Free Republic

I wouldn’t be so fast. The guy had/has a knack for being recorded, and is certainly a kindred spirit with the ACLU (any possible connections with them, of course, notwithstanding). It’s a totally believable narrative based on what Obama has said in the past about religion and government. I would not doubt that something like this exists, and for McCain’s sake (and ours) I hope it does.

Or the Barack who stole Christmas!

I heard some grumbling about it today from some people who are normally relatively sane. I hope it's true - what a perfect late October surprise!

Pamphleteers and Samizdat

Nice read, thanks for the link.

I agree with the sentiment and the spirit. Blogs are indeed the modern pamphleteers. I don't think, though, that we should be content with blogs alone (and I'm not saying that is your suggestion). Our mass-mediated culture has a severe lack of patience for doing simple things like reading lots of words and the opposition can easily draw their attention with mindless blinky lights. Anything that appeals to the intellectual laziness of the masses is a distraction. We need our own blinky lights to compete with theirs.

First everyone would have to agree on the strategy, flesh out the details, devise follow up strategies, etc. etc.

And, as far as the WH goes, I doubt at this point they'd be on board for something like this. The WH would require different strategies, and, frankly, a different mindset than they've displayed since the election.

This is why we need to convene and discuss the matter as thoroughly, but expeditiously, as possible - each strategy or activity can't occur in a vacuum, this war needs to be fought as synergistically as possible.

I don't know if it would work or not, but if EVERYONE on the right would just stop talking to the DBM -- no interviews, no comments, nothing. It's worked for Hillary - she did give an interview to Alan Colmes but that's as far away from her comfort zone as she's ever allowed herself to go.

Absolutely -that's one thing I had in mind. That would be one exceptionally effective, and bold, strategy. The challenge will be in being prepared for the reaction by the MSM to that strategy. As a former newsanchor/reporter I can tell you it would drive the MSM bonkers to be ignored. It would, however, put us in a position to drive the dialogue - but the dialogue at the outset will be WHY the MSM is being ignored, and then if the MSM deserves to be ignored. The actual substance of our argument will be avoided as much as possible for as long as possible. We'd need to be impeccably prepared to steer the reaction. Eventually I'd like to start a list of all possible, reasonable, strategies. If anyone has something sane to contribute, please do.

Roadblock? Mass Market Penetration. How do we get outside to reach others who do not find us on their own?

That's precisely the question. We need answers! I love Mark and Rush. Rush being perhaps the most deeply-penetrating major medium we have. However, in most cases talk radio is preaching to the choir. Indeed, most Conservative ideas that are presented accurately only hit Conservatives, whereas Socialist-leftist ideology permeates EVERYTHING. The latter is "the norm", the baseline. This is what needs to be focused on - how to deflate or defeat this baseline and, if not neutralize its effect, turn it in our favor.

This article heralds an on-going symposium on how to get Conservative ideas and principles to penetrate accurately into American society. The MSM will not do this and we can not EVER expect them to. We must develop strategies for bypassing the MSM, including the FNC and even Conservative-friendly publications. The FNC is not a reliable outlet as has been demonstrated the past year (Hannity notwithstanding). Papers and magazines simply do not penetrate deep enough.

I agree completely. Talking among ourselves is useful for increasing our knowledge base, but we MUST get the word out to others. I don't know how to do that, but am willing to help if a strategy and tactics can be devised.

I don't think anyone has a concrete idea on this because what we're up against is overwhelming when you look at it all at once. The leftist POV is "the norm" and permeates EVERYTHING in our culture. It is what defines "cool" and a good part of "status". It is the fundamental root from which "news" is reported and analyzed. Essentially the MSM has instigated a "propaganda war" between the long-standing socialist strategies and what will amount to our guerrilla conservative effort. I'm not comfortable with those terms because it sounds both dire and romantic, but when stripped down, that's exactly where our society is at IMHO.

I will get myself organized (been a LONG week) and post a thread this weekend. I'll try and make it so there's a link between whatever is discussed here and collecting and discussing the data/ideas over at my blog (so it's all in one place).

Concurrently with that, we really need to have a "war room" like approach to the Dem/MSM/DBM slime machine. Most of their slander sticks because we don't respond effectively. Every time some big mouth leftist attacks, they need to be responded to immediately and forcefully. In other words, no more of this new tone crap. We don't have to sink to their level to speak their language, but by not responding credibly when we are attacked, they win by default.

This is huge. I've already started a dialogue on this - it's the most critical aspect of 2008 and beyond that Conservatives need to address. And it needs serious discussion amongst everyone NOW! I wrote Rush about this but of course he hasn't responded (not that I expect he even saw my email).

Essentially the MSM has no interest in reporting factually ANYTHING coming from a conservative point of view, unless, obviously, it forwards an agenda item they have. We can not give them the benefit of the doubt EVER. But this isn't a revelation to most people here.

What needs to be discussed is how to get "the news" out there beyond our usual media of talk radio and the internet. We have to overcome the "Media Wall". FNC is not reliable. The print media in our corner is not reliable (and by "reliable" I mean it's either not complete enough [as in the case of the FNC] or it doesn't penetrate enough). Aside from starting our own television network and buying out the NYT, strategies must be developed and implemented ASAP to communicate and, ideally, "normalize" the Conservative point of view.

Obviously my post here leaves out quite a lot of detail. I'm starting a symposium on my blog to collect the ideas on Conservative communication. There should be threads here on FR, too.

If the GOP has to sell-out to left/centrist ideas in order to win, then we don't have a major party on the right-wing, anymore, we have two left-wing parties distinguished only by degrees; one moderate and one extraterrestrial, neither healthy for the longevity of the Republic.

Haha! We're already there. The GOP lost its conservative edge after 2004 IMHO.

Why should Rush help the Rats by criticizing our side?? No one in their right mind would do that.

If that's the case then you're admitting that he DID lose credibility because, as he said himself earlier today, yesterday was a result of running as a party and NOT running on an ideology. If Rush was protecting the PARTY by not criticizing it then he's just as "guilty" for yesterday as anyone.

I love Rush and have listened for years. I think there's more to this than he's giving us right now. Between yesterday and today he's like night and day. He should have been talking this way all along IMHO.

Having listened to Rush everyday, he was "on fire" for the last six weeks.

I respectfully disagree. Rush seemed especially ho-hum the last six weeks or so. The only thing he had was the MJF fiasco. Today he sounds like he hasn't sounded in a long time.

Rush lost a lot of credibility though.

He certainly didn't do himself favors I agree. I'd like to hear more about this from him. I wonder if that late June meeting with the WH was more "influential" than he previously admitted.

Rush admitting he is "free" to criticize again, as opposed to damage election prospects prior to today makes absolute sense. For the past few months I felt Rush was getting kind of boring - he lacked the usual fire. Today it's like a veil has been lifted. Amazing. I wonder if today he regrets biting his tongue during the 2006 cycle.

Yes, he should end it. I'm sure he's in shock, and since public speaking isn't his strong suit, he should stop trying to reach out to the press, most of whom hate him and would be ecstatic if he dropped dead.

I'm sure I'll get called a troll for this, but this presser, and Rumsfeld's resignation are the blood on the stone; this presser is what Bush needs to do if he's going to achieve any further success in Iraq. I feel the man's pain - he's thinking about our troops in the Iraq theatre and the WOT and doing what he has to do as a politician to ensure we get as far along in those matters are possible while he's still President. It's sad but necessary.

I think, in retrospect obviously, he SHOULD have let Rumsfeld go before the election. Perhaps it would have been the "sacrifice" the moderates needed to vote our way.

Well, they're all isolated in the same room as the other media mulling over the exit poll results. I wouldn't doubt there's a bit more than "group think" going on in that room.

Just marking for future reference. Good work folks!

This and the ABC poll actually have me slightly concerned. Yes, there is some good news for the GOP in both, however by reporting it accurately this could stimulate the otherwise apathetic democrat base (at least I've read a few places that the democrat base isn't anywhere near as fired up as the MSM would lead us to believe). I'd rather have the dismal outlook reported straight through Tuesday just to help keep the dems at home.