Yes it is OK, and it worked for the Republicans. Think “morals and values”. By singling out gays and their world famous “secret agenda” to destroy mariage, and all “unChristian” “unpatriotic” people, all the real issues were swept aside. That was the real October surprise.
Nope, not so.
It is, as it has always been, your extreme sloppiness. rabid hyperbole and demonization of those with opposing views that are such a turnoff.
Your views on issues are not so wildly radical for the most part; it is what you say in furtherance of them that makes you a liability to the causes you say you espouse.
Check your mail - Karl Rove’s check might have arrived.
See? Isn’t clarity satisfying? Although your position is simply silly. Unless of course you mean to suggest that I am able to shift the opinions of millions from left to right merely by the astonishing force of my personality? In which case, I think you need to check your own excess.
(And if you are right, then I REALLY fear for the future of this country. And fetch me a grape.)
First off…
I call bullshit. But first, allow me to grab my bullshit-bullhorn.
BUUUUUUUULLSHIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!
I know you’re attempting (valiantly, I might add) to be an objective non-partisan in this comment, but I’m afraid it does more to illustrate your ingrained bias on this particular concept. Middle America = hicks? I would think honest to god hicks make up a pretty small minority of a America. When I think of Middle America, I think of the black dude waiting for the bus in the cold, or my neighbors in my trailer park (who actually voted en masse for Kerry). In fact, “Middle America” is, let’s face it, a completely full’o’shit term. But since we don’t have a better word for “that huge mass of people amongst whom no one in particular stands out”, I guess we’re stuck with it. But don’t pretend they’re on your side, when you don’t even know who the hell they are.
Now, on to what I think is actually at the core of this issue.
It is, indeed, a conceit of many progressives that we are more “enlightened” than our fellow countrymen. Well, uh, duh! Isn’t that what being progressive MEANS? Mainly, we just want history to be on our side. Of course, that which eventually becomes progress, never begins as a majority.
(It seems an odd trend lately, and perhaps throughout history in general, to harken back to the “good old days” of fifty years ago, even while acknowledging the progress we’ve made in the last two-hundred thousand years (give or take a few creation myths). As though we were steadily getting better until the last half-century, and then everything just went to shit.)
So, we do indeed hope to be more “enlightened” than the average bear. As such, we tend to think of ourselves as ahead of our time, just as our greatest forefathers were. And what better way to be ahead of your time than to keep an open mind, and an open book?
Here’s the rub. Since history consists (mostly) of progress, and we ain’t dead yet, there is but one conclusion. We, the people, have our collective head up our collective ass. At least, that’s what future generations will think of us. Most of us know this. Looking back over history, such a conclusion becomes nearly inescapable. Even when we long for simpler times, we don’t long to blame ptomaine poisoning on evil spirits.
However, while we’re still pretty backwards, we’re better educated than ever before. “Middle America”, as you call it, probably knows enough about history to know they’re probably wrong. Nobody likes being told they’re wrong, but the only thing worse than that is, despite all their protests, believing it.
I think “Middle America” is in a state of denial. Gay marriage? Most are against it. But what if you were to frame the question differently? Such as: Should homosexuals have equal protection under the law? Suddenly, historical precedent becomes inescapable.
In that context, it becomes obvious that our major failing is not so much our ideas, but the ways in which we present them. We progressives like to believe that truth will out, but that’s only true if it’s in the midst of lies. Things get much more difficult when you start trying to seperate truths from half-truths. Our biggest problem is that we need to better learn how to creatively deceive. You know we’re in bad shape when Michael Moore, a satirist who completely lacks anything resembling a light touch, is widely considered to be the premier progressive propagandist. Asking people “would you sign your child up to die in Iraq” is too heavy-handed and confrontational, not to mention plain-old rude. Where is our response to such ingenuously sinister-sounding terms as “The Death Tax” or “The Marriage Tax”?
Still, despite all this talk of changing people’s minds (HA!) the responsibility ultimately lies with them to look over history, give themselves a slap, and get with the fucking program.
C’mon people, the first step towards the future is admitting you have a problem.
(On preview, I see that SteveG1 has brought up another deceptive meme, that “secret gay agenda”. I’m not sure, but I’ll bet their “secret gay agenda” is pretty similiar to my “secret heterosexual agenda”, that is, “get laid in any way possible.” Further down it says “Addendum: ALMOST any way possible.”)
It’s quite simple, really. The Democrats are now the party of deficit control and debt reduction. Reducing the trade deficit. Controlling spending. Reducing our reliance on foreign banks. Growing the economy. Restoring the honor and trust from the rest of the world that America commanded when we were at our strongest. Honoring our troops by giving them the resources, pay and benefits that they need, and by not sending them into harm’s way with one arm tied behind their backs. Defending the rights of the states against the authoritarian dictates of the federal government.
We don’t need to look to Republicans for our strategy, platform and leaders - we simply need to look at what they have abandoned. Our country needs these things and we can restore them.
What I don’t get is why, if what we are saying is the surest path to an inevitable crushing, that there are any Republicans posting in these threads whatsoever. Even Shodan’s shit eating post is contrary to the goal of giving us enough rope to hang ourselves. Either they: 1) care to have an opposition party and so are honestly warning us to look out for ourselves, 2) are innately incapable of spouting arrogant and contemptuous bullshit and bluster, or 3) are desparately scared that by firmly standing our ground we will attract moderate voters who are turned off by what the Republicans have abandoned and aren’t in such great need to keep the homos down.
Mark me down for #2 or #3, and note that they aren’t mutually exclusive.
No, Stoid, your ability to embarrass your causes is largely limited to places like this board (hugely influential though the SDMB is on the course of human events). There are, of course, more than a few Dems like you, as I indicated:
“I do know that if Dems rely on the influence of the Stoidesque wing of the party, I’ll be voting for another gaggle of losers in '06, '08, '10…”
Sure, Stoidenlightenment is a hopeless cause…call me a dreamer.
One more example of hyperbolic self-sabotage for the road - the OP’s response to the idea that Dems should moderate their message to appeal to voters:
Now that’s passion - yeah baby! :rolleyes:
Oh give me a break, Jack. Now I’m supposed to hew to some perfect standard free of hyperbole of any kind? If you have to try that hard to paint me crazy, you need to reassess your premise.
Weird with Words, what the fuck did you do to this thread?? I’m having a hard time focusing with all the emphasis going on around here.
Or is everyone quoting themselves at the moment they write what they wrote? Whoa, deep!
(I hope that everyone else is seeing all the italics. If not, then… nevermind.)
It’s not just you, Hentor. I was wondering the same thing.
I see no excessive italics.
Mac OS X, Mozilla browser.
Looks fine to me, in both form and content.
I’m on OSX running Safari, and everything after elucidator’s “Bullshit bullhorn” is in italics. It doesn’t show up in Firefox, though. Weird.
I dunno what to say. Just the quote was s’posed to be in italics, and it looked fine in preview. But now NONE of it is in italics.
Whuddahell?
(using firefox, XP OS)
[Administrator Hat ON]
Weird with Words, STOP using your dad’s account. One poster per username. Paint the garage or something and I’m sure luci will spring for a board membership.
[Administrator Hat OFF]
gobear, what you are missing is that in your example, it’s pundits taking potshots at politicos.
What Bricker and other are talking about is liberal pundits and glitterati taking potshots at a fair portion of the American public (deserved or not) thus alienating them to your message.
And yes, incredibly, it is not unknown for large groups of people to, “cut off their nose to spite their face.”
I think it’s less your message than your delivery.
About as subtle as an artillery barrage followed by an armored assault.
What the fuck is with the singling out of Stoid? Seriously, he/she/it seems to be one of the less extreme on the left. This looks to me like some kind of bizarre ganging up on people one at a time tactic, and it’s fucking low.
Bless you, my dear.
It has to do with a few months back in late 2000, as I recall. See, I fully expected the hell that Bush was going to wreak, and I reacted accordingly, well in advance. I confess I was more than a little freaked out.
The fact that my fears and my freak out were completely justified is ignored, of course, but the lingering distaste for me and anything I say, the perception that since I am the one saying it, it must be hysterical and “rabid” lingers. Weird, isn’t it?
And I’m a gal.
Would this include the acusation in 2000 that Bush would destroy the environment? I don’t remember hearing of any cities where people were wearing gas masks to be able to breath the air. I haven’t heard of any cities issuing boiling orders for the populace because the water was so helplessly polluted.
Hell, I can’t think of any major shift in the environment over the last 4 years. Maybe 5 billion year old Nature will rebound from the awful, horrible environmental policies of the Bush administration? Or do you really think Bush has that much power? If he does, maybe you want to avoid public message boards lest the evil government come and get you. :eek:
Sort of. I would like a reasonable Democratic party; it would be good for the country. If you clowns are going to spout the kind of bullshit Stoid and the other liberal morons specialize in on the SDMB, then - not so much.
gobear and some others have mentioned their belief that the Dems did not, you know, win. And therefore a change might be in order. And that change might consist of moving, I don’t know, towards the middle?
You have got to be kidding. Unless this is a typo.
Did you really consider me “incapable of spouting arrogant and contemptuous bullshit”? I feel my last 5,000 posts have been completely wasted.
You cut me to the quick.
Right you are. Based on this thread and practically everything Stoid (and you, and the other transparently dishonest and stupid partisans of the extreme left wing of the local insane asylum) have ever posted, I am trembling in my boots about your ability to bring moderates flocking to you with the snap of a finger.
Trembling, I tell you.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - Oh, and on preview, you did notice, did you not, that the anti-gay marriage proposals passed by wider margins than elected Bush? So I don’t know that there are hordes of moderates who will leap to your side with a happy cry if you identify too strongly with the gay marriage thing.
Again and as always, take my advice for what it’s worth. The further left you move, the more I will tend to rejoice at your failures. YYMV, especially if you are headed for a cliff.