Writes Dana Loesch (via Instapundit).
What a strange paradox it would be if finding out about the outrageous suppression of the Tea Party led it into self-suppression! It should be invigorated. Let's see how well they do it tomorrow.
There obviously are ways to do it badly. Instapundit warns tea partiers to look out for infiltrators. (Expose them!) And Loesch says:
I don’t want to see a single sign about Obama. I don’t want to see a single sign about Biden. Or FLOTUS. Or vacations. Or anything other than the overreaching power of big government. No signs on anything other than this malicious and criminal behavior was perpetuated by a government too big to be held accountable. It was carried out behind a [veil] of purposeful complexity.So she's saying whatever you do, don't follow Saul Alinsky's Rule 11:
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.Loesch's rule is: Don't identify a responsible individual. Don't make it personal. Attack the abstraction.
पोस्ट्स
१५६ टिप्पण्या:
If this were the Romney Administration, the Lefties would be protesting everything they could. And they would name names.
Give 'em Uncle Saul. Squeeze off their necks with him.
Damn the torpedoes, give 'em Hell.
(and, as my dear old Irish mother loved to say, "The divil hates a coward")
"Don't identify a responsible individual."
That's right because there isn't one. Individuals are not the problem. Ideas, ideology and the laziness of American voters is. Besides, nobody wants to be a racist. Ain't' nobody got time for dat!
Nobody wants to be a racist, and just yesterday Our President revealed that he is black.
Media squirrel? Are you kidding me? The media never even covers conservative protests--they're too busy pretending that conservative protests don't exist. Are there really conservatives who think that the media will cover the protests as a way of deflecting attention from the IRS scandal?
How does that work, anyway, deflecting attention from a scandal by covering protests over the scandal?
Just get out there and show them you're MAD AS HELL AND AIN'T GONNA TAKE IT NO MORE!!!
Not that it'll mean anything to the marxists, but maybe, just maybe it'll wake up the reluctant Republicans as to what their frickin' role is.
Won't matter. The media will report racism and sexism and Nazi thugs even if it never happened.
I'm actually pretty confidant the protests will go well. The tea partiers aren't dumb and they've learned about the danger of infiltrators and mobys. I'd go myself but I have to work and the nearest IRS office is 100 miles away. Perhaps mama, an immigrant and tea partier, will go instead.
DavidD said...
Media squirrel? Are you kidding me? The media never even covers conservative protests--they're too busy pretending that conservative protests don't exist. Are there really conservatives who think that the media will cover the protests as a way of deflecting attention from the IRS scandal?
How does that work, anyway, deflecting attention from a scandal by covering protests over the scandal?
The only time they do go, it's in the hope of hearing somebody call the Messiah (colloquially) a Negro.
ricpic said...
Just get out there and show them you're MAD AS HELL AND AIN'T GONNA TAKE IT NO MORE!!!
Not that it'll mean anything to the marxists, but maybe, just maybe it'll wake up the reluctant Republicans as to what their frickin' role is.
This bears a repeat:
Chuckie Schumer calls RINOs who support his AmnestyCare, "our Republicans" .
This is going to slow down your refund.
It's apparently for the world of narratives, which more or less corresponds to TV.
One of two things will happen:
1. The media will not cover the protests at all.
2. The media will cover the "look at the patriot weirdos" aspect of the protests.
"How does that work, anyway, deflecting attention from a scandal by covering protests over the scandal?"
Every demonstration that is covered by TV attracts "demo trolls", people who try to focus attention on themselves, not the issue. And the media is happy to call them representative. So I plan to go to the demo and hope that there will be Tea Party marshals.
... I went down to the demonstration/
To get my fair share of abuse/
Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration/
If we don't we're gonna blow a 50-amp fuse/"
Its bad enough the IRS wants to see the content of our prayers...
Now Our side wants to sensor us.
Does anybody have an umbrella for us?
It's apparently for the world of narratives, which more or less corresponds to TV...
Yep... the world of the f*up narrative that put a thug in the White House.
No, actually she's not. She's reminding people to stay on message, and the target is overreaching big government, not Obama, his vacations or his moronic veep.
Reading and thinking are difficult, I know. Illogical leaps of fancy are much easier.
the point of the Alinsky rule 11 is that it really doesn't matter if the individual is responsible or guilty, just acuse him of it, vilify him, silence him, and then go on to the next person and repeat.
It may take some time, but eventually you've crushed everyone.
Funny how she explains what she means and you didn't bother to post that part before you went off on your little rant about what she does and doesn't mean.
And then you do sorta put words in her mouth.
Because what she's saying is what the Tea Party is all about: government is too damn big and too damn intrusive. Fuck Barack Obama--he's just the current figurehead. The problem existed before him and will exist after him unless stopped. It's not about your precious half black messiah.
"Barack Obama is the ring leader and figure head, but let’s be real: he’s just one in a long line of many that has driven government to this point. The problem is the cancer of statism that is eating away at our government from within. Polls measuring public opinion show that public already agrees with us. Exit polls from last year showed that Americans overwhelmingly believe the size of government is too big; they just lacked confidence in either party to curtail it.
Focusing on the messenger only excuses the message. This is where the focus must go. This is what the protests should be about: big government. Abolishing the IRS and in its place creating real tax reform."
I agree with Loesch. We can present our arguments on principle without resorting to the theatrics of Alinsky. Besides, the target of the protest is not an individual or any particular group, but policies which sponsor or enable violation of unalienable Rights and Constitutionally protected rights. The progressive transgression of Rights is today committed by one individual or group, but the potential for corruption is not constrained to them.
I think this is what the Chief Justice was trying to tell us in his Obamacare decision - he can't protect us from bad policy choices. We're getting the government we deserve because we don't really fight back. We the people look like easy marks.
Amartel said...
One of two things will happen:
1. The media will not cover the protests at all.
2. The media will cover the "look at the patriot weirdos" aspect of the protests.
I vote for #2.
Especially since the protests are coming right after Virginia Republicans have selected as their candidate for lieutenant governor one E. W. Jackson, whose "rhetorical greatest hits includes assertions that Democrats are peddling the antichrist’s agenda; that Planned Parenthood has done more damage to African Americans than the Ku Klux Klan; that homosexuals are 'frankly very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally'; and that President Obama sees the world 'from a Muslim perspective'.”
"Loesch's rule is: Don't identify a responsible individual. Don't make it personal. Attack the abstraction. "
The problem with this whole mob is that there is no responsible individual, just a few rock-star decision makers and strategists at the top, and thousands of unthinking drones carrying out orders. So nobody is to blame.
Our leaders don't actually implement the stuff they push, they just push. The bureaucrats each do just a little inoffensive bit each day.
I'm starting to think the heretofore anonymous bureaucrats ought to begin getting some sunlight. Publicity for a rockstar is manna, but maybe not so welcome to the guy who chooses to spend his most productive years in a cubicle processing forms. Maybe the time is coming to start making them famous.
Just break out the empty chairs. That's the over-arching metaphor of this administration:
No one is in charge here. The inmates are running the asylum.
The media lurves it some concrete visuals to latch onto, because nobody can pay attention for more than 2 minutes.
It's not about Obama. Sure, he might be the most visible face right now, but for some of us, it is not about him. It is about a mindset, a political perspective about what government is, and what it should be. Please do not add depth to such a shallow personage as Barack Obama. He is simply a snake oil salesman who has harnessed what liberals/progressive think they want and/or can control because of their "intelligence" and "goodness".
And they should trust the media why?
It is about a mindset, a political perspective about what government is, and what it should be.
That's a great place to start. Remember not everyone is going to agree with you. And if they disagree it's probably not grounds to wish that the traitors get cancer and just die already.
BTW, who is this "Alinsky"? Is he like John Galt or something? Such mysterious rallying figures you raise.
So much for this thread subject.
Lydia said...
"... that Planned Parenthood has done more damage to African Americans than the Ku Klux Klan...”
Oh Lydia, poor dear Lydia... this math isn't that hard. 4,000 or so KKK murders (including blacks and whites) in 86 years compared to 154,266 black abortions in a single year.
Have you never wondered why when half the population of some Southern States was black around the time of the Civil War, and yet now blacks constitute about 13% of the population. Where did all the black people go?
"Tuskegee Institute (now University) said 3,446 blacks were killed from 1882 to 1968. "
http://www.africanamericannewsandcommentary.com/2010/12/ku-klux-klan-killed-3446-black-people_12.html
and then we have
TABLE 12. Reported abortions, by known race/ethnicity of women who obtained an abortion and reporting area of occurrence — selected states,* United States, 2009
154,266
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm#Tab12
"That's a great place to start. Remember not everyone is going to agree with you. And if they disagree it's probably not grounds to wish that the traitors get cancer and just die already. "
When you say the same sort of thing about leftists, maybe I'll take you seriously on this subject.
Until then--nah.
CEO-MMP said...
No, actually she's not. She's reminding people to stay on message, and the target is overreaching big government, not Obama, his vacations or his moronic veep.
Reading and thinking are difficult, I know. Illogical leaps of fancy are much easier.
Hate to say it, but you can stay on message and still go after the Choom Gang.
Face it, nobody crystallizes and personifies government run amok the way they do.
This is Chicago, after all.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Oh yeah. Nothing motivates a bunch of selfish and well-fed twats like a claim to victimhood!
Sounds like Ritmo is dissing the Obamaphone woman.
Wait till Althouse finds out.! He'll be banned for life.
Or longer.
The holy grail has now been granted! Tea Partiers are victims! Victory for victimology! Score one! Hooray!!!!!!!
And they are, too, in a way most Americans can readily understand and with which they can empathize.
It's Hell when the tables are turned, isn't it?
We can present our arguments on principle without resorting to the theatrics of Alinsky.
Good point. Tea Partiers are very logical, rational and sensible people. Good folk. Never threatening "second amendment remedies".
Care to name a Tea Party group that's big on Second amendment remedies?
Just a couple, and some documentation.
"The divil hates a coward"
I always thought it was "God hates a coward". Why would the devil hate a coward?
But ed, if it becomes a protest with a bunch of signs about "OBAMA SUCKS"
then the media dismisses it as another tired old racist anti Obama rally.
If the message is the original Tea Party message, it's harder to ignore right now--especially since the media is also a little irked with Obama about the reporter stuff and the IRS stuff.
Not saying the media is ever turning on Barry, just that they're a little more receptive just now.
Is it really off-topic to bring up the fact that no one on the left knows who this "Alinsky", that the right demonizes and upholds as their opponents'/enemies' poster child, is?
Really? Is that why Hillary wrote her senior thesis on the man? Or that various people (including Alinsky's biographer) have mentioned how Alinsky influence Obama?
Jesus you're stupid.
I mean--even for a stupid troll you're stupid.
The Alinsky formula does not work with Obama, because every personal attack can be framed as a racist attack. But more importantly, the Tea Party (or more broadly libertarians) want to attack the system, and the evidence is that the system is to blame. The Mainstream Red Team may want to field a candidate that is 4% less corrupt and 3% more competent (that was basically Romney's pitch). But even if that "wins" it means another 4/8 Bush years. (That may mean something in terms of Supreme court justices, but not IMHO in terms of the other branches.)
The system (of a vast power hungry federal government) is the real problem. We have to attack it. If we keep kicking the can down the road...we'll just have to attack it later.
Is it really off-topic to bring up the fact that no one on the left knows who this "Alinsky"...deprived of a fictional political enemy.
I don't mind pointing out that your intention is to hijack the thread but I really don't have any desire to have a conversation with or answer any questions from you. There's nothing I despise more than a manipulative liar.
That lady seemed more ecstatic than dejected. To say nothing of the fact that it was a program that started before Obama ever took office.
That's kind of true.
Except the part you missed, like how it was limited before and how much it's expanded, and how much money has been dumped into it. To say nothing of how many Obama donors are profiting from it.
Because protesting the IRS's chilling of free speech is such a right wing thing, such a one sided thing.
Progressives are puzzled.
B's right. Ritzy's just a manipulative lying sack of dog shit (props to Meth in another thread) who only wants to hijack any discussion thread around here.
Fuck it. There's no point to engaging with the little cunt.
"What I really want to know is what figures Hillary Clinton wrote essays about in high school. Or junior high. That's really where the left is at, you know. Sifting through obscure thesis essays written by their politicians. Yep. "
College, dickwad. Senior Honors thesis at Wellesly.
Like I said--God you're dumb.
Apparently there were armed Federal Police (according to their arm bands) running around the IRS office in Cincy today.
Including threatening people who might want to talk to the reporters with the loss of their jobs.
CEO-MMP said...
The divil hates a coward
I always thought it was "God hates a coward". Why would the devil hate a coward?
Maybe he wants people to sin big (he did and look what it got him) and a coward hasn't got the nerve for it.
In any case, the saying is Irish and the Irish have their own view of things.
Rhythm and Balls said...
So much for this thread subject.
Is it really off-topic to bring up the fact that no one on the left knows who this "Alinsky", that the right demonizes and upholds as their opponents'/enemies' poster child, is?
Of course they don't. That's why it's your Messiah's favorite book.
I actually agree that piling on is bad tactics here. Squeeze the bureaucrats from the outside, and let the politicos squeeze them from the inside, and the crap that finally explodes will be righteous.
Ritmo will be shocked, shocked:
Demos starting to look for room for Holder under the bus.
Even better:
Bigfoot wants us to believe the IRS didn't intend to harass Tea Partiers.
On replacing Holder:
there are whispers in Mass that Coup Deval Patrick is about to head off to Washington to take the AG job. He says he doesn't want to, but they all do.
The big test will be if he wants to run for POTUS--if he does, he probably won't want to be anywhere near the AG job.
CEO, no Democrat who has any aspirations of being President one day wants any part of the current Administration.
Woodward's Revenge.
In any event, I wish that I had the ability to make decisions solely based on what things "look like", too. But I usually prefer a good fact or two.
And usually made up. Those are the best. My favorite that's been floating around is how violent the Tea Party is. It's like crack to you.
Have you never wondered why when half the population of some Southern States was black around the time of the Civil War, and yet now blacks constitute about 13% of the population. Where did all the black people go?
You don't help your case (which is a real one, especially where late-term abortions are concerned) by attempting to lie with statistics — and deceive so badly and baldly to boot. Of course “half the population of some Southern States” is a very different thing from half the population of the entire United States.
As it happens, the proportion of black slave population in the United States in 1860 was 12.7%, with an additional 1.5% free blacks. Not all that different from the black percentage today, is it?
As to where all those blacks inhabiting Southern states went to, why they moved North, many of them — while lots of others stayed in the South, where many still live today.
Ha. Loesch is not propounding a 'rule' --that's what lawprofs and other provocateurs do. She's just giving advice about how to handle a specific situation. Loesch is following the paradigm of the common law, deciding a specific case and letting the abstract universals take care of themselves. Ann wants to turn her into a French civil law sort, invoking universals without letting the specifics of the situation get in the way.
Red State? Of course. The geniuses that trashed Palin, supported Rick Perry, Romney, and John McCain, and now seem pretty gosh-darned sorta, kinda upset about Amnesty.
Kinda.
There's always been a certain kind of bow-tie-wearing, Burkean, lets not make a fuss, lets not stoop down to their level, "conservative" that's been giving the Right bad advice for 30 years.
Funny, how the liberal never take these kind of hand-wringing wimps seriously. And "conservatives" always do.
The prescription in both cases seems right. If you believe in individualism, fight the group think. If you believe in group think, fight the individual.
rc, I don't know if I'd ascribe the redstate ethos to Dana.
That said--I really don't get why she landed there when she fled the empire formerly run by Andrew.
I kinda figured she'd nestle in with Beck at The Blaze.
Richard Dolan said...
Ha. Loesch is not propounding a 'rule' --that's what lawprofs and other provocateurs do. She's just giving advice about how to handle a specific situation. Loesch is following the paradigm of the common law, deciding a specific case and letting the abstract universals take care of themselves. Ann wants to turn her into a French civil law sort, invoking universals without letting the specifics of the situation get in the way. "
Oh well said, well said sir!
Am I crying? I just think censorship shows the ultimate in political desperation. Don't you?
For those interested, the actual proportion of blacks in the Confederacy was about 3/8.
(1/4 of the slaves were in 1 county, Charleston SC)
Black proportion today is 12% after staying around 14% for the balance of the 19th and all of the 20th centuries.
Black people, sad to say, have been aborting, murdering, and drugging themselves out of existence. Margaret Sanger would be so proud.
Here's another Silver Lining take on the IRS Intimidation program.
It's a nice theory, but I've played poker enough to know that when you're playing someone stupid, never trust they won't double-down on something stupid.
And this Administration is truly stupid.
Will a black IRS agent claim the protesters spat in him?
Will a black IRS agent claim the protesters spat in him?
I know. That's the one thing that ruined it for the Tea Party.
I just think censorship shows the ultimate in political desperation. Don't you?
Absolutely. That you profess the IRS wasn't engaging in it (and that somehow conservatives discussing tactics are engaging in it) shows just how far around the bend you've gone.
I know it's wrong, but this just gives me such a warm and fuzzy.
What do you mean by that?
That's the one thing that ruined it for the Tea Party.
Well, no. First, the whole spit-thing was a lie and exposed as such pretty quickly.
Second, what's bolluxed things for the Tea Party is what's bolluxing things up for the Administration right now; Government agencies abusing their powers.
But the race card will be played every way it can, because well stupid doubles-down on stupid.
How bad is if for Obama? Maureen Dowd smacks down Robert Gibbs for his "tired defense" of Obama.
Rats. Ship. You know how this ends.
Given he proclivities of the press to slant coverage, demonstrations are pretty much worthless for getting small-government points across.
Better to focus energy on organizing for 2014, including setting up 501(c) organizations, while the authorities are likely to be shy of harassing and stalling the applicants.
As far as personalizing is concerned, few people pay attention to abstractions. Alinsky was smart enough to realize this; Ms. Loesh is not. Conservatives keep bringing talking points to a street fight and wonder why they lose.
As far as personalizing is concerned, few people pay attention to abstractions. Alinsky was smart enough to realize this
Personalizing is okay. The problem is your side has a tendency to OVER personalize: everything about Obama is up for ridicule and contempt.
Better one or two themes in my concerned troll opinion. An inability to manage is believable and understandable. Abuse of government power. Not necessarily by Obama but on his watch. You might persuade people with those points.
Instead I'll bet we're going to hear the Worst of the Tea Party. Rude, arrogant, and personal.
But if it's not, I'll admit it wasn't. We'll see.
By the way, tea party protest coverage will get lost in coverage of the Midwest tornadoes, anyway. Stay local and organize.
Instead I'll bet we're going to hear the Worst of the Tea Party. Rude, arrogant, and personal.
The worst of the Tea Party, as described, is pretty much fabricated from whole cloth. Only the New York Times seams interested in seamstress duties these days.
And for those who get it, that is a Discworld joke.
phx said...
Personalizing is okay. The problem is your side has a tendency to OVER personalize: everything about Obama is up for ridicule and contempt.
You are, of course, joking.
Nobody over-personalizes like the Left.
Anybody against it is denounced in the most extreme terms.
That's why Godwin's Law exists.
Instead I'll bet we're going to hear the Worst of the Tea Party. Rude, arrogant, and personal.
They'll try, but they'll end up lying through their teeth to do it.
These are the people who even clean up after themselves, remember?
These are the people who even clean up after themselves, remember?
Well, if you aspire to be thought of more favorably than OWS I wish you luck on your endeavor.
The problem is your side has a tendency to OVER personalize
This is ridiculous. It is the Left that thinks ad hominem is a legitimate means of argumentation. It's baked into the cake, part & parcel of relativism.
This is ridiculous. It is the Left that thinks ad hominem is a legitimate means of argumentation. It's baked into the cake, part & parcel of relativism.
I suspect there's going to be people on both sides who do that, right? Humans on all sides have been doing that long before liberalism as a political identity was realized.
If we agree to that then we can dispute who does it more, or who will get punished (fairly or unfairly) more for it.
Those are questions that are genuinely arguable right? Not some stuff like "Your side argues ad hominems. Our side doesn't."
Nobody hear who thinks of themselves as reasonably intelligent can believe that last preposition, right?
"Attack the abstraction."
She attacks Big Gov. which, unfortunately is not an abstraction.
Reagan never personalized his attacks.
Alinsky and Obama did.
Well, if you aspire to be thought of more favorably than OWS I wish you luck on your endeavor.
There's a reason OWS has disappeared down the memory hole.
So far, no one has come up with evidence that shows that Obama directed the Cincinnati IRS folks to commit the acts they did. I think it unlikely that he did, or thought he needed to. Maybe evidence will be found to link the actions to someone in the White House or to a higher-ranking political appointee in Treasury, but that hasn't happened yet.
We undermine our own position by focusing on things we can't prove. The MSM is already claiming that this issue will die because there's no evidence of White House involvement (I heard George Stephanopolous say this yesterday).
IT'S WRONG FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THIS KIND OF THING, WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN IDENTIFY A CULPRIT WHOSE NAME ANYONE HAS EVER HEARD OF. What kind of government do we have, and do we want to turn more and more power over to it? Focus on that.
Personalizing is okay. The problem is your side has a tendency to OVER personalize
Just ask Scott Walker! Or George Bush! Wait , whadya mean those were progressives with the Hitler signs??
IT'S WRONG FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THIS KIND OF THING, WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN IDENTIFY A CULPRIT WHOSE NAME ANYONE HAS EVER HEARD OF.
I agree that it's actually a better small-government argument to say "this is not because of one person's corruption, this is what powerful government does INHERENTLY". But that is not nearly as dramatic as king-toppling.
Just ask Scott Walker! Or George Bush! Wait , whadya mean those were progressives with the Hitler signs??
Like I said, I don't deny both sides do it. We can debate who gets more from it, or how to turn it into an advantage, or why it hurts one party more than the other.
I think you have to do what The Godfather and some others are doing and find a fighting, noncrazy game plan. You would think this is a time for people in the middle to listen to other voices, to see if they're making sense.
My ideal political commercial would be a list of printed questions on screen about various scandals, each of which would be accompanied by Obama's assertion that "I didn't know" or the equivalent.
The background would be the instrumental to Creedence's "Fortunate One".
I have an idea. Show up without firearms! Please!
PHX and Godfather, I agree. Put the screws to the salaried guys. They're going to bleed leaks that lead to the politicos that dreamed up this glorious strategy.
Because let me tell you, no salaried person with a borderline mortgage put their asses on the line to ask "what's in your member's prayers" without direct supervision on the subject.
Ah, another moby. Hi, Jackson! Check out the water feature.
Wherever it goes you will find moderates like myself looking to see accountability.
I can't speak for anyone really other than myself.
I would be much happier if the protestors held up FLATUS signs.
As Homer Simpson would say, "It works on so many levels."
phx,
It's the right that has a tendency to over personalize? Seriously?
phx said...
Wherever it goes you will find moderates like myself looking to see accountability.
5/20/13, 11:01 PM
I can't speak for anyone really other than myself.
5/20/13, 11:02 PM
This shtick got old quite a while ago.
Understand that I'm just trying to help you get your point across effectively.
It's the right that has a tendency to over personalize? Seriously?
You know I laid out my opening pretty clearly here I thought. Both sides have a tendency to do this, right?
So let's argue why I think it's more damaging to the right. Or if you want to make a case that the left does it more or is more culpable then go ahead.
PHX, I hope so. I hope you will keep thinking that way if it goes all the way up to Obama.
Question: Is it a worst case or a best case scenario if all the things that have happened re: Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS v. Conservatives, A.P. Wiretapping, Fox News persecution, and whatever else may be coming; if all those things just flew under the President's radar?
What are we paying him to do, exactly?
Understand that I'm just trying to help you get your point across effectively.
I'm always open to your assistance, Chip S.
I know. That's why I try to help you out.
@Mark You seem to be making the argument he's a failed manager. You didn't say that but I'm guessing you're all right with that.
The bar is lower to prove he's a poor manager.
I know you've moved far beyond that. I'm just saying if you are honestly going to persuade me.
What do you think Chip S?
I say keep investigating. Put people under oath, and prosecute malfeasance.
I also say this is a thought-provoking article.
PHX, I'm find what you wrote hard to parse, but I think you're positing a false dichotomy, where I'm either saying either Obama is a scoundrel or he's a fool.
The two are not conflicting suppositions.
I think in all likelihood Obama was aware of what was going on in all the scandals.
I also think he's a breathtakingly bad manager.
Whatever opens the eyes of "moderates" or "independents" who really, really want Obama to be on the side of Good, I honestly don't care which argument works. Hell, if Obama had some kind of Come to the Constitution moment and started cleaning house and acting like something other than a failed potentate, I might give him a chance; TFSM knows I don't relish the thought of President Biden.
But the last month isn't a surprise to a lot of us, and a lot of people who really wanted Obama to be the Good Guy and who aren't tied to the Democratic mast are about to leave y'all to wreck on the rocks.
At the Christian Science Monitor, Nicole Hemmer, a research associate at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, has an interesting op-ed piece about America: "[F]or conservatives, fear of federal agencies is rooted in history, not hysteria."
She wrote about the Reuther Memorandum:
"Commissioned by Attorney General Robert Kennedy and penned by labor leader Victor Reuther, the 24-page memo detailed 'possible Administration policies and programs to combat the radical right.'
"Reuther defined the 'radical right' as 'bounded on the left by Senator Goldwater and on the right by [John Birch Society founder] Robert Welch.' And he suggested plenty of ways for the government to curtail the right’s influence, from putting conservatives on the attorney general’s subversive list to using the Federal Communications Commission to limit their airtime.
"But the administration’s real power, Reuther argued, lay with the IRS. Conservative media and organizations needed money to function. Therefore, 'action to dam up these funds may be the quickest way to turn the tide' against right-wing groups."
Link (copy and paste):
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0517/After-IRS-scandal-Right-wing-fear-of-government-isn-t-paranoid
Some have suggested to employ the customary prosecutorial techniques to flush out the guilty in the current scandals: put the underlings under oath and grill them before a grand jury to name the higher ups responsible. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Could this work? It's pretty to think so but remember, the Department of Holder would do the grilling.
Alinsky >>> Loech, old Saul knew what he was talking about.
Unknown spotlights the key dilemma here, we are dependent on the "Dept of Holder" (I like that!) and his minions in the local U.S. Attnys office in the various jurisdictions under discussion to initiate any FBI investigation. And while the FBI field agents would undoubtedly do an excellent investigative job the problem is getting anyone to the investigative starting-line in the first place. I'm afraid this is an insoluble problem as from Obama down everyone totally lacks a sense of shame and WILL NOT be pressured to move to action as they--to a man--believe themselves to be those with--to use words so fittingly coined by Thomas Sowell--"The Vision of The Anointed."
Such people are not easily swayed from their sacred mission to--if need be--"march us all to virtue at bayonet-point."
phx Sez:
Personalizing is okay. The problem is your side has a tendency to OVER personalize: everything about Obama is up for ridicule and contempt.
I think that's correct. Bush was a Nazi, blah, blah, blah, but Obama is the titular head of group think, and everything anti individual. Or at least, those things that make individuals strong.
So naturally, when you have a person looking out for the "little guy," but on the backs of those evil rich white people, it's going to seem a lot worse. Than say, going after a guy telling you to stand up and be a man.
I don't see how these two philosophies can co-exist. In fact, I don't see how the "We are going to take all the money and redistribute it" can survive long term.
So there you have it, phx. One element is destructive, and demands not only equal time, but special consideration. The folks on the other side doing the personal responsibility thing are slowing being dragged under, by the cheap, lazy thinking give me something for nothing crowd. Or the grievances crowd.
And now we're hearing that a bunch of Obama's people knew about the impending IG report a month ago (and for some, even longer) and had meetings with Treasury on how to respond. But, but -- they tell us -- they just didn't clue in Obama.
Seriously? They sure needed Obama to personally approve the 3 bonuses for the IRS Tax-Exempt Division's boss, since her bonuses exceeded $25k in 2010, 2011, and 2012.
http://www.volokh.com/2013/05/17/no-the-irs-is-not-an-independent-agency/
But anyway, why do we even need a president who tells his people keep him so clueless? Obama must really really believe in the notion of "too big to fail."
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/20/carney-no-seriously-obamas-lawyer-didnt-tell-him-that-the-irs-was-targeting-tea-partiers-when-she-found-out/
Unknown said...
Some have suggested to employ the customary prosecutorial techniques to flush out the guilty in the current scandals: put the underlings under oath and grill them before a grand jury to name the higher ups responsible. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Could this work? It's pretty to think so but remember, the Department of Holder would do the grilling.
No, he wouldn't.
In Federal court, it would be a US Attorney, but, Congress can also do it.
Remember what the meaning of "is" is.
Gosh Dana if we don't call em out how will they know they've been bad.
Constitutional rights have been violated.
Lets name names.Hey Hey Ho Ho Eric Holder has to go!
And just for shits and giggles lets Keep Hillary's name in the spotlight. ruin her chances for 2016.
Oh.
And the guy who was captain of the Exxon Valdez. What's his name?
PHX, I'm find what you wrote hard to parse, but I think you're positing a false dichotomy, where I'm either saying either Obama is a scoundrel or he's a fool.
That was my fault. I get that you think he's a horrible manager and I'm not faulting anyone for thinking that. I think there's a lot of evidence he has some great managerial and leadership skills. My contention is the record is mixed.
I'm looking for a Tea Party that reaches out beyond its base to independents, even moderates, to make its case.
I know the TP has been disrespected in terrible ways, but I'm also tired of being called a "low-information voter" and a moron because I like Obama and have a different understanding of constitutional principles.
phx said...
Wherever it goes you will find moderates like myself looking to see accountability. "
You're not a moderate. Moderates don't say "your side" to people who lean right while ignoring or "no big dealing" everything left of right.
That you say "your side" interchangeably to people who're Republican, Conservative, Libertarian or other--as long as they express any sort of rightward thought--pretty much means you're not a moderate. Moderates are scairt of both sides. That's why they're moderates.
phx sez:
"
I know the TP has been disrespected in terrible ways, but I'm also tired of being called a "low-information voter" and a moron because I like Obama and have a different understanding of constitutional principles."
Compare/contrast with some of what you said last night. Also with some of what you didn't argue with (you only argue with rights, not lefts).
Further, two things (genuine questions): 1. How can you like Obama? It's not just you, it's anyone with a brain, you're just the one standing here. I get why the Obamaphone lady likes him (although I think she backed off that?), but why would anyone else like him?
2. How can you have a different understanding of Constitutional principles? The Constitution is pretty straight forward. It was written by men who were pretty smart, and they were clear. They were also clear in their writings around the Constitution.
"I'm also tired of being called a "low-information voter" and a moron"
You could try not taking things so personally. Light a candle, don't curse the darkness!
Phx: The personal attacks on Obama are the natural out growth of the politics that have been successful the last two presidential cycles. Romney and McCain were famously un-personal in their attacks. They tried to refrain from making it personal and nasty; Obama, on the other hand, had no problems accusing Romney of crimes and did not speak up when people accused McCain of exaggerating the torture he received and made fun of the fact McCain couldn't lift his arms to type properly in political ads.
Republicans at the grass roots level took away this lesson: The politics is personal, and demonization works better than rational, cogent arguments.
For people who say they want things to be less personal? Well, for those that voted for Obama, their actions speak differently.
I think there's a lot of evidence he has some great managerial and leadership skills.
I'd have to ask you to back that up. I'll grant that he's good at winning elections, but then again, look at the candidates he's beaten, and the tactics he's used to beat them. Otherwise, how has he shown any leadership or managerial skill?
As for investigating: If we went through what, nearly a year plus, investigating who told a reporter that someone who the reporter -- and the entire social elite party circle in D.C. -- already knew was a CIA agent, only to jail the wrong guy, since Armitage walked free, I think we can spare equal or more time digging up who lied to Congress and tried to silence the administration's enemies.
You could try not taking things so personally. Light a candle, don't curse the darkness!
Thanks Paco. I really don't take it too personally. For one thing, I can always tell I'm loved here.
You're not a moderate.
I disagree. You can be a moderate righty or a moderate lefty. You can also be a total centrist, but that's not me. I'm moderate to the left.
The folks on the other side doing the personal responsibility thing are slowing being dragged under, by the cheap, lazy thinking give me something for nothing crowd. Or the grievances crowd.
I see myself as part of the personal responsibility folks, the other two categories not so much. And yet, I support Obama. I don't think that's incompatible.
How can you have a different understanding of Constitutional principles? The Constitution is pretty straight forward. It was written by men who were pretty smart, and they were clear. They were also clear in their writings around the Constitution.
People can be strict or loose constructionists, for example.
I think there's a lot of evidence he has some great managerial and leadership skills.
The recent scandals , I think, prove otherwise.
I think he's a master at getting other people to think he's connected.
A manipulator.
Republicans at the grass roots level took away this lesson: The politics is personal, and demonization works better than rational, cogent arguments.
That's the wrong lesson to take away, IMO.
phx said...
You're not a moderate.
I disagree. You can be a moderate righty or a moderate lefty. You can also be a total centrist, but that's not me. I'm moderate to the left. "
LOL. Yeah...that's true I suppose. And these days you can be ashockingly far out crazy beyond belief full on redistribution gimme gimme baby and be moderate over on the left side.
The recent scandals , I think, prove otherwise.
This is the time for righties to step up and make their case in a sane, rational, non-abusive manner.
Heh. Be careful, phx. Before you know it, you'll have moderated yourself right out of the left and become a republican.
Why--you could be the next Ronald Reagan!
phx said...
Republicans at the grass roots level took away this lesson: The politics is personal, and demonization works better than rational, cogent arguments.
That's the wrong lesson to take away, IMO.
Bitch at your side then.
McCain refused to even mention Barry's middle name. Meanwhile, Barry was secretly getting sealed divorce records unsealed to smear a senate rival.
Apparently it works. YOu don't like it--stop rewarding them with your support.
I don't agree. The order to target conservatives and tea party groups came down from on high right after 2010 (or before).
phx said...
The recent scandals , I think, prove otherwise.
This is the time for righties to step up and make their case in a sane, rational, non-abusive manner. "
Sure. Then all the mouth breathers on the left will tune into Jon Stewart and Colbert and Maher and every sit-com on NBC and what will happen?
Oh yeah. The "righties" and their "sane, rational, non abusive" selves will be marginalized by the foulest of ridicule...coming from...wait for it...the left.
Tired of double standards.
"That's the wrong lesson to take away, IMO."
-- How so? They've seen that it works, brutally. They saw how O'Donnell and Angle were attacked and cost two very winnable seats, even if they were less than ideal candidates, what hurt them was the rampant vileness that pulled them down. Palin's future political life was cut short due to the reactionaries within the left. The right has seen that you need to, as the president says, not bring a knife to a gun fight.
They learned the right lesson if -winning elections- is important.
Bitch at your side then.
Is it that you don't want any pushback here?
Hell, Romney was accused, literally, of criminally negligent homicide in the last election and the left enjoyed it. There's no rational reason for the Tea Party -- again, if their goal is to win elections to influence political decisions -- not to play as dirty as the left has, because for the past 8-plus years (well, more like 16, Bush only won because Gore and Kerry were really that bad), they've seen that -being nice to people who would use the government to silence and intimidate you costs you elections.-
Remember: People actually made movies where killing the president was cool back when Bush was in charge. The left has no leg to stand on in the civility debate, and the right has kicked their own legs out because expediency is more important than principle for people who want to win elections.
Tired of double standards.
I get tired of the double standards from a lot of righties here at Althouse. I still reach out, don't I?
Hell, Romney was accused, literally, of criminally negligent homicide in the last election and the left enjoyed it. There's no rational reason for the Tea Party -- again, if their goal is to win elections to influence political decisions -- not to play as dirty as the left has, because for the past 8-plus years (well, more like 16, Bush only won because Gore and Kerry were really that bad), they've seen that -being nice to people who would use the government to silence and intimidate you costs you elections.-
Sane people have to argue over the heads of the crazies on either side. That too is a battle that needs to be fought, with prizes to be won.
Except, see, the right -tried that.- They were punished for it by constantly being dragged out by the left to condemn the crazies on the right, while the crazies on the left get ignored or praised by the left. Remember Palin being accused of having people shout nasty things at her rally, and us later finding out, well, no, actually, no one shouted that? There was never an apology, and most people still believe it happened.
On the left, we had a congressman during Bush's tenure actually say that Bush wanted soldiers to get shot during a speech in Congress. He was not shunned by the left.
The right has seen how the left operates, and seen that it is successful. It is too late for the left to insist on civility from the right until it cleans its own house; the right has shown it can do so to its own, as Romney and McCain's leadership showed.
The left, however, has yet to show the same sort of organized discipline.
"Is it that you don't want any pushback here?"
No, I want honesty and even-handedness. Maybe even a smidgen of fairness once in a while.
"I get tired of the double standards from a lot of righties here at Althouse. I still reach out, don't I? "
Except for a very few, there isn't really much in the way of a double standard here.
What you're calling a double standard is just the people who lean right wanting a little bit of accountability from the left.
You've sort of set yourself up as a spokesman for how wrong you think the right is. That means you're fair game for how wrong the left is.
Do you remember the black congressman who claimed he was spat on and taunted with "nigger nigger" during the big gavel duck walk with Nancy?
Do you remember that Breitbart offered a large sum of money (to charity, I think the United Negro College Fund) if anyone could come up with any proof?
With all the cameras there, no one could offer proof. In fact, just the opposite.
Yet still--STILL--you'll find people mentioning how evil the righties are, why they even spat on a black congresscritter and called him nigger.
I think Andrew raised the money up to $100,000. You'd think they could manufacture evidence for that much cash.
Maybe even a smidgen of fairness once in a while.
You sound like a teenage girl here. I never ask for fairness. I appreciate reason and a decent sense of good will. If I personally haven't given you that then I'm sorry. I'll continue to work on it.
I usually approve of Dana Loesch's train of thought, but her excessively timid and abstract recommendations here do nothing to enhance the success of a street protest.
Sorry, Dana, but street protests are a form of implied thuggery, not a sculpture exhibition. Unlike the lefties, I wouldn't expect the tea parties to block traffic and bust glass, but to employ Alinsky tactics against their inventors is the most effective thing they can do.
You've sort of set yourself up as a spokesman for how wrong you think the right is. That means you're fair game for how wrong the left is.
Do you remember the black congressman who claimed he was spat on and taunted with "nigger nigger" during the big gavel duck walk with Nancy?
Do you remember that Breitbart offered a large sum of money (to charity, I think the United Negro College Fund) if anyone could come up with any proof?
With all the cameras there, no one could offer proof. In fact, just the opposite.
Yet still--STILL--you'll find people mentioning how evil the righties are, why they even spat on a black congresscritter and called him nigger.
I think Andrew raised the money up to $100,000. You'd think they could manufacture evidence for that much cash.
This is where you start expecting me to have an opinion or defend or attack stuff I have no idea about, isn't it?
I never expect you to have to defend anything. I don't think you understand that yet.
Phx: No, they're not expecting you to have an opinion. They're trying to inform you of things that you either don't know about, or cause you to recall things you know but don't have at hand. The whole point is to try and show -why- the right has finally descended in the past few years into embracing the dirty politics at the grassroots level; it is a response to being treated unfairly for years and all attempts to be sane and polite being rebuffed.
Sort of like the minister's daughter; if he keeps accusing her of being slutty, eventually, she figures, might as well do it anyway.
No, you don't do you.
You just post about how "the righties" should do this or that or something else, like roll over meekly and show their pink puppy bellies.
So I'm telling you the same thing. Funny how it's all cool one way but not the other.
And phx, I apologize. I forgot your post yesterday (?) where you said something along the lines of how uninformed you actually are about things.
Insufficiently Sensitive said...
I usually approve of Dana Loesch's train of thought, but her excessively timid and abstract recommendations here do nothing to enhance the success of a street protest.
Sorry, Dana, but street protests are a form of implied thuggery, not a sculpture exhibition. Unlike the lefties, I wouldn't expect the tea parties to block traffic and bust glass, but to employ Alinsky tactics against their inventors is the most effective thing they can do. "
You're missing the point. Just cuz Ann says she's not doing Alinksy doesn't mean she isn't.
And the target is the IRS and overreaching government. Obama is a symptom.
So by keeping their eyes on the IRS, that's Alinsky. By having sigs against Nancy and Barry and CBS News--the focus is blunted badly.
Just because Ann doesn't get Alinsky doesn't mean we all have to be stupid.
You sound like a teenage girl here. I never ask for fairness. I appreciate reason and a decent sense of good will. If I personally haven't given you that then I'm sorry. I'll continue to work on it. "
LOL. I knew I shouldn't have put "fairness" in my list.
Phx: No, they're not expecting you to have an opinion. They're trying to inform you of things that you either don't know about, or cause you to recall things you know but don't have at hand. The whole point is to try and show -why- the right has finally descended in the past few years into embracing the dirty politics at the grassroots
Matthew I already stipulated how crazies on both sides do bad stuff. See my post @10:32 for instance.
I think it's a losing strategy to embrace the bad ethics of your opponents, even if it SEEMS to be working for them.
LOL. I knew I shouldn't have put "fairness" in my list.
;D
You just post about how "the righties" should do this or that or something else, like roll over meekly and show their pink puppy bellies.
There's nothing wrong with me doing that at all. I have never claimed I was going to be evenhanded in my selective comments.
I do claim that if I expect Republicans to live up to a principle I also expect Democrats to live up to the same principle. But that's different.
"I think it's a losing strategy to embrace the bad ethics of your opponents, even if it SEEMS to be working for them."
Seems to be working for them?
Did you type that with a straight face?
:)
Phx: The problem is that the right sees the left suffering no consequences. If you saw that everyone else you know could eat your favorite dessert for every meal and have no ill consequences, why wouldn't you give it a try? This was actually my biggest prediction if McCain lost; the small wall within the Republican party that was holding civility in check on their side would crack.
It took Romney losing for it to really burst, but yeah. The right is going to try to beat the left at its own game; it worked in the 2010 elections, and it may work again in 2014. And, really? There's a lot of people to blame, but I'm not surprised.
The right is going to try to beat the left at its own game;
Well, good luck. As a strategy it doesn't seem that impressive to me.
I also think it's going to continue to tear the right apart b/c there are a lot of righties who don't go along with that.
They dynamics on the right are very complicated right now.
We'll see; it seems that in dispersed elections where the party isn't squashing the grassroots, their appeals work (see the victory in 2010 vs. the loss in 2012.) Right now, the old guard in the party are keeping the calls for the long knives in check. I doubt it will last much longer, but then again, we keep electing divisive people, so you get division.
Well, good luck. As a strategy it doesn't seem that impressive to me.
Does it seem impressive for the Democrats?
Certainly negative politics works, especially if it is truth based.
I can understand why a dem partisan such as phx would fear the gop loudly speaking the truth about the execrable Obama. As far as persuading dems like phx, it is very unlikely cuz most dems belong to preferential interest groups (PIGs) who benefit economically from preferential treatment from the fed gov. They are going to hold their nose and vote dem cuz their livelihood depends on it (or they are just too biased or stupid or ignorant to understand reality). There are very few lefties like Althouse who are intellectually and psychologically capable of seeing things with an open mind.
The gop should impeach Obama so they can thoroughly investigate and expose the profound political corruption of this regime.
I disagree. You can be a moderate righty or a moderate lefty. You can also be a total centrist, but that's not me. I'm moderate to the left.
Wrong. 100% wrong and self-serving.
You can be a moderate republican or a moderate democrat but republican and democrat are not terms synonymous with right and left. You can be a liberal republican or a liberal democrat. Moderate and liberal describe nothing more than personal stances on specific issues. There are people on both the right and left who try to conflate the terms right and left with republican and democrat but that is lazy and self-serving when done by either side.
The synonymous terms for right and left are conservative and progressive. That is about social engineering and only about specific issues when applied to that concept.
And you are no moderate. I have seen no posts from you that have not indicated a liberal viewpoint.
You may not be a progressive, but you are in no proper sense of the word a moderate.
You can be a moderate republican or a moderate democrat but republican and democrat are not terms synonymous with right and left. You can be a liberal republican or a liberal democrat. Moderate and liberal describe nothing more than personal stances on specific issues. There are people on both the right and left who try to conflate the terms right and left with republican and democrat but that is lazy and self-serving when done by either side.
The synonymous terms for right and left are conservative and progressive. That is about social engineering and only about specific issues when applied to that concept.
Well I'll defer to your understanding of what all those terms mean then. I'm going by what I thought were common denotations but I'm no political scientist.
I think I'm a moderate but if someone can demonstrate that I'm wrong I'll defer to that, too.
I don't really know what a progressive is. Wasn't Teddy Roosevelt a progressive?
I don't really think of myself as a liberal either. I'm just a moderate who leans more towards Dem positions.
Phx seems to be a nice lady. I don't claim that she is extreme compared to other dems but that she is extremely partisan and trying to persuade her is most likely a waste of time.
Indies can be persuaded.
Dems tend to be more strictly partisan (i.e echoing the dem party line) in their political thinking and gop voters tend to be more ideological or philosophical or principled in their political thinking.
For example, a majority of gop voters are constitutional conservatives and examine most political issues from that perspective.
Dems, otoh, are a collection of privileged interest groups (PIGs) whose fundamental political philosophy is that government can be used to extract preferential treatment for themselves and their political allies (i.e. other PIGs). There isn't much need to know much about the underlying issues or to be overly concerned with political theory or even to understand the facts, dems just need to know how their fellow PIGs feel about an issue. Dems examine every issue from a political win/lose perspective rather than a philosophical perspective which explains why institutions dominated by dems are inevitably corrupt (i.e. cuz dems put partisan politics ahead of all else).
We'll know the nature of things by the presence of children and American flags. The two things I saw had lots of children learning by exposure respect for process. It's not a political party, it's a mindset with a respect for authoritah. They do know what they break they will pay for. They already have broad appeal. I expect to see "victim-of" and "parent-to" government, signage, at once. And of course the yellow snake flag.
Funny how the Gadsden flag is now associated with the tea party and the tea party is associated with regular political Parties. So that the flag is rejected as a political statement even in situations where it is not making a statement, where it is representing it simple historical self, that is, the flag is reacted to, recoiled from, where one recoils from the tea party mindset. There was an item about that last week.
I'm on Broadway at 12th, and the Denver demonstration is on Broadway at 20th, it's mathematical, you see, 20 minus 12 is something like 8. That is 40 minutes from now.
"Fasci" is Italian for "bundles". Mussolini was a lifelong communist/Marxist/socialist, just like his dad. He was a big deal in the Italian communist party but despaired that the Italian communist party would ever be politically successful in Italy and felt that class struggle just didn't sell that well in Italy. Mussolini decided that adding nationalism and racism to Marxism would make it more successful in Italy (and he was right).
Mussolini called this new variant of Marxism/communism/socialism "Fascism", based on the Italian word "fasci", which means "bundle" in English.
Mussolini's Fascist party was a fasci (aka bundle) of different political groups.
Fast forwarding to 2013, the dems' political strategy is quite fascist in that it relies on bundling PIGs, is leftist, and employs racial discrimination and leftist class warfare to achieve political goals. The dems are obviously less nationalistic than Mussolini's fascists were and have added gender discrimination to the mix (i.e. using affirmative action to discriminate against white males and reward dem PIGs) but the dems borrowed lot from Mussolini. He figured out how to organize fasci/bundles of lefty PIGs into a political party that could win an election.
The members of the PIGs in the dem fasci don't really need to know or care much about political ideology, cuz they know that their PIG will be rewarded if the dems win. Discussing politics with them is a waste of time.
What they don't realize (cuz they are so ignorant of history, etc) is that fascists add/delete PIGs to their fasci based on the prevailing political reality. Once fascists have achieved overwhelming political power, they can use the power of the government to reward their friends, punish their political enemies (as Obama is doing already), and stay in power permanently. Indeed, this is the whole point of fascism. Once they have achieved sufficient dominance, fascist dems may decide they no longer need numerically small PIGs such as gays or Jews. Once the fascists no longer need the unions, they may decide that it would be easier to govern without the unions.
The protectors of the constitution are the most reliable friends of these PIGs that are likely to be betrayed by the dems when they have achieved political dominance.
That's some fantasy interpretation of the world you got going there Steve Koch.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा