acptulsa
05-10-2011, 07:57 AM
Some of us are acting like the forces that would plan centrally and use conventional tactics are our enemy. Well, maybe you have a point. Conventional campaign wisdom says, first you win the hearts of the media. We can't afford to buy them. We can't afford it. So, our conventional attack must by necessity skip the first, most important step in the conventional process. Now, tell me again how conventional processes lead to guaranteed results?
Another side says innovation made this nation great, and we're fighting decentralization tooth and nail so we had better believe in our philosophy and take this opportunity to prove we're right. Sure. But we must also remember that innovation involves a lot of duplicate efforts, and exploring more than a few dead ends. I don't think, for example, that anyone here but the ancaps want to see the official campaign operate in such a haphazard way. Yes, we need the innovation. But we also need viable plans that can be executed for known gain.
Which approach will win us this thing? I personally believe with all my heart that neither one will. So, if it's hopeless, why am I here? Because I believe with all my heart that both together can and will win this thing.
If we attack only from right field, we will be defeated with conventional tactics by a bunch of pros who know how to do this. If we attack only from left field, there will be voters who don't even recognize our efforts as a campaign for president.
Now, innovation brings no guarantees. And whether the forces favoring conventionality care to admit it or not, Ron Paul is not the conventional political package to sell, so even the forces of conventionality are doing some serious innovation here. So what the hell can we use that is proven to work?
A pincers movement. A freaking pincers movement. Keep the enemy reacting to attacks from Left Field that they don't know how to conventionally deal with, so our conventional forces in Right Field have the diversion they need. And squeeze their hairy balls until they scream.
We don't have to all love each other kumbayah to do this, either. Liberty to innovate, liberty to congregate, liberty to find what you individually do best--isn't this what we're fighting for? Isn't this what we're fighting for because this is what made this nation the greatest on earth? Isn't it?
'How will this help us?' is not a personal insult. It's a legitimate question you have to answer if you want to sell someone on something--like is your idea worthy of financial support. 'I'm not in for this one' is not a personal insult. It's a confirmation that we're all different, all merely human, there are a lot of jobs to do and we're all best off (and so is the movement) if we bring our own individual, unique strengths to the table.
If we get over ourselves, maybe we can get the nation over this Obama hangover. But only if we get over ourselves. This thing is bigger than any one of us. Much bigger.
Let me be the first to admit it: I can't win this thing all by myself. I need help. I need ideas. I need energy. I need allies. I desperately, intuitively, obviously, unquestionably need someone to attack them from over there as I move in to attack them from over here. I, for one, can't do this alone.
How 'bout you?
Another side says innovation made this nation great, and we're fighting decentralization tooth and nail so we had better believe in our philosophy and take this opportunity to prove we're right. Sure. But we must also remember that innovation involves a lot of duplicate efforts, and exploring more than a few dead ends. I don't think, for example, that anyone here but the ancaps want to see the official campaign operate in such a haphazard way. Yes, we need the innovation. But we also need viable plans that can be executed for known gain.
Which approach will win us this thing? I personally believe with all my heart that neither one will. So, if it's hopeless, why am I here? Because I believe with all my heart that both together can and will win this thing.
If we attack only from right field, we will be defeated with conventional tactics by a bunch of pros who know how to do this. If we attack only from left field, there will be voters who don't even recognize our efforts as a campaign for president.
Now, innovation brings no guarantees. And whether the forces favoring conventionality care to admit it or not, Ron Paul is not the conventional political package to sell, so even the forces of conventionality are doing some serious innovation here. So what the hell can we use that is proven to work?
A pincers movement. A freaking pincers movement. Keep the enemy reacting to attacks from Left Field that they don't know how to conventionally deal with, so our conventional forces in Right Field have the diversion they need. And squeeze their hairy balls until they scream.
We don't have to all love each other kumbayah to do this, either. Liberty to innovate, liberty to congregate, liberty to find what you individually do best--isn't this what we're fighting for? Isn't this what we're fighting for because this is what made this nation the greatest on earth? Isn't it?
'How will this help us?' is not a personal insult. It's a legitimate question you have to answer if you want to sell someone on something--like is your idea worthy of financial support. 'I'm not in for this one' is not a personal insult. It's a confirmation that we're all different, all merely human, there are a lot of jobs to do and we're all best off (and so is the movement) if we bring our own individual, unique strengths to the table.
If we get over ourselves, maybe we can get the nation over this Obama hangover. But only if we get over ourselves. This thing is bigger than any one of us. Much bigger.
Let me be the first to admit it: I can't win this thing all by myself. I need help. I need ideas. I need energy. I need allies. I desperately, intuitively, obviously, unquestionably need someone to attack them from over there as I move in to attack them from over here. I, for one, can't do this alone.
How 'bout you?