PDA

View Full Version : Anticipating Tea Party counter arguments




CanadianPasserby
12-04-2007, 11:49 AM
Hi everybody, first post here by a fascinated northern neighbour. It's been a relief to watch the rise of American conservatives who aren't arrogant warmongering jingoists, and to see the shattering of the balkanized political scene down there. My favourite tv show growing up as a kid was M*A*S*H, and so my notion of a "cool" American is Alan Alda's Hawkeye Pierce. So, yeah, I was downright depressed with post-9/11 USA.

Anyway ...

Can somebody please point me to the thread where people are anticipating the various possible spins that RP opponents will give to the Tea Party fundraising? Or is this level of strategy taking place offline (and out of view of your opponents)?

This morning on Democracy Now, Lou Dobbs bent the show over his lap and slapped it silly for 45 minutes. It was ugly -- largely because the producer(s) hadn't properly anticipated the types of argument Dobbs would use in his defense. Don't want to see the same thing happen to the new peace movement south of the border.

Peace.

CanadianPasserby
12-04-2007, 05:42 PM
By "counter argument" I mean those attempts to undermine the achievement itself.

One such argument I came across re. the $4.2M money bomb amounted to: "It's no big deal to raise this much money from what amounts to only a tiny percentage of Americans distributed over a nation of 300 million. This is the nature of the Web. Keep it in perspective. The only numerical total that really matters is the vote count."

Peace.

reaver
12-04-2007, 10:38 PM
If there are 50,000+ donors I don't think there will be any way to spin it.

FreeTraveler
12-04-2007, 10:41 PM
Unless the total is ridiculously low, or somebody does something stupid like throwing Rudy out of the Blimp instead of tea, I don't see any negative spin they can apply to this one.

Goldwater Conservative
12-04-2007, 11:04 PM
One such argument I came across re. the $4.2M money bomb amounted to: "It's no big deal to raise this much money from what amounts to only a tiny percentage of Americans distributed over a nation of 300 million.

Only some 200 million are eligible voters, and only 120 million voted in the last presidential election. Only a tiny fraction of those either donate or follow the election this early, so those donating this early are an even smaller fraction, and that money is split between over a dozen candidates instead of only two.

Anyway, you have to compare apples to apples, and the $4.3 million day was the biggest such day in American political history.


This is the nature of the Web. Keep it in perspective. The only numerical total that really matters is the vote count."

So polls don't matter? :)

hillertexas
12-04-2007, 11:07 PM
Hi everybody, first post here by a fascinated northern neighbour. It's been a relief to watch the rise of American conservatives who aren't arrogant warmongering jingoists, and to see the shattering of the balkanized political scene down there. My favourite tv show growing up as a kid was M*A*S*H, and so my notion of a "cool" American is Alan Alda's Hawkeye Pierce. So, yeah, I was downright depressed with post-9/11 USA.

Anyway ...

Can somebody please point me to the thread where people are anticipating the various possible spins that RP opponents will give to the Tea Party fundraising? Or is this level of strategy taking place offline (and out of view of your opponents)?

This morning on Democracy Now, Lou Dobbs bent the show over his lap and slapped it silly for 45 minutes. It was ugly -- largely because the producer(s) hadn't properly anticipated the types of argument Dobbs would use in his defense. Don't want to see the same thing happen to the new peace movement south of the border.

Peace.

Welcome aboard!

CanadianPasserby
12-05-2007, 08:53 AM
Thanks Goldwater Conservative, that's the sort of brainstorming I was getting at. There's really no thread already doing this?

A similar counter argument: imagine a tv piece that characterizes the money bomb as 'just' a new, Internet phenomenon, like flash mobs; that Ron Paul is 'merely' the first doing this and that we can expect such 'flash fundraising' to become the new normal for 'fringe' candidates.

I'm sure there are lots of other ways to undermine the achievement.

Re. "if the numbers are really large, I can't imagine a negative spin," omg, dude, you're not giving your opponents enough credit. Check out yesterday's Democracy Now and watch two pretty decent journalists get handed their asses when they made just that mistake:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/4/fact_checking_dobbs_cnn_anchor_lou

Peace.

sam1952
12-05-2007, 09:02 AM
What is happening now will never happen again. Future candidates will try to imitate the sucess of this grassroots movement but will always fall short of todays Ron Paul rEVOLution.

Look Around you, we are making history !!!!!!!!

CanadianPasserby
12-05-2007, 10:08 AM
What is happening now will never happen again. Future candidates will try to imitate the sucess of this grassroots movement but will always fall short of todays Ron Paul rEVOLution.

Or even, what is happening now hasn't happened yet in any country in the world. Since the Internet went mainstream (1997?) how many elections have been held in democratic countries? In how many of those have citizens taken the initiative to this degree? If it were 'just' an Internet phenomenon, it would have happened already.

Anyway, I could very well be wrong (it hasn't happened in Canada yet, at least). So this kind of counter-counter argument would require research. No doubt academics have been all over the issue, so it wouldn't take too long to dig up the latest findings.


Look Around you, we are making history !!!!!!!!

Better yet, look well beyond your borders. Don't limit the scope of the achievement. You guys have a shot at making human history, not just American history.


.

Sandy
12-05-2007, 11:06 AM
All I have to say is.....go Lou Dobbs! I can't stand Democracy Now and Amy Goodman. After reading some of the transcript he really did slap them around. Democracy Now is not an independent source whatsoever. Amy Goodman and friends are very manipulative communists and are funded by such.

Yes, the media will try to spin the 16th, and it is good to be prepared for their tactics.

CanadianPasserby
12-05-2007, 11:33 AM
All I have to say is.....go Lou Dobbs! I can't stand Democracy Now and Amy Goodman. After reading some of the transcript he really did slap them around. Democracy Now is not an independent source whatsoever. Amy Goodman and friends are very manipulative communists and are funded by such.

In defense of Democracy Now, they make no bones about coming from the left POV, which is far healthier to civil discourse than media outlets that claim to be neutral but have an agenda. The whole notion of "neutral" journalism is modern (20th century), and damn hard to pull off, imho. In the 19th century, when newspapers ruled the media landscape, and long before media consolidation, citizens could pick up a left- and right-wing newspaper and compare. The bias was out in the open.

re. "go Lou Dobbs." Ich. Ron Paul just mentioned on tv yesterday that illegal immigration wouldn't be the scapegoat it is if it weren't for the poor economy.


Yes, the media will try to spin the 16th, and it is good to be prepared for their tactics.

More precisely, RP opponents using the media. Who? Did anybody bookmark articles that tried to undermine the last moneybomb? That would really help.

I've just spent an hour looking through social science journals using keywords "citizen," "Internet," "election," etc. and haven't actually had much luck. A lot of theory and no global stats.

There's an interesting conversation happening in the "discussion" area behind the Wikipedia entry for "moneybomb."

Peace.

CanadianPasserby
12-05-2007, 09:28 PM
Here's one example, written by Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post.
(source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/11/understanding_pauls_haul.html)


... be careful not to get caught up in too much Ron Paul hysteria just yet.

Why not? Here's a few reasons:

* It's not yet clear that Paul's online national community can deliver actual votes for him. At the Ames Straw poll in August, the Paul contingent was by far the loudest (and among the largest) of all the candidates. Simply walking through the crowd gathered at Ames, you would have guessed Paul would surely have finished in the top three. He wound up finishing fifth, a showing due at least in part to the fact that many of his supporters at the straw poll were not native Iowans and therefore could not vote in Ames. While Paul is at the center of a national movement, it won't help him in Iowa or New Hampshire if thousands of people from California or Illinois are backing him.

* There has always been a pot of money that exists for unconventional candidates who believe the system is fundamentally broken and are only tangentially affiliated with a party. Lyndon LaRouche, whose supporters regularly harangue the Fix at Metro stations around Washington, had raised $5.4 million at this point in 2003 for his perennial bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. To be clear: We are not equating Paul to Larouche. Paul has served several stints in Congress and is a credible -- if quirky -- candidate. Our point is simply that there is a segment of donors out in the country who are willing to give to a candidate who promises not just a shakeup but a blowup of the status quo. Paul appears to be that candidate this cycle.

The core message seems to be that the movement consists of a small number of distant, highly-motivated anarchists supporting a cook.

I don't see any reason why that line won't be trotted out again right after this community has shelled out millions of bucks. And it'll work, too.

What's the strategic response? It should be possible to undermine that argument in the press release and on the website, before it has a chance to rise in the minds of lazy journalists.

edit: hah, just noticed I reinforced the negative argument by describing the funds as being raised by a "community." The counter-counter argument should probably point out precisely the opposite.

Peace.


.

CanadianPasserby
12-07-2007, 10:11 AM
Speaks to international scope:

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

Peace.

CanadianPasserby
12-09-2007, 11:39 AM
It won't matter how much money you folks raise if you haven't anticipated and strategized around attacks on credibility. It is how Ron Paul will be defeated, if he is.


.

CanadianPasserby
12-11-2007, 01:22 PM
An obvious target for credibility attacks won't be Ron Paul but "Ron Paul's over-caffeinated backers (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017612.html)."

A specific example here is the movement's quasi-religious faith in the wisdom of historical political documents, a point raised by Tucker Carlson if not others. Conservatives tend to idealize the past, and that's an easy romanticism to undermine, particularly when it's been conveniently and explicitly linked to the American constitution. Expect attacks along the lines of those launched against literal interpretations of the Bible, with direct quotes pulled out of context to make the American founding fathers' old world view seem ludicrously dated.

RP supporters draw heavily on epic quotations from that era. Your opponents can effortlessly flip the strategy.

Peace.

.

CanadianPasserby
12-11-2007, 10:25 PM
Ah, here we go ...


At the risk of angering the sea of Ron Paul supporters out there, I'm getting really tired of people talking about Ron Paul as the only one who "understands" the Constitution.

I guarantee you that 99.9% of these people developed their opinions about the Constitution based on their person political beliefs, and not the other way around. The Constitution and Constitutional theory are incredibly complex, and it's not as if seas of Constitutional scholars just aren't "understanding" the Constitution because they see it as a living document.

source: comment beneath a Washington Post article (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/11/ron_paul_a_writein_candidate.html): ManUnitdFan | December 11, 2007 05:26 PM

More to come, count on it.

Peace

.

CanadianPasserby
12-13-2007, 10:51 AM
An obvious target for credibility attacks won't be Ron Paul but Ron Paul's ... backers."

One intense example: Ron Paul's Fair Weather Friends (http://www.nolanchart.com/article464.html)

Fascinating replies in the comments area beneath the article, too, including this one by the author:


And it's not Ron who's in trouble with the GOP. Most Republicans understand the situation he's in. It's his followers who have nonplussed so many in the party, but most people understand that their bad behavior isn't his fault and that his campaign is largely out of control.

Emphasis mine.

Peace

.

mosquitobite
12-13-2007, 10:55 AM
Or even, what is happening now hasn't happened yet in any country in the world. Since the Internet went mainstream (1997?) how many elections have been held in democratic countries? In how many of those have citizens taken the initiative to this degree? If it were 'just' an Internet phenomenon, it would have happened already.

Anyway, I could very well be wrong (it hasn't happened in Canada yet, at least). So this kind of counter-counter argument would require research. No doubt academics have been all over the issue, so it wouldn't take too long to dig up the latest findings.



Better yet, look well beyond your borders. Don't limit the scope of the achievement. You guys have a shot at making human history, not just American history.


.


Awesome thought! :) :cool:

mosquitobite
12-13-2007, 10:56 AM
It won't matter how much money you folks raise if you haven't anticipated and strategized around attacks on credibility. It is how Ron Paul will be defeated, if he is.


.

Ron Paul's credibility cannot be attacked. His supporters? Maybe.

But Dr Paul's credibility is 100,000X the rest of the pack.

rockwell
12-13-2007, 11:07 AM
"It's his followers who have nonplussed so many in the party, but most people understand that their bad behavior isn't his fault and that his campaign is largely out of control."

http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/I5628-2004May05.JPG

http://www.gaeagraphica.com/images/dead-iraqi-child.jpg

The next time you post something that stupid, have the decency to go take a look at what the "supporters" of war hawks like the rest of the Republican candidates are responsible for. You want to talk about "bad behavior" and "out of control"? Then open your eyes.

I for one stand on moral high ground and breathe the rarified air of Liberty and Non-Intervention because I am not afraid to ackowledge the reality of what war does to people. I don't hide behind my keyboard nitpicking people's comments while the opposition's rapes, murders and tortures innocent men women and children and hides behind high ideals.

You should be ashamed of yourself for being so hypocritical.

But I doubt it.

CanadianPasserby
12-13-2007, 12:06 PM
You should be ashamed of yourself for being so hypocritical.

Hey Rockwell, of course I don't agree with the examples I'm citing. The point of the thread is to inventory, anticipate, and develop strategic responses to attacks on credibility. Please read the thread over from the beginning.

Please edit your post to remove the photos. The girl in the second photo is the mirror image of my niece and every time I see that photo it shatters my heart into pieces.

Peace

.

rockwell
12-13-2007, 12:56 PM
I'm very sorry for the impact of the photo, but it is because of the censorship of such images that we find ourselves emeshed in perpetual conflict for perpetual profit and I have to let it stand.

I wasn't responding to the entire thread in my post, but to the hypocricy of the lines I cited. I am sick unto death of being told how I must speak, what words or images I can use, what topics are or are not appropriate while endless horrors are perpetuated every minute of every hour of every day by the same censors and critics.

I know how you feel looking at that image, imagine how that little girl's mother or father feels. This is why we need to rub their faces in it and stop allowing them to dictating the terms of the debate to us.

CanadianPasserby
12-13-2007, 01:02 PM
Ron Paul's credibility cannot be attacked. His supporters? Maybe.

But Dr Paul's credibility is 100,000X the rest of the pack.

Of course Ron Paul's credibility can be attacked. Credibility attacks are underhanded. Don't underestimate your opponents. Read Sun Tzu!


REP. TANCREDO: I wish that we lived in the world that Ron has described. I wish that we lived in a world where we did not have to worry, by simply removing our forces, we would be safe. Unfortunately, Ron, honest to God, I don't believe that that is the case. We are living in a world where we are threatened. (Cheers, applause.) It is radical Islam. It is the -- the ideology -- the political and religious ideology of radical Islam is a threat to America, and it would be a threat --

MR. COOPER: Time.

REP. TANCREDO: -- to America if we never had a single person --

REP. PAUL: He mentioned my name.

REP. TANCREDO: -- serving anywhere outside this country. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: We got another question.

See context here (Tom Tancredo, 1:21:46):

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/11/28/us/politics/20071128_DEBATE_GRAPHIC.html#transcript
(http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/11/28/us/politics/20071128_DEBATE_GRAPHIC.html#transcript)
Peace

.

CanadianPasserby
12-13-2007, 09:58 PM
I'm very sorry for the impact of the photo, but it is because of the censorship of such images that we find ourselves enmeshed in perpetual conflict for perpetual profit and I have to let it stand.

Ok, I hear you.


"I really do think that if for one week in the United States we saw the true face of war -- we saw people's limbs sheared off, we saw the kids blown apart, for one week -- war would be eradicated."

- Amy Goodman, from "Independent Media in a Time of War (http://www.freedom-fight.net/mediawar)" (a brilliant speech, but it's a 30 minute commitment)


If the more conservative RP supporters here can only abide short bursts of the "very manipulative communist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=534699&postcount=10)" Amy Goodman, I strongly recommend this 4 minute Youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydveVLcsqUk).

Thankfully, media reform is a cause thoughtful citizens everywhere can rally around.

Peace

.

CanadianPasserby
12-14-2007, 10:10 AM
Two more credibility attacks, nicely documented by Carl Fiser, here (http://www.newsli.com/2007/12/14/supportersmedia-await-congressman-ron-paul-status-with-bated-breath/).


Also, there are two particular groups of comments that I wish to address, and it may seem like I’m being partial, but I’m willing to take that risk.

Some comments intimated and others downright shouted that Ron Paul has been an impotent legislator and therefore would make an impotent President. In response, I must point out that a congressman is just 1 of 435 representatives in the House. The House of Representatives is half of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. The Legislature is 1 of 3 branches. That gives any given congressman .00038 worth of a say in Washington. Now, if that congressman were elected President, he or she would then account for one-third of the Federal Government. Not only would his or her exposure be 1,000 times greater, but arguably, his or her mathematical influence is increased to .33333, and that’s 877 times more of a say than a single congressman. Therefore, the assertion that the insurmountable stone walls a congressman encounters in Congress will necessarily make him an ineffective President holds no water.

The second group of comments made attempt to argue that Ron Paul would never beat Hillary Clinton because he does not have enough name recognition. Well, if it’s not obvious to you that anybody who gets the Republican Party’s nomination will be catapulted into a household name, then you don’t know much about the world.

Peace

.

CanadianPasserby
12-14-2007, 11:09 AM
Why Ron Paul's Followers Will Cost Him the Election (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/14/033154.php)

Argues followers are politically diverse and so will alienate too many people within the GOP, costing RP the nomination.


Someone needs to get the Paul campaign under control. It worries me that so many conservative libertarians and libertarian Republicans are letting their enthusiasm for the success Paul has had so far override their common sense so that they are ignoring this issue which absolutely will bring the campaign they've been pinning their hopes on to a crashing halt before the first flowers of Spring have bloomed.

It's a genuine Web 2.0 political movement. The article damns the movement as naive then argues it can be got under control. :p

But there are Web 2.0 tactics. Proper Google linking, as suggested yesterday on the boards here, targeting the URLs of smear-cleaning fact sheets at the main RP website will help defeat the coming, inevitable, credibility attacks. The only thing the movement can really "control" is the message it leaves on its main website. The trick is spreading the word amongst followers to link.

one who is prepared and waits for the unprepared will be victorious
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Peace

.

John E
12-16-2007, 10:02 PM
A common question I am hearing is "can Ron Paul implement the policies he describes" or some variation there-of.

My answer has been: "I believe he can but it doesn't matter because this it's not about Ron Paul, its about the message. American's are crossing party lines and are standing united to say loudly and clearly that we want honesty and integrity back in our government."

CanadianPasserby
12-17-2007, 12:32 PM
The problem is that hyperlinking a phrase like "honesty and integrity" won't motivate a RP skeptic to follow. People don't want to be challenged to question their assumptions.

What keywords are mainstream Republican critics using to undermine RP? Build links to http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/ using the language of your opponents.

Please see my response over in the Google bomb thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=53201)

Peace.

.