In all seriousness....has anyone considered...

[(1VB)compforce]

Originally Posted by MR2

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)

Originally Posted by MR2

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.

Originally Posted by MR2

Yes. See #1.

Originally Posted by MR2

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.

Originally Posted by MR2

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.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by (1VB)compforce

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.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Dusty

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.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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]

Originally Posted by Dusty

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by miclo18d

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".

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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".

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.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Dusty

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>>.

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 said

YMMV.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I share the sense of skepticism Jeb Bush voiced late last spring <<LINK>>.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.

Fast forward to Romney-did he lose because he was too Conservative or not Conservative enough?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Dusty

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.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.