CFL Regional Conference - Atlanta - Ron Paul (Jan 15-17 2010!)

[MRoCkEd]

Mike Rothfeld's training is excellent.

He's there to teach us how politics works, and it is true that "educating the masses" does not win elections.

"Unless You Are Politically Feared, You Will Not Be Respected"

 

[Matt Collins]

I do need to agree with my algebra teacher, my mechanic and my dancing school instructor in their areas of expertise. I would not go to algebra class expecting to be taught geometry. I would not take my Volvo to the Chevy dealership. I would not expect my tap dancing teacher to have mastered ballet. Of course there are people who can be really good at working on Volvo's and Chevy's and etc but I'd rather have my rig worked on by someone who understands MY car, not just cars in general.

But you fail to realize that it's political SCIENCE. The understanding and formulation of political strategy is the same whether it's Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, etc.

Obviously each group will arrive at a different strategy based upon their currently position and goals, but understanding political strategy is as apolitical as algebra is.

In fact honestly, I think it would better to learn political strategy from someone who is not of my political persuasion because it would challenge me to learn more. I would love to take a class with James Carville and Karl Rove teaching - it would be fascinating and I would get more out of that than from anywhere else.


At college I had an atheist humanities teacher who taught about Christianity and I learned more in that class than I ever did in church growing up! Of course he was a bit colored and biased, but one has to be able to distinguish and separate out the color and biases from anyone whether they are on your side or not. Objectivity is crucial.

You can't really complain about the system and then expect to change it by doing what everyone else is doing.

Yes and no. If what everyone else is doing is successful, then the replication of that success might just involve the replication of their tactics and strategy. Again, I am talking about political success, not policy. And of course I would never compromise on principle in order to achieve political power, nor am I suggesting anyone do so (I just got the boot from the GOP because I refused to compromise, remember? ).

I prefer to take my cues from a consistent, principled man of integrity. A successful Republican congressman who doesn't do things the way everyone else does them and somehow keeps plugging away, building momentum, gaining devoted grassroots support and msm validation every day. (Have we forgotten him already?) Not because he jumps from issue to issue, flavor of the month money making opportunity or because he knows from experience how to run a slimy spoiler campaign like this supposed strategical genius Michael I. Rothfeld...

Ron continues to win his district largely because he's the incumbent, and also because he delivered 4000+ babies in the area. If Ron had to compete on a level playing field with other Republicans, I doubt he would do as good as he's done. In other words, in a contested election, Ron is not the best person to take advice from because his experience is not as relevant to contested elections.

 

[LittleLightShining]

But you fail to realize that it's political SCIENCE. The understanding and formulation of political strategy is the same whether it's Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, etc.

Obviously each group will arrive at a different strategy based upon their currently position and goals, but understanding political strategy is as apolitical as algebra is.

In fact honestly, I think it would better to learn political strategy from someone who is not of my political persuasion because it would challenge me to learn more. I would love to take a class with James Carville and Karl Rove teaching - it would be fascinating and I would get more out of that than from anywhere else.


At college I had an atheist humanities teacher who taught about Christianity and I learned more in that class than I ever did in church growing up! Of course he was a bit colored and biased, but one has to be able to distinguish and separate out the color and biases from anyone whether they are on your side or not. Objectivity is crucial.


Yes and no. If what everyone else is doing is successful, then the replication of that success might just involve the replication of their tactics and strategy. Again, I am talking about political success, not policy. And of course I would never compromise on principle in order to achieve political power, nor am I suggesting anyone do so (I just got the boot from the GOP because I refused to compromise, remember? ).

Ron continues to win his district largely because he's the incumbent, and also because he delivered 4000+ babies in the area. If Ron had to compete on a level playing field with other Republicans, I doubt he would do as good as he's done. In other words, in a contested election, Ron is not the best person to take advice from because his experience is not as relevant to contested elections.

No... his success was just a fluke

We're not going to agree on this. I said what I needed to say. You can go the Rove/Rothfeld route and I'm certain that what you want-- influence and power-- will come your way.

 

[AuH2O]

No... his success was just a fluke

We're not going to agree on this. I said what I needed to say. You can go the Rove/Rothfeld route and I'm certain that what you want-- influence and power-- will come your way.

I'm really not sure you understand Mike's training, especially since he is highly critical of Rove's tactics, and his theory specifically focuses on NOT having power or influence in any "direct" way.

 

[LittleLightShining]

I'm really not sure you understand Mike's training, especially since he is highly critical of Rove's tactics, and his theory specifically focuses on NOT having power or influence in any "direct" way.

The only reason I mentioned Rove in the first place is because he's a hawk. And a wonk.

Is Rothfeld in agreement with the C4L principle of a non-interventionist foreign policy? Nope.

Does Mike want C4Lers to infiltrate the GOP? Yep.

For what if not influence or power? MONEY.

 

[AuH2O]

Does Mike want C4Lers to infiltrate the GOP? Yep.

For what if not influence or power? MONEY.

That's a pretty serious allegation to bandy about without substantiation. For what if not influence or power? How about effectiveness or success?

 

[LittleLightShining]

That's a pretty serious allegation to bandy about without substantiation. For what if not influence or power? How about effectiveness or success?

What allegation am I making. Most political strategists are interested in 1 or more of 3 things-- money, influence and/or power.

Effectiveness of what? Success of what?

 

[AuH2O]

What allegation am I making. Most political strategists are interested in 1 or more of 3 things-- money, influence and/or power.

I'd like to know what, if anything, you are basing this statement on. However, I'll indulge this likely conjecture, since it is beside the point.

Effectiveness of what? Success of what?

Since he is a trainer in strategy and tactics, the answer would be . . . whatever his trainees decide. These techniques are completely politically neutral, and can be used by anyone for any purpose. You seem caught up in this idea that these tactics hold some ideological value, as if running an effective direct mail program is inherently neo-con or something. That is ridiculous. He also encourages people to read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," are you alleging that Rothfeld is a closet communist to boot?

Fact is, he agrees with Ron Paul on 95% on policy, and he teaches liberty people tactics that can be effectively used to promote 100% of RP's vision. Get over yourself, what he teaches can help.

 

[MsDoodahs]

his theory specifically focuses on NOT having power or influence in any "direct" way.

I think we're pretty expert on that already.

 

[Matt Collins]

Interesting since Debbie Hopper swears that there's no concerted effort by the C4L to take over the GOP despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Thanks for backing me up on that one.

Well officially there is not of course. However both Ron and Rand have encouraged each of us to get involved in our local Republican Party. It's only natural that the CFL is filled with RP supporters. And it's only natural that RP supporters are looking to follow the admonition of Ron and Rand. Therefore if A=B and B=C it only makes sense that many people in the CFL are indeed looking to work through their local Republican Parties.

What I want to know is WHY hasn't there been a sky is falling mailer from national about the Patriot Act renewal? Where is the outrage from C4L national about the war-- besides Ron Paul's lonely voice? NOWHERE.

That is a very good question, and I don't know the answer. I would venture a guess that perhaps the CFL can only focus on one or two single issues at a time? Or perhaps they think it's a divisive issue among CFL members and don't want to cause a fracture? Or perhaps they don't think that's a fight they can win? Or maybe they are in a situation where alining themselves with what has been traditionally seen as a liberal/Democrat issue will further alienate the group from the GOP and/or give the GOP leadership more ammo to use against the CFL?

Why? Because Michael Rothfeld doesn't agree with us on foreign policy and as long as he is the fundraising and strategy guy C4L will not come out swinging against it-- UNLESS the mainstream GOP voters change their tune.

You might be right, it makes sense, but do you have any proof?

 

[AuH2O]

What I want to know is WHY hasn't there been a sky is falling mailer from national about the Patriot Act renewal?

I will say, to correct something I said earlier-- I was SHOCKED today(well technically last night) when I got a mailer from Ron Paul. I opened it up to see a nice letter from the man himself and he did mention foreign policy.

This piece also discusses Patriot Act renewal, BTW.

 

[LittleLightShining]

I'd like to know what, if anything, you are basing this statement on. However, I'll indulge this likely conjecture, since it is beside the point.

Please link me to a political strategist who wants something other than power, influence or money.

Since he is a trainer in strategy and tactics, the answer would be . . . whatever his trainees decide. These techniques are completely politically neutral, and can be used by anyone for any purpose. You seem caught up in this idea that these tactics hold some ideological value, as if running an effective direct mail program is inherently neo-con or something. That is ridiculous. He also encourages people to read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," are you alleging that Rothfeld is a closet communist to boot?

These tactics hold no ideological value, then? An effective direct mail campaign does what? Brings in the MONEY.

Fact is, he agrees with Ron Paul on 95% on policy, and he teaches liberty people tactics that can be effectively used to promote 100% of RP's vision. Get over yourself, what he teaches can help.

What he teaches can help what exactly? Since you are expert on his strategy and tactics and I am not you can surely articulate much better than I can what the outcome is supposed to be.

 

[LittleLightShining]

This piece also discusses Patriot Act renewal, BTW.

I did notice that. But it also gives us the ultimatum of choosing to send money or giving up on fighting that battle.

 

[AuH2O]

Please link me to a political strategist who wants something other than power, influence or money.

You are the one making an allegation; The burden of proof lies with you.

These tactics hold no ideological value, then? An effective direct mail campaign does what? Brings in the MONEY.

Since when is money an ideology? It is a tool for political action. Are you concerned that C4L's DM program lines Mike Rothfeld and John Tate's pockets, and is not spent trying to Audit the Fed?

What he teaches can help what exactly? Since you are expert on his strategy and tactics and I am not you can surely articulate much better than I can what the outcome is supposed to be.

I'll say it again, he teaches tactics to help you push whatever legislative agenda you want to push. Their are groups of every political stripe that follow the confrontation and mobilization model.

 

[LittleLightShining]

You are the one making an allegation; The burden of proof lies with you.

You're not listening. I'm not making an allegation, I'm stating something very fundamental.

Since when is money an ideology? It is a tool for political action. Are you concerned that C4L's DM program lines Mike Rothfeld and John Tate's pockets, and is not spent trying to Audit the Fed?

again. You're not listening. YOU were asserting that there is no ideological value to the tactics. WHAT'S the point, then? Obviously not to further an ideology-- a firmly rooted ideology that one MUST have in order to make more than a superficial change-- such as electing Republicans.

I'll say it again, he teaches tactics to help you push whatever legislative agenda you want to push. Their are groups of every political stripe that follow the confrontation and mobilization model.

If he had anything to do with the strategy used for 1207 on the legislative end he is a failure. The only success that came from 1207 was in the arena of educating the public about the Fed-- which he CLEARLY does not believe in.

 

[AuH2O]

You're not listening. I'm not making an allegation, I'm stating something very fundamental.

Something very fundamental that you are basing entirely on anecdotal evidence and supposition. Let's not bother with this anymore, since it neither here nor there.

again. You're not listening. YOU were asserting that there is no ideological value to the tactics. WHAT'S the point, then? Obviously not to further an ideology-- a firmly rooted ideology that one MUST have in order to make more than a superficial change-- such as electing Republicans.

I think a differentiation needs to be made -- between his training he provides and any behind-the-scenes steering he does on the general direction of C4L. As far as the training goes -- he is paid to teach tactics. Insofar as their is ideology involved here, it is only the ideology of those being taught, as that directs how those tactical weapons are wielded. I think he only teaches to people of like-mind, but if a radical communist were sitting in the room, he'd take just as much away from it as you or I. Rothfeld isn't indoctrinating political philosophy, he's teaching strategy, so if you disagree with him on something, feel free to take his tactics and make something happen that he won't like.

As far as any control he may have over the direction of C4L, I couldn't say, but that could be guided by personal ideology. What I will say is that multi-issue groups are notoriously difficult to sustain over time and without fracture. I C4L is list-building based on Audit the Fed...maybe they don't want to lose 50% of the people they gain who agree with 90% of the platform over one issue. Again, not my call to make.

And being from Virginia, I know Mike has spent more time kicking Republicans out of office than getting them elected.

If he had anything to do with the strategy used for 1207 on the legislative end he is a failure. The only success that came from 1207 was in the arena of educating the public about the Fed-- which he CLEARLY does not believe in.

I'd like to know exactly what sort of educating you are talking about here, and you believe it directly furthered HR 1207's progress. I'm not disputing your efforts necessarily, but just I don't know what they are.

 

[LittleLightShining]

Something very fundamental that you are basing entirely on anecdotal evidence and supposition. Let's not bother with this anymore, since it neither here nor there.

... ok.

I think a differentiation needs to be made -- between his training he provides and any behind-the-scenes steering he does on the general direction of C4L. As far as the training goes -- he is paid to teach tactics. Insofar as their is ideology involved here, it is only the ideology of those being taught, as that directs how those tactical weapons are wielded. I think he only teaches to people of like-mind, but if a radical communist were sitting in the room, he'd take just as much away from it as you or I. Rothfeld isn't indoctrinating political philosophy, he's teaching strategy, so if you disagree with him on something, feel free to take his tactics and make something happen that he won't like.

I'm not disputing that his training may be nonpartisan and universally acceptable. What I am disputing is the value of teaching attendees to focus their efforts on a very small percentage of voters as opposed to educating as many as possible. While this strategy may be effective in electoral politics it does not a movement make-- or nurture. For those unfamiliar with the training I encourage you to read what he has to say. My biggest issue with the training is the absolute disdain he has for education. Period. Which C4L, in its infancy, was supposed to do.

Politicians, Not Education and Not Public Opinion, Make Policy


The first mistake most folks make when they set out on a good-faith crusade to do good is to completely misunderstand their targets.

Sometimes, activists make the local newspaper or media the target. The thinking goes, “If we can just get them to understand the problem, things will change.” It is fortunate that this is not correct, because the media in the U.S. is overwhelmingly committed to big government, gun control, and the supremacy of state-controlled education over parent controlled education.

The fact is newspapers cast no votes. The national evening news controls no elections. If this were not true, Ronald Reagan would never have been President.

An even more common mistake is to believe that the key to victory is education.

The “education is the key to political victory” theory claims that if we educate people as to the problem and the solution, then the elected officials will fall in line.

Wrong.

Polls show huge majorities of Americans in favor of parental notification before a minor has an abortion. Yet the mere mention of the issue drives most politicians into fits of terror. Similarly, three-quarters of the American people oppose forced-unionism and favor Right to Work laws; however, such laws exist in only 22 states.

It is important to understand the two reasons why the education theory of politics is a mistake.

First, the theory assumes no opposing “education” effort. This is rarely the case.

Polls showed a majority in California favored education choice, yet the 1992 School Voucher Referendum lost 2-1 on election day. Why? Because the NEA-teachers’ union bosses and pro-government-school-monopoly forces out-organized school choice forces, had a more focused message, and spent a lot more money.

The second, and more important, reason the “education is the key” theory fails lies in the nature of politics and politicians.

(Emphasis mine)

I would like to remind people that the Founding Fathers were very adamant about the importance of an informed electorate.

As far as any control he may have over the direction of C4L, I couldn't say, but that could be guided by personal ideology. What I will say is that multi-issue groups are notoriously difficult to sustain over time and without fracture. I C4L is list-building based on Audit the Fed...maybe they don't want to lose 50% of the people they gain who agree with 90% of the platform over one issue. Again, not my call to make.

And being from Virginia, I know Mike has spent more time kicking Republicans out of office than getting them elected.




I'd like to know exactly what sort of educating you are talking about here, and you believe it directly furthered HR 1207's progress. I'm not disputing your efforts necessarily, but just I don't know what they are.

If it were not for activists tirelessly educating their family, friends and neighbors about the true nature of the Federal Reserve the success 1207 had in terms of popular support would never have been. Unfortunately the legislative strategy was a failure and a discharge petition really should have been requested. At any rate, people "get" the Fed now and that is not due to political strategy but education.

As an aside, what's your position with C4L?

**eta: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2157080&postcount=15

 

[AuH2O]

As an aside, what's your position with C4L?

None.

 

[Matt Collins]

Successfully infiltrate is not the same thing as "takeover". If we do not know how to be effective within political parties, we have no chance.

Do explain the difference to me. Why infiltrate if you have no intention of taking it over?

This is interesting. Earlier this year I had a private sit down with Ron and I told him about what we were trying to do, and he liked it. But he did mention something to the effect that taking over the entire GOP wasn't practical, or it shouldn't be the end goal, or something like that. I wasn't exactly sure what he meant by it, or maybe it was just his personality being very humble as usual. This is in contrast to Rand who in January of 08 told me that we should try to dominate our local Republican Parties.

Obviously we want access and influence within the GOP, but I say if we have the ability to outright take it over, or at least steer it, then we should take that opportunity to do so because it lays the groundwork for the future making runs by people such as Gary Johnson, Rand, and the like, much easier if we already have people in key GOP positions.

 

[LittleLightShining]

This is interesting. Earlier this year I had a private sit down with Ron and I told him about what we were trying to do, and he liked it. But he did mention something to the effect that taking over the entire GOP wasn't practical, or it shouldn't be the end goal, or something like that. I wasn't exactly sure what he meant by it, or maybe it was just his personality being very humble as usual. This is in contrast to Rand who in January of 08 told me that we should try to dominate our local Republican Parties.

Obviously we want access and influence within the GOP, but I say if we have the ability to outright take it over, or at least steer it, then we should take that opportunity to do so because it lays the groundwork for the future making runs by people such as Gary Johnson, Rand, and the like, much easier if we already have people in key GOP positions.

Thanks for this tidbit. It validates my position. Like I said, it's not that I don't think we should get involved in the GOP (or any other party) and do what we can to steer it in a more Constitutional direction. But I don't think this should be a focus of C4L and apparently neither does Ron Paul.