Why we lost the gun debate in the Senate, and why we'll keep losing it.

[Savannahmann]

92. If you are right, there is no hope.

You see, the RW will win under your scenario, and the parade of victims? It is exactly what we do. Call it what you like, putting a face on the tragedy, but it loses effectiveness after two or three. After that, it becomes a parade of victims, and it's what we do.

We did that, we had one victim give the President's Weekly address. We had a different victim with everyone who spoke about the issue. We had victims at every appearance, we had victims one after the other in the press. The first two, or three were helpful, after that the message was lost in the chorus of voices and pictures and tragic stories.

You may find it insulting, but it is descriptive of the way we have reduced our argument. In 1993, we argued about all the laws we could, and should pass, and their effect. We argued about the constitutional aspect of the Brady Law, we argued a great deal about these issues. The RW and the NRA was just as powerful. Do you remember those times? Do you remember the bastard Rush Limbaugh opening every show with "America Held Hostage" because President Clinton had been elected with a majority of the vote, but not of the people? Don't tell me the RW was weak then, or the NRA didn't fight us, because both statements would be untrue.

The NRA fought, and then they poured massive dollars into Newt and his lying Contract with America. The RW struck back, and stole the house with propaganda. But we didn't give up the fight, and the Brady Law stayed law.

Under your scenario, the RW will win because it isn't anything We did wrong, it is just that they have too much money to defeat. In a word, crap. Democrats voted against the legislation, Democrats who are certainly worried about being painted as liberal, and anti-gun. If we had sold the bill using something other than statistics, and the parade of victims, they may have been willing to risk it. But we didn't make a single argument worth the name.

We parade the victims, and anyone who raises an argument, all we do is shout the same tired statistic at them, one that lost it's effect days ago, and then shout that they wouldn't dare make those comments to the victims. We did that, and we do it. It is a debating technique that is absolutely the worst possible one for convincing those fence sitters.

So we're going to beat those who voted against it? How, by shouting more statistics? By parading more victims? If it didn't work for the Sequester, and it didn't work for the Gun Control, and it didn't work for immigration, then why do you think it will work next time? One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

So what do I suggest? I suggest educating ourselves to be able to match the RW quote for quote. I suggest educating ourselves with Supreme Court Precedence when constitutional questions are put forth. I suggest showing how silly the question is with what most of us would call common knowledge. You say it won't work, because the RW is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

But when we talk to people, we find that generally a majority of the people support liberal ideals, until they find they are labeled as liberal, because our image is one of shouting, statistics, and the parade of victims. We are seen as shallow and unconcerned. When Constitutional questions are raised, we ignore the question, and answer with meaningless gibberish to the average man and woman out there. I'm saying we need to stop that, and show the average person we know what we're talking about, and we're right. I'm saying we need to do our homework, so when the RW hits us with a question smugly expecting to trip us up, we instead answer and make them look silly instead of looking like we're dodging the question.

I don't care about changing the RW minds. I care about convincing those twenty percent that matter. The ones in the middle. The ones who when they support us, we get elected. The ones who voted against John Kerry in 2004, and the ones who abandoned the NeoCons in 2008, and again last year. The ones who will slide back to the right as soon as they find a candidate they can stomach. Just shouting that the RW is full of hypocrites doesn't help, because those same people see everyone in Washington as a hypocrite.

So I'm wrong because I use a phrase like parade of victims. It's insulting according to you. Well, its insulting to me, because lots of good arguments are lost when all we do is say that Mrs. John Doe lost her Son, Daughter, or Husband to a gun, so we need to pass this legislation. Legislation that when cornered we admit wouldn't have prevented anyone from getting killed. We either get serious about this process, or we give up and get used to living under the RW government. Those are our choices, and I for one don't want to give up because they have money.