I'm going to bring you back in, because really your concerns are those that need to be discussed. Especially because they are concerns that might cause other FReepers to ignore a chance to use the conference(s) for the good they could do, the good of furthering the Conservative movement.
When I posted earlier, I didn't mean to imply that having a woman debate abortion, or a black person debate racism, or a male sports, are rigid tactics. The purpose of what we learned from Matt Lewis was that the tactic could be used to deflect initial appearances, but it is not necessary. However, knowing how the tactic works is essential to understanding how or why someone can lose a debate, from the get-go.
There is a credibility factor that is very important when it comes to debates, especially debates of specific natures (i.e. abortion, racism). This can be applied to other things in the universe of debates/discussions. For example, you wouldn't have an accountant debate with a NASA scientist quantum physics, or the other way around. Now, of course, the accountant could be a brilliiant physicist, but I am generalizing.
Alinsky-like tactics are being used to shut conservatives out of the Republican party.
An excellent point. But I would ask, why can't we 'fight' back and use their tactics? As long as we stay true to our morals, our platforms, or logic, the tactic shouldn't matter. This is something that Matt Lewis explained brilliantly by explaining his view of x42. x42 was (and is) inarguably a brilliant politican. His morals and policies may be anethema to Conservatives, but his ability to work within politics shouldn't be ignored, and they should especially be learned from. As much as I hate Carville and Begala, Matt was right, they knew what and why they did what they did, and it worked. Now, if we apply those tactics with the logic and morality of Conservatives, we will win, and winning is good.
Winning is not only good, it is vital. The alternative is for our country to continue to devolve into Zimbabwe with good roads.
The main reason I hesitate to draw out this debate is because I wasn't in attendance at the conference. I didn't hear all Matt Lewis had to say that might mitigate his advocating (for lack of a better term) media apartheid w/r/t issues that polarize. But, if you insist: Your explanations only seem to dig a deeper hole. To emulate Carville and Begala for their enthusiasm is fine. Carefully studying them as opponents is necessary. But to say we have something positive in the way of "tactics" to learn from such dissembling Marxist demagogues stretches the bounds of credibility. The only salient tactic that they display was likely learned, as most FReepers have already concluded, by studying Goebbels and Geuring - repeat a lie until it becomes accepted as truth. These men do not serve at the pleasure of a left leaning media because of any ingenious tactics or brilliant insight. They essentially lie for food.
Yes, winning is good. But remember - Bush won in 2000, not Gore. When the rubber hit the road in campaign 2000, Carville was muzzled and Begala was put out to pasture with a nice cushy CNN gig. When whatever debt the DNC thought it owed them was paid - even that disappeared.
I've always found that consultants (i.e. Matt Lewis) can be valuable in prodding us away from the status quo, but we need to take much of their advice witha grain of salt and a boulder of reality.