Hi Amos,

You're right. There is always a danger that a thoughtful man like RFK Jr. will be manhandled by Repubs and Dems. There is always a resistance against changing the status quo.

In my view, the answer to rhetoric is to reframe the discussion.
Acknowledge the ad-hominem responses and present the reframe. It can be a moral or political or factual statement.

RFK Jr. does this very well. He's really my hero.

Dean does this well too.

Bush doesn't deal with issues. He is clear to those who believe him. It's about emotional reaction (reactionary) rather than an honest dialogue. It's rare to hear an honest dialogue on Mudcat.
But now and again you get 'em and it's interesting and valuable.
i've learned quite a bit from Mudcat.

In dealing with Bush, facts are not as important as propaganda.
He is thoroughly convinced (or at least feels is necessary to present this view to the public) that he is right and his views are inculcated by "any means necessary". This is the Karl Rove
approach to winning over the public. Bush's self-righteous rhetoric stems largely from his convictions about God talking to him personally. Karl Rove (Bush's brain) is probably more circumspect about the nature of the Crapture, but sees it as a political tool to defeat his opponents. In the meantime, Bush as self-divined sees his role as Commander-in-Chief of the world, a childish fantasy that puts him into the role of a dictator.

I don't hate Bush but I would like to see him put on trial for war crimes by the World Court and have Amnesty International be a part of the proceedings. This is not an ad-hominem statement.
I have this recurring nightmare that if I were ever to meet Bush, Nixon or Reagan personally that I might like them. This has nothing to do however with how these men function in office.

Frank