Skip to comments.March for Justice II After Action Report and Photo Thread
Posted on 04/09/2005 9:59:39 AM PDT by kristinn
click here to read article
I am very sorry that I was unable to attend. I had planned my trip and everything, but an emergency came up at the last minute and there was no way I could go. I'm really sorry about that. I'm proud of you guys anyway.
No I was not. Marches are not very productive.
Consider that for years a half million people have gone to Washington every year to march against abortion. Abortion is still legal. As far as I can see their Marching has had no effect. I would not expect it to have any effect.
It takes about about 80 million voters adopting a position to change the status quo. It is a long, slow time consuming process. It is done at the grass roots and involves a large effort. But public opinion is not effective in changing the actions of courts. It takes a change of justices to do that. It will be a long hard process that will take decades to achieve.
The founders of this nation made it very hard and time consuming to change things.. especially federal courts. I don't know why people always think superficial efforts will work. We have over 200 years of history proving such efforts never work.
The control of courts was lost when Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the author of the Constitution, James Madison, did not know what the words in the constitution meant. When neither James Madison, then in the cabinet, or Thomas Jefferson, who was president, challenged that ruling in Marbury Vs Madison the game was lost.
I spent a huge number of hours working on the Bush Campaign in Ohio. For some of the time I was charged with working with the media. My job was to try to influence the media's perception of what was happening in Ohio. Obviously it was successful.. Bush did win Ohio. It surprised the hell out of the Democrats.
LisaMalia and I polled door to door getting out the vote and recruiting more Bush volunteers.
What it will take to change the judiciary is not marches on the mall. There needs to be a grass roots effort to get conservative lawyers elected to low level courts. That is the first step. Then these experienced judges need to be elected to appellate and State Supreme courts.
We need to ensure that the pool of experienced judges are mostly conservative. To get good judges at the top of the food chain, we have to elect a lot of good prospects to the bottom.
It is how we took back the House of Representatives after the Democrats had held it for 40 years. We elected City Council members and County commissioners who then went on to be state senators and state Representatives. From that pool came Republican Governors. When we had the State legistlature and the Governorship we could undo the Gerrymandering that gave the House to the Democrats in every election. Ever wonder how Reagan could win 58 percent of the votes in 1984 and the Democrats sill held the house?
Today most elected Judges are liberals. And they are the pool of judges from which federal judges are selected. Supreme court justices are mostly selected from federal judges and lawyers.
Demonstrations are not very effective. They are like trying to get the Cleveland Indians to win the World Series by marching in front of the stadium. What you need is a fantastic farm club to produce great players. If the players are good enough it does not matter if anyone cheers.. they will still win the game. And if the players can't pitch or hit all the cheering in the world is to no avail.
Getting involved is a good thing. Doing things that will facilitate change is even better. If the voters had elected a judge who believed in the sanctity of life instead of Judge Greer, Terri Schiavo would be alive today. If 10 million people had marched in Washington 3 years ago would Judge Greer have been defeated? Would any of the marchers back then even known who he was?
Expecting higher level judges to overrule the power of lower level justices is like expectiong alcoholics to limit the supply of booze.
If I may....
I was once one of the pro-choice protesters. We consistently outnumbered the pro-life people in numbers of people and in numbers of marches. And yes, abortion is still legal. The pro-choice people still outnumber the people willing to speak outagainst abortion.
I wonder if Dr. King would agree with you about the productivity of marches.
Forgive me, but as I've worked on a campaign or two (dozen) myself, and as I said in another post--I've come to see it's much easier to sit and criticize than it is to get off the couch.
I am not a pessimist. I am a realist. I know what takes to change things. I have studied history and the tactics that work and the tactics that don't work.
It happens time after time. People get interested in politics. They want to change things. They try a course of action that looks good to them. They never check to see if that strategy works.
What it takes to change a politician's mind is votes and it apparently surprises you to learn that you get votes in local precincts.. not on the green grass of the Washington Mall.
Are you saying that once you cast your vote, you have no further communication with your Congresscritters until the next election?
How are your representatives supposed to divine their constituents' intentions between election cycles for timely issues?
Dr. Kings march on Washington was a victory celebration.
It was the sit-ins at the Woolworth's in South Carolina. It was George Wallace and Orval Faubus standing in the School house door preventing blacks from entering.It was a single woman refusing to move to the back of the bus and the boycott of the bus system by blacks that helped sway public opinion about civil rights in Alabama. It was marchers attacked by pit bulls and fire hoses, that made them effective in creating public outrage.
If blacks had been allowed to get parade permits and then marched with no interference they would have served no purpose. They would not been worthy of news coverage. Only the marchers would have been aware of the marches.
It was the attempts to exercise equal rights that took the matter to first local and then federal courts and finally a Supreme Court victory. It was the courts and federalized national guard enforcing those decisions that gave Dr. Martin Luther King his victory in civil rights.
I repeat... the Martin Luther King March on Washington was a victory celebration. It was not what produced the victory in civil rights. To think so you would have to believe the trip to the white house by Boston Red Sox was the reason they won the world Series.
You have the cart before the horse. First you win the victory then go to D.C. to show the world you have won.
Actually, I was thinking more of Selma.
My point is that criticizing other people's efforts takes no effort at all.
I don't know your situation at all, but I can tell you that Jim Robinson travelled 3000 miles to be there.
What did you say you were doing?
That is just crazy. That is not what I said at all.
Congress critters and presidents do not react to grandstanding.
They are hard headed realists. You can't fool them and you can't bull sh*t them.
You have to be able to show teh elected official that it is in HIS best interest to do what you want him to do.
Showing a congress critter that a half million people care enough to come to D.C. to march against abortion has no clout. He knows darn well that at least 35 million people oppose abortion. There are also about 35 milliion that want abortion. Anda bout 50 million that don't care one way or the other.
If being pro abortion can defeat him, he will be likely change to anti abortion. Ditto .. anti abortion.
My point is to have an effect one need not try to convince the politician of the rightness of your position. One has to convince voters of the rightness of your position.
My point is that one has to get the voters to support your view in order to get politicans.
Let me use my Reagan example. Do you remember Reagan being called the great communicator? When Reagan wanted something passed in congress he did not go lobby congressman. He went to the voters. It was the voters that went to the congress in support of Reagan.
Quite a few Democratic Congress critters went to tip O'Neil. They told him they were getting lots of mail from their districts in support of the Reagan tax cuts.
Enough of the Democrats came to Speaker O'Neil that O'Neil knew the tax cuts would pass. So he did the inteligent thing... He dropped his opposition.
My point is a few people even a few thousand trying to influence congress is in effective. My other point is a few people even a few thousand people working to change public oppinion if successful can convert both Republicans and Democrats to be supporters of your cause.
Let me give you a concrete example. Republicans are threatening the so called nuclear option. They need 51 firm senate votes to make it work. There are 55 Republican senators. But 6 RINOs are on the fence. If they all vote with the Democrats the Nuclear option will fail.
One of the problem RINOs is Mike DeWine of Ohio. If just a few people in each county in Ohio organized Republican county committee members to contact Dewine. If local business leaders and even pastors contacted DeWine he would think a long time before he opposed the nuclear option.
But if 10 Freepers went to DC and listened to a bunch of speaches, that will have zero effect on Dewine.
It is not enough for you or me to contact DeWine. It will take lots of voters and people who influence lots fo voters to contact DeWine.
If you can prove to a Senator that doing what you want can ensure his political future, and going against what you want can ensure his defeat the game is won.
All I am saying is Elections are won at the grass roots. (see Karl Rove for Proof). And politicans are influenced at the grass roots.. See how Ronald Reagan did it for proof. <
Obviously, you post before you read. I'd bet that CT has done more to promote the Conservative/Republican cause locally than you have in your area. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Have they? If not, then why not?
You have Freepmail.
"If you can prove to a Senator that doing what you want can ensure his political future, and going against what you want can ensure his defeat the game is won.
All I am saying is Elections are won at the grass roots. (see Karl Rove for Proof). And politicans are influenced at the grass roots.. See how Ronald Reagan did it for proof."
And I am saying that when the grassroots show up in a Senator's office in DC, he notices. I don't know if you have a clear picture of what we did. We didn't march in a line down the street--we had a rally, we had speakers, passersby stopped to listen, we went to our Senators' offices, we hand delivered letters, some of us spoke to our Senators. What exactly would you call that?
Easy to criticize and pooh-pooh other people's efforts. Hard to get to DC to support your fellow Freepers.
What did you say you were doing?
Consider all the marches and demonstrations that were held during the Clinton scandals, were to no avail. People, including a lot of Freepers, marched to get Clinton removed.
Yet the Senate voted 100 to 0 to NOT hear any evidence against Bill Clinton. Amazingly the Senate voted 100 to zip not to hear any evidence against Clinton before they voted on his guilt or innocence. Why did they do that?
Simple. Every poll showed that at least 58 percent of the voters did not want Clinton removed from office. And if they heard the evidence against him they would have to convict him. That 100 to zip vote in the senate is absolute proof that when 58 percent of the people don't want something to happen, 100 percent of the Senators will vote for it NOT to happen.
By the same token we know that when 62 percent of the voters wanted Nixon removed, he quit before he was impeached and convicted. Nixon knew he was a dead duck and quit. Both the Clinton and Nixon situations show the power of public opinion.
Marching on Washington did not get Clinton removed from office. The Senate would not convict him because 58 percent did not want him removed. And the only way they could not convict him was to refuse to look at the evidence. I'll say it again. ... It shows the tremendous power of public opinion.
It surely must be clear that to win a cause one must first convince a majority of the voters. Marches tend to preach to the choir. They don't change public opinion unless they get lots of favorable media attention. It will be a cold day in a hot place when that happens.
How many times does Karl Rove have to prove it before we believe? Things get changed and battles are won at the grass roots level.
If campaigning for support in Washington really worked, then George Bush and John Kerry would have campaigned for election in Washington D.C. It was about the only place they didn't campaign.
You will remember the last guy that tried a Washington based campaign was the "brilliant" Jimmy Carter... who claimed he could not campaign outside of Washington because of the Iranian hostage crisis. As I recall Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy so badly that Jimmy conceded 10 minutes after the east coast polls closed.
I am not questioning anyones efforts. I am suggesting a different approach to achieve results.
There is one common thread among successful people.It is not that successful people don't make mistakes or don't do things that fail. The strange thing is they fail a lot. The defining characteristic of successful people is when they try and fail, they try another tactic. And if that one is less than successful they try another way. Sooner or later they find a way that produces winning results.
Let me explain it in terms of the last election. When LisaMalia and I went door to door for the President we were looking for votes. And on a Saturday morning we might pick up 10 or 15 votes. But if we picked up 2 new volunteers we were in tall Cotton. The next Saturday we would pick 10 or 15 votes and the 2 additional volunteers would pick up 10 or 15 votes each. Our efforts the first week produced 15 votes. The second week our efforts produced 35 votes. And if we were good at getting our new volunteers to get more volunteers the third week could produce a hundred votes. By week 6 of the 13 week program we were producing real results.
All together these efforts in Ross County Ohio produced about 5,000 new votes. It is an effort that over the state of Ohio produced 400 thousand votes. We needed them, because Bush only won Ohio by 120 thousand votes.
The Bush campaign in 2004 found ways to multiply efforts. We need to think in the same terms.
On issues rather than elections, poll results are very important. That is, public support is all important. Poll Results kept Clinton in office. Poll results can get conservative judges confirmed. WE have to find a way to reach the people and change their minds.
Marches can work if they produce a lot of positive media attention. But marching to get conservative federal judges is not going to get media coverage. A half million anti-abortion marchers gets only a few media mentions. It doesn't get much coverage.
One other point. How people voted in the last election is not important to a politician. How voters will react to the next election is what counts.
There were many times in the early Reagan administration when numerous Democratic Senators and Congressmen would go to their leaders to tell them they could not vote the party line. They had heard from lots of folks back home and they were going to desert the party line. That was the secret to Reagan getting his agenda passed. Reagan could talk to them and they would just tell him NO. But when Reagan talked to the people back home, and the people back home talked to the members of congress, votes got changed. Doing it the Reagan way is never a bad idea.
Consider the open border situation. Does anyone remember that both Clinton and Bush had cabinet appointments that had to be withdrawn because the nominee had hired illegal emigrants and had not paid social security or income tax for them? The constituency for illegal emigration is larger than the constituency against illegal emigration. One can argue the merits of closing our borders until hades freezes over. But until a clear majority wants the border closed it will remain half open.
Let me give you a 'tator idea to consider. I would set up a way for Freepers to sign petitions for conservative judges. If possible get 10, 20, 30 or even a hundred thousand Freepers and Lurkers to Internet sign the petitions. Then print up a copy of the petition for each congressman and senator.
Then have Jim Rob and the Freepers who showed up at DC. deliver them to all 535 members of the House and Senate with a copy for the White House.
At the same time every radio, TV station and newspaper in every congressman's district would be emailed a Press release and a voice clip about the Free Republic petitions for a pro life court.
That is a ton of work.. but it also would produce measurable results... it might even change a few minds. It would cause a lot of Congress members to have to answer local media questions about his position on the courts and human life. It would also get Free Republic and Jim Rob a lot of local media coverage all over the nation. If it made it on 3,000 radio stations, 400 TV's and 2,000 newspapers it would have an effect of voters.
If you want what you do in D.C. to have an effect, it has to get coverage on the local news back home. I am sure there are lots of other more effective ideas then mine.
Interesting post. I'm not going to continue to make my point, because I don't think you're ever going to acknowledge it, or maybe your point really is to knock other people's efforts, so let me just say this...
You said, "Let me give you a 'tator idea to consider. I would set up a way for Freepers to sign petitions for conservative judges. If possible get 10, 20, 30 or even a hundred thousand Freepers and Lurkers to Internet sign the petitions. Then print up a copy of the petition for each congressman and senator."
1. Then why don't you?
Answer: Because it's easier to knock other people's efforts.
2. You think INTERNET PETITIONS work???
Answer: No comment.
Love your pictures. Thank you.
Note to self:
Regarding mislabelled pics...that would be Jeepers Freepers, not Freepers Creepers.
Real sharp memory for names there, hon.
Thanks for the pic.
The AARP commercial against personal accounts is really bad though, not nearly as catchy as the "if one person could do it all" spots. "Not Personally Funded Accounts -- Too Risky!" doesn't have much zing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.