Jerry, I like your focus on using this substack site as "a meeting place for activists and their supporters."
The cowardice of McCarthy in caving to the likes of MTG, Boebert, Gaetz, even George-Devolder-Santos (cringe) shows how much more work needs to be done.
It's encouraging to see this exercise in sharing ideas and strategies to combat the Q-Anon insanity that now holds powers and still threatens American democracy.
I look forward to hearing from other subscribers on how to get organized for the fight that's ahead.
And thanks for your time-consuming work putting this site together.
Of course the devil is in the details, Jerry, and I think it is important to specify more clearly the pathway to power for the sensible center. Both Democrats and Republicans possess core constituencies that appreciate the sheer complexity of today’s world. It’s a long game. These leaders and voters need new political resources: 1) pragmatically oriented think tanks housed at great universities (like Stanford’s Hoover Institute but for progressive pragmatists ) and in the nonprofit sector (like the Cato Institute etc); 2) financial power derived from the billionaire 1% to fund goal-driven messages the public respects. Actually most people want a government that works. That is the key to breaking the back of gerrymandered districts so intelligent persons can run for office based on what their constituents need and want economically and socially.
Thirdly, those of us who desire a secular government require a strategy to remove religious values such as those used cynically by Republicans to attract voters (abortion, gender fluidity, misogyny, racism, Judaic culture, Muslim culture, fundamentalist Christian culture).
We have a bright and shiny vision of what secular government offers the American people. Let’s sell it by communicating in plain English and powerful graphics to moderates in both parties. And firstly to billionaires many many many times over who want a smart government that works to provide business with great stability so it can plan for success without exploitation of our beloved people and without destruction of our beloved planet.
Thanks so much for your comment, Charter 1. I am in complete agreement with you on each point. However, they are beyond the scope of our network. We can't establish a think tank, solicit funds from billionaires or develop a strategy to remove religious values from government policy. That is indeed the long game.
What we can do is focus on the immediate task we've assigned ourselves: unseating Speaker McCarthy, replacing him with a moderate Republican who can rescind the concessions he made to the MAGA extremists and strip them of their committee assignments. That is a daunting enough task.
As you say, the devil is in the details. I've specified a few of those details in this post, and once we've refined each we'll be ready to start the real work. Stay tuned !
Jerry, I write in response to my understanding of your Substack’s focus delineated both in your Jan. 25th newsletter and in the 2nd paragraph of the above comment.
In my view, Democrats have a substantial role to play in pressing the message of unity vs. chaos, with a constant drumbeat of Republican extremism. Additionally, Republicans must be held accountable for every single concession made, for everything that appeared in the rules they voted for, and for every one of McCarthy’s future disastrous actions.
The remainder of my reply is focused on the next big test, which will be a showdown over the debt ceiling. As someone who closely follows the 18 Republican Representatives from Biden-won districts, I understand that the Problem Solvers Caucus co-Chair Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) is preparing to convene bipartisan talks over a compromise proposal that would entail some commitment for fiscal constraint as a precondition for raising the nation’s credit limit. An alternative, also under consideration, entails a short-term “clean” increase in the debt ceiling followed by a so-called comprehensive, good faith bipartisan review of all federal spending.
Make no mistake: I stand with Biden who maintains a hard-line stance—no conditions or concessions. In other words, Biden has established he won’t bend to avoid the first-ever debt default without any conditions attached. I imagine he learned in 2011 that there is little upside in giving in to any of the GOP demands to impose spending cuts on domestic programs.
To be clear, I write not only to you, Jerry, but also to anyone who would find a discussion of the ongoing dispute over raising the national debt ceiling helpful for planning where we go from here.
Btw, I probably should note that the MAGA extremist Freedom Caucus is intent on refusing to raise the debt limit regardless of negotiated spending cuts, however steep.
It seems to me that the failure of the Red Wave to materialize in the mid-terms provides an opening for study. Does anyone know of good research regarding which Republicans didn't vote, or split their tickets, or actually voted Dem? And the reasons: tired of the lunatic fringe/incompetent politicians? Roe v Wade? Youth (of either party) who are getting serious about climate change?
I'm saying that we could learn a lot from that Republican failure - the whos and whys of the failed Red Wave could be a guide book of targets and themes for 24. Maybe it's reproducible, maybe it could be expanded.
So I'm guessing there must be good studies on voter behavior in the mid-terms, and access to that data could be a very good starting point in general.
McCarthy is an immediate short term target - and he seems very vulnerable from the right and the left right now - but the big existential banana is 2024, and a good autopsy on mid-terms (which were remarkably favorable to Dems) would be a valuable planning resource.
I am a retired broadcast journalist with 35 years of experience in small markets and large, and I have been fortunate enough to have worked with great staffs and thus had the opportunity to win some awards, ie. recognition from the journalistic, business and academic communities. OK. So what.
I continue to write what one might consider a blog to a VERY limited group of people I consider thinkers. There are about a dozen of them. Many are working journalists, friends who probably tolerate me. There are at least as many “conservatives” as “liberals” on my email list. The pieces I write run the gamut, usually subjects that enrage me and about which I think I have something to say, due to my experiences as a “gum shoe” reporter, ie. somebody who was the “fly on the wall.” Sometimes I get a response from those on my email list. Most times I do not because journalists, I mean REAL journalists, will not bias themselves, especially in print to me or anybody else. I have urged all of them to simply tell me if they want me to stop sending them these pieces, but nobody has asked me to stop. Several have said they actually read what I have written, and some agree, and some disagree, without elaborating. GOOD. Thinking is GOOD. I even get a question or two from non-journalists on my list, proving what I have found to be true: that the “general public” knows almost NOTHING. I can tell you that good journalists know a LOT more than they can ever tell you. Proof is necessary for publishing. I spent my life faithfully reporting to the general public the facts, what one side says about the facts, what the other side says about the facts and often what qualified experts say about the facts … fairly easy job, though “wordsmithing” is a brain burn. My opinion did not matter. I was the conduit for information, the scribe, as it were. Now, that I am retired, I am able to write my opinions, and I do, being careful, at times, not to intimate things that could get me killed. So, that’s me. Again … so what.
You requested comments about what you have done and plan to do. Preface all of my comments with IMHO, and I guess you know what that means.
If you email a Congressman, there is the DELETE key. If you write a Congressman, what you have written stands a very poor chance of being read by the member of Congress. It most likely goes in the “round file,” or it may get a form letter from a staff member. If, on the other hand, you are a major campaign contributor, you may get some attention.
The idea of a “cross-party alliance” is a good one. Don’t expect it to go anywhere with members of Congress, unless, of course, you are a major campaign contributor. HOWEVER, some Americans are really tired of our system. Trump ought to be some proof of that. So, you have to go to the American people, voters, in order to become a force that will gain the attention of a member of Congress. If you can enlist some major campaign contributors among your allies, that will make a lot of difference very quickly. As to “news personalities,” you list Rubin, Maddow and (cough!) Moore. So far, you look to me, thinking like a reporter, like simply a LIBERAL group. You need to focus less on liberal firebrands and more on those not already labeled “the evil, liberal, socialistic, anti-business” media. I tell my people to depend more on the long-term successful media outlets. They are still around for a reason, having survived many challenges. They also have the staffs to research and report. WSJ is a good conservative source. No, don’t bother with Fox. We know who that is. Allow me to interject a couple of old sayings from old newsrooms:
News value is directly related to the NUMBER of people the story affects and the INTENSITY with which it affects them. New chair for the Democratic Party? Who cares! Interruption in garbage pick up? “Now, you’ve taken to meddlin!”
If you want to know who is doing what to whom, why and how, FOLLOW THE DOLLAR. Big newsrooms do a lot of stock tracing.
You have to explain things to the “general public.” You have to write in “red crayon,” and make them understand how an issue affects their daily lives directly. When those people shot out several power substations, area residents, both liberal and conservative, got really angry. They could not watch TV! The beer in the fridge got warm! (sarcasm intended) Believe me. Some of those rural residents know who did that, and the FBI probably does too, after getting a bunch of anonymous tips. There are some militia groups in the cross hairs now. Of course, they were probably known to the FBI anyway. That is a big untold story. So, the points about the debt ceiling need to be explained to people in terms to which they relate, personally. Reich does a good job, but MAGA forces have labeled Reich an academic, “left-wing,” liberal. Rather than spend the brain power to actually think, people tend to accept the MAGA explanation.
Since the “Feathers” has no money and, as far as I can tell, has not shown any support from major campaign contributors who do have money, you/we have to go directly to the people … grass roots organization. That starts with a conversation with your neighbor, again … emphasizing how an issue affects them directly. If you don’t have the words, ask. You have to understand in layman’s terms in order to help others understand. That progresses to a meeting of a bunch of neighbors, maybe in an area community center. That progresses to a local organization of people who are tired of our current Congress (a lot are) and are sold on the idea of a “cross-party alliance.” When that has been established, then you go to the local TV assignment editor to get coverage of your next neighborhood meeting, which now might be spread to a number of neighborhoods. Pick ONE station. If you go to all of them, you are not giving anyone that all-important scoop. Hopefully, the effort becomes a pebble tossed into the pond. Ripples spread. If that becomes a wave, Congress may take notice. Otherwise … again … it is all in the campaign contributions. Follow the dollar.
Welcome Jay! And thanks for your comments and the introduction.
I completely agree that we must go directly to the people to grow our network. That was immediately apparent when I first started my campaign to defeat McCarthy's bid for the Speakership back on December 5. I sent an email to some friends and acquaintances, hoping to enlist their participation in the effort. As we organized over the next few weeks, emails were forwarded to contacts and from them to their contacts, and they were posted to social media. I started getting responses from people I didn't know, from all across the country. That's what led to the launch of "Feathers of Hope".
It's true that we have no money, and no intention of raising or spending money. That is both a fundamental truth and an ongoing commitment. We are a grass-roots organization of ordinary citizen activists, determined to use only our voices to influence our representatives. The cynic says that makes us powerless. A hopeful person says that is our strength. We are determined to be heard by being organized, focused and persuasive. We are not buying or selling.
Your reporter's sense that we are a liberal group is fairly accurate. I am a proud progressive/liberal Democrat, but we do have moderate Republican members as well. The initial mission of "Feathers of Hope" is to help elect a moderate Republican as Speaker of the House by supporting a one-time cross-party alliance to do that.
At the start, we directed our efforts to liberal media and Democratic Representatives because we wanted to convince 212 of them to vote for a Republican alternative to McCarthy. We thought that if the idea gained traction among Democrats, a few sensible Republicans would reach across the aisle so as to prevent the MAGA minority from becoming the face of the GOP. As described in this post, "We're still here ...", there are many lessons to be learned from every choice we made.
But I think you may not have a clear idea of the nature of this network. We are a community of activists. We are not attempting to educate the public. We are here to strategize, and to implement specific actions intended to influence decision-makers. We come together already understanding the issue, prepared to discuss it only for the purpose of refining our message. Ideally, we'll emphasize one aspect or another so as to align with a particular legislator's other priorities.
So again, welcome aboard! Please read our most recent post "Wait, exactly how will we do this?" to learn where we are now and what we'll be doing next.
I'd especially like to call your attention to the final paragraph of that post -- the call for volunteers. Your expertise and experience would be a perfect match for task # 1:
"Research and compile a list of news/opinion outlets and/or personalities, both liberal and (not-crazy) conservative, for us to contact."
If you'd like to help, please let me know directly: JerryWeiss@substack.com Thanks again, Jay.
"We are not attempting to educate the public. We are here to strategize, and to implement specific actions intended to influence decision-makers."
Decision-makers are influenced by people who control their destinies, their jobs. These politicians are awarded jobs by the voters. The voters can be reached, in this day and age, by massive, expensive television advertising campaigns. This is why only a small group of people, the major campaign contributors, actually choose those who will have jobs as our political leaders and especially who will not. Because the American public actually owns the airwaves on which broadcasters operate, we should be able to control, to some extent, what goes on those airwaves. Actually, we already do. We COULD make these massive, horrendously inaccurate campaign advertisements illegal. I believe that a number of political leaders would like to be free of this fund raising ... free to accomplish their goals for the good of the nation. There are far better ways to educate the voting public than these horrible advertising campaigns. IF YOU DON'T EDUCATE THE VOTERS, YOU WON'T AFFECT THE JOBS OF THE POLITICAL LEADERS, AND THUS, YOU HAVE LITTLE OR NO EFFECT AT ALL. Another route to educate the voters is the long route. You have to do so directly. This involves the creation of a voting bloc, ie. voters committed to candidates who support specific platform ideas. This is fairly close to the creation of a new political party. That will get you media attention. Look at the power wielded by the NAACP and conservative Christian churches (anti-abortion forces). When you do this, you get the attention of political leaders.
There's nothing you say here that I disagree with, Jay. Educating the public is an important thing. It's just not our thing. I have nothing against plumbers either, but this network is not about plumbing.
We are here to strategize and implement a specific plan of action. We know we can't do everything. We're certainly not going to create a new political party or make campaign advertising illegal. But we are determined to do what we can do. Most people talk too much and do too little. We aim to do a little more and talk a little less.
We are not children, and we're well aware that what we're attempting is a longshot. If you'd like to help, great! If you think we're wasting our time, you could be right or you could be wrong. But we're going to do it anyway because, well, because "hope is a thing with feathers .... that never stops at all."
Jerry, I like your focus on using this substack site as "a meeting place for activists and their supporters."
The cowardice of McCarthy in caving to the likes of MTG, Boebert, Gaetz, even George-Devolder-Santos (cringe) shows how much more work needs to be done.
It's encouraging to see this exercise in sharing ideas and strategies to combat the Q-Anon insanity that now holds powers and still threatens American democracy.
I look forward to hearing from other subscribers on how to get organized for the fight that's ahead.
And thanks for your time-consuming work putting this site together.
Of course the devil is in the details, Jerry, and I think it is important to specify more clearly the pathway to power for the sensible center. Both Democrats and Republicans possess core constituencies that appreciate the sheer complexity of today’s world. It’s a long game. These leaders and voters need new political resources: 1) pragmatically oriented think tanks housed at great universities (like Stanford’s Hoover Institute but for progressive pragmatists ) and in the nonprofit sector (like the Cato Institute etc); 2) financial power derived from the billionaire 1% to fund goal-driven messages the public respects. Actually most people want a government that works. That is the key to breaking the back of gerrymandered districts so intelligent persons can run for office based on what their constituents need and want economically and socially.
Thirdly, those of us who desire a secular government require a strategy to remove religious values such as those used cynically by Republicans to attract voters (abortion, gender fluidity, misogyny, racism, Judaic culture, Muslim culture, fundamentalist Christian culture).
We have a bright and shiny vision of what secular government offers the American people. Let’s sell it by communicating in plain English and powerful graphics to moderates in both parties. And firstly to billionaires many many many times over who want a smart government that works to provide business with great stability so it can plan for success without exploitation of our beloved people and without destruction of our beloved planet.
Thanks so much for your comment, Charter 1. I am in complete agreement with you on each point. However, they are beyond the scope of our network. We can't establish a think tank, solicit funds from billionaires or develop a strategy to remove religious values from government policy. That is indeed the long game.
What we can do is focus on the immediate task we've assigned ourselves: unseating Speaker McCarthy, replacing him with a moderate Republican who can rescind the concessions he made to the MAGA extremists and strip them of their committee assignments. That is a daunting enough task.
As you say, the devil is in the details. I've specified a few of those details in this post, and once we've refined each we'll be ready to start the real work. Stay tuned !
Jerry, I write in response to my understanding of your Substack’s focus delineated both in your Jan. 25th newsletter and in the 2nd paragraph of the above comment.
In my view, Democrats have a substantial role to play in pressing the message of unity vs. chaos, with a constant drumbeat of Republican extremism. Additionally, Republicans must be held accountable for every single concession made, for everything that appeared in the rules they voted for, and for every one of McCarthy’s future disastrous actions.
The remainder of my reply is focused on the next big test, which will be a showdown over the debt ceiling. As someone who closely follows the 18 Republican Representatives from Biden-won districts, I understand that the Problem Solvers Caucus co-Chair Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) is preparing to convene bipartisan talks over a compromise proposal that would entail some commitment for fiscal constraint as a precondition for raising the nation’s credit limit. An alternative, also under consideration, entails a short-term “clean” increase in the debt ceiling followed by a so-called comprehensive, good faith bipartisan review of all federal spending.
Make no mistake: I stand with Biden who maintains a hard-line stance—no conditions or concessions. In other words, Biden has established he won’t bend to avoid the first-ever debt default without any conditions attached. I imagine he learned in 2011 that there is little upside in giving in to any of the GOP demands to impose spending cuts on domestic programs.
To be clear, I write not only to you, Jerry, but also to anyone who would find a discussion of the ongoing dispute over raising the national debt ceiling helpful for planning where we go from here.
Btw, I probably should note that the MAGA extremist Freedom Caucus is intent on refusing to raise the debt limit regardless of negotiated spending cuts, however steep.
It seems to me that the failure of the Red Wave to materialize in the mid-terms provides an opening for study. Does anyone know of good research regarding which Republicans didn't vote, or split their tickets, or actually voted Dem? And the reasons: tired of the lunatic fringe/incompetent politicians? Roe v Wade? Youth (of either party) who are getting serious about climate change?
I'm saying that we could learn a lot from that Republican failure - the whos and whys of the failed Red Wave could be a guide book of targets and themes for 24. Maybe it's reproducible, maybe it could be expanded.
So I'm guessing there must be good studies on voter behavior in the mid-terms, and access to that data could be a very good starting point in general.
McCarthy is an immediate short term target - and he seems very vulnerable from the right and the left right now - but the big existential banana is 2024, and a good autopsy on mid-terms (which were remarkably favorable to Dems) would be a valuable planning resource.
To the “Feathers”
From Jay Joiner
I just subscribed to your group.
I am a retired broadcast journalist with 35 years of experience in small markets and large, and I have been fortunate enough to have worked with great staffs and thus had the opportunity to win some awards, ie. recognition from the journalistic, business and academic communities. OK. So what.
I continue to write what one might consider a blog to a VERY limited group of people I consider thinkers. There are about a dozen of them. Many are working journalists, friends who probably tolerate me. There are at least as many “conservatives” as “liberals” on my email list. The pieces I write run the gamut, usually subjects that enrage me and about which I think I have something to say, due to my experiences as a “gum shoe” reporter, ie. somebody who was the “fly on the wall.” Sometimes I get a response from those on my email list. Most times I do not because journalists, I mean REAL journalists, will not bias themselves, especially in print to me or anybody else. I have urged all of them to simply tell me if they want me to stop sending them these pieces, but nobody has asked me to stop. Several have said they actually read what I have written, and some agree, and some disagree, without elaborating. GOOD. Thinking is GOOD. I even get a question or two from non-journalists on my list, proving what I have found to be true: that the “general public” knows almost NOTHING. I can tell you that good journalists know a LOT more than they can ever tell you. Proof is necessary for publishing. I spent my life faithfully reporting to the general public the facts, what one side says about the facts, what the other side says about the facts and often what qualified experts say about the facts … fairly easy job, though “wordsmithing” is a brain burn. My opinion did not matter. I was the conduit for information, the scribe, as it were. Now, that I am retired, I am able to write my opinions, and I do, being careful, at times, not to intimate things that could get me killed. So, that’s me. Again … so what.
You requested comments about what you have done and plan to do. Preface all of my comments with IMHO, and I guess you know what that means.
If you email a Congressman, there is the DELETE key. If you write a Congressman, what you have written stands a very poor chance of being read by the member of Congress. It most likely goes in the “round file,” or it may get a form letter from a staff member. If, on the other hand, you are a major campaign contributor, you may get some attention.
The idea of a “cross-party alliance” is a good one. Don’t expect it to go anywhere with members of Congress, unless, of course, you are a major campaign contributor. HOWEVER, some Americans are really tired of our system. Trump ought to be some proof of that. So, you have to go to the American people, voters, in order to become a force that will gain the attention of a member of Congress. If you can enlist some major campaign contributors among your allies, that will make a lot of difference very quickly. As to “news personalities,” you list Rubin, Maddow and (cough!) Moore. So far, you look to me, thinking like a reporter, like simply a LIBERAL group. You need to focus less on liberal firebrands and more on those not already labeled “the evil, liberal, socialistic, anti-business” media. I tell my people to depend more on the long-term successful media outlets. They are still around for a reason, having survived many challenges. They also have the staffs to research and report. WSJ is a good conservative source. No, don’t bother with Fox. We know who that is. Allow me to interject a couple of old sayings from old newsrooms:
News value is directly related to the NUMBER of people the story affects and the INTENSITY with which it affects them. New chair for the Democratic Party? Who cares! Interruption in garbage pick up? “Now, you’ve taken to meddlin!”
If you want to know who is doing what to whom, why and how, FOLLOW THE DOLLAR. Big newsrooms do a lot of stock tracing.
You have to explain things to the “general public.” You have to write in “red crayon,” and make them understand how an issue affects their daily lives directly. When those people shot out several power substations, area residents, both liberal and conservative, got really angry. They could not watch TV! The beer in the fridge got warm! (sarcasm intended) Believe me. Some of those rural residents know who did that, and the FBI probably does too, after getting a bunch of anonymous tips. There are some militia groups in the cross hairs now. Of course, they were probably known to the FBI anyway. That is a big untold story. So, the points about the debt ceiling need to be explained to people in terms to which they relate, personally. Reich does a good job, but MAGA forces have labeled Reich an academic, “left-wing,” liberal. Rather than spend the brain power to actually think, people tend to accept the MAGA explanation.
Since the “Feathers” has no money and, as far as I can tell, has not shown any support from major campaign contributors who do have money, you/we have to go directly to the people … grass roots organization. That starts with a conversation with your neighbor, again … emphasizing how an issue affects them directly. If you don’t have the words, ask. You have to understand in layman’s terms in order to help others understand. That progresses to a meeting of a bunch of neighbors, maybe in an area community center. That progresses to a local organization of people who are tired of our current Congress (a lot are) and are sold on the idea of a “cross-party alliance.” When that has been established, then you go to the local TV assignment editor to get coverage of your next neighborhood meeting, which now might be spread to a number of neighborhoods. Pick ONE station. If you go to all of them, you are not giving anyone that all-important scoop. Hopefully, the effort becomes a pebble tossed into the pond. Ripples spread. If that becomes a wave, Congress may take notice. Otherwise … again … it is all in the campaign contributions. Follow the dollar.
Jay Joiner, Raleigh NC
Welcome Jay! And thanks for your comments and the introduction.
I completely agree that we must go directly to the people to grow our network. That was immediately apparent when I first started my campaign to defeat McCarthy's bid for the Speakership back on December 5. I sent an email to some friends and acquaintances, hoping to enlist their participation in the effort. As we organized over the next few weeks, emails were forwarded to contacts and from them to their contacts, and they were posted to social media. I started getting responses from people I didn't know, from all across the country. That's what led to the launch of "Feathers of Hope".
It's true that we have no money, and no intention of raising or spending money. That is both a fundamental truth and an ongoing commitment. We are a grass-roots organization of ordinary citizen activists, determined to use only our voices to influence our representatives. The cynic says that makes us powerless. A hopeful person says that is our strength. We are determined to be heard by being organized, focused and persuasive. We are not buying or selling.
Your reporter's sense that we are a liberal group is fairly accurate. I am a proud progressive/liberal Democrat, but we do have moderate Republican members as well. The initial mission of "Feathers of Hope" is to help elect a moderate Republican as Speaker of the House by supporting a one-time cross-party alliance to do that.
At the start, we directed our efforts to liberal media and Democratic Representatives because we wanted to convince 212 of them to vote for a Republican alternative to McCarthy. We thought that if the idea gained traction among Democrats, a few sensible Republicans would reach across the aisle so as to prevent the MAGA minority from becoming the face of the GOP. As described in this post, "We're still here ...", there are many lessons to be learned from every choice we made.
But I think you may not have a clear idea of the nature of this network. We are a community of activists. We are not attempting to educate the public. We are here to strategize, and to implement specific actions intended to influence decision-makers. We come together already understanding the issue, prepared to discuss it only for the purpose of refining our message. Ideally, we'll emphasize one aspect or another so as to align with a particular legislator's other priorities.
So again, welcome aboard! Please read our most recent post "Wait, exactly how will we do this?" to learn where we are now and what we'll be doing next.
I'd especially like to call your attention to the final paragraph of that post -- the call for volunteers. Your expertise and experience would be a perfect match for task # 1:
"Research and compile a list of news/opinion outlets and/or personalities, both liberal and (not-crazy) conservative, for us to contact."
If you'd like to help, please let me know directly: JerryWeiss@substack.com Thanks again, Jay.
"We are not attempting to educate the public. We are here to strategize, and to implement specific actions intended to influence decision-makers."
Decision-makers are influenced by people who control their destinies, their jobs. These politicians are awarded jobs by the voters. The voters can be reached, in this day and age, by massive, expensive television advertising campaigns. This is why only a small group of people, the major campaign contributors, actually choose those who will have jobs as our political leaders and especially who will not. Because the American public actually owns the airwaves on which broadcasters operate, we should be able to control, to some extent, what goes on those airwaves. Actually, we already do. We COULD make these massive, horrendously inaccurate campaign advertisements illegal. I believe that a number of political leaders would like to be free of this fund raising ... free to accomplish their goals for the good of the nation. There are far better ways to educate the voting public than these horrible advertising campaigns. IF YOU DON'T EDUCATE THE VOTERS, YOU WON'T AFFECT THE JOBS OF THE POLITICAL LEADERS, AND THUS, YOU HAVE LITTLE OR NO EFFECT AT ALL. Another route to educate the voters is the long route. You have to do so directly. This involves the creation of a voting bloc, ie. voters committed to candidates who support specific platform ideas. This is fairly close to the creation of a new political party. That will get you media attention. Look at the power wielded by the NAACP and conservative Christian churches (anti-abortion forces). When you do this, you get the attention of political leaders.
There's nothing you say here that I disagree with, Jay. Educating the public is an important thing. It's just not our thing. I have nothing against plumbers either, but this network is not about plumbing.
We are here to strategize and implement a specific plan of action. We know we can't do everything. We're certainly not going to create a new political party or make campaign advertising illegal. But we are determined to do what we can do. Most people talk too much and do too little. We aim to do a little more and talk a little less.
We are not children, and we're well aware that what we're attempting is a longshot. If you'd like to help, great! If you think we're wasting our time, you could be right or you could be wrong. But we're going to do it anyway because, well, because "hope is a thing with feathers .... that never stops at all."