Are all those who disagree with Glenn’s call for a Congressional resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh really guilty of unilateral disarmament?

Glenn and others seemed to think I was entirely disagreeing with him; I was, as my opening sentence said, merely deeply ambivalent. But the fact remains that those who advocate congressional resolutions as a means of tit-for-tat political warfare (as well as the idjits who first employed this strategy re: the MoveOn ad), are, if successful, at high risk of institutionalizing a dangerous use of our federal legislature

I am deeply unsure the risk is worth it.

firedoglake's proposal seems the best I've heard ...

for those who itch to cause the Democratic Party as much pain as possible and whose heart beats faster with the opening chords of "street fighting man", there's always

url: http://www.recreate68.org/album1_dnc_001.htm

preparing for the DNC convention in Denver --

FWIW: I've been told that my impression that the Denver Police are trigger happy is wrong and that there were just a series of atypical "unfortunate incidents" ... true, they did involve unarmed civilians; but, personally, I live outside of denver and the prospect fills me with anxiety ... whatever

=========================================================

on a lighter note: there is a large nationwide mobilization scheduled for the end of next month -- mark your calendars.

I am deeply unsure the risk is worth it.

-- -Mona-

comes across a bit concern trollish. At some point you have to fight fire with fire. Yes, fire burns people, but how long does one accept being burned before grabbing a flame-thrower in self defense? I really think it will take that to get the horrible GOP to acknowledge this stupidity.

Susan, and I mean this with all courtesy and sincerity, how has that worked out so far?

may loose patience with an ineffectual CONGRESS using official time to play meaningless GAMES ... for and against special interest groups ... particularly given Congress' inability to do much that is MEANINGFUL on dozens of issues ... busy work.

I'd like to hear more about the mobilization. Do you have a link?

But the fact remains that those who advocate congressional resolutions as a means of tit-for-tat political warfare (as well as the idjits who first employed this strategy re: the MoveOn ad), are, if successful, at high risk of institutionalizing a dangerous use of our federal legislature.

The point is the opposite. I think there is much more of a chance of this becoming routine if Republicans can use it without any consequences. I think it's likely to stop only if they are subject to it, too.

Deterrence through strength and all that.

The needed remedy for Congress’ shameful actions last week is to rescind the resolutions they already passed.

Zack - on a scale of 1 - 100, with 1 being "absolutely impossible" and 100 being "certain," what do you think the liklihood is that this will happen?

I share Mona's ambivalence. I'm also not sure there is an alternative. Tit-for-tat is one of the oldest, and most effective game strategies there is in human existence (if my professors of game theory were correct). I do not believe this hypocrisy from the right will die on its own; not against the military, or any other meme that's out there. It would not be hard to bury this thread with examples of IOKIYAR but I*not*OKIYAD. I can bounce from one blog to the next, from one press outlet to the next, and be confronted with examples every time I turn around. The Fox poll from TPM that I submitted earlier is interesting. For all the hoopla that has surrounded the MoveOn ad, its reach into the public consciousness has been curiously shallow. And, this is the point where MoveOn has to make a choice. They can drop the whole thing and, depending on your point of view, very little damage has been done - or, you can say, we need to ramp it up because we need deeper penetration of the betrayal theme. The thing I am quite sure of is the right will not back off. What liberals do will make little difference to the right's tendency to slur and slime.

And, susan sunflower, being fairly familiar with Denver, I don't think you have need to fear Denver police more than any other police department. Colorado lobbied hard to get the DNC and I expect they will do their best to make it a successful event. Read that as, no one gets clubbed or shot for the cameras. My experience of Denver is that it's a pretty open and accepting town. What agitators the Republicans might bus in for the event, could be a factor. You can assume that the Denver police will be watching for that. While Colorado has been a "red" state in the past, it is currently trending "purple." FWIW, I experience Denver as "blue."

they have their own website (which I found via "united for peace and justice) which is linked at my name.

My very small very local peace group just rolled out a big "do something for peace every day" campaign which brought tears to my eyes ... vigils once a week, buy nothing days, all sorts of things "to do" ....

It seems so sad in the face of everybody and their brother saying that -- grownup voice -- REALLY not much or nothing "can" happen until after the election, after the inaugeration, after the new administration gets settled and up to speed ... and all that -- if -- we manage to stay out of Iran ...

fwiw, I completely agree we need to make a mighty noise ... I'm even tempted to break things.

url: http://www.oct27.org/sites/oct27.org/files/oct27/October_27.html

Glenn is right.

We’ve seen this play out time-and-time again. When the right-wing’s ideologies, policies and arguments cannot stand on their own, they erect barriers to the core issue such as making the Iraq occupation about supporting the troops or opposing terrorism. (They literally do hide behind the troops and the terrorists simultaneously.) It is also worth noting that what the right hides behind is often a nebulous platitude that they only bother to define when they self-righteously deem their opposition to have crossed some politically opportunistic line, which they are more than willing to adjust as needed to nab further transgressors or thwart retaliatory responses.

So, when just one element of their political opposition (arguably) makes a misstep, obliged as always by a media that seems to live for such manufactured controversies, we are suddenly ruminating about an ad in a newspaper about a general, as Kos put it, instead of discussing the national and international security, diplomatic, societal and economic ramifications of a continuing if not endless occupation.

The right’s goal obviously is to pin this one ad (or any such singular event) on the whole of their political and ideological opposition, and they have been amazingly good at it over the years, again with the help of a media that ranges from oblivious to supportive of such manipulations and perversions.

So, do we high-mindedly ignore the latest diversion from the reality of Bush/Cheney and the other neo-con’s disastrous foreign and domestic policies, knowing that the nation eventually will come to see their radicalism and our clearly sounder policies and higher principles? Remaining above the fray clearly has not worked. For various reasons, many of which we cannot control (at least for now), the right even today has a superior ability to frame such discussions, and we have to admit this reality and discern why this is before we can even begin to effectively respond.

One major reason is that the right feels can make these accusations at will without negative consequences accruing to them, and although Glenn and others are starting to change this, the effect to date has been marginal. I’m not sure if the right-wing has thought it through or even cares about the reasons for the lack of responses, they just know that they can be just about as ridiculous as they need to be to get the framing they want without fear of significant reprisal. The right has made political hay for years attacking opposition at their supposed strengths, and we need to be willing to fight the right on their turf because we really have no other choice now. Glenn’s response to Fox Fiction and the responses directed at Rush Limbaugh are a very good start. The responses should also be framed in the realization that public opinion on the Iraq occupation is already in, and that no number of falsely self-righteous and indignant diversions by the Republicans will change that.

The problems with the establishment media along these framing lines have been discussed at great length here and will be in the future, but I want to briefly bring up the Democrats role in this, and not just their regrettable capitulation re: MoveOn.org. I was watching Bill Maher on HBO last night and I thought, “Well, good, no Republicans and/or neo-cons to gag through tonight,” except I forgot about Rahm Emmanuel. There were times when he was doing a really good William Kristol impression, for example this exchange (from transcript of show @ www.billmaher.com) regarding Ahmadinejad ‘s visit:

EMANUEL: And he [Ahmadinejad] may be using what he’s saying overseas to basically camouflage what are real problems, and as a way to mobilize his own country. But, the fact is, he does have other intentions here. One – one of the reasons he has attention and Iran has gone uncorked is, what were the biggest threats to the Iranian regime? The Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein. We uncorked the two things that had him corked in. And now this is what’s been created.

MAHER: Right.

EMANUEL: So, the fact is, he is a real threat and he is a real problem – the Iranian president. But the fact is, we should have been given – I have no problem with—

MAHER: [overlapping] He’s a real threat? Now you’re doing their work for them. [voices overlap] Now you’re doing their work for them.

EMANUEL: No, no, I haven’t been – I can have an opinion that doesn’t mean – and the fact just—

MAHER: Okay, and that’s my opinion, that you’re doing their work—

EMANUEL: I appreciate it.

MAHER: Why is he a real threat?

EMANUEL: [overlapping] That must be the part when you say, “I’d like to welcome that dick, Rahm Emanuel.” [laughter]

MAHER: No, no. But – but – why is he a threat?

[Other panelists joined in and discussion veered at this point.]

During this exchange, Maher had an incredulous look like, “You’re the national chairman of which party committee?”

We have heard repeatedly of Democrats blaming votes based on getting patently false, distorted or manipulated information, from the Iraq War to, most recently, FISA. After hearing Emmanuel last night sound like one of Kristol’s minions, I am beginning to wonder about whether some of the Democrats’ commonality of views with Republicans is due to a commonality of news and information sources, and whether the Democrats’ skepticism regarding such sources is about on a par with that of the establishment media. Maybe it’s just the Versailles discussions in here finally getting through a thick skull, but one does have to wonder why, after repeatedly acknowledging being burned by bad information, many Democrats still seem to be readily and non-skeptically buying into information provided by these same sources.