Examine how the RWs are attacking the Meirs nomination for pointers: [View All]

[The Backlash Cometh]

They are very focused in their attack and very good at citing fact or quoting specific phrases to get their point across.

In one case, the worldnut goes on the defensive against Bush and goes back and picks up where Dan Rather left off, questioning Bush's military service as well as the Meier's involvement in the Texas Lottery:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=104&topic_id=4976567&mesg_id=4976567

(So it wasn't that the right disagreed that Bush's military service was in question, but that they managed to stop the investigation. If they now succeed in bringing Bush down on his military service, then CBS producers owe Dan Rather a big apology for not giving him more support.)

And now you have the WSJ quoting Alexander Hamilton to explain why cronyism is not to be used in a Supreme Court appointment:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4975720

One wonders why the Left can't be as effective. A few things come to mind:

The Right do rely on a very primitive interpretation of the constitution to justify their opinions. But regardless if you disagree with them or not, they can quote the constitution or take passages from the Founders, like priests take passages from the bible to persuade their congregations.

Why doesn't the left do the same? All you have to do is walk through the FDR Memorial in Washington D.C. and pluck passages off the wall.

And why don't the people who believe in Affirmative Action quote Hamilton to explain that Affirmative Access is the whole reason why Affirmative Action is necessary until this system of cronyism is completely eradicated?

I think in those two articles you find the meat of why the right has been so successful. They know how to stop investigations using innuendo, and because the Left doesn't know how to circle the wagons, we make it easy for them to pluck off anyone who stands up to them. Also, they know the parts of the constitution which support their cause, and they quote it like bible passages as a priest does, or primary sources as a trial lawyer would.

Perhaps we should be more pro-active, and like W.C. Fields, start reading the bible to look for loopholes.