So, no, socialists by themselves will convince no one, even if they have convinced themselves. Socialists backed by fascists, however, is a different proposition. Just because the Islamic fascists will purge the socialists after gaining power, is not something the socialists want to know about.

The socialists believe in speaking Truth to Power. They believe that the psychological component of an ideological fight is supreme. However, Hitler understood that intimidation through death squads was just as psychologically effective, if not more so, than simple slogans and gangs of youth.

It is one of the reasons why the ACLU is allied with CAIR.

So long as the far Left, the Left, and the Left Left Left believe speaking Truth to Power means whatever you can define “Truth” as (Dan Rather), then I tend to think that yes, they do believe whatever slogans they come up with is the truth and therefore is powerful.

You should see how upset the media got when they realized Cheney gave the scoop to a local news organization instead of phoning the white house press corps. They don’t like being deprived of the “Truth” which means Power to them.

All I can say is, if these people really want to change the world, they’re going about it the wrong way.

Like Goldeberg said at the end in 1984, if he can make you believe 4 fingers are 1, and if he can make everyone believe he can fly, then it is as good if not better than the real thing.

When they say speaking truth to power, they believe that information can manipulate the power that a voter holds.

In some cases, they are right. Psychological power is 3 to 1, in comparison to hard physical power. But they are also symbiotic and you can’t remove them from the other. Which is why it is hard to get votes, if you have no food to offer, regardless of how many people you can convince that you have food to offer.

Convincing people is only half the battle. You still have to make sure it isn’t a bait and switch.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have a lot of soft-money donations from unions, George Soros billionares, and Big Businesses that use their money to get the government to legislate barriers to small business competition.

That’s why the Republicans can afford to repudate crazy people. Whatever money we lose is neglible to the benefit. For the Democrats, kicking Soros out would be like cutting their wrists open.

Human behavior is easily predictable based upon risk and reward analysis. If a person thinks he will gain more than he loses, then he will do it. If he percieves more loss than gain, he won’t do it. It is that simple. Money is just part of the primary value indicator, it is not the source of human woes.

Maybe it depends on which dictionary you use. American Heritage online says, among other things:

bigot
n.
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I guess it doesn’t matter, though, since traditionally, only conservatives can be bigots.

We definitely need some new political terminology to describe ourselves and each other. Or maybe just some new political parties.

Why can’t the hard leftists just call themselves Socialists or Social Democrats and run their own candidate? Why should the Democrat party be saddled with them? Same goes for the Republicans and the religious nuts. Let Pat Robertson and his ilk take another stab at the presidency on their own rather than tainting the Republican party with their creepiness. But I guess it’s like ymasakar said – it’s all about those campaign contributions.

Is it really the nutballs – left and right – who contribute the most cash? And is no one in either party willing to say “Sorry, your group’s agenda is inconsistent with the core values of our party so we can’t accept your donation?”

OK, I know – politicians turning down money, stupid idea. Stop giggling.

The problem at the moment isn’t the moderate Democrats – even the ones who oppose the war. Rather, it’s the freaks they associate with and take money from (including the MSM, jg, and the denizens of Hollywood) who will gain enormous social and political capital from a Democrat victory. Anybody want to see a smug Cindy Sheehan having her photo-op in the Oval Office in ’08? Not me…

So, what candidate(s) will THEY back is the real question. What do THEY want from a party? And who will give it to them? The far Left nature of the candidate may not be a hindrance. Remember my dog is certainly more rational than Cindy Sheehan, yet the MSM formed her into an acceptable international figure.
The playing field in American politics today has an MSM set of referees.

The Democratic party may have its factions, as all parties have in politics, but there is no real possibility of a victory if the balance of powers is not on the side of rationality. If, for example, all the money comes from irrational actors with their own agenda, disparate from people like Cooper.

Our system is designed for the party encompassing the most views people agree with, to win. For the Democrats to make any large gains, requires that the Democrats shut off Union money and controls like DU and Howard Dean fund raising. But to do that in the logistics sense, means cutting their throats politically. So I don’t see a solution in this Catch 22 situation.

Either they stay as they are and lose, preveting the Coopers from doing a coup on them. Or they change fundraising, and they lose, preventing the Coopers from doing anything.

I think things are more hopeful than many realize. As its been said, the Left (and pacifism) is not a monolithic group.