I didn't say there had been frothing-at-the-mouth. I said it isn't appealing. Some FReepers are encouraging that course of action - getting up on stage and just...yelling. That feeds into the stereotype that "conservatives are all grumps and have no ideas, they just tear down others." Right or wrong, that is how we come across. Fielding candidates that are able to expose the holes and irrationality present in 99% of the D's ideas with wit and charm and offering a conservative alternative will sweep us back in, and do some good for our country. I thought FDT could've been that candidate on the national scene, but it wasn't to be. People liked Reagan, and they generally agreed with his positions. For whatever reason, people liked Obama, although they disagreed with his positions. It is our own damn fault if we underestimate the like-ability of our candidates. Ron Paul isn't wrong on a number of issues (although he is wrong on some), but he comes across as a kook. He is the Dennis Kucinich of the right. We live in an age of shallow people and 5-second soundbytes. We need candidates that can adapt accordingly.
This kind of dissonance is the first sign of true "astro-turfing."
Ah, yes. Attack the messenger. FWIW, I am not paid by any political organization, nor do I volunteer for any. I'm a guy worried about the future of my country, and I believe that is a winning strategy.
So tell me, what's the difference between "attacking the messenger" and challenging opinion manipulation beside your preference?
I didn't say there had been frothing-at-the-mouth.
That comment is more disingenuous than your original! Who are you, Bill Clinton?