BV 2012 ? Is that possibly some presidential statement? Or is the year just a chance.

usually, I'm with you.

but, seeing as how the website-only tags cost extra money when i asked for them, i see nothing wrong with refusing to allow a political statement that you disagree with to decorate your car.

It's akin to the liberal democrats in Alabama who for years would cover up "the heart of dixie" in the middle of the old 'bama tags with peace symbols, white-out. and even (yes) electrical tape.

it's self expression. you do it, too. don't get all huffy just because you happen to disagree with his stance.

The thing is that it's not a political statement, it's a statement of fact.

And I'd bet that those liberal Alabamians (Alabanians? Alabastards? Albatrosses?) got their fair share of harassment from cops and locals for covering up their tags. Why shouldn't I do the same for this prick?

It is a fact, just as the fact is that Alabama is located squarely in the geographic heart of the region that was once known as "Dixie."

And you're right again, the cover-ups did draw some unwelcome attention down there, not least from law enforcement officials. But did you really just point to Alabama State Troopers as a moral compass? "They did it down there, so it's OK if we do it up here?"

The reason you shouldn't give this guy hell for exercising his constitutionally protected freedom of speech is that, if you want to try to hold on to any shred of the moral high ground, it doesn't look too good to be seen doing the same thing the minions of George Wallace were doing 30+ years ago.

We liberals have been repeatedly whupped over the years by taking the high ground. They ship down hillrats for a riot at the Miami-Dade board of elections, our man remains calm on Meet the Press. They tar our candidate with vicious lies, we take the high road, assume it will sort itself out and don't hit back until it's too late. They get all high and mighty about "religious litmus tests" and blocking judges when they did the same thing not too long ago and we're still trying to work out a friggin deal! The bad guys know we're inclined to play fair even when they don't and they use it to their advantage every time.

I'm about done with the high road.

Yes, you're right. May all politicians aspire to the moral supremacy acheived by such notable liberal families as the Daleys and Kennedys, and Clintons.

Dragging down the level of discourse or lashing out isn't going to solve a damn thing. Quite frankly, my more conservative brethren are *better* at that sort of thing than liberals will ever be, partially because they've had years of practice by this point, and partially because an early education in mud-slinging ("See that man, Bobby? He's a SINNER!") teaches a kind of debate that Exeter and Andover will never quite be able to master.

If you want to change the elephants' courses, make them feel bad about themselves for trampling rough-shod over the constitution. Sow doubt by showing them exactly how true citizens of a republic conduct a civilized political dialogue.

The Schiavo case has already done some of this, and all of the sudden the middle-of-the-road Republicans dropped out from under Bush faster than you can say "moral values," my gun-owning, homophobic father among them. The filibuster issue is doing more of the same as we speak. No one likes an unchecked political machine, even when it's on their side.

The pendulum will swing back in the other direction, just as firmly as it swung to the right just over a decade ago. It'll be a New New Deal. Just don't abandon your values in the meantime, so that once you've won you'll still have some values to guide yourself by.

Trying to publicly humiliate Senor Electrical Tape for speaking his mind is not a good start.

So you're telling me to just *wait* for the country to get tired of these assholes while they take over the machinery of the very elections we would use to unseat them? There are a lot of ways to get back in the saddle and *waiting* isn't one of them.

I'm not telling you to just wait; I'm telling you to be passive-aggressive about waiting. Remind people who think of themselves as classical conservatives that the current administration is trampling Federalism, expanding government at a rate not seen since LBJ, and allowing the debt to spiral out of control. Paint yourselves as more conservative than the conservatives.

Or, you could go back to being smug, snide assholes, and loudly whining about how you know better than anyone else how the country should be run. Because 5 (or 11, depending on when you start counting) years of that have done a whole lot of good for getting you "back in the saddle" thus far.

> If you want to change the elephants' courses,
> make them feel bad about themselves for
> trampling rough-shod over the constitution.

Remember Terry Schiavo? The Republican leadership has no shame. They don't feel bad about trampling on the Constitution.

> The pendulum will swing back in the other
> direction

I have to agree with rj on this one. The pendulum will swing back, but only because the Dems will eventually re-master the art of guerilla politics. And the sooner the better.

And the point I made, vor, is that in a constitutional republic such as ours, when the leadership of a party loses the support of its constituency, they will lose power as well. Speaking for myself, my family, and many of my friends, we as republicans were thoroughly disgusted by the leadership on this issue. Several people I know said that they will refuse to vote for George Bush's appointed successor based on this incident alone.

Now, think for a second, vor, instead of just reflexively spitting back whatever tripe Air America happens to be spewing at the moment. Have you or anyone you've known ever softened or abandoned your beliefs based on guerilla politics? In fact, haven't those politics, when used by Republicans, done nothing but made your hair stand on end and hardened your resolve? So why would you think it would be any different for Republicans?

This "we have to use dirty tricks because they used dirty tricks" mentality is not only insulting to the average middle-American voter (who does *not* like to be insulted or talked down to), it's also self-defeating, because the strength of the liberal message lies in it's stronger intellectual points (in contrast to the more morally/emotionally-based conservative appeal). And to abandon those strengths in favor of a mud-throwing campaign strategy because you think that's what will appeal to the simple-minded American voter is nothing more than the same hubris which got your last two candidates left at the altar.

Again, for the record, I'm a moderate conservative. I'm also a swing voter. So, considering that I'm exactly the sort of person you're looking to make hop the fence in the next election cycle, my visceral dislike for your arguments (and your post, rj3) would seem a very good proof, Q.E.D., that this is not the strategy to take.

Actually, we don't need you to hop the fence. We need to make sure die-hard conservatives stay home.

In the last two presidential elections the GOP successfully demoralized swing voters while mobilizing its extremist base. The current design of American voting makes it less effective to entice swing voters(and tone down the rhetoric) than to drive away your opponent's voters and engage your hardliners.

The most effective thing we can do is drive conservative voters out of districts in which they might make a difference. Of course, this apporach is only meaningful in the tiny number of voting districts that haven't already been gerrymandered into 'safe seats' by either party.

Luckily there aren't any competitive seats for miles and miles. VA, DC, MD even PA, and DE are locked down. So please understand that any antagonism you encouter around here is not politically motivated.
It's personal :)

-W

w-

You obviously read nothing I wrote besides the word "conservative".

I considered voting for Kerry in the last election, but found his lack of backbone, his inability to stick to his principles throughout the election cycle, unappealing, even though i liked many of his other points. I would think that this, by itself, would indicate that I'm not a "die-hard" conservative.

You point in engaging the base is well-made, but it's kind of Ohio-centric. Florida, Arkansas, and North Carolina all had extremely high numbers of "undecided" voters showing up to vote for Bush. And complaining about Gerrymandering reeks of (to quote rj3) "pathetic loser" -- both parties are equally guilty of that charge. Finally, nationwide polls conducted by the economist last year seem to indicate that the liberal go-to "base" just isn't as large as the conservatives'. So that's another recipe for failure.

So, again: sure, turn up the volume, attempt to drive out and demoralize the conservatives. And get ready to foot the bill for another Republican inauguration in 2008.

As an aside: Do you honestly believe that the 527s and Michael Moore weren't loud and abrasive enough this time? In that case, you're morons.

Every time I heard a political ad last fall, be it swift boat veterans or moveon.org, it made me want to do nothing so much as personally skull-fuck the people responsible for the noise pollution. I know that i am not alone in that sentiment. I also know that democratic-leaning advertisers were MUCH more prominent on the airwaves in swing states on the days leading up to the elections. So draw your own conclusions abou the efficacy of that strategy.

I'm getting tired of talking to people who think they know how to fix the democratic party's woes because they read it on the "daily kos". Has it not yet occurred to one of you that, if all you listen to is the same group of people, all you're going to get is the same result? Forget the "vast right-wing conspiracy", it's this mental masturbation on the part of the American left that is more responsible than anything for your abject electoral failure over the last decade.

To wit: what plays on most of the TVs in Brookings HQ? Why, CNN -- because they like to see what they feel enunciated on screen. What plays on most of the TVs at Heritage? Why, CNN again -- because they like to learn what the other side thinks before they craft their message.

Here's hoping you guys take a hint and come up with a message I can vote for before the next election.

> Have you or anyone you've known ever
> softened or abandoned your beliefs based on
> guerilla politics?

First--I never said anything about dirty tricks. I don't advocate Nixonian democracy. I'm talking about posture and rhetorical heat.

Second--I'm not talking about changing individual minds. I'm talking about trends. The center of American politics will always be tethered to a set of political "truths": a businessman makes a better widget than a bureaucrat, for example; or the relevance of the civil rights movement is waning; or tax cuts are good for the economy. If the majority of Americans accept these quips as self-evident, it's because a handful of hardcore Republicans have drilled them into the American psyche. So the Democrats are tasked, now, to bring some very anti-mainstream ideas out of the cellar. If we don't make an impressive noise, the center of American politics will continue to drift to the right. The argument that rhetorical ferocity is somehow insulting to the intelligence of the average American is self-defeating arrogance when it comes from the left and calculated sabotage when it comes from the right. The American people, if they deserve anything, deserve to see the Democrats do more than take comfort in the intellectual superiority of their ideas. Majorities can be swayed, after all, by really bad ideas. That doesn't make the majority bad or stupid; it makes them preoccupied Beltway outsiders who don't perceive a strong, viable alternative.

The Democrats should do more than stand firm. They should call a pig a pig. They should shout big truths about domestic suffering--the health care crisis and class inequality and unchecked poverty and unquestioned inner-city violence--and challenge the ruling party for its shameful disregard of our most glaring problems. If that's distasteful to you, then you're not the kind of voter we need.

I have to say--lately, the way the GOP has acted, the Dems have gained ground by showing restraint, remaining reasonable and dialing down the shrillness. As well they should--when I heard that Bush wanted to use his "mandate" to do things like reform the tax code and change Social Security, I couldn't have been more relieved! He may as well have said: "For my next trick, I'm going to jump this shark!" The heady days of the Bush administration are basically over. Social Security reform is not happening. Tax code reform? A fucking laugh: you can't suggest changing the hue of the paper the tax code is printed on without a special interest bukkake video breaking out. Worried about going to war again? Don't be. There's no money for it.

On top of that, Schaivo, filibusters, stumping in Baptist megachurches...these are yawning political graves--let the GOP lie in them. And let their freakazoids have all the airtime and press they want.

vor-
If you believe in your heart of hearts that taxes are a boon to the economy, that central planning can produce results superior to market forces, and that the civil rights movement is just as relevant today as it was 40 or even 30 years ago, then I need the name of your lobotomist. Yapping marxist class-warfare buzzwords does not an effective argument make.

dceiver-
hoo-rah.

> Yapping marxist class-warfare buzzwords
> does not an effective argument make.

And institutionalized cynicism do not results produce. If you think that the tax cuts are a boon to the economy, then I have an MIT-educated economist you should meet. If you think the civil rights movement is irrelevant, start in Georgetown and drive down Pennsylvania Avenue as far as it will go. And if you prefer to sit in the comfortable fringes of the Republican party and call yourself a free-thinking centrist, then by all means: have fun rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

DCeiver--I wouldn't call them shrill, but I've noticed quite the opposite--I see Howard Dean touring Kansas, and I see Harry Reid taking the fight to Bill Frist, and I feel optimistic. Yes, the Republicans are certainly meeting them halfway, but don't discount the effect of strong leadership. The Dems' willingness to sit on the sidelines of America and feel satisfied with their ideas is what made them a minority party in the first place.

vor-

I didn't say "irrelevant", I said no longer "as relevant today as it was 40 or even 30 years ago". That's a significant semantic difference, one even an institutionalized cynic can discern.

For every tax-endorsing MIT economist you can produce, I can produce one with the opposite view from Princeton, UVA, or the University of Chicago. Who cares? It's just an extension of the talking head arms race on network news ("I see your Tom Friedman, and raise you one Charles Krauthammer." Talk about irrelevant...) I asked what you believe, not what your friends believe, or what Pravda is endorsing this month.

And as far as the right-centrist shade-sitter argument: freely admitted.

I have not once had the desire to protest anything, for either side. I have very limited social awareness or class consciousness. I don't particularly care who made my shoes, or in what conditions. I don't think abortion is any of my business, as a male. And I am very comfortable not knowing the circumstances of a veal calf's life before it came to rest, smothered in linguine and marinara sauce, on my plate last night.

But, because I value the Constitution, cherish my freedom of speech, and enjoy having some nice land to go hunting on from time to time, I have become dismayed with the Bush administration. So, I'd like to see a Democrat in office for a term or so to correct some of the excesses of this presidency, before we elect another Republican again.

I don't have a struggle, unless it's to maintain my status quo. I don't want a revolution. And I generally find those who do somewhat repugnant. But, compromise is the name of the game. So, whether or not you want me as your voter, you'll most likely have me in the next election, assuming your candidate's views lie somewhere to the right of Brezhnev. Sorry if that taints the party for you, but such is the nature of "big tent" American politics.

Now, if you gentlemen will excuse me, it's the start of Foxfield weekend... See you on the infield, I'm sure.

Cheers.

Yeah, I know that you didn't say "irrelevant," just like you know that I never suggested the state takeover of private industries. But we're all political trolls, here, and we leap beyond arguments in the hopes of overwhelming a rhetorical adversary.

> I don't have a struggle, unless it's to maintain
> my status quo.

That's a pretty common feeling in this town, so I won't hold it against you.