Perry and the Profs - He picked the right fight

Weekly Standard ^ | 9-19-2011 | Andrew Ferguson - Commentary

[smoothsailing]

Perry and the Profs

He picked the right fight.

Andrew Ferguson

September 19, 2011, Vol. 17, No. 01

If you want a glimpse of the way Rick Perry operates as an executive and a politician, consider the issue of higher education reform in Texas, which no one in Texas knew was an issue until Perry decided to make it one.

In his 30-year public career, Perry​—​how to put this delicately?​—​has shown no sign of being tortured by a gnawing intellectual curiosity. “He’s not the sort of person you’ll find reading The Wealth of Nations for the seventh time,” said Brooke Rollins, formerly Perry’s policy director and now president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a free-market research group closely allied with Perry. At Texas A&M he majored in animal science and escaped with a grade point average a bit over 2.0. (Perry’s A&M transcript was leaked last month to the left-wing blog Huffington Post by “a source in Texas,” presumably not his mom. How his GPA compares with Barack Obama’s is unknown, since no one in higher education has thought to leak Obama’s transcript to a right-wing blog.)

Perry expends his considerable intelligence instead on using political power and, what amounts to the same thing, picking fights with his political adversaries. When Rollins came to Perry in 2007 with a radical and comprehensive proposal to overhaul higher education in the state, Rollins says the governor quickly understood the potential of the issue, not only politically but on its merits. The state operates more than 100 colleges, universities, technical schools, and two-year community colleges, organized into six separate systems. As in other states, public higher education in Texas is scattered, expensive, poorly monitored, and top heavy with administrators, even as it subjects students to often large annual tuition increases without a compensatory increase in educational quality.

Perry’s first poke at this sclerotic establishment came early in his first term. He suggested converting the money that the state gives to public colleges and universities into individual grants handed straight to students. Money is power, and Perry’s idea was to place the power in the hands of “consumers,” as he put it, rather than the administrators, to increase competition among schools and thereby lower costs and increase quality. “Young fertile minds [should be] empowered,” he said at the time, “to pursue their dreams regardless of family income, the color of their skin, or the sound of their last name.”

The higher ed establishment, led by regents of the University of Texas system, rebelled, and the legislature, well-wired with the system’s allies, agreed, and the proposal died. But Perry continued to poke. College graduation rates in Texas are unusually low, and the gaps among whites, blacks, and Hispanics are unusually high. Nationwide 38 percent of American adults (age 25-64) have a post-secondary degree; in Texas the figure is 31 percent. So Perry proposed “Outcomes-based Funding,” tying the amount of aid a school receives to the number of students it graduates. To keep a school from lowering its standards to increase its graduation rates, he suggested giving an exit exam to all students receiving a B.A. Students wouldn’t have to pass the exam to get their degree, but the information yielded by such a test​—​how much learning is going on around here?​—​would be useful, mostly to reformers. The proposal was seen, correctly, as a threat to the status quo, which has so far successfully fought it off.

The proposals Rollins brought to Perry in 2007 turned on the same themes of​—​apologizing in advance for the buzzwords​—​accountability and transparency: collecting information about how much students learn and how well schools function, and holding the schools responsible for the results. “His priority has been putting students back into the driver’s seat,” Rollins said. Perry said he hoped to apply the cost-benefit logic of business to public higher education. He incorporated Rollins’s ideas into a package of reforms and called a “higher education summit” to build support.

The reforms attacked the establishment from multiple angles. They would require schools to expand their websites to make vast amounts of new information available to students. For the first time, professors would be required to post course syllabi online. To suss out slackers among the faculty, schools would post every teacher’s salary and benefits along with the average number of students and course hours they taught every year. A summary of student evaluations would be posted too, and the average number of As and Bs professors handed out, to guard against grade inflation. Before choosing a particular school or enrolling in a major, students would be given a list of the specific skills or knowledge that they could expect to learn, as well as the average starting salaries of students who had graduated from a similar course of study. 

Perry also suggested separating teaching budgets from research budgets, as a way of encouraging teachers to teach and researchers to do research. Tenure would be granted only to teachers who spent a large majority of their time teaching; a defined percentage of tenure jobs would go to researchers, who would concentrate on pure research. A system of cash awards and other incentives would compensate professors who successfully taught a large number of students.

Any businessman in a profit-seeking enterprise would see ideas like “pay for performance” as unremarkable, but they overwhelm the delicate sensibilities of people who have spent their professional lives on campus, where the word “nonprofit” is meant to act as a firewall against the unpleasantness of commercial life. “Texas Governor Treats Colleges Like Businesses,” headlined the Chronicle of Higher Education​—​a sentence sure to induce aneurysms in faculty lounges from El Paso to Galveston. The outrage was deafening, especially when university regents began acting on the recommendations. The Texas A&M system, for example, which includes a dozen schools, posted a spreadsheet on its website evaluating teacher performance on a cost-benefit basis. 

“Very simplistic and potentially very dangerous,” an official of the American Association of University Professors said. “This is .  .  . simplistic,” said the dean of faculties at A&M. “Simplistic,” said the Houston Chronicle. A group of former regents and wealthy school boosters organized a pressure group to oppose -Perry’s reforms. The group hired Karen Hughes, a close aide to the second President Bush, as press spokesman. The rage at Perry from within the establishment has taken many forms: You think it’s easy stealing someone’s college transcript?

The protests might have been more effective except that Perry, for the last decade, has been seeding Texas higher education with like-minded reformers (cronies too). By 2009 he had appointed every regent in the state. The chancellor of A&M who issued the cost-benefit report, for example, was a former chief of staff of the governor. At least three campus presidents have been pressured to resign in recent years, to make way for Perry appointees​—​all Republican businessmen. A particularly popular (and vocal) vice president of student affairs at the University of Texas was removed and replaced by .  .  . a retired Marine Corps general.

The appointees weren’t as pliant as Perry might have wished. The implementation of the reforms has been difficult and at times dilatory. Perry barrels on. In his state of the state address this spring, he urged administrators to develop a four-year bachelor’s degree that would cost less than $10,000 “including textbooks.” The discount degree, he said, would be a “bold, Texas-style solution” to the problem of rapidly rising tuition. (The average in-state cost of a four-year degree in Texas, including books, is roughly $30,000.) After the goal was declared impossible by Perry’s critics, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board published a plan to lower costs dramatically: greater use of online classes and “open-source” course materials, accelerated or staggered student schedules, fuller integration of four- and two-year colleges, and more. 

 

Perry’s admirers praise his sure-footedness​—​his ability to sense cultural trends before others do and turn them to his political advantage. He was the first national politician to ally himself to the Tea Party movement in 2009, a move that’s just now paying off. He caught the mounting anxiety among middle-income parents about college costs early on. Most American parents now say that a college degree will be essential for their children’s future success; at the same time, according to a new Pew Foundation poll, only 22 percent of Americans believe that most people can afford to send their kids to college. And 57 percent describe the quality of American higher education as “only fair” or “poor.” To address this anxiety Perry’s opponents offer more government subsidies, which in turn provide an incentive for schools to raise their prices​—​an attempt to douse the fire with gasoline. Perry’s ideas are cheaper, more comprehensive, more imaginative, and more likely to work.

And they have a good chance of being put into action. In late August, Perry scored another significant, if partial, victory. The University of Texas regents approved an “action plan” proposed by the system’s chancellor, who isn’t a Perry appointee. The plan is a compromise, but it incorporates many of Perry’s ideas, including some of the most radical, such as “pay for performance” and “learning contracts” between schools and their students. Amazingly, the plan has won support from both the right (Brooke Rollins’s Texas Public Policy Foundation) and left (Karen Hughes’s group). 

Reforms like these would have been unthinkable 10 years ago, before Perry picked up his stick and started poking the system until it had to respond. It’s been a remarkable display of political entrepreneurship: Create an issue, define it on your terms, cultivate public support, and your opponents, who never saw it coming, will have to go along, even if only partway​—​at first.

Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard and the author, most recently, of Crazy U: One Dad’s Crash Course in Getting His Kid Into College.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

“I have one goal,to get Obama unelected.” That’s a good goal, but it should not be the only one. Take a hint from the cynical George W Bush billboard “Missed me yet?” W was socialist light and he was followed by the Marxist bum. If all you are interested in is getting rid of the bum, who will you turn to if his replacement simply marks time for the next 4 years — which is what a light socialist would do.

(Look at the NZ PM John Key for an even worse example of that. Kiwis wanted to be rid of Labour’s Helen Klark so badly that they put the National Party in power, and Key’s done nothing more than lie about his conservatism and pander to every cretinous Leftist entity in and out of NZ.)

We are suffering from Statist influences in BOTH parties. A thinking man knows it is a strategic error to focus on one man (Obama) alone and not the forces that made the oaf’s rise to power possible.

[dusttoyou]

Quoting your cohort trish, who obviously KNOWS, “Apparently Carry_Okie intimidates you so much that you choose to talk behind her back”. Heck maybe neither of you or your Mom trish know if its a boy or a girl. I mean “kalifornia” what more can be said???!!!.

Hey you two seemed to be EXPERTS (X = unknown and spert is a drip under pressure)in everything INCLUDING tattletelling, WAAAAAAAA, Daddy, DADDY!!! Bobby pulled my hair.

Now go write another SPEECH and let us peon rednecks carry-on savagely without a smidgen of edikit.

[trisham]

Try to calm down. You appear to be hysterical.

Please get back to me when you're under control.

[dusttoyou]

Difficult to imagine??? Heck you obviously imagine wrong ever now and then and imagined your pore buddie caryokie saying he was a she. AND trustin trish as my expert, it got me in deep doo for sayin he was a she.

Now while I am trying to maintain my last bit of chivalry, please understand I do not suffer fools well, so adios.

[trisham]

May I suggest a course in rudimentary English before your next post to me?

It's just a gentle suggestion.

[DoughtyOne]

Too many people around these parts unwittingly help the Democrats every four years.  I changed my tagline about a month ago.  It says, "McCain 5 yrs Left/1 year right "BAD!" - Republicans 3 yrs Right 1 year Left to elect RINOs. "Good?"  The point is, we hate John McCain and what he does within the Republican party to defeat the Conservative cause.  None the less, many of us pull a routine quite similar to the one he does, by turning Left just before the General Elections to vote in RINOs.

Hey folks, if it's rotten of John McCain to feign being Conservative for one year out of six to get re-elected, isn't it wrong for us to actually turn into a Leftist to back RINOs every General Election?  Another way of putting it would be, "Isn't it wrong for us to act like Conservatives for three years, then vote in RINOs?"  Why are we not voting for people who have expressed the same desires we have, so they will implement the policies we say we support?  The only obvious answer is that some folks don't actually support, or long for the things they say they do.

It's rather sad to see what passes for reason in the season that leads up to the general election primaries and caucuses around here.

We watch it play out over and over again.  At some point folks have to take a look at the basic scenario, recognize the fact that they have seen it before, and stop perpetuating the persuit of failure.

Every time we jump on board the Good Ship Lollipop RINOflop, we deprive an honest to goodness Conservative the position.  How is that working out for us?

Carry_Okie comes here trying to talk some sense into people, and a swarm develops.  Why?

Some of the folks here are flat out lying to themselves.  We have candidates who betray Conservatism for four, eight, twenty-five years, and yet they are touted as solid Conservatives, some even saying they are just what Reagan was prior to becoming President.

I watch as folks whoop it up because a RINO is not leading the pack, and laugh at other candidates who aren't doing so well, that agree with us about 100% of the time.

If this is folks idea of how to achieve victory, then we'll never see victory.

It is not two weeks before the general election, us having to coalesce behind a candidate even if we don't like them best.  It's months before the primaries even begin, when we should be phoning the candidates who agree with us asking what we can do to help.

Instead it's all giggles and levity around here, because the most solid people are lagging in the polls, and the folks who will never support what we want them to, to the degree they must to lead us out of this mess, are championed with vigor.

Either we have some of the stupidest people I've ever seen around here, or we have sleepers here who are doing their best to make sure Conservatism never prevails.

[Carry_Okie]

The reason I have been pinging JR is that I want to elaborate on something that I think is very destructive to his forum, in fact, it is a symptom of the success of the FReepers' efforts in influencing the conservative base. Unfortunately, that success has obviously attracted the attentions of campaign consulting firms and the surrounding cloud of GOP organizational wannabes.

The latter more than likely get training in how to influence the forum into supporting a particular candidate. The reason I say this is that the methods employed by the various supporters are nearly identical and have been for about seven or eight years now (more for Palin and Perry than anyone else in this go-around). These are exactly the techniques first employed here by FairOpinion and the cloud of Schwarzenegger backers s/he commanded in the recall election of 2003 (all thankfully banned, especially (expletive omitted) 68grunt... ). I don't think anyone here now would dispute today the damage they did to California conservatism by convincing the CAGOP leadership that FReepers could be browbeaten into accepting "Arnold can win." He did, but conservatism in California, which had sponsored the recall in the first place, was mortally wounded once Arnold's people (see RINO Pete Wilson) took over the party machinery. They never let a conservative nominee get a dime from the Party ever again. In fact, they openly derided conservative nominees for Statewide office.

So, given the "success" of that gambit, I thought I would lay out how the formula works. It goes like this:

1. Post an MSM story favorable to said candidate or unfavorable in a manner supposedly attractive to conservatives.

   This thread is a prime example in that Perry, while cheering conservatives with his derision of a Marxist university professorate, is proposing a testing system that HE KNOWS will be administered by State educational bureaucrats as a "remedy"! Guess who writes the questions for these tests. Guess who grades them. He either KNOWS that the result of more centralized control is a continued drift to the left, or he's an idiot. Take your pick.

   So, when he makes this pitch for a "solution," he is either fundamentally dishonest or delusional. It's your choice as to which, but in either case he is not a desirable candidate for President of the United States.

   So, knowing this, our team of Perrywinkles has to get conservatives to cheer without thinking things through. This calls for a snow job! Which brings us to step 2.

2. Immediately put up a blizzard of preconstructed posts containing related links, talking points, and excerpts about all sorts of candidate related schtuffe. These posts are to be of sufficient length that they encompass as much as most people would ever want to read. The purpose is not to get them to read it but to use up space so that by the time anyone with a contrary opinion might post, it is too far down the page for most people to bother. This technique turns a discussion forum into an advertising page.
3. Offer warning posts to one's cohorts that the (insert candidate initial here)DS "bots" or some other epithet will soon be there. Gasp!
4. If someone does show up and post the obvious, stand ready with one of two responses: either a canned set of factoids similar to item 2, or outright insults, obliquely condescending slaps, and other niceties. You and shield are real pros with these CW.
5. If said "opponent" provides significant fact or content, ignore it completely. Instead ping said cohorts, especially those with lists of backers.
6. By this time, the thread is populated either with only diehards or somebody with a point to make for future reference (as I did here). Little did they know that I was also doing this to expose the pattern with this post. The thread descends into what might otherwise appear to be a flame war.
7. Repeat the process with similar postings with which to fill up the sidebar or make good an escape should they take too much of a beating on facts.

Here is the problem: FreeRepublic was set up by its owner to be a grass roots forum. When this method becomes the pattern the grass roots get sucked into dealing with this constant barrage from people with little else to do. Thus, the conservative base loses its home for exchanging and developing ideas. There are lurking consequences to this that need be considered seriously.

First, FR is so influential that to consume a large portion of the sidebar constitutes the equivalent of valuable commercial advertising space. If in fact some of these posters are paid professionals (of which I have little doubt) their presence here shows that FR is effectively making an in-kind campaign contribution that as of now goes unreported. I see every likelihood that some zealous enforcer would be delighted to bring such a case. The amount of effort it would take to police such would be a big drain on the site's resources in a campaign year. All of that is bad.

Second, grass roots candidates get less exposure, indeed they get systematically marginalized by these propensities, which is counter to the entire purpose of the forum and immensely disrespectful of the private property rights of its owner.

Third, some very good posters and contributors to FR get tired of the crap and leave. FR then becomes less attractive to those who might otherwise come here to develop and discuss original ideas. It degrades FR's reputation as a center for thoughtful conservative discussion. That leaves the conservative movement less equipped with well developed and distilled ideas with which to attract support for true conservative candidates and legislation. It also inhibits distribution of said ideas.

Fourth, because everybody in these battles knows each other, the discussion becomes confusing and intimidating to newbies in that shorthand communication often lacks infill information, while reference to insults without apparent basis appears unpleasantly vitriolic. This harms forum growth.

Fifth, said confusion, and lack of exposure on the sidebar cuts support for grass roots conservative candidates which makes it more likely that RINOS get nominated. Just look at how the Fred Thompson fan dance consumed conservative energies, defocused support, kept other conservatives from developing sufficient momentum to take on the media/Party machinery as time grew shorter. The process precluded conservative support from coalescing behind one person such that McCain could gather momentum despite the fact that he is so terribly despised among the conservative base. How else could he have won in South Carolina? This has happened often enough to become a cliche.

Sixth, once said RINO gains the nomination, conservative support dries up, said RINO doeth the now famous Bob Dole Swan Dive, and the Democrat gets elected. I call all that bad.

I have no problem with professional representatives of candidates or the candidates themselves showing up here to discuss their strengths and answer challenges but ONLY so long as they identify themselves as such. This ongoing battle among consulting firms and Party apparatchiks portraying themselves as grass roots activists has to stop. It is a fraud upon the people of this forum for which, in my opinion, they should be banned.

There is only one counter to such posting volume, and that is to answer every one, for which people with a life outside the forum only have so much time. I can only say that I admire immensely calcowgirl immensely for the heroic and thorough job she did in the face of FareOpinion et al. when they highjacked this forum for Arnold and then his fraudulent ballot propositions. There is a place in heaven for that kind of persistence.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

.........I have no problem with professional representatives of candidates or the candidates themselves showing up here to discuss their strengths and answer challenges but ONLY so long as they identify themselves as such. This ongoing battle among consulting firms and Party apparatchiks portraying themselves as grass roots activists has to stop. It is a fraud upon the people of this forum for which, in my opinion, they should be banned.....

I am NOT part of any group that supports any candidate. This is a disgraceful post.

[DoughtyOne]

The reason I have been pinging JR is that I want to elaborate on something that I think is very destructive to his forum, in fact, it is a symptom of the success of the FReepers' efforts in influencing the conservative base. Unfortunately, that success has obviously attracted the attentions of campaign consulting firms and the surrounding cloud of GOP organizational wannabes.

This thread is a case study in such nonsense.  One guy posts a wet-kiss article for the candidate.  Then within a short time, people just happen by with a well developed article on the same topic, telling just how good Perry really was.  It's so tighly structured that it's clear it wasn't your normal poster giving their two cents worth.  It's an organized campaign effort.  A good portion of the thread is merely a campaign drive by.  The only question is, where do they meet for dinner when they're done gaming the forum.

The latter more than likely get training in how to influence the forum into supporting a particular candidate. The reason I say this is that the methods employed by the various supporters are nearly identical and have been for about seven or eight years now (more for Palin and Perry than anyone else in this go-around). These are exactly the techniques first employed here by FairOpinion and the cloud of Schwarzenegger backers s/he commanded in the recall election of 2003 (all thankfully banned, especially (expletive omitted) 68grunt... ). I don't think anyone here now would dispute today the damage they did to California conservatism by convincing the CAGOP leadership that FReepers could be browbeaten into accepting "Arnold can win." He did, but conservatism in California, which had sponsored the recall in the first place, was mortally wounded once Arnold's people (see RINO Pete Wilson) took over the party machinery. They never let a conservative nominee get a dime from the Party ever again. In fact, they openly derided conservative nominees for Statewide office.

Even though I was a person who supported Schwarzenegger when I thought McClintock couldn't pull it out, I agree with your take on various campaigns here.  The Bush II team pulled the same nonsense in 2000.  It set back Conservatism for at least twelve years.  Bush had a Republican House and Senate.  Did he turn things around?  No.  And here we go again with what amounts to a proposed Bush III.  Will he turn things around?  Not a chance.

So, given the "success" of that gambit, I thought I would lay out how the formula works. It goes like this:

1. Post an MSM story favorable to said candidate or unfavorable in a manner supposedly attractive to conservatives.

   This thread is a prime example in that Perry, while cheering conservatives with his derision of a Marxist university professorate, is proposing a testing system that HE KNOWS will be administered by State educational bureaucrats as a "remedy"! Guess who writes the questions for these tests. Guess who grades them. He either KNOWS that the result of more centralized control is a continued drift to the left, or he's an idiot. Take your pick.

   So, when he makes this pitch for a "solution," he is either fundamentally dishonest or delusional. It's your choice as to which, but in either case he is not a desirable candidate for President of the United States.

   So, knowing this, our team of Perrywinkles has to get conservatives to cheer without thinking things through. This calls for a snow job! Which brings us to step 2.  01
   

2. Immediately put up a blizzard of preconstructed posts containing related links, talking points, and excerpts about all sorts of candidate related schtuffe. These posts are to be of sufficient length that they encompass as much as most people would ever want to read. The purpose is not to get them to read it but to use up space so that by the time anyone with a contrary opinion might post, it is too far down the page for most people to bother. This technique turns a discussion forum into an advertising page.  02
   
3. Offer warning posts to one's cohorts that the (insert candidate initial here)DS "bots" or some other epithet will soon be there. Gasp!  03
   
4. If someone does show up and post the obvious, stand ready with one of two responses: either a canned set of factoids similar to item 2, or outright insults, obliquely condescending slaps, and other niceties. You and shield are real pros with these CW.  04
   
5. If said "opponent" provides significant fact or content, ignore it completely. Instead ping said cohorts, especially those with lists of backers.  05
   
6. By this time, the thread is populated either with only diehards or somebody with a point to make for future reference (as I did here). Little did they know that I was also doing this to expose the pattern with this post. The thread descends into what might otherwise appear to be a flame war.  06
   
7. Repeat the process with similar postings with which to fill up the sidebar or make good an escape should they take too much of a beating on facts. 07

    Actually, I think you've left off serveral other obvious ploys/tactics.

    8. If someone knows their stuff, tie them up for literally days, as your pals march off to other threads to continue their subterfuge without that person objecting
    9. While you're wasting the person's time, it doesn't matter if they are pounding you on each and every post.  Just so long as you tie them up, everything is good.  (Note that the primal urge for
           self-preseervation, doesn't hold true in these tactics.  These people don't care if they're being made into mince-meat with each and every resposne.  Winning the discussion is not the goal.)
  10. If someone beats one of these people to a pulp, they'll start off on a new thread acting as if they hadn't been deconstructed for 48 solid hours on the other thread.  Either that or they will
           act as if they were really the winner on that other thread.
  11. As you are dismantling these people, others just happen to come along and make stupid petty criticisms out of the blue.  It's obvious as can be, they've been called in.  It's pure harassment.

    We could both go on.  This disgusting behavior is planned, rehearsed, systematic, and focused.  It's disinformation 101.

Addressing your comments just above 1 through 7.

01. This is exactly what I observed on this thread.  The lead in article went up, and the other players soon swooped in.
            Your testing comments were also dead on target.  The Leftist university staff devises the testing.  Nothing stops the universtiy professors from giving the actual tests to the students to study either.
            This has taken place in Southern California.  The Perry team swoops in.  Perry is described in glowing terms.  He is said to grasp exactly what Conservatives see as wrong with the education system.
            Nevermind that that the guy uses catch phrases that sound as if given by Al Gore.  Ooops...  maybe they were.  Read this comment reportedly from years ago.

Perry’s first poke at this sclerotic (oh spare me) establishment came early in his first term. He suggested converting the money that the state gives to public colleges and universities into individual grants handed straight to students. Money is power, and Perry’s idea was to place the power in the hands of “consumers,” as he put it, rather than the administrators, to increase competition among schools and thereby lower costs and increase quality. “Young fertile minds [should be] empowered,” he said at the time, “to pursue their dreams regardless of family income, the color of their skin, or the sound of their last name.”
           
             There he was, using Leftist wedge ethnic talking points, to garner support.  Was that support supposed to come from his entire state's populace.  No, it was directed right at illegals.  Who amoung us
             gives a damn what someone's last name is?  I certainly don't.  I don't think my fellow FReepers are racists either.  None the less, Perry had to address Hispanics as if he was their champion.  Why
             would he think he had to do that, if he were just talking to Hispanic citizens?  Well, he wouldn't.  He tried to slander others, to make himself look better.  What a jackass.

02. Exactly right.  The secondary pages are so well researched with links, that it's preposterous to claim that someone just happened along, had this related material, and just innocently dumped it on the forum.
             As for length, I hadn't given that as much thought as you have, but I think you're on to something there.  I do believe that it's quite accurate to describe the effort with the emphasis you have.
             I also get a kick out of the people who show up to make one line contributions, so as to buttress the idea that this stuff really was new enlightening material.  Yes, if you're a dunce...

03. Yes, pre-announcing the soon to arrive 'demon of the day', is an attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with the propaganda.  And small wonder, since most of this stuff is so weak and transparent.

04. What I enjoy about tactic four, is that the obligatory factoids are almost always weaker than the flawed main topic, which alone can't stand on it's own mertits.  As you stated earlier, these articles are
              configuresd in a manner to discourage open discussion.  The articles don't have to make much sense.  They're essentially books being sold by the pound to fill up the library.

05. Yes, I always enjoy the folks who show up out of the blue, pinging six people who hadn't contributed on the thread yet.  Of course those other people aren't really involved in the effort, they're just
               being called in to hold the persons hand who was too afraid to take on someone without a crew in tow.

06.  Actually, they do decend into a flame war.  The funny thing is, you can pound these people on point, and they don't care.  They just change the subject and bob and weave.  It's as if you're talking
               to a zombie.

07. They do try to fill up the sidebar, but I'll have to differ with you on one point.  I've spent literally days beating individuals to an absolute pulp here, with them getting in the flimsiest of shots only to be
               absolutely eviscerated in return, and yet they continue to proceed as if they were on a time-clock, and had so many more mintues to kill.  And that brings up another point.  I've seen a number of
               times where I'll be conducting a give and take with three or four people, and all of a sudden, they all disappear as if they had just had to check out for the day.  Either they were in contact behind
               the scenes and decided they were taking too many salvos, or they were working out of the same office.

Here is the problem: FreeRepublic was set up by its owner to be a grass roots forum. When this method becomes the pattern the grass roots get sucked into dealing with this constant barrage from people with little else to do. Thus, the conservative base loses its home for exchanging and developing ideas. There are lurking consequences to this that need be considered seriously.

First, FR is so influential that to consume a large portion of the sidebar constitutes the equivalent of valuable commercial advertising space. If in fact some of these posters are paid professionals (of which I have little doubt) their presence here shows that FR is effectively making an in-kind campaign contribution that as of now goes unreported. I see every likelihood that some zealous enforcer would be delighted to bring such a case. The amount of effort it would take to police such would be a big drain on the site's resources in a campaign year. All of that is bad.

Second, grass roots candidates get less exposure, indeed they get systematically marginalized by these propensities, which is counter to the entire purpose of the forum and immensely disrespectful of the private property rights of its owner.

This is the crux of the problem in my opinion.  All the oxygen is sucked out of the room by those working for the RINOs.  This forum's true calling is subverted every four years.  This year it's Perry.  Despite his despicable past, he's the RINO flavor of the week, and there's no rational argument that can be made that Perry supporters will agree is problematic.  And isn't that revealing...

What we're supposed to believe, is that all of a sudden this group of people fell for Perry, they have no questions about him, and if others have questions, they are instantly evil.  They won't contenance any challenge whatsoever.  Is that the actions of a group of people who simply learned about Perry, and then fell in love with him?  No.  It's the actions of a group of people who are gaming the forum.

Normal people start liking someone and over time they grow to like them.  The day of the Ames Straw Poll, Perry was instantly fifty or one hundred FReeper's absolute hero.  There was no growing curve here.  Someone flipped a switch, and suddenly Perry essentially owned the forum.  Is that how Conservatives conduct themselves?  Do they have to go out and subvert Conservative forums, if they truly are a Conservative.  NO!

If you're a Conservative, you tell folks what you're about.  They listen and look at your record.  Pretty soon, you've won them over.

Look at the difference between Cain and Perry.  Did Cain come here, invade the forum with his crew, and hijack the place?  No.  None the less, folks here think quite highly of him.  On the other hand, Perry did come here, invade the forum with his crew, hijack the place, and insult as many people as possible.  The crew started deconstructing Reagan ad-nausium.  And they absolutely had to, because he is not a Conservative.  He's a pretender.
<> Third, some very good posters and contributors to FR get tired of the crap and leave. FR then becomes less attractive to those who might otherwise come here to develop and discuss original ideas. It degrades FR's reputation as a center for thoughtful conservative discussion. That leaves the conservative movement less equipped with well developed and distilled ideas with which to attract support for true conservative candidates and legislation. It also inhibits distribution of said ideas.  I agree.

Fourth, because everybody in these battles knows each other, the discussion becomes confusing and intimidating to newbies in that shorthand communication often lacks infill information, while reference to insults without apparent basis appears unpleasantly vitriolic. This harms forum growth.  I agree.

Fifth, said confusion, and lack of exposure on the sidebar cuts support for grass roots conservative candidates which makes it more likely that RINOS get nominated. Just look at how the Fred Thompson fan dance consumed conservative energies, defocused support, kept other conservatives from developing sufficient momentum to take on the media/Party machinery as time grew shorter. The process precluded conservative support from coalescing behind one person such that McCain could gather momentum despite the fact that he is so terribly despised among the conservative base. How else could he have won in South Carolina? This has happened often enough to become a cliche.  I agree.  I will say that I backed Thompson, but that did play out as you said, and I can't argue with your description of it.

Sixth, once said RINO gains the nomination, conservative support dries up, said RINO doeth the now famous Bob Dole Swan Dive, and the Democrat gets elected. I call all that bad.  It is bad, until three years later, and then all of a sudden it's good again.  We're well on our way to niminating someone I won't vote for again.

I have no problem with professional representatives of candidates or the candidates themselves showing up here to discuss their strengths and answer challenges but ONLY so long as they identify themselves as such. This ongoing battle among consulting firms and Party apparatchiks portraying themselves as grass roots activists has to stop. It is a fraud upon the people of this forum for which, in my opinion, they should be banned.  Couldn't agree more.

There is only one counter to such posting volume, and that is to answer every one, for which people with a life outside the forum only have so much time. I can only say that I admire immensely calcowgirl immensely for the heroic and thorough job she did in the face of FareOpinion et al. when they highjacked this forum for Arnold and then his fraudulent ballot propositions. There is a place in heaven for that kind of persistence.  CalCowGirl is one of our best contributors.  I agree with you.

[DoughtyOne]

Hmmm, seems some folks get a might touchy when you nail them.

[DoughtyOne]

I did not mean to post that long post to you Cincinatus’ Wife.

It was intended for Carry_Okie. After developing the reply in a stand alone html text developer, I brought it back, and accidentally clicked on your post, and sent it to you instead of Carry_Okie.

He had posted just above you.

Sorry about that.

[StAnDeliver]

"Some of the folks here are flat out lying to themselves. We have candidates who betray Conservatism for four, eight, twenty-five years, and yet they are touted as solid Conservatives, some even saying they are just what Reagan was prior to becoming President."

A Democrat?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I’ve been posting on education - the awfulness - basically the crime of public education — the wasted potential and ruination of lives for years. Go to my account. Check it out.

I was thrilled when I found out that Gov. Perry has such an understanding and knowledge about this mess and has some ideas to tackle it and that other people were finally noticing.

That’s why I’ve been trying to get others to see it.

That is causing harm? To whom?

There is no coordination with me. NONE.

[ishmac]

Ping

[shield]

Yes, he makes these kinds of post...so I just ignore him and his post. Reading his post for me is a waste of my time.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

I also, am not a part of any group or ping list.Nor am I a candidate rep.What is the asked outcome of Carry-Okie’s post I have not a clue? I am guessing;calling JimRobinson to ban people? JimRob has already told Palin bots pinging him that wanted Perry/Bachmann/ whoever else bots ‘zotted’-banned that it was not going to happen get tougher skin.

The only candidate ping list I was ever on was for LTC Allen West to RUN for President. In which ‘just a nobody’ (screen name) ran-and I would help out- when they were not able)many months ago.I support all tea party candidates as I said in my post above. Just A Nobody was ran off this forum because they were so disgusted.Go see Just a Nobody’s last post.West was called a magic *egro and they were ordered off a thread by a Palin ping list- bot.

I don’t see vicious Perry/Cain bots I see people that made a decision to get behind them to BEAT OBAMA.If they argue back it is because they have grown tired of the Palin bots games and date guessing. CarryOkie’s post is ironic because the Palin bots are more of ‘the group’ as they are seemingly self appointed campaign managers for Palin who are mostly all hell bent on getting Perry/Bachmann bots banned.

They’re RINO, PerryCare name calling; sounds just like the names they called Bachmann.They post threads saying ‘Perry is jealous’ of Palin <———utterly RIDICULOUS and I posted THE VIDEO that clearly shows Palin backed away from the podium and Perry is the Gov. association Chairmen and they had to rush things along to get to the next meeting/agenda of the conference.(I do realize Palin just recently criticized Perry but not in the past as jealous of Palin threads have indicated) As Palin endorsed Perry.

These bots do not have servants hearts of humility like Palin they have get everyone but themselves banned-hearts while playing self appointed managers and date guessers.(TIN FOIL HAT- but I even wonder how many are sleeper DUer’s)And I am not the only one that has thought this.I watched Palin’s movie.I get it but I see no reason to call all other candidates RINO’s and bully pulpit. (accept for Romney he is a RINO)

There are some normal Palin supporters that don’t say, ‘even if it means Obama; they will write in Palin’s name.’They don’t guess dates and play campaign manager bully rule ping list like children.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bumps!!

[DoughtyOne]

If you don’t know the difference between a 1932 to the early 1960s Democrat from a 1972 to 1988 Democrat, why are you even here?

[DoughtyOne]

Take a look at the first few pages of this thread yourself, and tell me what it looks like to you.

I don’t think Carry_Okie’s description is out of line at all.

None of us can tell what is really going on, but we can say what it looks like to us. To me, it looks just like Carry_Okie said it did.

Perry wasn’t a guy that was being talked up here much. All of a sudden he declared and the Texans came out of the wood-work to promote him just like they did Bush. It wasn’t limited to Texas either. People from across the nation were suddenly an expert on Perry. That’s simply not possible.

Cincinatus’ Wife, I have no interest whatsoever in another warm bucket of horse sweat from Texas.

This guy sets off warning bells across the board for us, but absolutely none of it worries you folks at all.

I’m not going to hash every little detail out with you, because frankly, that has been met with a brick wall before this, and I have very little hope you’ll be any different.

If you were different, you wouldn’t be here hawking this individual to be our nominee in 2012. Why in Sam Hell would you want this walking time-bomb to be our president?

He is NOT a Conservative at his core.

[EDINVA]

I am really, really sad to read that Justanobody was driven from this forum. I personally met Justa who drove virtually every single week for years, more than 100 miles each way, to participate in the Friday night Walter Reed FReeps. A better, less self-serving FReeper has never posted on these boards. Driving Justa from this forum is disgraceful.