Fixing the problem of GOP domination

Republicans have found a way to communicate with the electorate that progressives such as ourselves haven't quite been able to master.

Simplicity.

We've talked and ranted about it on this blog endlessly.  Republicans have for 30 years been mastering the technique of the simple argument, and they've perfected it to the point where even Joe Simpleton can spew off talking points without need for guidance or further thought.

We're a long way away from catching up to them in this area.  Our arguments are complex, require thought, and aren't easy to decipher into the 30-second soundbite so dearly loved by the press.

But there is an answer to this.  It might scare you a little to think about, because it is running a risk.  It's a risk that, should we fail, we could well regret.  But perhaps it's time to bet it all and hope for the best.  It sure as hell isn't going to get much worse.

What we need to do is fight to repeal the two-term limit on Presidents.  Then, once this is accomplished, we need to run the Big Dog again in 2008.

This will work, believe me.  We couldn't ask for better circumstances to try this one.  We've got a neo-con controlled White House obsessed with power and greed, and they'll jump at the chance to grab four more years than they were entitled to.  And hey, if the liberals are willing to go along with it, so much the better.

Plus, we've got a Congress that will be more than happy to go along with whatever the President says.  It couldn't get any better.

Then we run the one person who can touch the hearts of the electorate like nobody else.  Remember those days?  The days when America was prosperous, when it was possible to be progressive and keep our finances under control?

All we need is four more years of the Clinton magic, and in 2012, waiting in the wings to take his place is none other than Barrack Obama.  How much better can it get?

I know, this sounds like some crazy pipe-dream, but it's time we started thinking outside of the box a little bit.  We're supposed to be the creative, artistic, intellectual party, so let's start acting like it and find a solution to the problem.

*Disclaimer:  the thoughts expressed in this diary are solely attributed to medically recommended marijuana, not the illegal marijuana that gets you time in prison :)

•  Tip Jar

  If for no other reason than I really was thinking outside of the box.

  by Lipo on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:56:38 PM PDT

•  Simplicity

  Went to the Michael Moore rally in Columbus, Ohio Saturday night.  Princeton Lyman and John Brown - former diplomats who resigned in protest over Bush's bullshit - spoke.  Brown made the excellent point that the Rethuglicans have succeeded through:

  • oversimplification
    
  • repetition
    
  • demonization
    
  • spin (or has he put it "complete disregard for the truth")

  I thought he summed it up well.

  by jsaboley on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:59:38 PM PDT

  •  Re: Simplicity

    I'm in the process of putting something together for my blog that touches on these very same points, which is what inspired me to throw together this rather quick and lighthearted diary.

    These points are very true, and it's a skill we're either going to have to learn, or learn to turn around on the Republicans.

    by Lipo on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:07:04 PM PDT

•  LOL

  Yeah good idea!   Bush/Coburn 2016!!

  by ChicagoDem on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:00:16 PM PDT

•  How can we win in 2008?

  Last night, the Republicans, as I have posted in tiny little corners all over the blogosphere, made a push for total domination of all American political institutions.  We know that. They control congress, the media, and will soon finish their stranglehold on the courts.  And of course they will solidify their corporate control over our electoral processes.  

  Now given what we know about them, will they use their power to create an honest open dialogue about the problems facing this country?

  Will they use the institutions they control to offer Democrats a fair shot at regaining power in 2008?

  So my point is, talkig about how to win in 2008 is a joke.  It's like a football team plotting strategy when they know they'll never be allowed in the stadium.

  We are on the verge of one-party totalitarian rule, American style, with the trappings of free speech (even that will be gradually eroded as the new SCOTUS renders meaningful dissent meaningless, like protestors confined to a free speech zone) and freedom of assembly but no real chance for anyone to share power with the ruling elite.  

  Bush is our Stalin, our Mao, our Tito, our Castro, whatever.  With the power to annihilate any nation in the world that opposes us.  

  God help this country.  

  by daveriegel on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:04:32 PM PDT

  •  Sorry you feel that way

    But look at it like this.  Nothing has changed since yesterday.  Absolutely nothing at all.

    Bush was already the President.  Congress was still controlled by the Republicans.  The biggest difference is that we've got 11 new states who have written discrimination into law with regards to gay marriage.

    There only difference we face is that we don't have a central goal with which to rally around at the moment.  In a few months time, new leaders will begin to emerge, and we'll have new leaders who we can get behind and start to fight for.

    Our causes are still the same, we just have to remember that tomorrow is the same as yesterday unless we work on a way to change it.

    by Lipo on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:10:43 PM PDT

    •  I love you, but

      A lot will change once the judicial appointments start rolling.  

      Buddy, the chances of us ever gaining a degree of power or a chance of controlling the agenda became infinitely harder last night.  

      That's why this election was so important.  

      I think America changed a great deal today.  We were a one-party nation before, but it is now hard to imagine emerging from it.

      by daveriegel on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:21:29 PM PDT

  •  Nader Was Complaining

    about the two party system.  Welcome to the one party system buddy.  Thanks for 2000 jerk!

    by lostian1 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:12:24 PM PDT

    •  I heard some thoughts on this

      on one of the news channels one night.  The argument was being made that if we did away with the electoral college, we would face a situation where anybody running for President could become a contender, and there may never again be a clear winner in an election.

      The guy talking was saying that we could be faced with runoff elections between the top two or three contenders, and it would take forever to elect a President.

      I wondered what was wrong with this idea, and I still haven't figured it out.  If more people have a chance at winning an election, doesn't it do a better job of representing the public and help ease some of the division our country is currently facing?

      I think I agree with Nader on this one.

      by Lipo on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:17:46 PM PDT

    •  You can't blame this on Nader.

        Nope this was Republicans and Democrats head to head. The Democrats lost on their own.

      by Bryce in Seattle on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:26:38 PM PDT

      •  aoeu

        This 2004 wouldn't have happened if 2000 hadn't.

        by TealVeal on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:45:00 PM PDT