At Tom's suggestion, I am going to create a new thread based on something that we were talking about in the Sara Palin thread.

The question was asked by NeedKarma:

To which I responded as follows:

Tom followed up with the following post:

NK made some comments about "corporatism" which really don't apply to this conversation, because... well, there's no connection between the "grass roots movement" we're seeing on the right and corporatism. NK is just spouting off a Liberal talking point that he learned watching some cable TV show. But the fact that he tried to use that talking point in response to what Tom and I posted makes it fairly clear that he doesn't even understand what "corporatism" means, and was simply posting to sound off. So I'm just going to ignore it.

But the point is that we are seeing something here that we have never seen before... the political version of "assymetrical warfare".

Asymmetrical warfare is when you are fighting a war against a non-traditional, non-government enemy like a group of terrorists. In traditional (symetrical) warfare, when you defeat the military or take out the enemy's leadership, or conquer the land of the enemy, the war is over. The line between defeat and victory is very stark and very clearly defined.

In "assymetrical warfare" there is no land to conquer, there is no political leadership to defeat, there is no "army" to beat. That is the difficulty with fighting against terrorism. There are ways to do it, but "victory" cannot be defined by vanquishing the enemy armies or conquering his land.

What we are seeing in American politics from Conservatives right now is the political version of asymmetrical warfare.

NeedKarma CORRECTLY pointed out that right now the leadership of the Republican Party is in a shambles. There is no single, outspoken leader of the GOP. The political machine within the GOP is broken right now. It is a mixed-up situation, with half the GOP leadership saying that the GOP should moderate their positions, and the other half saying that they should become more staunch in their conservatism. And neither of these two factions has managed to reign in the party. In effect, the GOP HAS NO LEADERSHIP RIGHT NOW.

Instead, what we are seeing is the rise of the grass-roots of the Conservative movement (which is separate from the Republican Party). We are seeing leadership pop up in local neighborhoods, small towns and medium-sized cities. We are seeing the people organize themselves rather than wait for instructions from the GOP leadership. The Tea Parties, for all that the DNC tries to laugh them off, are a major grass roots movement that is getting conservatives and right-leaning-moderates involved in the political process in a way that we have never seen before... at least not in my experience.

It is easy to win a political battle when you can make the opposition leadership look bad. It's easy to beat the GOP if you make Bush, Cheney, McCain and Romney look like a bunch of kooks.

But how do you beat a movement that has no national-level leader, and that is organized at the local level? EVEN IF you manage to make one particular leader in one city look bad, the leaders in other cities will continue to organize in their locale. It's like trying to fight terrorist cells instead of fighting a cohesive army.

No, I'm not trying to say that the Conservative Movement is being run like a bunch of terrorists. But it is seeing a shift to asymmetrical warfare. And that shift is a HUGE CHANGE from politics of the past.

Can it work? I don't know if it is enough to win elections, though I would suspect that it might be. But what it CAN do is help shift the political momentum of the country. It can help shift POLICY in the country. And the DNC hasn't been able to figure out a way to stop it yet.

Asymmetrical political warfare.

Something new for the poli-sci types to contemplate.

Elliot

Hello El:

Your experience is limited. Time will take care of that - maybe...

What you mistake as a movement is nothing but a bunch right wing radio listeners who have nothing better to do.

It COULD become a movement if it's successful at defeating Obamacare. But, at this point in time, you're just wishing...

excon

Of course what they mean when they say the Republicans are leaderless they mean that we have not accepted as leaders the Republicans they wish we would choose. Republicans like Charles Grassley, Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe who dwell in Democrat-lite(and are in the process now of back door negotiations to thwart the will of the grass-roots).Also often mentioned McCain who was the darling of the MSM before the campaign and now again that he's defeated. McCain, once again, suggested that the responsible Republican leadership should sit down with the Dems... Responsible Republican leadership like Collins, Snowe, Lugar, Graham and Voinivich to work out yet another sellout compromise to save healthcare reform. Republicans caught up in the Washington beltway bubble who are more interested in doing the DC cocktail circuit and gaining acceptance on the Sunday morning talk shows than providing real leadersip and an alternative vision to the Dem statism.
It is because of Republicans like these that I say the 5th gen.warfare must also be waged on the Republicans.

I don't know... if it was just a one-time thing, like just the tea parties, I'd probably agree with you. But this is an ONGOING THING. There are meetings by small groups of organizers. There are the town hall meetings. It's constant now. It's been happening since April. It's getting bigger and bigger, and it's getting more and more press, despite the fact that the press would prefer to ignore it. PEOPLE are excited about it. And they see that it's having an effect.

I think it's a MOVEMENT, and I think you are the one just wishing. Wishing it would go away, that is.

Elliot

As opposed to all those paid progressive operatives from ACORN and SEIU who are being bussed into the townhalls .

Hello again, tom:

Nahhh.. They're the same thing... But, haven't you noticed? They actually seem to be well behaved, knowledgeable and interested in hearing what their congressmen think. They're not there just to shout...

The KEY to this whole thing is whether health care passes... I agree that it's Obama's Waterloo. He/the dems HAVE to pass this or their movement turns into a FORMER movement, and you guys, with Sara Palin leading the charge, really HAVE a movement.
The problem is, when you do that, you make your party even smaller and less representative. That's why Sara Palin is your man.

excon

Let me revise my comment somewhat . The Chinese have learned that the way to nip a political movement in the bud is to control the networks used by the movement . The Obots I believe understand this also . That explains the President's plans to seize the internet and the various ideas being proposed by the FCC to control content in talk radio (fairness doctrine ;local community standard etc. )

Indeed it will be difficult to coordinate into a larger movement without networking tools at our disposal... but the response has not been driven by the talk shows... they are in the end nothing but entertainers like Jon Stewart .

Isn't the republican leader conducting business from Facebook and twitter nowadays? These are not grassroots. As pointed out in the link below Wellpoint insurance emailed their customers and directed them to a "grassroots" website and having their employees show up to town halls. Sorry but these movements have as much grass roots as the old Veterans Stadium.


Think Progress WellPoint Calls Attention To Its Own Immoral Practices In Effort To Smear Health Reform

Hello again, tom:

Aren't you the guy with the tin hat picha? Could you send it to me? I need it real bad.

excon

In the next few days bigpharma will begin to air ads to the tune of $150 million on the major networks in support of Obamacare . These would be the same networks like ABC that claim they don't allow political advertising on controversial political topics lol.
The Associated Press: Drug industry backing Obama's health care plan

Should Obama Control the Internet? | Mother Jones

Perhaps.

But every time the GOP has moved to the "center" we've gotten killed in elections. While every time we've moved to the right and stood on principal, we've won elections. This has been true at the federal AND state levels.

Truth is, people would rather vote for a REAL Democrat than an erzatz Democrat who calls himself a Republican. And they would rather vote for a REAL Republican than an erzats Republican who calls himself a Democrat. They prefer the real thing to someone who CLAIMS to be that thing.

McCain lost because he tried to be a "moderate" Republican... an erzats Democrat. Every Republican in the 2006 and 2008 elections who tried to be a "moderate" lost... often to Democrats who ran to the right of the "moderate" Republican. Taking a "moderate" position for the purpose of capturing the "moderate" vote hasn't worked for us as a strategy.

But when Bush ran as a right-winger, he won TWO elections and took Congress with him. When Bush-the-elder ran as a Right-winger on a promise of "No New Taxes" he won the Presidency and the Congress as well. Reagan ran on the right and won the largest landslide in American history and started the "Reagan Revolution".

Moderation doesn't work for us. Historically speaking "moderation" has been the cause of most of our losses. It is a failed strategy.

Fact is that more people respect a candidate that stands on principals rather than waivering in those principals in order to get a few more votes.

And we never hear about Dems moderating their positions in order to pick up the moderates. Hillary actually tried to do it and lost to Obama who stayed strong in his left-wing positions. Why didn't moderation work for her? Because the Dems recognize what I'm saying... that people respect PRINCIPALS, even when they don't necessarily agree with them, as long as the person espousing them doesn't waiver from them.

No... I think it's better to choose a principaled position from which to make a stand rather than "moderate" that position or try to "tirangulate" in order to pick up a few more votes.

And seemingly the grass roots seem to agree. That's why this is such a big deal... the PEOPLE are showing us what their positions are, and very few of them are MODERATING those positions. And the stronger they hold to their positions without moderating those positions, the more popular the movement becomes.

Elliot

Hello again, tom:

Are we on health care again??

Look. Obama learned how to get big pharma on his side from George W. Bush himself. Part D gave away the ranch to big pharma, and Obama sold us out too.

You got outmaneuvered. It's OK, you got your grass roots movement... (snicker, snicker)

excon

Snicker all you want. Obamacare is getting killed in the polls. And it's happening because REGULAR EVERYDAY PEOPLE don't want it, and are actively resisting it. THAT is a grass roots movement.

The more the left tries to say that these people are "not a real grass-roots movement" the more they insult the grass roots. And the more effective that grass roots movement becomes. Insulting regular folks who care about the issues is NOT a good way to win elections.

If Obamacare passes, Obama's Presidency is dead in the water, because 60+% of Americans don't want it. If it fails, Obama's Presidentcy is dead in the water because he will have lost the prestige of "the Messiah".

Elliot

And in response from the Democrats it's come down to name calling, race baiting, having your constituents forcibly removed for asking questions, and bullying by the House Majority Leader himself. If that don't tell you they're losing the battle I don't know what will.

Should be Senate Majority Leader

Hello again, Steve:

Ain't none of here believe we're winning... You're kicking our a$$. Ok, let me rephrase that. The Democrats are kicking their own a$$, and Obama is still talking all nicey nice...

excon

During the campaign, Obama was lauded for making use of the internet and texting on his blackberry. Rightly so, he was taking advantage of whatever tools were at hand.

Now that Palin makes a comment on Facebook, again taking advantage of technology, the other side complains? She has put Obamacare in jeopardy just by saying 2 words.

The MSM do not like this, because they don't have a monopoly on information. Information is available to everyone on the internet. One can reach potential voters via blog and not have to sponsor one of those $1000 a plate fund raising dinners in which only the elite have acess to the politician.







G&P

In her case the technology had nothing to do with it - it was the content, those two words.

And then there's this:
There's Just No Way Sarah Palin's Writing Her Facebook Notes - sarah palin - Gawker

NK nice credible source . Palin couldn't have written it because it was too well researched and written in the authors opinion ? Now there's smoking gun evidence if I've ever heard it!

In the written words and sentiment of Obama's "Diversity Czar " Mark Loyd in his book Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America (History of Communication) ...
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least blind references to freedom of speech or press serves as a distraction from the critical examination of other communication policies. The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules [by the government], fines, and regulations, that would promote democratic governance."

It is clear from this report he coauthored that he thinks talk radio needs to be regulated for content .
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...talk_radio.pdf

He wants to use "localism " regulations to exert greater local accountability over radio licensing... including getting "community organizations " to have greater say during licensing renewals .