View Full Version : In all seriousness....has anyone considered...
....asking Mr Ross Perot for a blank check to get the Republic back on track?
It may sound silly, and while it may be quite cheeky, I've learned "if you don't ask you don't get", right?
It's a hypothetical question of course, but one based on some semblance of reality due to Mr Perot's:
*financial resources
*service to country in and out of uniform
*previous political efforts to find a 3rd political pathway
*validation of his previous warnings coming to fruition
*history of outside the box solutions
*relationship in support of the SF community
Could a hypothetical $1 billion with no strings attached and applied by motivated and organized citizens decisively disrupt the special interest influence buying money train?
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.php
And I most definitely do NOT mean anything the least bit illegal, kinetic, or involving the watering of any liberty trees.
I'm specifically appealing to big brain problem solving, within the rules of a civil society.
But maybe outside of the "two party, no real choice" political box.
Maybe not a 3rd party, but a 3rd player/disruptor able to shape behavior?
While Tea Party/OWS were hitting it from opposite sides of the spectrum, were they not both aligned in their opposition to a polluted political process?
Were they not 1st iteration, albeit unsuccessful, efforts to effect legal political change?
What would a well funded, well organized, and well led political disruptor look like?
Would a non-partisan, single issue effort(say genuine campaign finance reform) with better command and control be more successful? To clear the slate of excessive special interest influence, then a fair fight over partisan issues?
The institutional knowledge here will have born witness to hundreds, possibly thousands, of governments over the last 60 years as "armed diplomats" possessing a unique perspective on everything humanity has to offer in the political realm: good, bad, legal, illegal, success, and failure.
While I'm quite serious in my question, I reckon keeping a sense of humor is still important, so I'll throw in a quote from a movie I think is kind of relevant to my question:
Just swap out "NASA" for "Retired SF", and "put a man on the moon" for "Che, Central America, Afghanistan, and countless other things that never made the news."
I mean, you're NASA for crying out loud, you put a man on the moon, you're geniuses! You're the guys that're thinking shit up! I'm sure you got a team of men sitting around somewhere right now just thinking shit up and somebody backing them up! You're telling me you don't have a backup plan, that these eight Boy Scouts right here, that is the world's hope, that's what you're telling me?
How would you solve the multi-layered political problems of the Republic if adequately resourced?
Love that movie!!
Haha! Yeah it's a good one.
And I particularly like the way Bruce Willis delivers that quote. :)
The Reaper
02-07-2013, 18:33
I think Mr. Perot's efforts that get Bill Clinton elected (twice) were enough politics from him for one lifetime.
This Republic will not be back on track till someone removes sufficient numbers of people from the Government teat to make elections viable again.
Until then, it is a one party system, and diluting the biggest competitor (again) with dividing it further will not really help.
TR
I think Mr. Perot's efforts that get Bill Clinton elected (twice) were enough politics from him for one lifetime.
This Republic will not be back on track till someone removes sufficient numbers of people from the Government teat to make elections viable again.
Until then, it is a one party system, and diluting the biggest competitor (again) with dividing it further will not really help.
TR
I've got a fair bit of respect for Mr Perot, but I have to admit that my perspective on his participation in politics has changed after reading both here and elsewhere the unintended consequences of his efforts.
I would completely agree with your "one party system" comment.
But rather than diluting the competition, do you think it's possible to filter the competition?
IF it was largely agreed that say campaign finance is possibly an existential threat to the Republic(or a serious contributing factor to it), could efforts to shape the voting public to accurately portray politicians that accept dirty money as spies/traitors/lepers be effective in repairing the Republic?
Instead of "Got Milk?" it's "Got dirty money?" maybe?
Stiletto11
02-07-2013, 19:38
I think Mr. Perot's efforts that get Bill Clinton elected (twice) were enough politics from him for one lifetime.
This Republic will not be back on track till someone removes sufficient numbers of people from the Government teat to make elections viable again.
Until then, it is a one party system, and diluting the biggest competitor (again) with dividing it further will not really help.
TR
You're right, the Republican party needs to get it's shit in one bag and demonstrate leadership based on the moral principles of the Constitution. A third party will only dilute the conservative vote. It will be a big task to get the bottom feeders off the public trough that have made careers out of fleecing the Republic. Washington moves like pond water so it will most likely take a few elections to drain the swamp. The problem is there is more of them than us thanks to LBJ and "The Great Society."
(1VB)compforce
02-08-2013, 08:11
What if...
Rather than funding a third conservative leaning party/candidate and dividing the vote, you instead fund a "middle of the road" candidate who actually leans heavily to the liberal. Would you not then split the liberal vote and provide the opposite outcome of Perot's split of the conservative base?
You'd have to provide a viable candidate, say the candidate from the Democratic primary who lost and shows the most centrist position. If we're correct in our assumption that it's about power and money, wouldn't they jump on the chance as long as the funding didn't come from a far right conservative group? And, hey, if they manage to win somehow, we could expose the real plan behind the funding and completely invalidate them for a second term and turn public opinion and distrust perhaps enough to swing future elections back to the right.
Just thinking somewhat whimsically, what do you think?
miclo18d
02-08-2013, 09:41
What if...
Rather than funding a third conservative leaning party/candidate and dividing the vote, you instead fund a "middle of the road" candidate who actually leans heavily to the liberal. Would you not then split the liberal vote and provide the opposite outcome of Perot's split of the conservative base?
You'd have to provide a viable candidate, say the candidate from the Democratic primary who lost and shows the most centrist position. If we're correct in our assumption that it's about power and money, wouldn't they jump on the chance as long as the funding didn't come from a far right conservative group? And, hey, if they manage to win somehow, we could expose the real plan behind the funding and completely invalidate them for a second term and turn public opinion and distrust perhaps enough to swing future elections back to the right.
Just thinking somewhat whimsically, what do you think?
McCain and Romney weren't centrist enough for you? We've tried that approach twice now.
Please give your example for that candidate... Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich?
(1VB)compforce
02-08-2013, 10:09
McCain and Romney weren't centrist enough for you? We've tried that approach twice now.
Please give your example for that candidate... Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich?
The problem with our attempt was that they were flying the Republican flag. We need to take someone that is seen as being a centrist Democrat (but with no chance of actually winning) and promote them under a third party such as Libertarian or "Revisionist" so that they are a legitimate non-two party candidate, but their values align to the left rather than the right so that the vote that is split is the Democratic vote rather than the conservative vote as Perot did.
....asking Mr Ross Perot for a blank check to get the Republic back on track?
Interesting idea. Thanks for throwing it out there.
Let me turn the idea a bit. Instead of funding a candidate, especially a opposition candidate designed to split the opposition vote... why not concentrate on coordinating factions and re-educating the voting public?
There are plenty of 'Conservative' George Soros's out there. It seems to me that the Conservatives tend to fragment their efforts instead of coordinate. While Soros's goal, IMO, is to 'fundamentally transform' the country to something many of us oppose - they do not need very tight coordination. Because chaos works for them and effectively divides us.
Yes we need good candidates, but we also need voters that understand why they are good candidates.
A Conservative Soros would coordinate, fund, and message the various factions such as Republicans, Blue-dog Democrats, Constructionists, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, etc. along with the varied special interests like the so-called Religious Right, etc.
The 'better' candidate effort, I believe, needs to focus at the county level - state by state. Rebuilding the GOP in each county so they can begin refocus on the building of coalitions. Strive for quality candidates and the current system of patronage (which leads to corruption). Get these candidate started in municipal and school board elections. Building name recognition while vetting. Move them to the state level. Do not let them become 'professional politicians' - make them take breaks from elected office and see if they can make it in the real world.
The educational effort centers around stopping the insidious degradation of our culture and society. Good quality ethical people in lower office can make a real difference in influencing school, city, and state policy. The holding of inclusive community 'town halls' to discuss (educate) issues with voters. These also need to use the current social media and also be proactive when the next thing comes along.
I managed to get three women voters to actually listen to my plea that they actually do some due diligence research on Obamacare in this last election. Two switched their vote, while the one Republican voted for economic security (husband works for the EPA).
(1VB)compforce
02-08-2013, 11:40
Interesting idea. Thanks for throwing it out there.
Let me turn the idea a bit. Instead of funding a candidate, especially a opposition candidate designed to split the opposition vote... why not concentrate on coordinating factions and re-educating the voting public?
There are plenty of 'Conservative' George Soros's out there. It seems to me that the Conservatives tend to fragment their efforts instead of coordinate. While Soros's goal, IMO, is to 'fundamentally transform' the country to something many of us oppose - they do not need very tight coordination. Because chaos works for them and effectively divides us.
Yes we need good candidates, but we also need voters that understand why they are good candidates.
A Conservative Soros would coordinate, fund, and message the various factions such as Republicans, Blue-dog Democrats, Constructionists, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, etc. along with the varied special interests like the so-called Religious Right, etc.
The 'better' candidate effort, I believe, needs to focus at the county level - state by state. Rebuilding the GOP in each county so they can begin refocus on the building of coalitions. Strive for quality candidates and the current system of patronage (which leads to corruption). Get these candidate started in municipal and school board elections. Building name recognition while vetting. Move them to the state level. Do not let them become 'professional politicians' - make them take breaks from elected office and see if they can make it in the real world.
The educational effort centers around stopping the insidious degradation of our culture and society. Good quality ethical people in lower office can make a real difference in influencing school, city, and state policy. The holding of inclusive community 'town halls' to discuss (educate) issues with voters. These also need to use the current social media and also be proactive when the next thing comes along.
I managed to get three women voters to actually listen to my plea that they actually do some due diligence research on Obamacare in this last election. Two switched their vote, while the one Republican voted for economic security (husband works for the EPA).
For the most part I agree with your analysis. Here are the questions I have for you:
1. How long do you believe it will take to for the current and future administrations to dismantle our way of life to the degree that it can't be undone? (Assuming that we aren't there yet)
2. How long do you think it would take to effect the type of ground-up institutional change you suggest?
3. Would the building of institutional changes affect the timeline to question #1 or would it be too little, too late...and why do you think so?
4. If, based on the answers to the above, you believe there is time for this change, how would you begin the groundswell given that changing 1 or 2 people's minds at a time has very little real effect on an election. How would you suggest marketing the knowledge given the funding from Perot?
5. If you don't believe there is time to effect this type of change, how would you accelerate the timeline, given Perot's theoretical investment?
For the most part I agree with your analysis. Here are the questions I have for you:
Thank you.
1. How long do you believe it will take to for the current and future administrations to dismantle our way of life to the degree that it can't be undone? (Assuming that we aren't there yet)
Until martial law is declared. Kidding aside, I take the long view. We effect change. Should events not go our way, we continue. We never, never ever give up. And neither will they.
2. How long do you think it would take to effect the type of ground-up institutional change you suggest?
How long would it take to retrain writers and producers and get a TV show on air? A dozen different educational initiatives and town halls (in each state) could start in less than six weeks; within six months, in each county. I estimate that it will take two years to fully retrain the GOP and begin effecting real change in the party. Remember, the Tea Party movement was up and surging in less than six weeks.
3. Would the building of institutional changes affect the timeline to question #1 or would it be too little, too late...and why do you think so?
Yes. See #1.
4. If, based on the answers to the above, you believe there is time for this change, how would you begin the groundswell given that changing 1 or 2 people's minds at a time has very little real effect on an election. How would you suggest marketing the knowledge given the funding from Perot?
Someone with funds would need to craft a plan, gather planners to refine the plan, gather organizers in every state to grow the organization and implement the plan. It is UW. Read Mao, Uncle Ho, and the old SF Operations and Techniques manual.
5. If you don't believe there is time to effect this type of change, how would you accelerate the timeline, given Perot's theoretical investment?
Secession. Certainly don't want to go there and do not actually see that happening in any of our lifetimes. Lets concentrate on what we can do to prevent 'possibilities' from occurring.
McCain and Romney weren't centrist enough for you? We've tried that approach twice now. Not exactly.
Because of the GOP's base, both men had to veer hard to the right to secure the nomination and then choose running mates that addressed the concerns of that base.
IMO, the key isn't simply about fielding Republican candidates who are either centrist in their views and policy preferences. The GOP also needs to address the tenor of its rhetoric and to demonstrate an ability to work in a bipartisan manner to govern effectively.
My $0.02.
Pericles
02-08-2013, 14:46
I think Mr. Perot's efforts that get Bill Clinton elected (twice) were enough politics from him for one lifetime.
This Republic will not be back on track till someone removes sufficient numbers of people from the Government teat to make elections viable again.
Until then, it is a one party system, and diluting the biggest competitor (again) with dividing it further will not really help.
TR
May I suggest to you that is not an accurate analysis of the effect of Perot running in 1992. Here is why I am making the suggestion: In 1988, there were 91,594,809 votes cast in the election. In 1992, there were 104,426,659 votes cast, and in 1996, there were 96,277,223 votes cast. The impact of Perot running, was to have some 10 million more people vote, that would otherwise have been reasonably expected to vote. The other rational conclusion to make is that the remaining 9.5 million votes were therefore "pulled" from another candidate.
But is is the electoral college that matters, and Clinton got 370 electoral votes, so Perot not running, would have had to move 102 of them away from Clinton. Is that a reasonable assumption to make?
Let us look at Ohio with 21 electoral votes.
1988 election total was 2,416,549 (R) and 1,939,629 (D)
1992 election total was 1,894,310 (R) and 1,984,982 (D) and 1,036,426 (Perot)
1996 election total was 1,859,883 (R) and 2,148,222 (D) and 483,207 (Perot)
2000 election total was 2,350,363 (R) and 2,183,628 (D) and 111,799 (Nader)
Reasonable conclusion is that Perot did cost Bush Ohio in 1992, but Clinton was also a weak candidate in OH losing some vote to 3rd party candidates, and (R)s vote in OH is trending down anyway.
This is the most favorable state for Bush that went to Clinton, one can go down the chart to AR, where Clinton got over 50% of the vote anyway.
A reasonable statistical analysis is that Perot took votes from Clinton in the Northeast and other liberal strongholds, and took votes from Bush in the South and middle of the country Clinton still would have won as he did in 1996, and the Dear Reader did in 2008 and 2012.
Full disclosure - I was part of Perot's 1992 Campaign staff, and we took a close look at at the results to try to assess how much "skew" occurred as a result of Perot's candidacy.
(1VB)compforce
02-08-2013, 15:49
Thank you.
Until martial law is declared. Kidding aside, I take the long view. We effect change. Should events not go our way, we continue. We never, never ever give up. And neither will they.
I'm certainly not advocating giving up. My point is that any institutional change in any organization can be only be effected until it hits a point of no return, at which time the options all disappear with the exception of a complete reset. How far do you think we are from the point where the only option is a reset? A reset being a catastrophic event, be it an outside attack like 9/11 that pulls everyone back to the center or a civil war? (Which I pray never happens)
How long would it take to retrain writers and producers and get a TV show on air? A dozen different educational initiatives and town halls (in each state) could start in less than six weeks; within six months, in each county. I estimate that it will take two years to fully retrain the GOP and begin effecting real change in the party. Remember, the Tea Party movement was up and surging in less than six weeks.
Yes, the Tea Party movement was up and surging very quickly, but it wasn't sustainable because it was fueled by the emotions of the moment. The same is true of OWS. To effect the kind of change that we need, something would have to be built that was sustainable for the long term. IMO the reason we are where we are is due to the combination of early education pushing a liberal world view reinforced by the MSM's slant. I think the education of America would have to start with Schoolhouse Rock type messaging to late elementary/early middle school kids, followed by educational programming and a balanced MSM...which I don't see happening, even if there were an investor that dumped multi-billions into the campaign.
Yes. See #1.
Someone with funds would need to craft a plan, gather planners to refine the plan, gather organizers in every state to grow the organization and implement the plan. It is UW. Read Mao, Uncle Ho, and the old SF Operations and Techniques manual.
I've read them. Assuming the funding is there, I agree that it would have to be a highly organized effort. Again the question is time. Do we have time to plan and execute that type of operation before we hit the point of no return I mentioned above? I'm skeptical.
Secession. Certainly don't want to go there and do not actually see that happening in any of our lifetimes. Lets concentrate on what we can do to prevent 'possibilities' from occurring.
I was looking for ways to accelerate the operation prior to the point of no return which would have secession as one of the first signals we had reached that point. How do you get complicated educational messages across to a population that has a steady reduction in attention span and overall literacy?
I'm trying to be argumentative only for the sake of the discussion. You certainly are raising valid points throughout.
How do you get complicated educational messages across to a population that has a steady reduction in attention span and overall literacy?MOO, it is a perilous trajectory of thought to assume that people disagree with one's political preferences because they're less educated or literate.
A common theme here and elsewhere in the critiques of the American political leftists is that they behave as if they know better than we how we should live our lives and interpret the world in which we live.
If the American political right is going to find different ways to engage a broader, more diverse range of Americans, replicating the most odious sensibilities of our friends across the aisle is not the way to go.
My $0.02.
If the American political right is going to find different ways to engage a broader, more diverse range of Americans, replicating the most odious sensibilities of our friends across the aisle is not the way to go.
My $0.02.
The ideal is for the broad, diverse range of Americans to understand that the libs are lying through their teeth, and the press is covering their asses.
(1VB)compforce
02-08-2013, 17:46
MOO, it is a perilous trajectory of thought to assume that people disagree with one's political preferences because they're less educated or literate.
A common theme here and elsewhere in the critiques of the American political leftists is that they behave as if they know better than we how we should live our lives and interpret the world in which we live.
If the American political right is going to find different ways to engage a broader, more diverse range of Americans, replicating the most odious sensibilities of our friends across the aisle is not the way to go.
My $0.02.
I didn't mean that they were less literate because they disagree. That was a blanket statement that includes our side. I know that the official numbers are going up, but people who now communicate with misspellings, grammatical errors and internet shorthand are still considered literate because they can read to the 6th grade level. I would suggest that the actual reading level is on the decline. I would cite statistics but, ironically enough, every page I found with reading levels over time were filled with misspellings or they stopped looking at age 14.
The ideal is for the broad, diverse range of Americans to understand that the libs are lying through their teeth, and the press is covering their asses.The left said pretty much the same thing between 1980-1992 and 2000-2008.
The left said pretty much the same thing between 1980-1992 and 2000-2008.
They were lying. Got away with it then, too. ;)
The Reaper
02-08-2013, 19:22
They were lying. Got away with it then, too. ;)
I have to agree.
The political bias of the media toward the Democratic party is pretty well documented.
There are clearly, vastly more Dim than Repubs in the media. The question is to the degree it influences their reporting.
I would say that it is increasingly tilted, not only on the editorial page, but permeating the reporting of the "news" as well.
TR
GratefulCitizen
02-08-2013, 21:29
Rather than focus efforts where they are most diluted, voters would have more influence if they focused on house primaries.
If you live in democrat gerrymandered district, register as a democrat and support the most conservative candidate you can get into the race.
If you live in a republican gerrymandered district, register as a republican and support the most conservative candidate you can get into the race.
Relatively few voters participate in congressional primaries when compared to presidential elections.
Go where you get the most bang for your buck.
miclo18d
02-09-2013, 12:27
Not exactly.
Because of the GOP's base, both men had to veer hard to the right to secure the nomination and then choose running mates that addressed the concerns of that base.
IMO, the key isn't simply about fielding Republican candidates who are either centrist in their views and policy preferences. The GOP also needs to address the tenor of its rhetoric and to demonstrate an ability to work in a bipartisan manner to govern effectively.
My $0.02.
Oh I see the DNC doesn't "need to address the tenor of its rhetoric and to demonstrate an ability to work in a bipartisan manner to govern effectively." Just the GOP? Or is it because the DNC won the GOP should just BOHICA?
Oh I see the DNC doesn't "need to address the tenor of its rhetoric and to demonstrate an ability to work in a bipartisan manner to govern effectively." Just the GOP? Or is it because the DNC won the GOP should just BOHICA?Is the Democratic Party winning or is the GOP losing elections it might otherwise win?
And, according to Gallup, "In U.S., Democrats Re-Establish Lead in Party Affiliation" (http://www.gallup.com/poll/159740/democrats-establish-lead-party-affiliation.aspx).
Is the Democratic Party winning or is the GOP losing elections it might otherwise win?
And, according to Gallup, "In U.S., Democrats Re-Establish Lead in Party Affiliation" (http://www.gallup.com/poll/159740/democrats-establish-lead-party-affiliation.aspx).
The Republicans are losing because of the division between RINO's and Conservatives. When Republicans finally remember how Reagan took control and build the platform on true Conservatism without bending over for the purples, they'll bring about the same result that Reagan did.
The Republicans are losing because of the division between RINO's and Conservatives. When Republicans finally remember how Reagan took control and build the platform on true Conservatism without bending over for the purples, they'll bring about the same result that Reagan did.I share the sense of skepticism Jeb Bush voiced late last spring <<LINK (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/jeb-bush-no-place-for-father-reagan-in-today39)>>.Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush said today that both Ronald Reagan and his father George H. W. Bush would have had a difficult time getting nominated by today's ultra-conservative Republican Party.
"Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground," Bush said, adding that he views the hyper-partisan moment as "temporary."
"Back to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time – they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan suport," he said. Reagan "would be criticized for doing the things that he did."
Bush cited, in particular, "the budget deal my dad did, with bipartisan support — at least for a while — that created the spending restraint of the ‘90s," a reference to a move widely viewed now as a political disaster for Bush, breaking a pledge against tax increases and infuriating conservatives. It was, Bush said, "helpful in creating a climate of more sustainted economic growth."
"Politically it clearly didn't work out — he was a one term president," his son saidYMMV.
I share the sense of skepticism Jeb Bush voiced late last spring <<LINK (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/jeb-bush-no-place-for-father-reagan-in-today39)>>.YMMV.
I was never more surprised than the day Clinton was elected over the man who I considered at that time to be the winner of Armaggedon.
Ross Perot had a lot to do with it (don't wanna argue that again), but I discovered the real reason Clinton won when my daughter said she'd vote for him because he was better-looking. :eek:
Fast forward to Romney-did he lose because he was too Conservative or not Conservative enough?
Fast forward to Romney-did he lose because he was too Conservative or not Conservative enough?I think he lost because his opposition did a better job defining him than he did.
And also because "conservative" means (signifies) different things to different people.
I think he lost because his opposition did a better job defining him than he did.
And also because "conservative" means (signifies) different things to different people.
Point one: The media did the defining for the opposition.
Two: Conservatives are clear cut in their tenets-RINO's and purple Republicans are the ones who are fomenting confusion and division.
miclo18d
02-09-2013, 19:35
Is the Democratic Party winning or is the GOP losing elections it might otherwise win?
And, according to Gallup, "In U.S., Democrats Re-Establish Lead in Party Affiliation" (http://www.gallup.com/poll/159740/democrats-establish-lead-party-affiliation.aspx).
Winning or losing has nothing to do with the "need to address the tenor of its rhetoric and to demonstrate an ability to work in a bipartisan manner to govern effectively."
The fact that the GOP has even proposed a budget that has been rejected on the Senate floor by you "winning party" tells me all I need to know about who's tenor and rhetoric are working in a bipartisan method.
Political winners and losers be damned...
We are the ultimate losers.
"... to demonstrate an ability to work in a bipartisan manner to govern effectively."
e.g., Feinstein's proposed gun control...
DEM:"We're gonna really ride you with these gun control proposals."
RINO: "Oh no, we can't have that..."
DEM:"OK, we'll just put it in a little bit..."
RINO "Oh, that's all...OK...<sigh> that was close!"
************
Now, IMO, that is a perilous trajectory.
Quote from Sigaba,
"If the American political right is going to find different ways to engage a broader, more diverse range of Americans, replicating the most odious sensibilities of our friends across the aisle is not the way to go."
When was the last time the left seriously compromised their ideals in order to engage conservatives? Bipartisanship to them is the right just rolling over and giving them what they want. I have had enough of that, I want all the conservatives in DC to grow a PAIR and say enough is enough.
Point one: The media did the defining for the opposition.
Two: Conservatives are clear cut in their tenets-RINO's and purple Republicans are the ones who are fomenting confusion and division.First, through September 2012, the Romney campaign and its surrogate super PAC spent almost one billion dollars in advertising <<LINK (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance)>>. To say that the Fourth Estate's bias completely overshadowed that advertising is a bit of a stretch. "Media bias" is a reason, not an excuse, for Romney's failure to communicate more effectively to potential voters.
Second, by using terms like "RHINO" conservatives send a clear message that they're more interested in having all things their way than finding a middle way. As long as conservatives insist upon ideological conformity, I augur that the incremental downward slide towards political irrelevance and historical oblivion will continue.
Winning or losing has nothing to do with the "need to address the tenor of its rhetoric and to demonstrate an ability to work in a bipartisan manner to govern effectively."
The fact that the GOP has even proposed a budget that has been rejected on the Senate floor by you "winning party" tells me all I need to know about who's tenor and rhetoric are working in a bipartisan method.
Political winners and losers be damned...
We are the ultimate losers.MOO, the continued use of single point of failure arguments based upon a single fact are part of the problem, not the solution. It is one thing to propose a budget, another thing entirely to be a part of the process in which a budget gets passed.
When was the last time the left seriously compromised their ideals in order to engage conservatives? A call for moderating one's tone, and finding compromise solutions does not automatically entail compromising one's ideals.
In any case, for a variety of reasons, the left has bent a great deal on GWOT, regulating banks in the aftermath of the recession, and the current gun control debate. YMMV.
More generally, I think that a tit for tat approach in which both sides keep score ("they do it too!") displays poor political judgement. At the very least, conservatives might benefit from doing a better job at appearing not to get as bent out of shape as liberals did during Bush the Younger's presidency. Otherwise, the unrelenting rhetoric of moral outrage becomes a self perpetuating (and increasingly tiring) narrative of victimization.
In this nation's political history, cohorts have achieved more with less. Rather than mocking, demonizing, and attempting to discredit some of those cohorts, I think much could be learned from studying them. Or we could just keep on doing what we've been doing: gnashing our teeth, writing our hands, and blaming others for not doing what we think they should.
My $0.02.
A call for moderating one's tone, and finding compromise solutions does not automatically entail compromising one's ideals.
This is a recurring theme with Sig, and I think that it is a very salient point.
We are losing the Coke vs Pepsi war. Never mind that "they" own the TV and print. We forget that we own radio and share the Internet. We can complain all we want to that they are giving away free samples (and making us pay for it), the fact is we have to solve the messaging problem (i.e. stop digging) before we get buried.
Solutions are needed, not complaints.
This is a recurring theme with Sig, and I think that it is a very salient point.
We are losing the Coke vs Pepsi war. Never mind that "they" own the TV and print. We forget that we own radio and share the Internet. We can complain all we want to that they are giving away free samples (and making us pay for it), the fact is we have to solve the messaging problem (i.e. stop digging) before we get buried.
Solutions are needed, not complaints.
The solution is to be truly Conservative, not mince words and mealy-mouth our way through one-sided negotiations.
The solution is to be truly Conservative, not mince words and mealy-mouth our way through one-sided negotiations.
Let's put this another way: If you have a difference of opinion with your wife, is she 100% correct all the time, 100% wrong all the time, thereby makeing you 100% correct all the time, or 100% wrong all the time. Or in a marriage, as long as yours, do you compromise, because some stuff just isn't worth fighting about? Because if you do fight about the small stuff, then the stuff REALLY worth fighting over is no different than the small stuff.
We can't be right all the time, and Dems wrong all the time. The trick is finding the REALLY important stuff, and making sure we go in with both barrels blazing. Let them win points on the small stuff, they may win the battle, but we CAN win the war.
Let's put this another way: If you have a difference of opinion with your wife, is she 100% correct all the time, 100% wrong all the time, thereby makeing you 100% correct all the time, or 100% wrong all the time. Or in a marriage, as long as yours, do you compromise, because some stuff just isn't worth fighting about? Because if you do fight about the small stuff, then the stuff REALLY worth fighting over is no different than the small stuff.
We can't be right all the time, and Dems wrong all the time. The trick is finding the REALLY important stuff, and making sure we go in with both barrels blazing. Let them win points on the small stuff, they may win the battle, but we CAN win the war.
Perfect.
The problem is, because of the press, the truth never gets across.
Take the sequestration dilemma-Obama basically dreamed it up, but Republicans catch the blame. It's that way on almost all the main issues to which you refer-debt, health care, entitlements, guns, defense, ad infinitum.
If a Republican was presiding over this Country at this moment, he would be dragged through the coals over Dorner-based on the manifesto-for example.
We've got to get people in the slots who have the stones to jam this crap right back in their faces. Hard to do when the press is in the sack with the libdems.
This is a recurring theme with Sig, and I think that it is a very salient point.
We are losing the Coke vs Pepsi war. Never mind that "they" own the TV and print. We forget that we own radio and share the Internet. We can complain all we want to that they are giving away free samples (and making us pay for it), the fact is we have to solve the messaging problem (i.e. stop digging) before we get buried.
Solutions are needed, not complaints.
I whole heartedly agree with you, solutions not complaints, but our politicians do not seem to have any common ground. Both sides should want to do what is right for the country but seldom do we ever see that happening.
The solution is to be truly Conservative, not mince words and mealy-mouth our way through one-sided negotiations.
^^This.
Admittedly, it is hard to stay on message when the community-organizer-in-chief is continually dividing our country with wedge issues.
Perhaps, we can and should moderate our tone but not our message. I realize that I am probably way out of touch with folks these days -- but I've got to believe that the best health care plan is still a good job. The best retirement plan is still a good job. The best thing for a family is still two good parents with a good job(s). A strong national defense and border security is still good for all citizens. Wow, that sounds so out of touch and old fashioned.
I am a simple man, but I am open-minded enough to listen to why policies that create good jobs should be trumped by policies that create more dependency.
Moreover, if one truly believes that good jobs are indeed better than .gov cheese and free cell phones - I for one - am willing to listen to the best ways to get that message across to the dependency folks.
Moreover, if one truly believes that good jobs are indeed better than .gov cheese and free cell phones - I for one - am willing to listen to the best ways to get that message across to the dependency folks.
To do that, you'd have to instill a sense of pride and self-respect that is no longer en vogue.
To do that you'd have to instill a brand of pride and self-respect that is no longer en vogue.
Yes, indeed. That might require analysis of what has actually worked and what has failed in the war on poverty.
As usual, you touch on matters that can be quite difficult for many to actually consider - objectively.
I am willing to listen to this whole Coke v. Pepsi consideration because I truly believe that self sufficiency is a better route than dependency.
Is it merely message or has it become cultural? Or both?
Is it merely message or has it become cultural? Or both?
It's innate.
It's innate.A controversial POV that has been at the heart of the decline of American political conservativism since the 1830s.
The Reaper
02-11-2013, 19:35
First, through September 2012, the Romney campaign and its surrogate super PAC spent almost one billion dollars in advertising <<LINK (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance)>>. To say that the Fourth Estate's bias completely overshadowed that advertising is a bit of a stretch. "Media bias" is a reason, not an excuse, for Romney's failure to communicate more effectively to potential voters.
Second, by using terms like "RHINO" conservatives send a clear message that they're more interested in having all things their way than finding a middle way. As long as conservatives insist upon ideological conformity, I augur that the incremental downward slide towards political irrelevance and historical oblivion will continue.
MOO, the continued use of single point of failure arguments based upon a single fact are part of the problem, not the solution. It is one thing to propose a budget, another thing entirely to be a part of the process in which a budget gets passed.
A call for moderating one's tone, and finding compromise solutions does not automatically entail compromising one's ideals.
In any case, for a variety of reasons, the left has bent a great deal on GWOT, regulating banks in the aftermath of the recession, and the current gun control debate. YMMV.
More generally, I think that a tit for tat approach in which both sides keep score ("they do it too!") displays poor political judgement. At the very least, conservatives might benefit from doing a better job at appearing not to get as bent out of shape as liberals did during Bush the Younger's presidency. Otherwise, the unrelenting rhetoric of moral outrage becomes a self perpetuating (and increasingly tiring) narrative of victimization.
In this nation's political history, cohorts have achieved more with less. Rather than mocking, demonizing, and attempting to discredit some of those cohorts, I think much could be learned from studying them. Or we could just keep on doing what we've been doing: gnashing our teeth, writing our hands, and blaming others for not doing what we think they should.
My $0.02.
D:
Are there any principles which are inviolate, and you would not negotiate away over time without gaining equal concessions?
I ask this because it seems that you are always saying that the Repubs need to reach out and compromise, but I do not see the Dims making similar concessions, or you asking for them.
What core principles of the Dims should they compromise on? Should they moderate their strident tone?
Are the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be taken verbatim, or is it a flexible document that should be evolving, perhaps in directions that the founders did not intend?
Interested in your perspectives.
TR
I wonder what percent of self made billionaires got there primarily due to an overwhelming sense of altruism. The Republican Party in current form is a bad investment IMHO. I understand the culture on the coasts differs from the midwest or the south. I don't think its so much the Dims are doing something right, so much as the Republicans are saddled by common perceptions of their social agenda.
Over the years and across the past two presidential elections my experience has been consistent. A great number of people I encountered actually thought the Republican candidates were less slick and more credible, and issues such as fiscal responsibility, and a strong defense resonated with them. It was the perception of the Republican social agenda that was the deal breaker. Specifically these people felt the conservative stance on abortion, gay rights, immigration, religion, etc. to be antiquated and archaic. (Please note I don't necessarily share these views.) In addition perceptions of the Tea Party as angry right wing radicals didn't help the cause.
Obama is a zero, he was ripe to be beaten, yet twice now the American people have chosen his empty promises over IMO the conservative social agenda. So I'm wondering why anyone fiscally astute as a self made billionaire would leave even a single dollar to a proven bad investment? Hypothetically, if some billionaire was at that point in life where leaving a legacy is foremost, what if any indication has the Republican Party given they wouldnt screw up such a generous donation as they have the past two elections?
Sigaba nailed it, in an election with the economy at the forefront, the Republicans let Obama define Romney despite his infinitely superior economic credentials.
Perhaps, there is something for everyone in the speech below...even the aforementioned Mr. Perot.
Dr. Benjamin Carson's Speech at the National Prayer Breakfast:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=udrrYP5biUs&feature=related
MOO: The D's are mostly unified with regards to their message(and it's contents) and platform, and anyone who doesn't march in lockstep gets taken behind the woodshed(case in point, Cory Booker on Bain). Basically big government, European style socialism and whatever the social trends are at the moment. As long as they can "own" the existing voting block, and invest in new voters, and control those who pay for it all, it's all good as long as they keep getting re-elected.
The R's on the other hand, permit(and I use that term loosely) the free exchange of ideas, and (sometimes unintentionally) critical debate and analysis, allowing for differing opinions, views and ideas within the party. This is both their strength, and their weakness. On the one hand, it does allow for (some) platform innovation and the spirit of limited government, on the other it allows the D's to target specific ideas, isolate them, dissemble them, attack them and then control the dialogue around those points, putting the R's on the defensive.
The institutional Republicans seem to be trying the Democrat model of unifying the message and coercing everyone to march in lockstep. While they may have some good intentions(like controlling the bleeding), it doesn't seem to be working. Newton's law of motion applies here: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction, meaning, the seemingly rigid views of many of the conservatives within the party is in reaction to the generally unyielding Democrats and their goal to "fundamentally transform" the USA. Ultimately, the many factions within the party will need to make some sort of internal compromise to unify the message and platform, otherwise, lacking a major D attributed crisis with a "told you so" moment that the R's actually manage not to waste, I don't see how the party can remain viable.
My .02, YMMV by a lot.
D:
Are there any principles which are inviolate, and you would not negotiate away over time without gaining equal concessions?
I ask this because it seems that you are always saying that the Repubs need to reach out and compromise, but I do not see the Dims making similar concessions, or you asking for them.
What core principles of the Dims should they compromise on? Should they moderate their strident tone?
Are the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be taken verbatim, or is it a flexible document that should be evolving, perhaps in directions that the founders did not intend?
Interested in your perspectives.
TRTR--
First, as I stated in the post you quoted, I am not calling for a compromise on principle. However, I do have in mind Alexander Hamilton's comment that the Constitution is "merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns." (Source is here (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm).) That is to say that I think that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights establish a framework for America's political philosophy and political economy. I do not think the purpose of those two documents is to tell Americans how they should live their everyday lives nor what they should believe nor what they should think. Consequently, I am much more interested in the ethical conduct of elected politicians and appointed civilian officials than in their moral fiber.
Second, my calls for the GOP to moderate its tone is based upon my belief that:
The first party to do so is going to enjoy greater success in elections. If the GOP changes its tone and the Democratic Party doesn't, I believe that the voters [I]will notice.
The rhetoric--but not necessarily the policy preferences of the Democratic Party--is already more mindful of its current and potential supporters. Just as the Federalists have a permanent leg up over the anti-Federalists when it comes to studying the early republic, today's Democrats have an advantage when they speak of "social justice" and "progress."
Many key elements of the GOP's political rhetoric activates unnecessarily the concerns of potential voters. For example, "states rights" means different things to different people. When you're dealing with generations of Americans who descended from and/or experienced directly policies that were driven by "states' rights" IRT voting, education, and housing, why not find a better way to discuss the concept so that it resonates positively? Why not find ways to repudiate previous practices while reaffirming the aspects of that sensibility that remain viable?
I'm of the view that, unless the GOP gets it together within the next six years, it is on the way out. If this happens, erstwhile Republicans will need to have an established track record of cooperation if they're to have a meaningful place in what ever political party takes its place.
Third, given the heat with which Americans debated the meanings and implications of the U.S. Constitution during its drafting and ratification, as well as the subsequent hostility among politicians in the following years, I think that the "intent" of the framers justifiably remains a topic of intense debate. Until eggheads (including historians and political scientists) who specialize in that period are able to iron out better the parameters of the contemporaneous debates, I think American conservatives should take a step back from a "What would the framers think" approach when it comes to policy issues and focus more on a "What would the framers do" approach. (It is my view that today's focus on ideology --and the subsequent attention to "wedge issues"-- impedes the proper functioning of the institutional checks and balances so that party politics time and again trumps institutional processes and politics.)
IMO, the latter approach would facilitate a renewed focus on solving today's issues. This approach would be tempered by the knowledge that the framers addressed issues that were more divisive than any we currently face in a political environment that was markedly more tense and in a geopolitical setting that was much more perilous. (The blueprint for this sensibility remains the Federalist number 10.)
IMO, conservatives should find pragmatic solutions for issues that impact the lives of Americans across diverse cohorts and that distribute the sacrifices and rewards of those solutions. These solutions should balance conservative beliefs with sustainable practices.
A pie in the sky example, the debate over abortion transition over arguments over when life begins and sexual behavior as a reflection of morality to a discussion of policies that might reduce significantly the demand for abortions. These policies might include streamlined processes for the adoption of "unwanted" infants, non denominational public private partnerships (PPP) that provide health care to expectant mothers who would otherwise get abortions, and, potentially tangible incentives for women who do not have abortions.
Yes, this approach raises the kinds of issues debated frequently at PS.COM. Why should those who make responsible life choices have to subsidize those who do not? Does knowledge of a social safety net encourage "bad" behavior? What are the long term consequences of a deliberate de-emphasis on morality as the basis of social behavior?
But such an approach also raises another set of questions. Questions that include:
How many cups of Starbucks Pike Place a year is one willing to do without if it keeps a fetus from being aborted?
What might happen to the (still) untapped potential of young women in America if they had a higher level of reproductive freedom?
How many children will understand that they were born and raised in loving, supportive households because of the policy innovations of the Republican Party?
Might some of these individuals incorporate this understanding in the choices they make as voters?
Could some of these individuals decide they want to know more about the value systems that were at the foundation of such policy initiatives?
I also believe that conservative politicians and appointed civilians should team with their counterparts from across the aisle and hold a series of public forums--not town halls--in which they educate voters from a nonpartisan perspective the way the federal government works. Ultimately, most of what is wrong with American politics today are the results of the ongoing failures of voters to understand what .GOV does and how it does it. As long as voters continue to make self defeating choices at the polls (e.g. split ticket voting) and have unrealistic expectations of their elected representatives (e.g. waging a global war without shared economic sacrifices), the deadlock in Washington, D.C. will continue.
My $0.02.
Pericles
02-12-2013, 16:43
Re: Moderate tone
Having a look at the Perot infomercials might be useful in articulating a message that works. The other lesson is not to get in a position where your political opponents define your public persona, lest the party that advocates personal responsibility claim that you "cost" them the election.
The Reaper
02-12-2013, 19:47
Sigaba:
Interesting perspectives, as expected.
How do you explain the dichotomy of the Republican success in local elections in the most recent cycles, and failure at the national level?
I doubt that the Repubs could have selected two more moderate candidates than they did in 08 and 12, yet they accrued minimal numbers of moderate or undecided voters. I guess Christie will be next in the ring.
Must the Republican candidates abandon their principles and pander to special interest groups in violation of their core beliefs?
For example, can Repubs attract Hispanic voters without condoning mass illegal immigration and granting subsequent amnesty?
How can Republican candidates and elected officials get a fair shake from the media? Do you think Menendez would have lasted this long if he weren't a Dim? Yet their party seems to accurue no dishonor from his alleged criminal actions and refusal to resign. Curious.
TR
How do you explain the dichotomy of the Republican success in local elections in the most recent cycles, and failure at the national level?
TRMOO, the issue is three-fold.
First, the primary process in national elections sees the base pushing Republicans to the right. This push makes it harder for candidates to attract moderates, independents, and disillusioned Democrats in the general election.
Second, the current wave of populism allows for politicians to strike specific chords when it comes to local issues but that advantage doesn't translate into the types of messages that resonate on a national level.
Third, I think Republicans suffer in national campaigns when pressed to provide specific answers to specific questions. Granted, Democratic candidates also hedge but Republicans come off the worse when they fail to give direct answers to direct questions.
I don't think this disparity is merely a matter of media bias. I think too many Republicans spend too much time agreeing with each other rather than taking their policy preferences to the market place of ideas and testing them. Many in the GOP would greatly benefit from taking a page (or two) from the Reagan and Bush families when it comes to finding a balanced tone when communicating with diverse groups.
YMMV.
miclo18d
02-14-2013, 13:53
MOO, the issue is three-fold.
First, the primary process in national elections sees the base pushing Republicans to the right. This push makes it harder for candidates to attract moderates, independents, and disillusioned Democrats in the general election.
Second, the current wave of populism allows for politicians to strike specific chords when it comes to local issues but that advantage doesn't translate into the types of messages that resonate on a national level.
Third, I think Republicans suffer in national campaigns when pressed to provide specific answers to specific questions. Granted, Democratic candidates also hedge but Republicans come off the worse when they fail to give direct answers to direct questions.
I don't think this disparity is merely a matter of media bias. I think too many Republicans spend too much time agreeing with each other rather than taking their policy preferences to the market place of ideas and testing them. Many in the GOP would greatly benefit from taking a page (or two) from the Reagan and Bush families when it comes to finding a balanced tone when communicating with diverse groups.
YMMV.
I think it's all a load of malarkey. 51% of Americans thought he had money stashed in the Caymans and that he was going to sew womens' vaginas shut all thanks to the news media reporting their version of "truth". Low information voters got those two messages. Not a single person cares that we are in debt so deep we will probably never get out of it or the debacle in Bengazi which makes Watergate look like shoplifting.
Sorry for the long delay in getting back to the thread I started...I was off on a long bike run with poor data connectivity.
I wonder if the problems the US faces is like an analogy of US/Nazi Germany/USSR in late 30's lead up to WWII.
The economic environment is similar(output gap trap that cannot be closed), but different(very high unofficial unemployment, but not the levels of the 1930's).
The political environment is similar-ish(Democrat in office that is treating the Constitution like a set of suggestions rather than laws).
I would posit the US represents the right side of the political spectrum, the USSR represents the left side of the political spectrum, and Nazi Germany represents special interests in the US.
When I was a kid, the US had well over 6,000 mass media companies/owners. A very broad and diverse range of mass media ownership. Now with a mere 6 companies controlling 85-90% of mass media(even though TV/Radio/Print channels have increased, ownership behind them has shrunk to control mostly by the Big 6) we receive considerable consistently in mass media "news" to shape public perceptions.
The scariest and most recent example of this crony capitalist, special interest controlled propaganda machine that would make Goebbels jealous would be the 2nd Amendment "debate" which consistently lacks discussion around Framer's Intent of "deterrence of tyranny" and everything to do with "hunting and target shooting".
I don't believe it is a coincidence that the perception shaping is so consistent across so many media channels.
The way I see it, in order for the US to achieve a new era of prosperity it is going to have to see the US(right) join forces with the USSR(left) to defeat the Nazis(special interests).
Then once the special interest Nazis are defeated, the Cold War can begin(and eventually be won by the center right).
While this 2nd Amendment "debate" has been ongoing, who has managed to see that the special interest "Nazis" representing Wall Street and the financial industry have just gained control of the SEC?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/choice-of-mary-jo-white-to-head-sec-puts-fox-in-charge-of-hen-house-20130125
Isn't Obamacare really "Leave no Health Insurance special interest behind"?
To me, it's like Goebbels figured out how to get the US and USSR fighting each other, while special interest plunder like locusts.
Aren't we confusing who the enemy is? Or at least which enemy we need to prioritize first?
That's why I suggested the possibility of a "non-partisan filter".
Filter out and kill the excessive special interest influence and control.........then(or somewhat concurrently with the battle against the special interests) battle for the hearts/minds of the people in a fair-ish fight.
Shouldn't the right be trying to work with the left to fight the biggest threat to both sides?
While also trying to flood schools with bright young center-right veterans to teach the next generation and also trying to take townships/counties/states from the bottom up of course. ;)
My enemy's enemy is my temporary friend is the way I see it....like WWII....or do I need crazy pills?