Thanks, good hearing from you.

I think the Republic will endure.

Paul Bedard, washingtonexaminer. com, makes the following interesting observation:

As they settle into the second week of their nationally-syndicated radio show, Andrea Tantaros and Jason Mattera, part of conservative Talk Radio Network’s youth kick, are tackling the new media reality revealed in the last election.

The bottom line: The era of screaming hosts may be over.
* * *

“Screaming into the microphone just simply about red meat Republican issues is just not a sustainable formula anymore.”

Instead of copying Ingraham’s and other’s playbook, the new 9 a.m.-noon team is taking a morning crew approach, including interaction with producers A.J. Rice and Matt Fox. The resulting mix includes serious politics, humor, political skits, culture and sports.

READ MORE: “Tantaros: Era of ‘angry blond’ is over,” LINK: http://washingtonexaminer.com/tantaros-era-of-angry-blond-is-over/article/2517787?utm_campaign=obinsite#.UPdQuyoo6M8

Your education, skills and real life experiences, which you detail in “Thoughts for 99%-ers,” Link: http://thedrpete.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/thoughts-for-99-ers-from-a-once-homeless-kid/ , should be more than enough for you to build a base, and to grow a following.

As the following increases, and as your message is carried on other media platforms including print, social media, radio, TV and the Internet, you may have some influence on public opinion.

Who better than you to get the ball rolling?

After all if Andrew Sullivan could do it, you certainly can do it!

More needs to be advocated.

“Far more preferable . . . is a third strategy of every day pushing the key arguments forward, * * * . This approach ignores what the president wants to talk about and instead talks about the GOP’s agenda.”

Link: http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/9ea958b0-b992-4e5d-ab3c-4e56456403e3

Hewitt talks about an aggressive strategy which involves producing and distributing agenda setting content every day through a network of traditional, social and digital media platforms.

Assume that’s feasible.

Would such a strategy be effective and influential?

“Nothing would do more to fix American politics than if wealthy Republicans bankrolled a network of moderate GOP organizations.”

Link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/10/wanted-moderate-gop-activists.html

Are there media and ad strategies which could make moderate messages effective and influential?

Link: http://topics.time.com/person-of-the-year/

The uninterested and uninformed is a huge cadre. For them Barack Obama is a rock star.

In WW-I and after the French were warriors of both skill and courage. When Germany invaded in WW-II, it was projected that the French would defeat them. However, in about a week the French raised the white flag. What happened?

Progressivism. Schools stopped teaching history and culture and replaced said with anti-France, anti-Western indoctrination. The very-same thing has happened in America for the past 90-ish years, John Dewey most influential.

The issues in 2014 and 2016 will be having to pursue happiness versus having it delivered, having to work for stuff versus having stuff, having a government which undoes versus one that does, having a government which leaves you alone versus one which cares for you.

The Democrat message will offer the latters while the Republican message will be less-delivered, does-but-less, having less-stuff, cares less. No core and no nads.

If the President won uninformed and uninterested voters, then mainstream, social and digital media did not do an effective job in delivering the President’s message.

Implicitly, conservative media did a better job delivering Mitt Romney’s message to better informed and more interested voters.

Thus, an argument can be made that for the 2014 mid-term Congressional elections and the 2016 Presidential Election,
conservatives have a better chance maintaining and expanding their base and scoring election wins, than liberals and progressives have sustaining their base and avoiding losses.

If that’s the case, then with respect to political commentary deemed to be influential, the commentator qua blogger, talk host, columnist or broadcaster who successfully navigates through that paradigm, produces compelling content, distributes that content strategically on multimedia platforms and grows a strong following, potentially could influence election outcomes and policy initiatives in 2014 and 2016.

Start your engines!

Thanks!

An interesting comment.

If you think someone is holding you down or holding you back, think again. They’re too busy trying to succeed themselves to worry about you. Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.

Perhaps with your considerable skills and experiences, you could take the lead as an online commentator through your blog framing an easily understood and persuasive message to advance your argument.

If it picks up traction, you may be able to have an impact on public opinion, decision makers and policy outcomes.

If you consider yourself a sensible and caring and thinking person, and you’re persuaded by the talk coming from Washington and news media about the so-called “fiscal cliff” and the “debt-ceiling”, you might want to factor into the equations just some of the built-in-intentional silly-speak.

Congress and the President use something called “baseline budgeting” and it’s nothing like what you use. Built in to each budget line item from year-to-year is an automatic 8-ish percent increase. So when any of them says, “We’re proposing a 5% cut in X”, you should hear, “They’re proposing a 3+% increase in X.” No one — not a sole soul — has proposed a real-world cut in anything.

Further, the silly-speak department includes something called “static budgeting”. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not only non-partisan, but dummer than a rock . . . by law. When the CBO scores — projects the money outcome of any proposed bill, it must again, by law — ignore reality and assume that no one will change behavior based on the new law. So, for example, if the bill included raising you income tax rate from, say, 15% to, say, 95%, the CBO calculates based on your working just as hard and just as many hours. Would you? In the real world, the Treasury will receive precisely the same amount of money from people taxed at 0% as if taxed at 100%. Zero.

So, f you have your thinking cap on, you realize that no one is planning to either raise revenues or cut spending, and we’re paying these clowns for this.

[T]he GOP cannot move the debate on the debt limit and spending reform without a vehicle to focus public opinion on, a vehicle with specific entitlement reforms.

The debt ceiling/entitlement reform debate is fighting for time with the nomination of Chuck Hagel and the various gun control proposals. I spent time on both subjects yesterday –-transcripts of my interviews with Bill Kristol and Bret Stephens are here on the subject of Hagel’s extremist views—and the pull of these headline grabbers is enormous.

The debt limit by contrast is remote and difficult to understand. The public needs a means of getting the debate over it framed in terms that can be understood. That takes repetition and focus.

Apparently House leadership is taking the week off. Then they’ll have a “retreat” that is largely closed to the press. Then they will debate what to do behind closed doors. Then they will wonder why the score is 21-0 in favor of the president.

The House GOP is playing the president the way Notre Dame played
Alabama, and probably with the same result. Hope that it changes, soon.

READ MORE: “The House GOP is playing the president the way Notre Dame played Alabama, and probably with the same result. Hope that it changes, soon” LINK: http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/ca37283f-35fd-4c3d-82cb-387ff4cbdc24

Good hearing from you.

You make a good point.

However, it was not forcefully made by tax limit advocates.

So in terms of public opinion, the argument did not have the impact or influence it may have had with more effective messaging.

The end game on major policy seems to be to initiate or influence, and then play into the momentum of public opinion.

Even if that momentum is uninformed or under informed, it probably will carry the day with respect to outcomes.

Accordingly, advocates and their messengers have their work cut out for them in order to shape public opinion and affect outcomes.

In April 2008 then-candidate Obama was asked by a pesky reporter whether he knew that raising the capital gains tax from 15% to 40% would, indeed, result in less money to the Treasury. The now-President relied, “Yes, but this is about fairness.” So, again I ask, “Ignorance or lying?”

Link: http://thebrennerbrief.com/2012/12/31/the-fiscal-cliff-losers-conservatives-the-tea-party-and-the-gop/

Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/say-yes-mess_693416.html

Politically conservative Erik Erickson blogged as follows:

‘House GOP in Disarray’ Isn’t Just Liberal Media Spin

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | January 2nd, 2013 at 09:17 AM |

Many Republicans are trying ton convince themselves that they will make up ground on the spending side of the equation come the debt ceiling fight. Mr. Obama says he will not negotiate, but he is going to have to.

The problem for the GOP is that its House leadership is working at cross purposes and really is in the disarray the “liberal media” keeps saying. Look no further than Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy voting no on the plan.

They should not be commended for voting no. This is a sign of disarray.

Link: http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/02/house-gop-in-disarray-isnt-just-liberal-media-spin/