Should or shouldnt's DNC Party Builder bloggers discuss Republican talking points?
|
|
| Also listed in: "Build the Party" | Cruel and Illogical Twits: | Issue Discussions | League of Dark Shadows |
On one of our new moderator's posts yesterday, I noticed a comment that suggested that because Rezko, rev Wright, and other things were Republican talking points, that we should not be allowed to discuss them here.
I'd like to address that as the admin and owner of the "Build the Party" group. "Build the Party" has about 70 members, many of whom have been very quiet recently given the atmosphere here. But the group was created long ago because this IS party builder, I am dedicated, as are all the members of that group, to using this site to promote the Democratic party and help secure a victory for our nominee. "Build the Party" members have always sought to defuse the fighting here on the site, and promote working together.
Now, speaking as a person who has ever worked toward the goal of Party Building, I feel that suggestion about Republican talking points is a poorly thought out, and frankly bizarre extension of censorship over the material that appears on this blog. The recent purge of several members who were working against the party from within may have been necessary from the moderator's point of view, however, I would caution all of us. We, as a blog community, now have both feet on a very slippery slope. Let's NOT rush to create a "book burning" list of things we're not allowed to talk about... and here's why:
Consider some voter who has never been active in politics. He or she is undecided and thinking about maybe voting this time around. He or she is surfing the net for information. On the RNC blogs, that undecided voter will read the talking points against Senator Obama. They will read about Rezko's connection, they will read about Rev Wright, ... they'll see a link to the "God damn America" soundbite.... we KNOW what undecided voters will be fed on a conservative blog. So then suppose that voter comes here to see what we have to say. Do we censor ourselves out of posting discussions that offer rebuttals to those talking points? Given the opportunity, I can, or Liz could, or Kathleen could completely take apart the Rev. Wright issue, so that any undecided voter would immediately see the Republican spin machine for the idiotic propaganda that it is. However, if that topic is off limits to us, as was suggested in the comment on Matt's post, then we can offer no discussion and no rebuttal to their talking points.
Your call, democrats.
I'd like to address that as the admin and owner of the "Build the Party" group. "Build the Party" has about 70 members, many of whom have been very quiet recently given the atmosphere here. But the group was created long ago because this IS party builder, I am dedicated, as are all the members of that group, to using this site to promote the Democratic party and help secure a victory for our nominee. "Build the Party" members have always sought to defuse the fighting here on the site, and promote working together.
Now, speaking as a person who has ever worked toward the goal of Party Building, I feel that suggestion about Republican talking points is a poorly thought out, and frankly bizarre extension of censorship over the material that appears on this blog. The recent purge of several members who were working against the party from within may have been necessary from the moderator's point of view, however, I would caution all of us. We, as a blog community, now have both feet on a very slippery slope. Let's NOT rush to create a "book burning" list of things we're not allowed to talk about... and here's why:
Consider some voter who has never been active in politics. He or she is undecided and thinking about maybe voting this time around. He or she is surfing the net for information. On the RNC blogs, that undecided voter will read the talking points against Senator Obama. They will read about Rezko's connection, they will read about Rev Wright, ... they'll see a link to the "God damn America" soundbite.... we KNOW what undecided voters will be fed on a conservative blog. So then suppose that voter comes here to see what we have to say. Do we censor ourselves out of posting discussions that offer rebuttals to those talking points? Given the opportunity, I can, or Liz could, or Kathleen could completely take apart the Rev. Wright issue, so that any undecided voter would immediately see the Republican spin machine for the idiotic propaganda that it is. However, if that topic is off limits to us, as was suggested in the comment on Matt's post, then we can offer no discussion and no rebuttal to their talking points.
Your call, democrats.
I am simply directly addressing the comment that I read yesterday. I usually take a day to think over something that I want to address on this site to make sure that I'm not just writing some kneejerk reaction. I seriously think we need to consider the need to refute and rebutt the negative points. And in order to do that, we have to be discussing them.
We can debate issues and policies, but attacks, disinformation and repetition of negative propaganda about our nominee, run counter to the advancement of the party, it's agenda, and the election of a democratic president and congress.
It is the antithesis of Party Builder.
Peace,
marsha
By problem is that we shouldn't have to 'practice' defending these Rovian attacks with Democrats here trying to attck our candidate. If Democrats feel the need to attack our candidate through 'freedon of speech' there are plenty of places that would welcome them and their attacks would not offend.
Lastly, I don't feel we have blinders on re facts surrounding issues, but we need to to focus on the positive and win the GE.
Does that make sense?
But we live in a world where doubt and mistrust in political figures is a fertile breeding ground. Given the horrible reputations surrounding the key figures in our current administration, I think Americans are ready and willing to believe whatever dirt is thrown at whatever politician. We haven't HAD a "white knight" - as in, a hero... and most people don't believe that one exists anywhere. The order of the day is disappointment in our public officials and pessimism.
In order to get through that, I think we will HAVE to deal with deconstructing the Republican arguments, rather than just smiling and skipping along saying "yes we can".
of course not, that is one of the purposes if this site; however, let's make a distinction in what we mean when we say "discuss" RNC talking points:
offering rebuttals and arguing against those talking points is *absolutely* something we must do. BUT, the majority of "discussions" of these points (repetitive "discussions" BTW) are not brought up in the spirit of rebutting them, but in the spirit of disseminating them.
when someone brings up Ayers, Rezco, Wright and whatnot, it is typically with the objective of spreading doubt and taking those talking points at face value. In essence, doing nothing more than what one would do on the RNC blog. it would be different if the posters in question actually made an attempt to question these talking points, but from my observation that is not something i have seen happening. in fact, its been even worse: try to make a coherent argument or rebuttal, the the original poster and a mob of supporters rain down on your comment with even more tripe: we are all unthinking automatons blindly following our cult leader (or some other such blather).
censorship? no. and yes we must be careful. but we must also be *practical*, and practicality in a general election means we all get "on message." some may not like the fact that politics works this way, but we must weigh the consequences of failure against our desire to include *everyone* - even those who are working against us.
dems have always had this in our blood: we encourage independence and dissent, often times in conflict with our best interests as a political party. i believe it is time for Democrats to stop this self destructive behavior and "shape up" so we act like a more disciplined and WINNING party.
And I know it's already been done. But I'm assuming that new voters won't spend 20 hours looking through archives. They'll read the front page and the top 5. So, following that idea, I'd like to ALWAYS see some kind of post deconstructing the Republican points being currently discussed. We could pickup maybe a couple of voters a day, just by keeping it right there, and letting them see the truth.
therefore, while i feel compassion for their hurt feelings at being banned, their posts will not be missed by me.
Link
Take a deep breath. Fold your hands, John Lenon style in your lap put on some relaxing music, and trust that the good karma will always overcome the bad karma.
I like you. I think we're all gonna be okay. Wait and see, little sister. Have faith.
it is about practicality, maturity, and most importantly: common sense.
we should not cut off our nose to spite our face. there is a limit to what can and should be said on a private blog with the specific purpose of WINNING ELECTIONS.
i can admit i've seen if from my side of the fence... question is can you guys admit it from yours? (hint, think jenniforhillary and fem demo... my two favorite examples).
You know that many of those who were purged were people who I had developed a decent relationship with. But in all honesty, dont you believe that many times they did little to "discuss" issues and more to simply "disrupt" discussions?
Unfortunately, it seemed to be less actual reasoned argument, and more inflammatory hit and runs with too many people.
there are some posters i will miss, and others i will not. the ones i miss the most are the people who have been blogging *constructively* here for years but who were driven from this site by others who's only objective appeared to be casting doubt on our party and our nominee.
Guys this post was really written not so much to address the purge, but to address that one specific comment.
Should we , or should we not, discuss and deconstruct Republican talking points here - or should they be off limits?
note: i'm not claiming you are doing any of those things. but the newly banned people *were*.
use your common sense to understand the difference between *disseminating* smears and *debating* smears. for example, when mentioning Ayers try to think critically about the claims made and offer a rebuttal rather than simply disseminating the talking points and saying "we should be scared." (note, this is an example from the site not from one of your own posts).
clearly you are free to argue all you want by the very fact you are still posting here. I see you only posted 2 blogs... maybe you have been here before and or maybe you are new to the site.
if you are new, then you'll just have to take it at face value: there has been an unconscionable amount of hateful smears posted on this site about the democratically elected nominee, and such actions run counter to the common sense of any smart political party.
It's not great support, but I REALLY don't want McCain in office. ... so that's where it is. In a way, you're both right.
Make sense?