Pull your tail from between your legs, dammit.

Digby has an insightful post pricking the bubble of democrat defeatism which swelled after Sen. Feingold proposed censure over Bush's disregard of FISA oversight. I won't paraphrase it, other then to say it deals with the foolishness of listening to beltway democrat consultants, because he lays out the case much better than I could.

However, in the comments, one poster displayed a disturbing
roll-over-and-die mentality that clings to many democrats:

OK, I'll try again (fruitlessly, I'm sure) to explain why going whole hog
after Bush on censure is a bad political move. Let me say first that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING AFRAID OF GETTING HURT BY TAKING BUSH ON. This is a strawman that keeps getting repeated over and over by otherwise smart people.

Feingold is proposing to censure Bush not over his general idiocy,
or over lying about the war. It is about the FISA wiretapping scandal. This is important because, as a minority party without a bought-and-paid-for media apparatus, we have a very limited ability to talk to general voters. Very limited in time, and very limited in scope. And meanwhile, average folks who don't follow politics require seven or eight or even more "hits" before anything penetrates. We therefore have to be very careful what messages we choose to transmit, and we need to limit them severely. One is best. Two maybe. Any beyond that and we're just killing ourselves by never allowing anything to make a dent.

Recent polls have established, over and over, that the
messages of Bush as incompetent, as a liar, and as someone who doesn't care about average folks, have now penetrated somewhat. They are real weapons in our arsenal, and the margins are huge in our favor. Whereas the FISA case is marginal: Maybe a plurality on our side, maybe not, depending on the poll. Even if we talk about nothing except FISA, the best we can hope for is that we will reconfirm how awful Bush is for about 40%, reinforce how great he is for about 35%, and probably get dismissed by the rest, who have no strong opinion on the subject to begin with. That's a loser, at least compared to continuing the attack on Katrina, WMD's, the war in general, Cheney's cluelessness, and other great themes with which the vast majority of the country agrees. Remember, the FISA case is not about Bush as clueless or incompetent (our best themes). It is only marginally about Bush as liar. It is mainly about Bush as lawbreaker, which is a completely new theme which we don't need.

So it really has nothing to do with being scared of Bush. I can agree (and I do) with you that pushing censure will do no harm. But the point is, it will also do no good. Or very little. And it will suck up oxygen and space that our more effectiveattacks need to survive and do their work.

ColoDem 03.19.06 - 12:04 am

It's a long and detailed arguement for sticking to the plan formulated by beltway democrat conventional wisdom. Unfortunately for ColoDem (and fortunately for us) most Americans don't live within the beltway. I posted a response at Digby's site, but still feel the need to rant. This is the part of ColoDem's post that got me fired up:

Feingold is proposing to censure Bush not over his general idiocy, or over lying about the war. It is about the FISA wiretapping scandal. This is important because, as a minority party without a bought-and-paid-for media apparatus, we have a very limited ability to talk to general voters. Very limited in time, and very limited in scope. And meanwhile, average folks who don't follow politics require seven or eight or even more "hits" before anything penetrates. We therefore have to be very careful what messages we choose to transmit, and we need to limit them severely. One is best. Two maybe. Any beyond that and we're just killing ourselves by never allowing anything to make a dent.Recent polls have established, over and over, that the messages of Bush as incompetent, as a liar, and as someone who doesn't care about average folks, have now penetrated somewhat.

Yes, people think bush is incompetent, and a liar who doesn't care about average folks. But they didn't gain that realization from the democrats. They tuned out the democrats, thanks to the "bought-and-paid-for media apparatus." However, people still have an awareness of their surroundings, no matter what the media tells them. I'm not discounting the impact of media massage, I just don't think it's omnipotent.

Folks are not as stupid/apathetic/clueless as ColoDem and others insinuate. Yes, I agree they're not political junkies who follow national trends closely. They're average folks who sense what is going on around them. I work a blue-collar job in one of the reddest states in the nation, and trust me... people are getting pissed/disheartened/fearful because of what they see with their own eyes. NOT because some smarter-than-thou democrat impregnated their brain with a sound bite.

It's time for wouldbe leaders to put their ears to the ground, listen to the growing outrage... and grow some intestinal fortitude. One become a leader by leading... there's no other option.

Feingold is leading. Now get out of his way.