Replies

First everyone would have to agree on the strategy, flesh out the details, devise follow up strategies, etc. etc.

And, as far as the WH goes, I doubt at this point they'd be on board for something like this. The WH would require different strategies, and, frankly, a different mindset than they've displayed since the election.

This is why we need to convene and discuss the matter as thoroughly, but expeditiously, as possible - each strategy or activity can't occur in a vacuum, this war needs to be fought as synergistically as possible.

Okay, so maybe study the data -- is it Accuracy in Media? which compiles the frequency of negative stories/positive stories as they relate to political parties? Obviously a great many studies would be needed.

Wait and see who is at the helm of the different branches of the GOP after the first of the year, (hopefully someone with a spine) and then they could make an announcement, prefaced by the data, and then state, "therefore, our side will no longer try to get our message out through the following organizations" or something like that.???

There are a few lessons to be learned from this election, and they are all sad. First, Americans no longer have any stomach for military casualties. It's almost to the point where maybe we should close down the armed services and lower the taxes. If we can't get any soldiers hurt, why have them? The public now seems to think that joining the service is kind of like college in uniform, and it's an outrage if someone gets killed. It's a disaster cause we've had 3000 killed in four years. We lost something like 1500 drowned in accidents training for D-Day! If this is the case, perhaps we should just have some ICBMs and have the policy that if we are attacked, we will fire them. Second, the elections are decided not by the thinking, interested, educated people that read and write blogs, whether left or right, but by dummies who know a heck of a lot more about JLo and K-Fed than Middle East history, let alone economic theory. Third, as long as the libs control the mass media, which is still mostly seen by the dummies as unbiased and the truth, they can control what the dummies believe. The dummies have a tv mentality. All problems are black and white, and the heroes do nothing wrong and make no mistakes, only the obvious bad guys are killed, and all problems are neatly wrapped up within a half hour to three hours. Does it not strike you as truly odd that Americans would be content with election results that are applauded by Al Qaeda, Hugo Chavez, Danny Ortega and the French...and not be appalled? Picture running a candidate in 1943 who is approved by Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo! Republicans traditionally have to appeal on the basis of historical examples (socialism fails, welfare states fail, aggressors have to be militarily defeated or they keep aggressing) while libs appeal on cuteness, emotion, and "wouldn't it be nice if you got that for free?". Republicans keep trying to explain theory, libs call them heartless nasty racists. Hard to see hope as long as they control the media, and dumb down public education. How many people try to historically educate themselves? How many watch Dancing with the Stars instead? Libs understand this...suddenly Hillary's opposition is Barack Obama. Ok, why? What has he ever said or done to merit this consideration? He's simply a photogenic black guy who can speak well, who has a appealing "uplifting" backstory...what are his opinions or positions? Does anyone know? But he'd be a favorite on American Idol, most likely....truly sad. Right now probably the best person in the country to be president is Newt Gingrich..and he doesn't stand a chance because he's not cute and the media convinced everyone he was nasty and evil some years ago. I fear for the country more and more..and have no idea how to change it besides somehow overthrowing the media that Joe Average takes in more or less like air.

Posted by: jaeger51 at November 11, 2006 12:10 AM