>>Lets fight against the right's best arguments not their worst. It's fun and easy to take on Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh but is it worth it for us?

I like this idea - a lot. But have a question and a concern.

Question: what are the right's best arguments? who is making those best arguments? where can you find them? The fact that I couldn't readily come up with answers to these questions made me realize how much time IS spent, even by me, with the drivel. Assuming there are some sensible people on the right (or at least the 'near-right') who have some legitimate concerns that are worth listening to and addressing, I can fully understand that they might be a bit PO'd and alienated to be "glumped" together with the Glen Becks, etc. So -- where is the intelligent conservative discussion occurring? Who on the right is worth reading? Perhaps if we were to simply recognize and acknowledge that the serious conservative thinkers are NOT on the same level as Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, etc., that in itself could be huge step forward in starting a meaningful dialog.

My concern however goes in the other direction. Is it truly safe to ignore the Becks-Palins-Limbaughs-etc.? (And I'd add Cheney to that group, frankly.) People are actually **believing** them!!! Do we have to yell as stridently and loudly to even get the attention of the people who are going to be believers if their ridiculous "facts" aren't challenged with equal certainty? I hope that's not the case -- because I don't think the left does loud yelling certainty very well, and it certainly doesn't stimulate constructive thought. But it's a worry. Is the number of people actually buying the swill small enough that they can be safely ignored. (Oh, I hope so...)

I hope so mainly because I'm much, much more energized and excited by the idea of finding those "smart and thoughtful conservatives" out there and actually having a challenging discussion with them. I admit to knowing much less than I should about the respectable and reasonable conservative world -- where does one go to learn what thinking conservatives are saying?

(I once directed this inquiry to a very, very high level Republican with whom I work: "Who do you read? Who do you listen to? I'll admit I'm a wild-eyed liberal Democrat but I'm open-minded and willing to listen. When told the New York Post and Fox News, I admit I got a bit discouraged.....)

Civil rights encompass more than gay rights. One of my chiches on this site is that people of color, and civil rights issues in general, don't get much juice. I am glad the eric ward is now blogging here. as well as at salon; he and I share these issues.
I could not disagree with you more on Glenn Beck; we need to pay attention to the erosion of discourse, and the lunacy of the fringes. MSM reports on their memes, and it is affecting the mood and the beliefs of plenty of Americans.
Your advice, you say, is collating the best ideas of the comments. That's fine, it all sounds reasonable. But we are here to educate each other, not just the visitors from outside. Your ideas are just grand, but please don't take offense if I, or anyone else, go our own way.

Destor, it's always a pleasure rec'ing you.

I would add to your list:

We need to form new, clear arguments on reform. Arguments that begin with "it's a right!" fall way short. It means you don't have an argument at all. It's simply proof by assertion. NEXT!

How about a religious based argument? Ted Kennedy asking someone if they read "The New Testament" as a reason for helping the poor, etc. You know what? I'm not impressed. GWB asked for the "Heavenly Father" for guidance too. About going to war! So we need religion, God, etc. out of the equation. Besides, I want atheists and non-Christians on board as well. The only way to invoke a deity is in the most abstract way that Lincoln did.

So it's important to reframe the argument so as to be able to sell it. And not sell it like "eat your vegetables, they are good for you"... because that doesn't work.

I think this is a grand group project for TPM. "Medicare for all" might work except Medicare itself is broken and will go broke soon. But it's a great start at an attempt to reframe.

Destor, you are one of my favorite posters here. I leave with a gift for you (and anyone that looks at your blog). This book can be the revolution of a new way for the Democrats to do business. Perhaps you've already read it. If so, spread the word.

You don't nearly post enough! Thanks for this one.

Hey Destor -

You do have a nice way of pulling us all back from the tangent to the topics that need discussing. Thanks for that (and I like the new Flair pic).

I would add one item to your list that was campaign promise but has been largely ignored for new technology: infrastructure.

Our bridges, dams, levies and highways are old and falling apart. You want to see a country rot from the inside out? Cut it's spending on it's infrastructure. Rome neglected their infrastructure and sent all of Europe into the Dark Ages...we're next (hyperbolic, I know, but...).

A History Channel documentary all of you HAVE to see estimates that our infrastructure averages a D for safety and to get us up to an A will cost $2 trillion over 5 years.

I have a deathly fear of bridges as it is - and lived near I-35 for five years. Let's make our bridges ACTUALLY safe!

I disagree on point one, more or less agree on the rest.

The rise of the "death panel" rumor and Obama's apparent ignorance that NO Republicans were going to vote for this are a great example of Democrats NOT taking on this stuff quickly and with humor.

We seem to forget that lies and right-wing excess CAN win. Remember the Swift-boaters?

But the target should change. Attacking Fox is dumb. Attacking CNN for mindlessly giving weight to baseless rumors is more on point.

I challenged Jake Tapper (ABC's WH reporter) on a blog post where he simply reported he said/she said between Obama supporters and supporters of Palin's lies.

After some haggling over the fact that he HAD ran a debunk in the last piece, and linked to it in this one, he finally AGREED with me that

"Maybe I hold hyperlinks in too high esteem."

In other words, maybe the next time he writes an article on something he knows is false, he will repeat that in the article.

We get the type of journalism we deserve, ultimately. Rush and the rest of them have huge sway now and a sadly strong influence over the media.

Fox isn't the problem. Infotainment and "horserace" reporting is.