/151121-judge-orders-more-photos-from-abu-ghraib-to-be-released-the-worst-is-yet-to-come-were-talking-rape-and-murder

http://www.progressiveu.org/134332-todays-emotion-of-the-day-outrage-more-stories-from-guantanamo-and-anarchy-in-iraq

My name may not be as big or as well known as yours, but I hope I've made a tremendous difference to people my age.

And Yes...I am a strategist.

[mmonk]

4. For me it's simple,

stay on the course of truth and compromise where it makes sense, but not for the sake of it.

[blm]

5. The Dem 'strategists' were all surprised that CORRUPTION topped the exit polls

as an issue for both Republican and Democratic voters in 2006.

NONE of them, including Rove, saw it coming.

The anti-corruption, open government Democrats saw it coming and KNEW its importance, but we are being shouted down in the media and in DC by the Coverup Democrats loyal to the Clinton team.

[mondo joe]

6. Really? Which Dem Strategists were surprised?

Be specific, please.

[blm]

8. CNN election night, both Carville and Begala were surprised it was a major issue.

And there were many southern 'strategists' who believed that Dems talking family values and anti-gun control would be the ideal strategy. We had been regaled for two years with that line.

[mondo joe]

9. Oh, those has beens.

I thought you maybe meant dems currently involved in strategy.

[blm]

11. They still are - and current pundits had also been pushing religious values talk and

anti-gun control strategy as the winning plan for Dems. Even anti-flagburning.

[mondo joe]

13. They're pundits. Not strategists.

The strategists are the people who worked in the campaigns that WON.

[blm]

20. The name strategists are still an influence in the overall party and ignored corruption

as a main issue.

[mondo joe]

24. I can name strategists who didn't ignore corruption as an issue.

Howard Dean. Rahm Emanuel. Nancy Pelosi.

[blm]

31. I'm talking about PAID strategists and pundits.

I know both Dean and Kerry focused on corruption in their rallies over the last 18 months and many of us commented on it throughout that time.

[mondo joe]

46. Oh PAID. I guess the winners this year didn't use paid strategists.

[blm]

59. You know the difference between the strategists surprised that corruption was an issue

and the ones who may have have used it in their campaigns - but why are you pretending that strategists in the broadcast media are somehow no longer involved?

[RoyGBiv]

60. I think the point ...

I think the point you seem to be missing is that those people walking across your tee-vee aren't necessarily the people that were currently involved in strategizing. They may well have been surprised, but were they they ones in charge of anything? Furthermore, as media personalities, they come off more like ex-coaches talking about a football game than anyone with a real clue as to what is currently happening.

Strategists in many states *knew* corruption was an issue, and they used it. It was even used in OK in local races. The only question in the local meetings I attended was how far to go with pushing it, not whether to use it as an issue.

[mondo joe]

63. Thank you Roy - well said!

[w4rma]

68. blm, I think the term you are looking for is "consultants", like Carville.

Early Advice for '08 Hopefuls: Beware the Consultants!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/early-advice-for-08-hope_b_34542.html

[KoKo]

22. Carville, Begala and Shrum....are hired "strategists."

That's what they make their money off of. Tim Russert, Chris Matthews and their ilk are "Pundits."

[mondo joe]

23. No. C&B used to be strategists. Now they're pundits.

[KoKo]

28. Their Consulting Firm is still in Business .....they are Paid Strategists who

are also contracted with CNN to make comments. Russert and Matthews and the rest are Pundits paid by cables or print media to give opinion and editorialize and moderate.

[KoKo]

32. More on Greenberg, Carville, Shrum Political Consulting Firm....

Greenberg Carville Shrum - SourceWatch
Greenberg Carville Shrum is a U.S. political consultancy and strategy company. Greenberg Carville Shrum worked for Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, ...
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenberg_Carville_Shrum - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
firedoglake: Million Dollar Assholes: Carville, Shrum & Greenberg
Million Dollar Assholes: Carville, Shrum & Greenberg. I love documentaries. A lot. Real people in real situations are always weirder, more original and more ...
firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/04/million-dollar-assholes-carville-shrum.html - 22k -Cached - Similar pages

The Architects of Defeat? The Clintonistas
In conversations with Kerry insiders, I've heard a recurring theme: that it was Shrum and the Clintonistas (including Greenberg, Carville and senior advisor ...
www.commondreams.org/views04/1111-26.htm - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

[KittyWampus]

36. So tell us what actual campaigns Carville & Begala worked on this past election

[KoKo]

39. What I replied to was whether they are "Pundits" or "Consultants for

Strategy." Technically they are Paid Political Consultants to Politicians for Strategy.

It was in answer to poster saying they are just "Pundits." When we see them on CNN or MSNBC they are hawking for business and were chosen because they are Campaign Strategists.

[G_Leo_Criley]

44. Very Well Stated

"The strategists are the people who worked in the campaigns that WON."

Hear Hear!

Strategy = a good thing!

glc

[benEzra]

65. "Anti-gun-control" was in part WHY other issues could rise to the top...

And there were many southern 'strategists' who believed that Dems talking family values and anti-gun control would be the ideal strategy. We had been regaled for two years with that line.

"Anti-gun-control" was in part WHY other issues could rise to the top. Do you think "corruption" would have ranked that high if the gun issue had been on the table like it was 1994-2004?

The fact that leading Dems have dropped the ban-more-guns rhetoric, and are focusing on more important issues, is one a major reason WHY guns aren't the issue now that they were '94-'04--because banning more guns isn't on the table.

Dems in swing states have been busy reassuring nonhunting gun owners that the party has "seen the light" and is no longer after expanded gun bans. Look at the Webb and Tester campaigns. You think Webb would have beaten Macacawitz in Virginia if he had run on a ban-more-guns message?

[antigop]

7. Another driving analogy....

>>
and if you'll forgive a driving analogy, sometimes you have to turn right a little bit to avoid a crash.
>>

If you're veering to the right, headed off a cliff, you have to do a hard left just to bring your car back to the center of the lane.

[KoKo]

10. There are DU Activists who are involved in the Party, DU talkers who

are thinkers who aren't activists or involved in their local party, DU thinkers who are Activists in other political and human rights activities outside the Dem Party and Trolls who post stuff to rile us up, and others who pass by.

The DU Activists who are involved in the Party tend to see where compromise and strategy are important but are not willing to concede to either if it involves the principle of of our party fighting for the "average American" who has been sold down the river because of NAFTA/CAFTA/Media Dereg and dismantling of SEC Regulation, Religious Intervention in our lives and the rest of the stuff that DLC was happy to Conpromise away.

The rest is what it is. It's a Discussion Forum. :shrug:

On Edit: I did leave out the DU DLC'ers who are involved in the party who always promote compromise. But, they are a minority compared to the Progressive Wing. At least according to DU Straw Polls.

[sui generis]

14. I just want specifics

In conversations like these we tend to talk in driving analogies. I wonder what specific issues "veering" to the right really means, laid out for inspection instead of just some hazy generic statement.

I personally believe that if we can't speak to principles clearly and in a way that everyone can participate in and buy into, then we're lousy leaders to begin with. Everything else is dictatorship of the moment. And there isn't a lot of difference between a republican dictator and a democratic dictator, with the exception being instead of smelling like elephant dung when we "bend" principle, we smell like ass.

[KoKo]

15. When a Dem Dictator takes power....then maybe we can discuss what

you say more thoroughly. So far I haven't seen one emerge. :eyes:

[sui generis]

18. did you read anything else I said?

edited for civility, believe it or not.

SPECIFICS. Did you miss that part? I sure hope we don't need to wait for a dictator to discuss specifics.

Do you even know what the specifics are? Or are you just supporting a blind statement because it was made by "an authority"?

[KoKo]

19. Yes, I did read what you said. No, I didn't accuse you of being a troll, and

you were the one that mentioned the difference between a Repug Dictator and a Dem one. Have you seen a potential Dem Dictator emerging? :shrug: What specifically do you think a Dem Dictator would propose?

[sui generis]

21. you are way off on straw men now.

edited for civility. I'm trying dammit.

My original subject title was to ask what the specifics of "veering right" entailed.

[KoKo]

25. Your comments stand on their own.....even when you edit them. n./t

[sui generis]

26. I apologize for my warlike rhetoric

I'll try to restrain myself and not type the first thing I think.

but I asked what the details of veering right are.

Do you know?

[KoKo]

33. Google DLC ......n/t

[sui generis]

35. well, it was brought up here, not on google

so I just want to know what "our people" think justifiable "veering right" is?

The DLC stands for many things, many of which I disagree with, especially strategically speaking and definitely on principle, but I'm just another opinionated nobody, sigh, conspiratorial wink.

When we, here in this thread say, it's necessary to veer right, what do "we" mean by that?

I just want a list. I'm sure it's unimpeachable if not downright popular, I just missed the memo.

KoKo - I'm sorry I forget to take off the brass knuckles some days. Sincerely apologize I was out of line in my initial response to you. I do have an acid tongue and as easily defensive as the next person.

I am really am curious though, which is why I continue to press for the list of what we're willing to give up as a party to stay in power.

[Hugin]

40. I'd be interested in seeing such a list as well...

I'm doubtful such a thing exists. All of this 'bending' seems to be at the
behest of those who would benefit from maintaining the status-quo. Since
they were at best a nuisance and at worst an actual adversary in the recent
Democratic wins... We owe them little.

I've seen many power grabs over the past couple of weeks. It's very disappointing
to me and doubly so to those who voted for Democrats to bring about change.

[Armstead]

41. Here are some examples of capitiulation

Giving into the Corporate Sector on issues, like "free trade." monopolization of industries, gutting of wages and benefits, media consolidation, etc.

The majority of the leadership and politicians of the Democratic Party have been echoes of the GOP "Markets Uber Alles" philosophy rather than truly liberal opponents of entrenched wealth and power and balance of the public interest.

[KoKo]

42. Perhaps if you could do a separate post asking what would be on

DU'ers list that they could give up as a party to stay in power, you would get some thoughts. But, it might help if you could throw out a few items to get the conversations started. It took me reading all your posts to get what you were talking about. But, unless you give a few items you might feel are starting points for compromise that others might agree or not agree with, it's hard to get a discussion started in an online thread. :shrug:

[KoKo]

48. sui generis, what Armstead mentions would be a start for

you doing a separate post for what DU'ers think. Pitfalls of Media Deregulation or Free Market Media would be one that would be on my list along with what Armstead mentioned.

Government Oversite vs. Free Unregulated Markets is always a good debate issue given that the Bushies love to regulate "Freedom" while they take away safeguards that keep Corporations and Government from trampling "The People."

I hope you will take this out as a separate Post.

[sui generis]

56. I would love to!

I am all for regulation (rather re-regulation) of certain shared and finite resources; even and especially when administered by a private entity. The basics, home heating, drinking water, universal healthcare (not universally available risk-based insurance, but the real deal healthcare.

Unfortunately that is more than a mere thread; it's an economics and social planning essay. But I will definitely start thinking on that topic. There is a palatable middle ground that isn't "socialism" in the freeper-scare sense but definitely a more regulated "free market" than we have today.

Essentially, if government administers to the rights of individuals FIRST, then other legal entities SECOND, in that order and precedence, our entire normative socio-economic value system changes.

Thanks - :hi:

[bigtree]

12. some things can wait out another year of posturing and bickering on all sides

things like Iraq and the torture bill can't.

Compromise on Iraq between immediate withdrawal Democrats and partial/phased withdrawal folks will mean lives saved, if successful. There will be no withdrawal or net reduction in the Iraq during Bush's term if the legislators don't compromise.

All of that takes 'strategizing'. We should always work out the path to achieve the resolution of our needs and concerns, and, we should always give heed to the potential consequences of our actions; or of our inaction, as well.

[Lilith Velkor]

16. I bloody well hope so, too

Anymore too-clever-by-half bollocks like the draft proposal will hamstring the Dems, IMFO.

[Armstead]

17. There's a difference between strategy and rationalization

Smart strategy and principles do not have to be mutually exclusive.

In fact, principles are smart strategy. Lack of principles is the dumb strategy that got the Democrats into the fix the party was for the last decade or so.

Yes compromise is always necessary. Bit there's a big difference between compromise and selling your soul. It's an indistinct line I realize. But it's one that is understandable when it becomes a pattern.

What I think some people are worried about here is that the Democratic Poo Bahs will perpetuate that lack of principles now that the party has taken back the Congress. The excuse will change from "But we are not in power, so we can't take a stand until we get power" to "We have to be very careful so that we don't lose our power."

That's what should not be repeated.

[Hugin]

27. "Check my gray hair. Hell, check yours."

Better to turn gray than to turn loose my friend! :rofl:

I agree with you completely. It's time to shift gears and become the leaders
we've always complained we didn't have.

There is quite a difference between a fighter and a leader... Leadership requires
a cool head and listening abilities. Strategic thinking, anyone?

[sui generis]

30. leadership also requires followers

And the ability to keep them convinced that what you're doing is in the best interests of all.

I really don't think a lot of people here know very much at all about the leadership of people. Politics perhaps, but they are not the same thing.

Leaders, real leaders, have a toolkit, even an "arsenal" if more descriptive. Yes, the ability to listen and comprehend is half the appeal of a populist, but the ability to make a convincing case for something as unpopular as a "principle" is real leadership.

Bending principle is lazy leadership.

[Hugin]

34. You'll make a great leader sui generis!

"the ability to make a convincing case for something as unpopular as a "principle" is real leadership."

Ah, the missing chord of leadership... Good point.

I also agree that principles shouldn't be bent. Especially, due to the fact it's those
very same principles which have carried us through these dark ages.

[Gold Metal Flake]

29. Perhaps a test is in order.

I saw on TPM Muckraker this morning:


Democrats Plan Series of Votes on Ethics Reform
"Despite divisions among Democrats over how far to go in revising ethics rules, House leaders plan a major rollout of an ethics reform bill early next year to demonstrate concern about an issue that helped defeat the Republicans in the midterm elections.

"But they will do it with a twist: Instead of forwarding one big bill, Democrats will put together an ethics package on the House floor piece by piece, allowing incoming freshmen to take charge of high-profile issues and lengthening the time spent on the debate. The approach will ensure that each proposal -- including banning gifts, meals and travel from lobbyists as well as imposing new controls on the budget deficit -- is debated on its own and receives its own vote. That should garner far more media attention for the bill's components before a final vote on the entire package." (WaPo)

Leading up to the 11/7 election Democrats of all stripes learned and practiced how to bug the shit out of our reps. We learned from each other how to make our voices heard. With this multi-bill Ethics Reform effort, we can hone and target our demands for reform based on the bills as they come up using our new onrganizational and message disseminating skills.

How about we flex some muscle to rein in corporate Control of congress? We will want more control than Congress will be willing to give up, so pressure must be applied in Liberal amounts. This could be the begining of the end of "corporate personhood" and could set the tone of how the 110th Congress performs for the course of it's session. I don't think we can trust anyone in Congress to represent our best interests automatically.

[rustydad]

37. Strategy is a means to an end

Isn't it? Good government means helping people slove problems, avoid problems, define problems, all to give people a better life. The question is what does government do when the strategy to solve a problem is not accepted by the governed?

An example. Global warming. The world will be so damned hot in a few generations that we may see a specie die-off of epic proportions with oceans inundating all coastlines, severe droughts, monster storms, just all hell breaking loose. But if your a politition and you tell people that the strategy to cure this problem is that they must give up their cars, their airplane flights, their electicity, etc. you will soon find youself out of office. The motto of all politicians is "promise anything...but deliver no pain". Americans are screwed and whether by the hand of Republicans or Democrates we are self distructing. Bob

[Joanne98]

38. I don't care if we become strategists. I just don't think it will work!

For example: Washington Journal did two segments this morning.
"Should the Government raise taxes", and one on labor in China. the first one got a big No from most callers and the ones that were for raises taxes didn't know how to defend their position. It's really STUPID to expect to max out all the credit cards and then not pay them off. A better question to ask would be, "Should the US declare bankruptcy"

The China segment was much more depressing. My sister and I were discussing it and we came to the conclusion that Americans are comsumers now. In fact that's ALL they are. It's a really sick situtation when your citizens are emotionally deformed. I blame THE MARKET nazis. I found it depressingly funny that WJ read a WSJ article that asked the question, "Will raising taxes hurt growth". I made me think of that cartoon a DUer put up about the "Rising tide doesn't raise all boats when they are in two different lakes". It's a fact that GROWTH is nothing but a bunch of BS. But we're still taking it seriously.

I don't think I'm going to spend much time strategtizing. To me it's just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. I'm interested in the bigger ideas. I'm hoping the hard core left can partner with the Evangelical Christians concerning the economy and the "life issues". GREED is not a moral value and I really want to do something about that.

[Hugin]

43. Keep in mind the groups driving media discussions...

are corporate sponsors.

So, by pushing the negative idea of 'raising taxes' they get what they want.

I don't suppose we'll ever hear the idea of 'eliminating corporate welfare' discussed
in such a manner.

[Joanne98]

47. That's why they are called the "commercial media".....

They have been out in force. Confuse confuse. It's such a problem.

[Hugin]

51. Such a problem...

I'm so tired of watching all of the hand waving and misdirection.

It would be nice if everyone took a moment and thought about those
things which are really important to them, as individuals.

They would be astounded if they figured out what a profound impact corporate
greed has had on all of their lives. As compared to some of the topics
run continuously in the commercial media.

[Joanne98]

53. They have taken "distraction techniques" to a new level...

I'm already getting exhausted just watching the heavy breathing. They will protect the status quo with a vengeance. I just it's business as usual.

[greyl]

45. I hope so, too.

Devising strategies is a normal, productive, and wise result/response to wanting to affect progressive change.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patcox2]

50. If "cut off your nose to spite your face" is a strategy.

The majority of DUers seem constitutionally incapable of political strategy. I am referring, for example, to those who were perpetually angry at the democratic minority for being unable to stop the republicans, as if they beleieved that the underdog can occasionally pull off an upset in a floor vote by voting harder or something, maybe clapping for tinkerbell, I don't know.

Too many of the rest are of the "death before dishonor" ideological purity, I would rather fight to the last breath than compromise my eternal honour (see, they tend to be english majors and view politics as some variant on the Knights of the Round Table, so they spell it "honour.") variety.

And then there are the special interest "anthill into mountain" freaks who believe that the entire democratic party should go ahead and alienate 90% of all living people on earth by making it our sole priority to legalize hemp, control guns, and make free sex change operations available to the transgendered.

Finally, there are the hopelessly tone deaf would-be strategists, who come up with great strategies which would play really really well if the entire US public were exactly like them, but unfortunately they have not yet realized that they are not the center of the unverse, or at least the type specimen of humankind, so their strategies are generally of the type that would again cause 90% of the voters of America to recoil in disgust and never vote for a democrat again.

In short, some individual people may have it in them to be strategists, but DU as a whole, well, I sure hope they have no strategy role.

[sui generis]

55. DU is a place where we discuss, and hopefully learn, modify, and grow

"special interest" anthill into mountain freaks.

Well glad you left the gay married terrorists out of that one or I'd have to discuss some things with you.

Fortunately, it was merely a hyperbolic mischaracterization of what "special interest" is or does within the party, I'm sure to avoid "special interests" such as a womans right to her own reproductive life and anyone's right to live as equal citizens in this country, which are what are usually characterized as "special interests".

Yeah - we can be pretty moonbattish here; the silliness is what makes DU a forum for growth and learning. People test these ideas out in the fire of instant opinion and are either immolated or borne up on a palanquin of sycophantry, and sometimes both.

Stress testing is a great way to clarify ones position, and watching someone else self-destruct is both gruesome and entertaining if you don't think of most of these people as your friends, and horrifying and sad when you do consider them your friends and do nothing.

[patcox2]

58. Good post.

My personal preference is for a return to Roosevelt style economic justice issues, and away from the morality lifestyle issues. We play the other side of the same coin that the republicans play. They play the "tradition, morality, family" issues, and we play it back and it only gives them ammunition.

We should be fighting for jobs, wages, fair treatment for workers, curbing corporate power, antitrust laws, the fairness doctrine, safe food and drugs, a clean environment. Eliminate the economic conditions that lead to scapegoat-type bigotry and hatred. Convince the common people of the red states that we are on their side. Bring back the fairness doctrine and re-balance the structure of our politics so that politicians will answer to the people and not the corporations (which also means we will get elected more often).

[DancingBear]

52. Am I shocked at this post?

No.

Saw it coming a mile away.

"You take two steps to the left, two steps to the right,
Then you stand in the middle and you hang on tight"
"Election Year Rag" -Steve Goodman-

It's all a farce, ain't it?

Sure it is.

"Activist" - ha, ha,ha.

"Underground" - ha, ha, ha.

Take the blinders off, kids - you've been had.

[KoKo]

54. Understand your point....but Internet is taking us new places...

whether we end up in the same place (in the middle) remains to be seen.

But, at least we tried something different and have more input than at any time before the "Top Down Elections" run by Consultants, Corporations and Interest Groups took radical hold. :shrug:

I have to have hope that change will come and we aren't going to be stuck back where we started.

[WilliamPitt]

61. Hm

Well, come up with a way to corral the progressive caucus, the conservative Dems, the two independents who we need to vote with us, the fact of a razor-thin majority in the Senate and a hostile media into getting important work done without the need to bend a little bit.

I'll be interested in your proposal.

[bigtree]

67. would you settle for a partial withdrawal leading to total withdrawal from Iraq?

that agreement would have to come out of a compromise between the immediate withdrawal advocates in the legislature and the partial/phased withdrawal supporters.

If there is no compromise, the troops could stay in place with no net reduction in force until Bush leaves office.

Should they be willing to 'bend' their principles to start bringing some of these soldiers home, possibly save their lives and limbs? Or, should they maintain those principles and leave our soldiers in place?

Their opposition would certainly doom any withdrawal resolution in Congress.

[Exiled in America]

57. You left out a critical word that changes everything in your post:

Is governing harder? Absolutely.

Why? Because you have to compromise, which requires strategic thinking. You have to outflank those who would stop even the most minimal reform, which requires strategic thinking. You have to sell your policy ideas to the American people, which requires strategic thinking.

No, that's not correct. It's not just that we have to compromise. Any FOOL can do that, and we see examples of BAD compromises all over Washington and all over the history of politics.

No the real challenge is the fact that you have to compromise CORRECTLY, without sacrificing core non-negotiable moral imperatives along the way.

Not everything is up for sale. Some compromises can be made. Others absolutely can not be made. There must be freedom in the non-essentials for sure, but there must also be AGREEMENT in the essentials of what it means to be a democrat and part of the democratic party and to govern from a democratic majority. And if you don't think you have a clear idea about what these essentials of the democratic party are, then THAT is part of the problem.

If we don't AGREE in essentials as a party, then we are NOT a party. We're just a collection of fools who randomly agree with each other and randomly don't.

[WilliamPitt]

62. You are correct

I hope that word is assumed.

[ClassWarrior]

71. Well said.

As the philosopher S. Lee once wrote, "With great power must come great responsibility."

NGU.

[drm604]

64. I totally agree!

If we're not becoming strategists then we sure as hell need to. :applause:

[Minnesota_Lib]

66. Agreed...totally...100%. Heart + Strategy=winning. Heart - Strategy=2001 thru 2006

[Tatiana]

69. I'd hope so, if we want to actually get any legislation passed.

Give and take, compromise, etc. The thought makes me want to retch considering who and what we have to work with, but it's necessary in order to get a fraction of what I'll call "the progressive agenda" passed.

[Senator]

70. My response: I f*cking well hope NOT.

If "activists becoming strategists" means:

• Rationalized abandonment of principle through euphemisms like "{having} to govern;"
  
  
• Manipulative public relations theories like "{having} to sell your policy ideas to the American people;" and
  
  
• Fascistic dictates like "how it has to be," coupled with empty threats like "unless we prefer the powerless status."

If that's the program I'm asked to "get with," then sorry, but I prefer powerless status to soulless status. And I can wait for good policy ideas sell themselves (they do) -- concentrating my activism on the (only real) need to "protect the market share" from snakeoil vendors.

That's how that "has to be" for me anyway. Your mileage may vary.

Because while considering extreme outcomes (of both risk AND reward, btw) is a useful tool, it's not a rational basis for expectations, nor a sufficient rationale for effective action or inaction. What is it if used in that way? Bad strategy.

Our principles are not "precious." They are durable. They do not bend. They are based on truth. Vigorously defending those principles -- of our forefathers, ourselves, our fellows -- and leaving that legacy to our children IS governing. Anything less is NOT governing.

And yes, that is hardEST. (Hence, the oath-taking.)

Mainly because truth itself is under attack. By both obvious and insidious means. Often by attackers without even the conscious awareness of the damage they are inflicting. The "groupthink" madness was/is hardly limited to the pre-war fear of WMD. It extends to the notion that this regime has ever been elected or legitimate -- to the notion that Geneva protections might be "quaint" -- that constitutional criminals can be "brought back within the law."

These are lies -- Big Lies. But you can't "outflank" a lie. You can only confront them as forcefully as you are able. Then trust your fellows to join you in seeing the truth. The risk is real and often large, but also nearly always temporary. The truth has a force of its own, and it will out.

And here's a bit of truth. We are not "in the driver's seat." Unless someone's come up with the magic potion to circumvent "rule by signing statement," we are nearly as powerless as we were on Nov. 6th. (I know, I just hopped off the return beam after double-checking.) All the Euphemedia blather of "set the agenda," and "force the hand," and "positionng for '08" is just that; blather by professional blatherers.

To obtain any result that might even remotely be described as governing, we remain at the mercy not only of circumstance and the unknown, but of the more powerful people. The groupthinkers. The Anti-Constitutionalists. The unprincipled Anti-Americans who retain a chokehold on the implementation mechanisms; and are still engaged in a relentless assault on the truth. They are not "forces to be reckoned with." There is no euphemism to hide them and our angst behind. They are flesh and blood people. They must be dealt with as such.

The only real power that the electorate was able to provide on Nov. 7th was the power to confront the their lies. To make the accusation. To have a stable, unignorable base to stand on while we defend our principles. And that may well be enough.

And yes, impeachment is the ONLY way to do it.

If we take the hardest path of truth and trust our fellows, the extreme reward may well be a more probable outcome than any imagined risk. It could even fall in our laps like a ripened fruit. But the reward is not the reason. You don't follow the righteous path to get to the end. You follow that path without knowing where the end is.

And on that path we find impeachment as our ONLY moral, patriotic option. Because we'd rather be honest than smart.

It IS our strategic, positive agenda.

--
And on a personal note: snap.wav

====

[ulysses]

72. we all became strategists in January '93.

That didn't work out so well.

[NobleCynic]

73. Here here.

I can't stand any argument that boils down to "you're thinking to much." A bit of strategy is a good thing. Anti-intellectualism in any form must be held in check.