I'm getting there too. The ultimate objective of the focused PDSer is demoralization. Engaging in protracted debates with them is not unlike deliberately listening to hours of Tokyo Rose then writing her a nasty-gram about how wrong she is. The truth is, it doesn’t matter how well formed your argument is or how right you are. They win, by virtue of sucking you into endless hours of argument you can never win, because your arguments go in one ear and out the other. No effect.
The flip side is the readership of FR. There are lots of people who come here to find out what the buzz is, to see the candidate research play out in a real debate. We are the conservative simulator for experimenting with political ideas. We are lurked by major news organizations, and more importantly, by the leaders of conservative talk. I know this is true because I've heard it referenced by Levin and others.
So we have a real dilemma. Do we fight to the death every appearance of PDS here on FR, and waste our days with arguments that cannot be won because there is no real engagement, or do we cede the field for the next few weeks at least, knowing that in four weeks or less, Sarah will herself resolve the bulk of the argument by the utterance of two simple words, "I'm in," or "I'm out."
Unless someone can convince me otherwise, here is my position. The lurking community is important. Many of them are the Palin base whose energy will be needed in the boot on the ground phase of this project, so falsehoods that would cause them to stumble should be met head on, as usual.
But time has value, and when I start to feel like I'm going in circles, and the best arguments have already been put out there for all readers to consider, it's time for me to pull back, and let the PDSers flail away all by their lonesome.
Am I missing something, or does this seem reasonable?
To coin a phrase: "Just say NO", and move along.
Nope. Dead on agreement. Make the point, call them on the BS, invite the lurker/readers to reference said troll’s post history (they really hate when you do that, trust me ;) proving that said troll is indeed a troll, and that’s the best we can do.
Endless circular arguing is indeed pointless. We don’t have to cede the field, just play it wisely.
SR, your question begs all of us to search our hearts and consider the greatest good for the greatest number. I read a call to duty between the lines, there.
I suppose that I'm simply flagged from (literally) years of battling it out on this forum on Sarah's behalf. I can name maybe another dozen or so posters who have likewise been as dedicated to holding the line against the idiotic attacks and flagrant mis-characterizations of Sarah Palin that have graced these pages for the last two and a half years.
It's been a long and brutal slog for us, and as Norm said, we've been compelled to answer the same stock PDS attack points over and over, and over again - with the same facts, logic, and reason. After a while, it begins to feel like Bill Murray's "Groundhog Day". The battles are utterly predictable, and never-changing.
But, back to my point.... I hear in your post a call to rally the troops for one final push against the horde. I hear you.
In my view, the best response on our part should be indirect. By that, I mean, stop addressing the wind-up dolls directly, and simply post our best thoughts to the original poster, or to All. Stop engaging the trolls, operatives, and the deranged directly, as there's NO profit in it.
I guess I'm saying that we staunch SP supporters ought to seriously apply the "Don't Feed The Trolls" policy from here, until Sarah's announcement.
What do you think?
Choose your battles. To me, right now, the important thing RE debating Palin detractors here is to refute lies and misrepresentations, such as the "oil windfall profits tax" and "quitter" charges, because if we don't, readers will think we're silent because we have no defense. Argue the ISSUES -- if they gripe about how Palin endorsed McCain and they're Perry supporters ... point out that Perry invited Palin to endorse him in the governor race and at the time, made it clear that he had no intention of running for President; Palin endorsed him under those circumstances. Now, I think it's probable that Palin would have endorsed him even if he'd indicated that he was interested in the presidency, but nonetheless, Palin endorsed him thinking he had every intention of finishing his term because that's what he told his supporters he'd do. That is hardly anti-Perry -- Palin herself gave him a pass -- but it IS of substance.
On the other hand, "debating" folks who insist she's not running? So what if they think she's not running! Responding to folks who insist in general terms that she's this, that, or the other -- general terms? So what! They look like people who are trying to lower morale among Palin supporters, and because they're so obvious, aren't worth the time for response. What substance is there to debate? Responding to folks solely because of a personal attack? I say, do your best to resist the impulse to fire back an opposite, because the entire argument is smoke, steam, vapor.
MEATY stuff is talking about what Palin has done and is doing, what other candidates have done and are doing. Meaty stuff is when some anti-Palin person (whether they're trying to promote their own candidate instead or simply trying to convince people that Palin isn't worthy of support) states a falsehood or a diliberately misleading partial truth.
Choose your battles. Keep your cool. RESIST ANGER.
And above all, remember that there are apparently folks here who pretend to be supporters of candidates other than Palin and who use that as their justification for dissing Palin, but because they are whipping up such strife and personal animosity between, say, Perry suporters and Palin hopefuls, it is certainly a possiblity that they are in fact people whose SOLE MISSION is to sow discontent, divide, and enmity among WE WHO MUST BE ALLIES regardless of who wins the nomination.
So there!!! ;^)