One way we could emulate the GOP is to complain every time a corporation does something that we don't like. We may make fun of them, but they stay on message and their staying on message works. We are in a fight for control of our nation. They realize it, I don't always think we do. What I mean is that their ability to be pissed off is a source of strength to their movement.
This is a very good diary. I think, though, that the problem is a simple as "liberals want to be liked", or perhaps, "Liberals are too open-minded for their own good."
Here's what I mean by that: according to a study done of conservative political thinking, conservatives are tolerant of inequality, but intolerant of ambiguity. I suspect that liberals are the opposite.
Now, how this relates to your topic is that liberals are always too willing to see the other person's point of view. Therefore when they are "bitch-slapped" they don't respond by saying, "I am going to get that SOB" but rather by saying, "Gee, maybe I deserve to be bitch-slapped." Conservatives, convinced that they are right, don't engage in that sort of reasoning. Neither do all liberals, for that matter, but enough seem to do so to be a problem for the left.
Also, right now there is no way for a genuine liberal person to get "face time" on television, so they give the hosts what they want so they will be invited back, which helps them with their re-election.
Here is a thought: turn them off. I stopped watching the tv pundits years ago,and guess what, my life didn't end, I am still aware of what is going on in the world, and my sunday mornings are spent much more productively doing things like taking my wife out to breakfast.
Just turn them off. They don't know jack shit; they are blowhards, and they lean Republican. Why listen to these idiots?
Further, when you start a conversation with the above phase, which sounds very conscending, you shouldn't be surprised when people respond in a similar tone. There was nothing in my posting on Lieberman which called for that kind of response. If you can't take, don't dish it out.
Further, you don't really address my main point which is that I believe Lieberman wants too much to be liked to be effective in opposition to the Republicans.
Since you have actually talked to Lieberman, which I admit that I have not, I am wondering what you think of this perception?
He comes from a very Democratic state and is very popular. There is no reason why he couldn't be a staunch opponent of Bush and his policies, yet he isn't. Further, he seems to go out of his way to be nice to people who would gladly cut his political throat if they could get away with it.
I mean what exactly is he getting for all his support of Bush's policies in Iraq? What is he getting for all his courting of Graham with regard to the Social Security bill? Can you point to one time where his being friendly with Republicans have led to concessions from Republicans? Is he any more effective as a Senator than Boxer?
Let's see, we can take the word of the Gore people who possibly had a motive to spin this so that Lieberman looks bad, or we can take the word of Leiberman, who definitely had a motive to make it look like someone else's fault. Excuse me if I decide to go with the Gore people on this one.
Frankly what drives me crazy about Lieberman is his air of moral superiority. I mean here is a guy who votes for Gonzales, votes to authorize a war in Iraq that has led to thousands of casualities, and yet comes off like he is some paragon of moral virtue. It drives me nuts.
So you are saying that Toobin got it wrong or that Gore's person in Florida got it wrong? If that is true, how do you know what really happened? Frankly, he was a bad VP candidate, would have made a bad Presidential candidate, but isn't a bad Senator, he just wants too much to be liked.
Lieberman went down to Florida in 2000 and, according to Toobin's book, The Battle for Florida, caved in on counting illegal military ballots without checking with Gore or the campaign top people. That right there was my realization that Lieberman wants to be liked, not just by Democrats, but by everyone. It is his weakness that Bush and the GOP are trying to exploit.
In formulating the above three sentences I stayed away from programs and tried to speak in terms of philosophies. I tried to do it in less than 50 words and in a format that I could say in less than 30 seconds.
It is responsible not to pass on debt to future generations.
It is responsible to make sure that society takes care of the most vulnerable among us including the needy, children, the elderly, and the poor.
It is responsible to make sure that we defend our country by not wasting our most precious resource, our people, which means not sacrificing them in foreign wars that serve no purpose.
One thing that Dems don't stress enough is that deficit spending is a transfer of wealth from those who pay taxes to those who buy Treasury Bills. Last year the interest on the national debt was over 300 billion dollars. That's 300 billion dollars that can't be used for national health insurance; children's educations; single moms; or, for that matter, tax cuts in the social security tax.
We need to start pointing out that while Bush is shifting taxes from investment to labor, he is also running up the national debt. This means that his supporters benefit two ways: 1). their taxes on investments go down; and 2). they get money from the Feds in the form of interest on Treasury Bills.
The choice is not no deficits versus social spending. The choice is deficits versus responsible government.