• Hi All – the following started out as my first comment, but a couple of people said it would make a good diary. So, here it is, lightly edited and slightly lengthened, as my first diary.
The progressive netroots have bought several Republican/neocon memes, which is good for them but bad for us. The one that I noticed immediately was the "military authorization = war authorization". It doesn't and didn't. The Rs want everyone to think so because: 1) it saves them money for us to "eat our own" while they sit back and smirk, and more importantly 2) while we buy that one, we are not putting together a massive number of court cases to hit them with as of 1/21/09 - cases that must be carefully crafted to show that, while of course a commander-in-chief is not liable at law for damages during a duly authorized and congressionally-declared war, the commander-in-chief IS liable at law for damages resulting from an illegal one. Surely we can quit buying their lies - and I know there are people on DAILY KOS with "standing" (folks who've served in Iraq and families who've lost people in Iraq) as well as lawyers who could put those cases together - and get busy on the one thing that could prevent this from happening again, no matter who is elected in 2016 and beyond.
Another one is the "Bush is stupid, his administration is incompetent" meme. That one’s counterintuitive. Why would the Rs want us to believe that? Simple. Stupidity and incompetence are regrettable but not illegal. Fraud is. The current administration has been defrauding American taxpayers to line Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.’s pockets (and guarantee themselves incomes after they leave office). Again, we need to be connecting lawyers with people who have standing (anyone living in New Orleans at the time of Katrina, for example), and get these court cases ready to roll on 1/21/09.
Other very emotional and insidious memes are out there for no other purpose than to get us to destroy our own. One of those is what the few liberal columnists out there call the "Clinton Rules" - basically, no matter what either Clinton says or does, it's evidence of how bad they are, and if you have to take things out of context or imply they were speaking of someone or something other than who or what they were actually talking about to do it, no problem. That one is probably in everyone under the age of 40, and a fair number of those over 40, who listens to TV or radio news while doing something else. Even Markos, who's said he's met Hillary and she's a nice person, had no problem some months back believing that she'd said John Edwards and Barack Obama were helping terrorists. He noted - at the bottom of the post - that he was wrong after being called out on it - but the fact is, Markos and apparently anyone who isn't a Hillary fan has enough of the "Clinton Rule" internalized that they don't stop and think, "Wait a minute, does that sound right? Would I just accept that if it was reported someone else had said it?" I was an Edwards supporter who is now supporting Hillary partly because every time I researched one of those anti-Clinton "flames" it didn't stand up.
Please folks - whether you prefer Obama or Hillary or any other Dem - believing R memes is bad for us. Making this election between two highly capable people into the mud fight the Rs want is very bad for us, if for no other reason than we give them in our little spitballs the genesis of cannonballs they will use against the winner in the general election.
Another really insidious one is that if I don't agree with a vote or action of one of our own, they have sold out or are spineless, etc. It is very possible. God knows one of my senators is about as blue as they come (but even he is solid on consumer safety and S-CHIP). It is also possible they share the same goal but don't think your preferred way of dealing with it is viable. Case in point is impeachment. Nancy Pelosi is flamed on a regular basis because she "took it off the table". Most of her negative netroots ratings come from that single thing. However, Pelosi may believe, as I do, that handing W's post-admin defense team a Senate acquittal to take into court is a really bad idea, should we manage to get him into court in the first place. In fact, I believe the Rs are dying on the vine for us to impeach, have been increasing the "leaks" of their illegal activities so we will fall for this and impeach – giving them that oh-so-useful Senate acquittal. (Your Honor, I’d like to enter into the record this copy of the Senate acquittal of my client and move the case be dismissed. So entered, so ruled. Case dismissed, clear the courtroom.)
Please, please, please - from someone who got rid of her TV so those insidious R memes couldn't sneak into her subconscious - before you flame either of our presidential candidates or any of our Dem leaders, stop and ask yourself, "would I believe this if they told me the other one said that?" or "could that path lead to my desired result, even if it isn't my preferred path?" Once you've reviewed, if you are still of the same mind, flame away, but we should have at least a working relationship with the enemy of our enemy, even if we can't (and shouldn't) be friends. Thanks, bf