Recently, it seems that the wingnuts have decided that they can't argue with the points being made against President Bush. So they must focus instead on some of the extremist positions being taken by some who align themselves with Democrats.
We've all seen the hubbub with the kos mercenary quote, but today
Glenn Reynolds really digs deep to find some dirt. Actually it's a link to Drudge, who one might just call the Deep Ditch Digger of the Republican Party.
Anyway, this has given me something to think about.
This has been a long outstanding problem with the Democratic party, dating back at least to the 1968 election. The initial response was for a portion of the party to leave the Democrats. The second response was the DLC's attempt to redefine the debate, and question and demonize these radicals. (The old Sister Souljah moment)
The Republican party, on the other hand, has had the same problem. Demons within the party. Now they largely embrace these extremists and don't worry about it. Sadly, I don't know if such a thing could happen with Democrats as we generally have good consciences, and don't always agree in lock step anyway.
Now one tactic taken by some Democrats has been to defend the specifics of the words said. "Well they're right, sort of... I mean yada yada..."
But I'm wondering if that's the right position to be taking, because now you're engaging in an argument about the specifics of the words. It's a untenable position to be in. You've taken something someone else has said, and now you're trying to defend it.
I think the position to take is akin to the quote attributed to Voltaire,
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
I don't want to get into the specifics of the words, or the concepts, or the thoughts. I don't agree with the language, the wording, whatever. I don't think demonizing or distancing ourselves from this has worked either, instead it has led to frustration and a desire to align with other extremists like Ralph Nader.
I also don't want to get into a tit for tat analysis of every Republican extremist out there. Although I admit that it'd take far less effort on our part to find them, as there's just too many of them. . :-)
No, I think the response is simply to say "I don't agree with what they said, but this is America and I defend their right to say it. That's what I love about this great nation of ours."
It's dismissive, and turns the argument into one of free speech. Actually that's the tactic I have taken with regards to defending kos in some other blogs.
Glenn Reynolds is a coward who engages in the creation of strawman arguments that he can easily dismantle. You'd think a law professor would be sharper than that.
So I'm advocating taking our ball and going home, instead of playing his reindeer games.
Anyway, something to think about...