Blatham, you'll never fully understand my point of perception until you stop using the Blatham-hates-Bush filter. Most of your response still hinges on your
assumption that the spying will be proven illegal. I tried to illustrate, and did a fine job IMO, why that isn't even the prime concern in terms of perception. Sure, it's a shame that perception matters more than reality, but in politics; when didn't it? Your overall goal is obviously to overthrow the Neo-cons, fine. But to accomplish this you're going to need to win elections and that's where perception matters most. Does it ever occur to you that you might be diluting yourself into thinking your thinking is representative of the majority, by filling your head with Salon, the New York Times and the multitude of mutual back-slapping you enjoy on A2K? Here's some food for thought:
When Bush was elected; Democrats lost their minds claiming he "stole the election".
When Bush made his "with us or against us speech" Democrats lost their minds at the seemingly mindless lack of diplomacy displayed. They seemed pretty confident that the world body would prevent an "unwarranted attack" on Iraq.
When Bush went ahead and attacked Iraq, they lost their minds over this
presumably illegal flaunting of
international law (whatever the hell that is). And they were quite certain the American public would see it their way.
When the war didn't go well in their collective opinion (Despite virtually every Iraqi leaders face in the deck of cards being killed or captured) they screamed I told you so! Look at what an incompetent louse he really is!
When Bush announced his candidacy for a second term; Democrats rejoiced, secure in the knowledge that the American electorate was buying their repeated allegations of illegal, incompetent, even impeachable offenses.
When America went to the voting booth, they responded with a clear majority believing that despite Bush's shortcomings (retarded diplomacy, myriad of mistakes, inability to speak English and the near constant bombardment of accusations of illegal behavior), he was
still the better man for the job. They underlined that decision by rewarding the Republicans additional seats in Congress.
Now, here we are, a couple of years and a couple hundred hysterical accusations later... and Democrats are still behaving as if their message and means of delivery is a sound theory. It's not.
If they want to effect change; they need to start by getting elected. Perception is paramount in this endeavor. Dedicating vast amounts of energy attacking Bush's attempt to protect the country, the very issue that got him re-elected, isn't a very sound plan. Like you Blatham, the American Democrat tends to get too caught up on the wrong tree while missing the forest. Joe Public never sees the forest, either... so you need to choose your trees more wisely. This isn't the 60's. Joe Public will not view hysterical callings for the President's head for possible violations of procedure as more important than National Security. That simply will not happen.
I'll grant you the swing-vote isn't very impressed with Bush's track record, or indeed, Bush himself. Neither am I. The fact that such an unimpressive President defeated not only his opponent, but increased his support in the houses at the same time, should give Democrats pause. Can you imagine the beating John Kerry would have taken if this same President was even a better orator? It's time for Democrats to get a clue, if they're going to. Arguably the worst possible representative of Neo-cons defeated their hysterical calls of foul consistently throughout his Presidency. Idiots like Kennedy make fools of themselves at confirmation hearings... hell, pretty much every time he steps up to the mike... and he is one of the faces of the Democratic Party. Joe Public isn't buying. Imagine if Democrats had to face a guy like Tony Blair and try to get their message (or lack thereof) across to the American voter? Can you say
landslide?
Add up every negative of the Bush Presidency and then ask yourself: If we can't defeat this man, what does America really think of our politics? The writing has been on the wall but your ilk can't see the truth even while hysterically screaming LIAR!
Conclusion: If American Democrats wish to remain relevant in the future; they'll need to defeat better representatives of their opponent's party then Bush. A lot better. Recent history has proven conclusively that second guessing, hysterical accusations and all manner of shouting at the rain is not the path to the Promised Land. Will they ever get it? Blatham, your own inability to face the truth of perception is indicative they will not. However noble their message may be (whatever it is?), it stands a snowball's chance in hell of being heard if they don't stop concentrating 99% of their efforts on ABB rhetoric.
blatham wrote:
What operational details have been released, other than as I have suggested? It is a false claim. A cliche such as you use here has a real world application and possible truthfulness, but we have absolutely no reason to see its application in this case and much reason to see the other, far less honorable, motives.
Whether or not this spying is eventually deemed legal or illegal, or who and how many politicians on either side of the aisle opine this way or that, these aren't at the core of the perceptional significance. To the layman, who isn't predisposed to Pro-Bush or Anti-Bush sentiment; the story is pretty easy to read:
Bush attempted to secretly spy on the enemies of our nation in hopes of foiling their plans. Bush's political opponents thought it more important to score political points than to allow this strategy to continue.
Go ahead and pretend that constitutional defense was the motivating factor if you wish (as naïve as that would be)...
You want to take a good clear look at the Republicans in Congress and the Senate and elsewhere who criticize the way in which this program has been developed and handled by this administration. Ignore, if you wish, criticisms from Dems or their supporters, but the concerns are far more broad than you suggest.
But then factor in the level of importance Joe-public will attach to the Operation and its exposure. At worst; Bush flaunted the constitution in an attempt to defend the American people by subjugating the rights of relatively few for the good of the many. Even IF this is proven true; the perception will remain that Bush and Republicans did everything in their power (and then some) to attempt to prevent more terrorist attacks in the United States. Democrats on the other hand; eagerly sacrificed one of the tools of that defense for political gain (with the feeble, even if noble, excuse of constitutional protection).
Conclusion: Republicans appear even stronger on the issue of Defense while Democrats appear even weaker. Multiply that appearance if it's eventually proven that Bush was within his rights in the first place. Since Defense remains the paramount issue in the eyes of Joe Public; this is a no-win strategy for Democrats and the sooner they figure it out, the better off they'll be.
It is difficult to say at this point who will win the PR battle. That's unfortunate, really, that this is even an issue for debate. Because the issues that sit below are far more important and critical to your maintenance of an honest and democratic state. You have an "ends justify means" argument here, which I might even respond to. Except we know that the real "ends" are not merely as you formulate. Another critical goal to this administration in advancing this (and other such) argument/policy is to hew power over to the Presidency and away from the courts, the congress, and - you really got to get this corner of things - away from the citizenry. It is a move in the direction of authoritarianism and away from balanced and representative governance.
On a personal note; since I would like to see a shift to a more moderate Republican leadership, I have a vested interest in Democrats not continuing to implode their campaigns with foolish strategies. (Re-insert Timber's picture of excavator burying itself here). Until they can mount a more palatable campaign; the Republican hardliners will have less incentive to defer to more moderate candidates. I'd like to believe the Hard-line Republicans would accept a moderate Republican Nomination before sacrificing the Oval Office completely. Giuliani and Arnold's speeches in the conventions last year lead me to believe this is possible.
Moves towards moderation in the Republican party and its ideology are already quite noticeable. That is occuring because the present administration policies are increasingly seen as poorly thought out, and extremist, and incompetently managed. If that weren't the case, there would be no such shift.
[/quote]
Fortunately for hard-line Republicans; Roxxxanne's warped sense of reality is rather representative of her party's... (Where the heck is Timber's picture already?)) to offer one.
