kos had a post this weekend of the importance of not believing everything you read on the Internets because Josh "Tacticus" Trevino was laughing at a diary posted here.

Trevino wrote:

It’s no surprise that there are serial liars and embellishers on the interwebs. What should be noted is that their lies and embellishments can be utterly transparent and repetitive, and yet be accepted as fact time and again by the audience for whom they confirm basic prejudices.

Trevino should know. He is a serial liar and embellisher. And a fascism lover who thinks our problem in Iraq is we're not putting the women and children in concentration camps.

Josh Trevino's latest drew attention because of his references to concentration camps. I was stunned by his endorsement of empty rhetoric:

What was good about the President’s speech? He remains committed to victory. Whether he will achieve it or not is a separate matter; the mere fact that he seeks it sets him on a moral plane above the mass of the American left that thinks defeat a wholly palatable option.

Mr. Trevino, no one thinks it a palatable option. Just as no one thinks any catastrophic strategic blunder, like this Iraq Debacle, palatable. But wishing does not make it different. A SERIOUS and patriotic person would put away his McCarthyite insults and deal with the well being of the nation. You apparently prefer to insult than think what is best for our country. I once thought you better than that. I see I was wrong. More.

Rhetorically bombastic, yes.  For all the air of intelligence that pervades your writing, I must come to the conclusion that your willingness to accept the solution you have proposed is an indicator of your insanity.  This is the same kind of insanity that powered the acts of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot.  Your proposal to institute a system of concentration camps and blockhouses in Iraq is inhuman:

Make no mistake: those means were cruel. I have stated previously that I endorse cruel things in war — to eschew them is folly. The British achieved victory over the Boers by taking their women and children away to concentration camps, by laying waste to the countryside, and by dotting the veld with small garrisons in blockhouses at regular intervals.
---
Consider the Boer-era strategy for victory as it might apply in Iraq. Consider it because in doing so, one considers the course of action that arguably maximizes efficacy per soldier, thereby yielding a plausible figure for needed soldiery.

I guess it takes insane people to move an empire forward.

In an unusually below-the-belt attack by one of our favorite bloggers at Redstate, that old NY Post story has been dredged up and used as a sign that the left blogosphere is all smokes-and-mirrors - we're all in lock-step, making false claims about activism and ordinariness, blah blah blah.

Now, I could respond to this with a point-by-point refutation, but given the tone and jaw-dropping stupidity of Trevino's discussion, I'll respond in kind.

This is an open letter.

thereisnospoon is getting at an important point but spends too much time illustrating an obvious, dressed-up concept (the "Overton window") and not enough illustrating the other aspects of his point-- which are obfuscated in essentially meaningless phrases like "messaging is clear and well-crafted" and the "positions are principled, memorable, and consistent." (Well, duh)

First let me show why, when stripped of its glittering generalities, an argument solely about his so-called "Overton window" is simplistic, incomplete, and un-profound. Then I will expand on the point thereisnospoon beings to touch on, and lay out a specific but simple A--to--B strategy about how we can both move the dialogue to the left and win elections.

I just read and recommended thereisnospoon's compelling and astute diary Why the Right-Wing Gets It--and Why Dems Don't.  Though my Why I'm not concerned about Concerned Women for America diary was used as a negative example, I honestly think thereisnospoon and I are fundamentally in agreement with one another.  I believe in winning the middle by playing to the base, and also see the value in aiming some messages directly at the middle. I think we are at such a critical crossroads for the country and the world that I would never advocate an either-or strategy--it's obvious that we have to examine ideas from everywhere and do everything that works.

[UPDATE: I wanted to post here the email I received from Josh Trevino on this issue (I have his permission). I felt it was important for folks to see it for clarification from the man himself...

You got it pretty much right. Nice post, and thanks for the kind words. I'd only add three caveats:

a) It's a method for creating political possibilities, not winning elections or passing legislation per se. A lot of your critics seem to miss that.

b) While there is massive overlap between the GOP and the think tanks, it's the latter that originated and use this specific methodology (though not the concept, I think, which is an old one). The party is a bit more short-term and tactical. I wouldn't wholly conflate the two.

c) On DHinMI's specific comments, while I can't do anything about his particular dislike for me -- and it runs deep -- I can say that in response to his critique of the Mackinac Center, its political kneecapping of the Michigan teachers' union is a signal accomplishment.

Most resp.,

Josh Trevino

In an excellent series of posts, Josh Trevino f/k/a Tacitus, has forthrightly called the Iraq War the Debacle it is, rejected the Myth of the Purple Finger and labels the Bush Administration incompetent:

There is faith, and there is reason, and while each may inform the other, there comes a time when they must part ways. So it is in Iraq.

I supported the war in Iraq. . . . I still believe all these things. But there were many things that I believed as corollaries with these postulates that I was wrong about. I was wrong to think that the social and political sickness of the Muslim world was a transient phenomenon, separable from the societies and faith in which it flourished. I was wrong to think that slavery and ignorance are conditions from which persons inherently wish liberation. I was wrong to think that one venue in the heart of the Muslim world was as good as another: that Iraq was as sufficient as Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt.

Most grievous of all errors, I was wrong to think that the Administration of George W. Bush was competent to act upon any of the given beliefs.

While  I vehemently disagreed with the premises of Trevino's support for the Iraq War, he is certainly correct in saying that the most grievous error was to believe in the Bush Administration.

More on the flip.

Josh Trevino has a new blog, his 12/17/05 post is about ethics in political commentary. Trevino uses Markos as his example of questionable practices.

Trevino implies Kos was paid for favorable blogging by Dean and that Kos is pushing Unembedded, a photojournalism book, because he is using the publisher of Unembedded for his own book.  

Still, it's often possible to spot when a blogger's extracurricular interests influence his site and his work. Here's an example:

Markos Moulitsas, proprietor of the single most successful blog on the planet, has a book coming out. It's been known for some time that this book has been in the works.

On an apparently unrelated note, in November 2005, Moulitsas starts plugging Unembedded, a photojournalism book filled with (apparently quite good) images from Iraq. He plugs it and plugs it and plugs it and plugs it.  

more

My friend Josh Trevino, of Red State and Tacitus fame, e-mailed me today to point me to a new essay he had written on the Harriet Miers nomination as an indictment of the Bush administration. It's a good read from a highly principled, intelligent man who really knows how to write.

There is little that can be said about Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court that can be disputed. She was not picked for her ideology; she was not picked for her scholarship; she was not picked for her intellect; and she was not picked to appease a constituency. She was picked for the same reason Richard Cheney is the Vice President of the United States: Because George W. Bush is comfortable with her.

Josh isn't too thrilled with this nomination, to say the least. While he an I have vastly opposing idelogical views of the Bush administration, his analysis is nonetheless as scathing as mine would be. For more, go below the flip.

I went to RedState to see how they are reacting this morning, and came across this shocking piece of news...

Trevino was the founder of RedState, and he has now resigned from the site due to:

What differences?  Well, his Frontpaged heavily anti-Bush diary today might have something to do with it.