I think in general, I can sum it up as “defeat the Democrats at their own game”.

Or if the Republicans can’t stretch that far, they can and should shore up their defenses so that the Democrat attack machine can’t do the damage that it has been doing. That’s not too much to ask, is it.

sound like an excuse for dictatorship

It is just a reality people have to deal with, as Plato had to deal with when his mentor, Socrates, was ordered to take poison by the Athenians Socrates served.

The FOunding Fathers recognized the fallacy of democracy and majority rule, long ago, Don. It is a problem that has to be dealt with, and the Republicans are not dealing with it while the Democrats are taking advantage of it for their own purposes. Such is not the way to wisdom or success.

That’s why the Republicans have got to take seriously the business of persuading them to share the Republican view of what is best for them and their country.

Except the swing voters were never persuaded into the position that they are in. They were mislead, lied to, and etc to get them into the position that they are in. You can beat the Democrats at their game and still be more ethical than them, except for the fact that ethics is hard. The Republicans may not be able to do such, and if they can’t, then they may settle for short term damage control. Meaning, they might settle for what you proposed, Don.

I’m not saying persuasion is a step back, Don, I’m just saying it won’t win the Republicans anything in the long or short term. Not given the current strategic situation, anyways. If things change, say an attack or an asteroid destroys Mecca, well then obviously things would be different.

Aside from defeat or capitulation, what other alternative is there?

In war, there is always an alternative, with proper planning of course. You have to have the right pieces in place, and currently the Republicans are lacking pieces because they keep giving it up or misusing them. The right pieces at the right time, such as a Cronkite, equals a victory.

So my focus is more on strategy rather than demographics or numbers. I am more concerned about convincing the right people to do the right things, rather than persuasding the swing voters on any given subject.

Meaning, if it was more complicated than that, this would undermine your position?

Essentially, if the swing voters could want something more than that which you just stated, it would create more opportunities and choices, would it not.

As it is, you are giving an either or scenario which naturally limits the choices available to Republicans. Such scenarios are strategically limiting precisely because they don’t allow the participants much choice. Could be good if you are winning, could be bad if you are losing.

Replace the President with a Democrat and watch the boys come home.

Certainly the logic might go that way, if the premise was correct. But I don’t think your premise is correct, Don.

or change that will (by persuading the majority of voters that there are good and sufgficient reasons for staying) or lose.

And how do you propose to change that will given that people already know that the US will be out of Iraq, that it is just a matter of time? Why would the American people view Iraq as a long term benefit if the US is going to leave there? Long term benefits are usually seen by long term relationships and occupations, at least from the American historic perspective.

Thus, I’m guessing you will try to persuade the majority that it is in America’s best interests to stay as long as necessary.

I don’t think that’s the right path to go. In that you can try to persuade or convince or explain things, but events have progressed to the point where such things are no longer effective. Even if America agreed to stay, it would only be temporary until the next Haditha or psychological warfare operation changes their minds. I would prefer a more permanent solution, one which won’t be as susceptible to the notorious tendency that democracies and republics have with turning on their own heroes, leaders, and causes.

The nature of the task seems to be quite mercurial. Bush convinces people, then Democrats convince those same people that Bush lied, and here we are so to speak. Are we to continue this cycle? It is like the cycle of violence, it must end somewhere and somewhen.

Either Republicans accept the will of the people (by agreeing to withdraw from Iraq in defeat) or change that will (by persuading the majority of voters that there are good and sufgficient reasons for staying) or lose.

I assume you don’t want Republicans to lose and I seriously doubt you will accept a withdrawal in defeat. Thus, I’m guessing you will try to persuade the majority that it is in America’s best interests to stay as long as necessary. I hope you succeed. But to have any chance of succeeding, you must understand the nature of the task.

So your position is that the swing voters will believe Democrat lies, aka promises, because the alternatives are harder? To me, it is pretty hard to be continuously fooled like that, without some intense work put into it.

Do we need allies because the swing voters perceive America as weak or do we need allies because we can’t rely upon the swing voters to hold the shield wall? The answer drastically changes the allegiance game. This is a simple reference to what pacificus said, to flesh out the theme over swing voters.

either that Republicans will do a better job of getting us out,

If the swing voters can so easily be deceived by Democrat promises of pull out, why then can the Republicans not be able to sell a chance at victory rather than withdrawing from the Middle East? As I noted before, America is not against occupation, it is against living enemies that are in the same territory that we occupy. Without those enemies, Americans can sustain occupations lasting in the numerous decades, as with Japan and Germany. Why then do the Republicans have to conform to your strategy, Don, and do the same thing as the Democrat are planning to do, given that you said that the Democrats won by doing something different than what the Republicans were pursuing?

When what you are doing isn’t working, try something else, even if you don’t know if the something else will work either.

Yet you would predict that the swing voters will continue to try what failed, which is to get Democrats to pull out of Iraq. The Democrats have been voted into the House of Representatives and the Senate, and they have not yet successfully pulled out of Iraq or conducted any radical policy changes from before. So why is it when the Democrat plan isn’t working, you believe people will keep on trying the same thing to make it work while when the Republican plan doesn’t work, you then counsel the Republicans to change to become more like the Democrats?

or that we shouldn’t leave until we have accomplished our goals there.

In the end, what saps Republican foundations is the fact that they are agreeing with the Democrats that US forces will eventually leave. This weakens the foundation to the point where you are at a disadvantage in terms of negotiation power. The Democrats already have what they want, they just can’t get it implemented immediately or even soon. If the Republicans succeded in convincing swing voters that we won’t leave Iraq until the goals have been accomplished, this simply is another form of retreat and getting out.

This strategy position was created by Bush’s beginning responses and initiatives, and can’t be radically changed by current individuals. Whether Republicans succede in pulling out before the Democrats or convincing people that more needs to be done, doesn’t change anything since the underlying foundation will still be “when are we leaving”. That is a foundation that provides innate advantages to the Democrats and disadvantages to the defenders, the Republicans or anyone which prefers a permanent alliance and base in the ME.

The Republicans cannot effectively counter-attack by trying to get ahead of the Democrats in becoming more Democrat than the Democrats. Although, they have tried this as election season panics in before and now. There is no long term gain to such, however.

Your premise, Don, is incorrect concerning what the swing voters want. Since anyone that can be deceived by Democrat promises essentially does not know what they want nor how to get it. What they want then is determined by outside forces, outside forces that are more powerful and strategically more secure than the swing voters.

The Republicans cannot defeat such systems simply by playing politics. Even if the Republicans succeded in convincing people to support staying in Iraq for some nebulous “other” goals, they would still be powerless in the sphere of real strategic control, initiative, and power. Those three things are contained in convincing people that what they want is what you want.

The Democrats convinced the swing voters that the swing voters wanted what the Democrats wanted, which is to pull out of Iraq. The swing voters and other forces, such as the Democrat’s allies, convinced the Republicans that the Republicans wanted what the Democrats wanted, which is an end to the bloodshed in the Middle East and the eventual withdrawal of US forces there. This is real power and it sets the conditions and strategic possibilities for all else, including political maneuvers.

The Republicans are trying to do a better job, and they are failing precisely because they are not doing a job, rather they are fighting a war. The two are diametrically opposed, although sometimes they complement each other.

A job may be seen as a work done through teams and teamwork to create something constructive. A war is fought with teams but with the express intention and goal of annihilating and defeating the other team, maybe not for all time but at least for one or two generations. It is essentially destructive, not constructive as a job would be primarily classified as.

Certainly the Republicans can win at some temporary persuasion and political games, Don, but in the greater war they will always lose until they can step outside the Democrat narrative and create their own terms for negotiation and their own strategic possibilities not limited by Democrat designs.

The constant defensive crouch, represented in Bush’s actions as only reacting to attacks, is a losing proposition in war. You must attack and bring the war to the enemy’s territory, if you wish to win. And the Republicans are still fighting on their own territory and trying to defend it, whenver they say that “we will leave when…”. Such actions have essentially given up useful terrain that could have been defended.

War has its own arena of convincing people. It’s called insurgency and counter-insurgency. The US system has succeded partially because the enemy was always something foreign to the national consciousness. Therefore insurgency and counter-insurgency was always, or mostly, practiced by a united America against a foreign exterior enemy. This changed during the Soviet Era and changed even further after America was the lone superpower left.

Now America is so powerful that people don’t really feel the need to pool their energies into fighting an external enemy. Now they have time and energy to plot against each other, since fighting other Americans under the shield of the Constitution is far cheaper and more effective than waging wars of conquest or defending foreign territory like Iraq or France. Far more profitable too.

None of this is going to change if the swing voters vote Democrat or Republican or Independent.

Rather than have the Republicans try to convince people how to leave Iraq, I would forward the proposal that the Republicans start convincing people to stay in Iraq, indefinitely. And if that doesn’t work, then you can depend on the terrorists and the Democrats to ensure that in the future, America will be weakened enough that she won’t have the time or energy to fight amongst ourselves. We wjll either end up as Britain, a socialist paradise for a time, or engaged in total war. This solves most of the problems and will probably win the war in the long term. However, this would be a pyrrhic victory at best.

It doesn’t solve the issue of honor though. America will never be great until she recovers her honor, integrity, and will. Without those things, the Constitution is meaningless and powerless. British Common Law certainly didn’t protect the subjects of Britain from another aristocracy in the guise of bureacrats.

Iraq may be the last and final chance for America to regain her initiative and her motion in human affairs. God does not give such opportunities every century.

But these important points have not been articulated well enough or often enough to influence that margin of voters that made the difference in 06, and will again in 08 if it is not properly addressed.

The broader strategic vision relies upon smaller tactical successes. In this case, haditha, Plame Gate, RatherGate, Abu Ghraib, WMDs, UN Resolutions, etc. have clearly demonstrated that the Republicans can have well articulated strategic objectives out the wazoo, it will not matter since all the tactical battles are won by their opponents.

Tet, of course, demonstrated that you can lose out tactically while winning strategically. Although that was partially due to dumb luck and primarily due to allied infiltrators working inside the walls of the US. A spy inside the walls is worth 30 soldiers outside was, I believe, the age old formula.