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:


Does the RNC even have a leader? Or is it Jesus?

To which I responded as follows:


It's Rush Limbaugh, didn't you know? Or so Dizzy Dean and the Leftist crowd would have us believe.

Actually, at this point, I would argue that the Republicans are much better organized than the Dems at this moment. That's what's pissing off the Obamanites and why they are accusing the right of "astroturfing".

It's just that the organization is coming from the bottom up (tea parties, town hall meetings, even talk radio) rather than from the top down (party leaders). The Obama "machine" can't counter that right now.

Call it a bottom-up sort of organization. Our leaders are being found in the streets, not in the offices of DC politicians. (Perhaps that's why Palin is striking such a cchord with so many people... they see her as part of that bottom-up leadership, as opposed to McCain, who represents top-down leadership.

From a political-science perspective, it's really interesting to watch. I can't remember anything like it in my lifetime. It is different from even when the Reagan Revolution got started.

Any comments?

Elliot

Tom followed up with the following post:


Elliot ; excellent comment ;one deserving it's own posting . In the Harvard Business Publication , Umair Haque argues that the left is losing the public policy debate because the right has adopted “5th generation warfare”.He says that the leaderlessness is a strength because it means that every group of conservative protesters can initiate and plan its own actions within the context of a shared narrative.
Ten Rules for 5G Warfare - Umair Haque - HarvardBusiness.org (http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/haque/2009/08/obamas_war_and_how_to_win_it.html)

What he really means is that the left’s methods, tried and true, relying on controlling the dialoge with the MSM and decapitation strikes on the right’s leadership cannot be used when there is alternatives to the MSM narrative ;and the opposition is leaderless at the time. That explains their efforts for naming leaders for the right. They identify Palin ,or Limbaugh as the leader so they have a name to attack and demonize.

He proposes 10 ideas to counter this which I won't get into in detail because some of them ;like "Meta-Attack" are stupid (you have to attack not with “facts”, but with meta-information about how to value facts) .

What NK and others don't understand is that the same bottom up revolt being waged against the Obots is also being waged by the base against the Republican party. When the dust settles a leader from the base will emerge.

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

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.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.

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

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

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


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

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.

It is because of Republicans like these that I say the 5th gen.warfare must also be waged on the Republicans.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 (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/28/wellpoint-attacks/)

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. ) 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 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hM5d8GYeT40PeunU7LnYoQSWTv4QD99V2MV00)

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

Should Obama Control the Internet? | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet)

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


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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6XwEiy60P0&feature=player_embedded), having your constituents forcibly removed (http://www.nowhampshire.com/2009/08/30/shea-porter-instructs-security-to-remove-a-former-peace-officer-from-town-hall/) for asking questions, and bullying by the House Majority Leader (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/56171937.html)himself. If that don't tell you they're losing the battle I don't know what will.

Should be Senate Majority Leader

If that don't tell you they're losing the battle I don't know what will.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

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 (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/28/wellpoint-attacks/)


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

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.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 (http://gawker.com/5336475/theres-just-no-way-that-sarah-palins-writing-her-facebook-notes)

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!

Originally Posted by tomder55 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_imgs/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/asymmetrical-political-warfare-392160.html#post1955168)
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. )

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 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 .

Your link is dead so I don't kow what the content is there. But we have what you call "localism" here in Canada too. It's to prevent the ClearChannels of the world from making generic content for the entire country and dropping the local flovour of any community. We've already seen that with FM radio where CC has basically a monopoly control over content.

Your link is dead

Go to this page and click on the pdf report :The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html)

But we have what you call "localism" here in Canada too.


That's all well and good but his clear intent is not to promote local flovour of any community ; but to penalize stations that air conservative talk radio.

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 (http://gawker.com/5336475/theres-just-no-way-that-sarah-palins-writing-her-facebook-notes)



If the internet and social networking sites were not available, I doubt if CNN, NBC, ABC, or CBS would be giving Palin any kind of voice to say those two words.

I don't think Ron Paul would have been as widely known had it not been for the internet and You Tube.

Which is just the point, Palin and Paul may have limited appeal, but they speak for those who agree with them. The people want to hear them. This is not the heads of the Democratic or Republican parties deciding our choices and our platform from top to bottom. The people at the bottom are letting those on top know how they feel.



G&P




G&P

If the internet and social networking sites were not availble, I doubt if CNN, NBC, ABC, or CBS would be giving Palin any kind of voice to say those two words.First of all she didn't coin those words, she repeated what she read elsewhere. And no the media did not need to report that because it was erroneous to begin with.


I don't think Ron Paul would have been as widely known had it not been for the internet and You Tube. Correct there, he had an incredible internet following, people championed their guy's cause across the web.

First of all she didn't coin those words, she repeated what she read elsewhere. And no the media did not need to report that because it was erroneous to begin with.

So if it wasn't hers, ans she wasn't the first person to say it, why is everyone on the left all over her for having said it?

If she ain't all that important, why is everything she says so important that the lefitsts in the MSM have to have a week long bash-fest to counter it?

Answer: they MSM and the Left are trying to MAKE her into a leader for the Right because right now they can't fight the asymmetrical political war. They don't have anyone to attack in the "leadership" of the grass-roots Right, so they need to CREATE someone to be a target for them.

The Left is using the equivalent of the "Bush Doctrine". The Bush Doctrine basically said that any government that supports terrorism is a legitimate target in the War on Terror. The idea was that we can't fight against al-Qaeda in a traditional war, for the reasons that I described in the OP. So we needed to CREATE a target that we could fight on those terms. He designated who the "leadership" or the "support structure" of the terrorists was. Whether you agree with Bush's targets or not, that was the tactic he used.

The Left is using the same tactic now: they are trying to name our leaders for us. First it was Rush. Then it was Palin. The idea is to give their "troops" a target to lash out at.

Problem is that Rush and Palin aren't the real leadership of the Conservative grass roots and aren't involved in the grass roots movement. They are merely sypathetic compatriots.

Frankly, Bush was better at choosing his "targets" of the Bush Doctrine than the leftists seem to be. At least there were real terrorists that gathered in Iraq to fight us... real targets to eliminate. The left is just antagonizing an angry populace within their own area of influence, and losing that influence as a result.

Elliot

First of all she didn't coin those words, she repeated what she read elsewhere. And no the media did not need to report that because it was erroneous to begin with.

Gee, like no one else we know (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/politics/19campaign.html) would do that (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html). Heck, Obama's campaign themes were straight out of Alinsky's book... and just watch what happens when TOTUS betrays him.

Answer: they MSM and the Left are trying to MAKE her into a leader for the Right because right now they can't fight the assymetrical political war. They don't have anyone to attack in the "leadership" of the grass-roots Right, so they need to CREATE someone to be a target for them.
So the crazy leftists are behind these?

Sarah Palin for President (http://www.palin4pres2012.com/)
Draft Sarah Palin For President 2012 (http://www.draftpalinforpresident.com/)
The Fix - Palin for President (in 2012) (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2008/palin-for-president.html)
Sarah Palin for President (http://govpalin4prez.blogspot.com/)

Seems like a grassroots movement!

I want to get back to Mark Loyd because I'm sure the statist response to the asymetrical politics will be the government asserting control on the networks employed in it.

Loyd wrote in his book (and remember his thesis that communications media was surrendered to corporate interests ) “Citizen access to popular information has been undermined by bad political decisions,” .... “These decisions date back to the Jacksonian Democrats' refusal to allow the Post Office to continue to operate the telegraph service.”

And

“Neither Progressive era reforms nor new communications technologies have been able to correct the problems resulting from government abdication of a responsibility to advance the equal capability of citizen discourse,” .

This of course is nonsense . What he proposes in the gvt control of the media is for the gvt to control and manage the message . It has nothing to do with equal access or the ability to advance discourse.

What he proposes in the gvt control of the media is for the gvt to control and manage the message .Like has been done with Fox News for years?

So the crazy leftists are behind these?

Sarah Palin for President (http://www.palin4pres2012.com/)
Draft Sarah Palin For President 2012 (http://www.draftpalinforpresident.com/)
The Fix - Palin for President (in 2012) (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2008/palin-for-president.html)
Sarah Palin for President (http://govpalin4prez.blogspot.com/)

Seems like a grassroots movement!

No. Palin has her own ambissions too. And she has followers as well.

But when the Leftists start making her out to be THE political leader of the right, that's THEIR doing, not hers.

Like has been done with Fox News for years?

The government controls Fox News? Is that what you are saying?

What color is the sky on your planet?

The government controls Fox News? Is that what you are saying?

What color is the sky on your planet?Maybe not controls but they get fed their talking points from the political conservatives.

I disagree ;but regardless... Fox news is independent and free to broadcast whatever content they choose. Lloyd would change that .

I disagree ;but regardless... Fox news is independent and free to broadcast whatever content they choose. Really?

_D08K7Q6hy


On MSNBC’s Hardball last night, host Chris Matthews asked former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan if he saw “FOX television as a tool” to get the White House’s “message out” while he was in the Bush administration. “Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House,” replied McClellan, adding that they were given “talking points.”

Making a distinction between journalists like Brit Hume and commentators like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, McClellan admitted that “certainly” the White House used Fox News talking heads as “spokespeople” with “a script”:

MATTHEWS: So, you wouldn’t use Brit Hume to sell stuff for them, but you’d use some of the nighttime guys?

MCCLELLAN: Yeah, I would separate that out, and certainly I, you know, they’ll say, that’s because they agree with those views in the White House.

MATTHEWS: Well, they didn’t need a script though, did they?

MCCLELLAN: No, well, probably not.

Duh at least the troll had the integrity to distinguish between the news content and the commentators.


Again tell me how the WH feeding talking points is the equivalent of legislating and controlling the content ? FOx was free to disregard their memos no ?

Maybe not controls but they get fed their talking points from the political conservatives.

First of all, even if that were true, it's a whole lot different from what you said which is that they are GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED.

Big difference.

I don't think that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. are government-controlled in the despotic sense. I DO think that they are sypathetic to the government and have therefore become enmeshed with the government in a way that is politically unhealthy for any country. Such enmeshment can BECOME government control over time. It ain't there yet, but it could be.

Fox ain't enmeshed with the government, and all you have to do is compare the statements of Fox News with the statements and positions of the Obama government.

Now... does this constitute an attempt by government (or at least a government official) to control of the media? Or at least bully it?

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Enough is enough, Harry - Opinion - ReviewJournal.com (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/56171937.html)

Elliot

Fox ain't enmeshed with the government, and all you have to do is compare the statements of Fox News with the statements and positions of the Obama government.
Wait a minute, you want people to think that because Fox News doesn't support the Obama government then they are not "enmeshed with the government"? Hahahahahahha! You really think everyone else but you is stupid. It was Bush/far-right spokes piece and still is.

Edit to add: yea, that Reid guy is a for what he did/said.

Wait a minute, you want people to think that because Fox News doesn't support the Obama government then they are not "enmeshed with the government"? Hahahahahahha! You really think everyone else but you is stupid. It was Bush/far-right spokes piece and still is.

Edit to add: yea, that Reid guy is a for what he did/said.

And which part of the government is Bush a member of?

Last I heard, the guy is retired.

Even if you assume that Fox is/was a "spokes piece" for Bush, if Bush isn't part of the government, what connection is there between Fox and the government? There's a logical link missing from your chain of connections.

Elliot

Edit to add: yea, that Reid guy is a for what he did/said.

I didn't quite get that... but I can guess what you were trying to say. We are in agreement on this point.

what connection is there between Fox and the government? There's a logical link missing from your chain of connections.
Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Asymmetrical political warfare (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1956985-post35.html)

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Asymmetrical political warfare (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1956985-post35.html)

And you think Scott McClellan is a reliable source? He was the butt of every liberal's joke until he wrote his book... suddenly he's a brilliant and invaluable resource?

And you think Scott McClellan is a reliable source?
You mean former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Yea, he's a good source.

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Asymmetrical political warfare (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1956985-post35.html)

OK, I'll accept the LOGICAL PROGRESSION, though not the conclusions... because as Tom has mentioned, Fox is particularly good (for a media company) at keeping their NEWS SHOWS separate from their OP ED shows. Other networks... less so.

However, there's also the fact that Bush is no longer in office. Therefore Fox cannot be said to CURRENTLY be enmeshed with the government (if they ever were), especially given the fact that they are espousing an editorial position that is in direct opposition to the government.

Elliot

You're right - they are a shill for the conservative party, not just Bush.

You're right - they are a shill for the conservative party, not just Bush.


That MAY be true. Just as it is true that all the OTHER networks are shills for the DNC.

However, there's a difference between being a shill for a political party and being a shill for the GOVERNMENT. A HUGE difference. One that encroaches on the issue of free press.

Political parties can do things that GOVERNMENTS are not allowed to. Yes, sometimes the line between political party and government entity can blurr. But it is still there.

Elliot

You mean former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Yea, he's a good source.

Uh Yeah, that Scott McClellan (http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/scott_mclellan/2008/06/04/101455.html).

It has since been pulled, but a post on Obama's Organizing For America website called for a phone campaign on 9/11 to fight the "Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists" (http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/highlightedversion.jpg) opposing Obamacare. Someone on Obama's own team (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/01/obamas-team-crosses-the-rhetorical-line/) IS saying the "Conservative Movement is being run like a bunch of terrorists."

As Elliot said already ;the grass roots movement is leaderless.

Now admittedly there were media personalities who tried to claim leadership this weekend ; but it is just not the case that the estimated 2 million people who showed up the 9-12 rally (according to the Daily Mail... time lapse video here Time Lapse Aerial Video of 9/12 Protestors The Rhetorican (http://rhetorican.com/2009/09/12/time-lapse-aerial-video-of-912-protestors/))) was marching to anyone's orders but their own . The signs were not mass produced . They showed up on their own time and dime;and they were frankly just as likely to take swipes at the entrenched Republicans in the beltway as the Obots.
I'm not sure if the Republican party will survive or not. But if it does ,it will be because the party embraces the movement.

...that the estimated 2 million people who showed up the the 9-12 rally ...You're still propogating that lie??

Here are some pictures: 9/12 project Sept. 12, 2009 Washington DC - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42448313@N03/sets/72157622224474669/) What an ethicnally diverse crowd! :rolleyes:

Crowd was much less than that tom: Protest Crowd Size Estimate Falsely Attributed to ABC News - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protest-crowd-size-estimate-falsely-attributed-abc-news/story?id=8558055)
"tens of thousands"

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obamainaug-blog.jpg

You're still propogating that lie?????

Here are some pictures: 9/12 project Sept. 12, 2009 Washington DC - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42448313@N03/sets/72157622224474669/) What an ethicnally diverse crowd! :rolleyes:

Crowd was much less than that tom: Protest Crowd Size Estimate Falsely Attributed to ABC News - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protest-crowd-size-estimate-falsely-attributed-abc-news/story?id=8558055)
"tens of thousands"

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obamainaug-blog.jpg

As I've said before... you just go on denying how many Americans are against Obamacare.

Please keep trying to downplay the numbers, cast them as "a fringe minority" and deny that the Dems have a confidence issue... as in "there is no confidence in them".

The more the Dems do that, the more likely they are to drive people to the polls for the Reps in 2010 and 2012.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
----- Napoleon Bonaparte

Or as I prefer to say it, "If your enemy is in the process of screwing up by the numbers, let him finish."

Elliot

As I've said before... you just go on denying how many Americans are against Obamacare. I didn't do that. I was pointing out the massive error in the numbers tom used.

I didn;t do that. I was pointing out the massive error in the numbers tom used.

If you say so.

What I think is that over 2 million people showed up yesterday... they just didn't all show up at the same time. The picture you showed is what it looks like when they are all there at the same time.

And what is the purpose of showing your picture, if not to show that there were fewer protestors than Tom claims? What is the purpose of such a denial if not to claim that the numbers are smaller than was reported? What do you get out of minimizing the numbers?

Nah... it was a denial of how large the number of people against Obama's policies is. TWO THIRDS OF AMERICANS are against it, and you are quibbling over how many people showed up at a rally... was it 1 million or 2 million...

So you just keep minimizing.

Elliot

You're still propogating that lie??


Wasn't me . I was just quoting a reliable news source.

Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama's spending in 'tea-party' demonstration | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213056/Up-million-march-US-Capitol-protest-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html)

...and you are quibbling over how many people showed up at a rally... was it 1 million or 2 million...It wasn't even 100,000.

Wasn't me . I was just quoting a reliable news source.

Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama's spending in 'tea-party' demonstration | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213056/Up-million-march-US-Capitol-protest-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html)
I mentioend before that Daily Mail is not a reliable source as you now learn (though I have mentioned it to you before). Why did you have to to the a UK tabloid to get the info? That's because they published the numbers you wanted to see.

I mentioend before that Daily Mail is not a reliable source as you now learn (though I have mentioned it to you before). Why did you have to to the a UK tabloid to get the info? That's because they published the numbers you wanted to see.

Actually, it was because the AMERICAN media won't report the truth because they are in the tank for Obama.

Hello:

Who cares? From Wikki:

The silent majority is an unspecified large majority of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly. The term was popularized (though not first used) by U.S. President Richard Nixon in a November 3, 1969 speech,[1] where it referred to those Americans who did not join in the large demonstrations against the Vietnam War at the time, who did not join in the counterculture, and who did not enthusiastically participate in public discourse or the media. Nixon along with many others saw this group as being overshadowed by the more vocal minority.

---------------

I agree with Tricky D!ck.

excon

Actually, it was because the AMERICAN media won't report the truth because they are in the tank for Obama.It's a conspiracy!!!!!!

Or maybe the dinosaur media in this country is a bunch of syncophant toadies to the Obots. I've already more than illustrated the number of demonstrable false reports they have filed since I 1st came to AMHD . Why should I rely on sources that only satisfy your description of accuracy anyway . As recently as last week you posted from a cite that headlined truthers.

Hello:

Who cares? From Wikki:

The silent majority is an unspecified large majority of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly. The term was popularized (though not first used) by U.S. President Richard Nixon in a November 3, 1969 speech,[1] where it referred to those Americans who did not join in the large demonstrations against the Vietnam War at the time, who did not join in the counterculture, and who did not enthusiastically participate in public discourse or the media. Nixon along with many others saw this group as being overshadowed by the more vocal minority.

---------------

I agree with Tricky D!ck.

excon

There you go again. Denial of the 67% of Americans WHO ARE speaking up. Who ARE becoming more and more active in the public discourse (see: Town Hall Meetings, Tea Parties, etc.) and who are AFRAID of what Obama is trying to shove down their throats.

But again, please keep going on as you are... you are just proving my point. The longer you continue on this path, the easier it will be for the Republicans to take over the Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012.

Elliot

Here are some pictures: 9/12 project Sept. 12, 2009 Washington DC - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42448313@N03/sets/72157622224474669/) What an ethicnally diverse crowd! :rolleyes

The 'diverse' crowd has their own gatherings (http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621). How about a sample?

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/Bush_is_the_disease.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_anti-war_rally_oct_27_2007/passive-aggressive_syndrome/IMG_9676.JPG

Seems to me it's more like the silent majority finding it's voice.