Replies

I don’t mean to sound pessimistic. Who, except us, are reading these articles? The mass public isn’t. They are still getting their news form the major TV networks and newspapers. Until the RNC get serious, we are going to be fighting this issue for a very long time.

Republican Senators/Congresspersons are still tip toeing over the issue. They should be exposing not hiding. That would be a great first step.

"I don’t mean to sound pessimistic. Who, except us, are reading these articles? "

We do read these things. Then we go to work and talk about them. And we go to our barbers/hairdressers and talk about them. We use these facts to disqualify the lies of the leftists. Cheer up! We're getting the word out.

Now go get your hair done or cut as the case may be!

Exactly. Preaching to the choir. How does this now-popular and organized group (FR) peacefully assemble its position and it many common believers to actually promote change?

We here all seem aware of the problems, but no one person has the individual ability to promote change or even accountability from leaders from either party (i.e. - our border control).

How does a new "party" emerge in a two party system, without radically changing one of the two existing parties? And how do we organize to gently demand that an existing party make such radical changes?

The answer is not through education, nor through our elected leaders, and the answer is not the MSM. The answer is not violence, and it is not demonstration. It seems that the answer must be open, honest and public discourse at all levels, including national debate provided through and reinforced with internet communication.

Instead of a staged socialist-run debate (the upcoming presidential candidate debates), we need something broadcast effectively, with a disciplined conversation/arguments from both sides. For instance, take a strong spokesperson from each party, have them debate without screaming, insulting, etc., and actually attempt to rationally discuss the issues. Imagine issuing a simple challenge to debate on-line three or four significant issues by internet - Coulter vs. McCualife, for instance.
At that point, I believe the BS would have to stop, much in the same manner as the A/P story about Bush speaking about Clinton's health was corrected when the reporter's credibility was challneged for stating "boos" existed when they did not.....
As you seem to suggest, if rational discourse (i.e. the truth) is no longer defined as provable and objective reasoning, it seems rather necessary and therefore pointless to discuss this only among ourselves....