by Judeling, Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 09:15:38 AM EST
Over at Open Left last weekend Paul Rosenberg noted that the Left and Right have different temperaments and worldviews so effective strategies for one side do not translate into effective strategies for the other.So just what should we do?
Challenge the Frame by Posing the Question (4.00 / 7)
We do challenge authority and pose questions fairly well.
Why can't American business create American jobs?
The talking points flow from the question. While we wont hammer the talking points, We can pose the question. What would happen if each of the major blogs and bloggers posted a diary posing this question for a week.
As long as the Question is challenging enough it will create the conflict that the media seems to feed off.
by: Judeling @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 17:40
by Judeling, Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:41:42 AM EDT
The Third Way and the Republicans are calling for capitulation in the guise of compromise. Why haven't progressives responded with their own version.
Split the current proposal into 3 bills. And a series of amendments.
1. All the stuff everyone agrees is a good idea.
2. All the stuff everyone says they agree is a good idea.
3. The tough stuff.
3A. All the demonized aspects that are really a good idea and on their own are hard to argue about.
by Judeling, Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:14:41 PM EDT
Listening to Willie Brown on Hardball or any number of CEOs on CNBC it has become clear that the opposition to the public option is far more then a concern about health care or even ideology. This is about power.
They cannot allow progressives a win of any kind because it could lead to more.
by Judeling, Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:57:13 PM EDT
and push hard. Medicare for all.
If as being reported the White House is going to abandon their attempts to get some republican votes. Now is the time for those of us who believe that a single payer system is what we should have been debating all along, to push it.
It is not only good policy it is good politics.
by Judeling, Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:28:16 PM EDT
That is not a question.
It is how I believe we should proceed in the debate. Blunter and much harder edged.
"Death Panels. Its death panel prevention. It allows a doctor to be paid so they can set aside the time to talk to you about it. It lets you decide. Instead of your family or a hospital's ethics panel or a State like Texas does."
"What Else are they lying about!"
Are they just Idiots?
"Oh but expanding coverage will cost so much!". "We are already paying for it. You just have to wait until your are sick enough to go to the emergency room. Then the costs can get passed on to everybody else. In this world of SARS, Avian and Swine flu and who knows what next, do they really want your kids bus driver or your grocery clerk or waitress to wait until they are sick enough that they have to go to the emergency room?"
"Are they just Idiots?"
Bluntness, a hard edge, attacking, accusatory, dismissive should be the tone we set. The politicians may feel that they have to have conciliatory and moderate tone, but we need not feel that constraint.
by Judeling, Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 06:12:28 PM EDT
In my last couple of diaries I've argued that having progressive primary challengers is the most effective way to pressure the least progressive elected Democrats. Even the threat of such a challenge has been shown to alter behavior.
I further argued that our support for these efforts should be targeted to a very few cases each cycle. First because it would be foolish to follow the rights challenge march into oblivion and also because we need to maximize our leverage.
How could we entice a progressive state senator or mayor in Indiana to consider a challenge? We would have to offer a big pot of gold.
An idea on how to do this on the flip.
by Judeling, Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:59:15 PM EDT
In my previous diary I advocated attracting and supporting a targeted number of Senate and House primary challengers.
Lets be clear right up front.
This stick is pointed on both ends.
While it could bloody the incumbent, we also have the very real possibility of losing the seat in the general and so incurring the wrath of the party establishment. I still believe the potential gains far out weigh the potential downside.
Let this also be clear.
The stick needs to be pointed and draw blood.
Our representatives are so conditioned to look over their right shoulder nothing else will likely get them to look over their left and so just possibly begin to look ahead.
Lets look at a possible case.
by Judeling, Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:14:44 AM EDT
One of the reasons the Democratic party is suited for the majority is that it is broad and robust enough to supply its own opposition. This is a fact that should be heralded and not bemoaned.
Having said that progressives need to work to shift the party more our way as its default position. We have used our activism, willingness to work and our money to support expansion of the party and to overlook to an extent the ideological bent of those we were supporting. As a general rule that seems logical and appropriate in Red to Blue districts. The carrot of our support has brought some notable successes and important challenges.
However it is now time to include a stick.
by Judeling, Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 08:55:31 PM EDT
Desmoinesdem and his argument in Next cycle, donate strategically--not emotionally got me thinking.
It is not the case of either or, but rather harnessing the emotion to further strategic goals. The emotional money is most likely in addition to any rational donation strategy. NormDollar.com shows that emotion can be harnessed.
A possibility below.