Dear Suckers, uh. . . democrats, you’ve been had. . . again. Obama just appointed Mary Jo White to head the SEC. She’s a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York who “has experience policing Wall Street.” Clearly, she’s gonna put a boot up Wall Street’s ass, right?! What an amazing victory for the little people. Cue the lamenting Republicans... “Boo hoo hoo, Obama’s anti-Big Bank!! Boo hoo hoo. Who will protect these vulnerable banks?!” Good grief.
Let me give you a couple facts about our jackbooted anti-Wall Street thug. These are things you won’t hear because it doesn’t fit the narrative of either party:
So, what’s the point to bringing this up? The point is simple. This is the precise sort of thing conservatives should be mocking... and I mean that term precisely. This is not something conservatives should fight by trying to hold up her nomination. Nor should conservatives try to attack her from a pro-Big Bank perspective. Indeed, doing that will only convince Democratic supporters that they were right in selecting her.
Instead, the proper approach with a nominee like this, who flies in the face of the image the Democrats try to sell of being opposed to Wall Street, is to mock their supporters. Call them suckers for believing the rhetoric that the Democrats oppose Wall Street and the Big Banks when they really pimp for them. And then walk away after you mock them.
Trust me on this, condescension stings. It’s the one form of attack that is guaranteed to raise blood pressure and get the other side upset because it makes people feel like you don’t respect them at a fundamental level. Moreover, because mocking someone presents a picture of total indifference, there is no avenue for liberals to alleviate their frustration by counterattacking conservatives. Instead, they will direct their frustration at the person who made them look like a fool... Obama. That’s human nature.
If you want to break the Democrat’s PR about them fighting the big guy on behalf of the common man, and you want to force them to actually need to follow through on their rhetoric, this is the only approach that will work. This is the only approach that is guaranteed to cause dissention in Democratic ranks.
Laughter is not only the best medicine, it’s also one of the most powerful weapons. Conservatives should learn to use it.
Let me give you a couple facts about our jackbooted anti-Wall Street thug. These are things you won’t hear because it doesn’t fit the narrative of either party:
1. Mary Jo White was indeed a prosecutor who prosecuted securities crimes. Yep. Then she switched sides. White is currently the head of litigation at Debevoise & Plimpton. D&P is an international law firm based in New York. They have 700 attorneys and they represent some of the biggest companies in the world. In particular, they represent Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley, along with Goldman Sachs, is one of the big corrupt players who control our Treasury, the SEC and pretty much the banking system.This, of course, fits everything the Democrats and the Republicans do. This is also becoming a pattern with the Democrats. I know conservatives want to see the Democrats as crazed ideologues, but their actions say something different. Their actions tell us the rhetoric is just a smokescreen to hide a party that appoints Wall Street stooges to regulate Wall Street, crafts environmental laws to help donor companies like GE sell their products, crafts a healthcare reform bill to hand the health insurance system to insurance companies, creates fake gun control measures to drain the suckers, promises massive change in foreign policy but continues Bush’s policies, promises to jack up taxes on the rich but only raises them 3% if that -- less than they raised middle class taxes, and so on.
Imagine that, Morgan Stanley’s lawyer gets appointed to run the SEC and regulate Morgan Stanley’s trading! How can this be? Is Bush back in the White House?
2. In October 2008, the SEC’s Inspector General issued a report critical of the SEC’s enforcement chief for providing to Mary Jo White evidence the SEC had gathered against her client, John Mack, the CEO of Morgan Stanley, for insider training.
Why is this important? Because this shows that White was willing to use her contacts at the SEC to improperly help her client. This suggests that White is hardly an ideologue, but is instead a paid whore for her client. In fact, you don’t rise to be head of litigation at a firm like D&P unless you have a certain moral flexibility that favors your clients, i.e. you’re a whore.
So, what’s the point to bringing this up? The point is simple. This is the precise sort of thing conservatives should be mocking... and I mean that term precisely. This is not something conservatives should fight by trying to hold up her nomination. Nor should conservatives try to attack her from a pro-Big Bank perspective. Indeed, doing that will only convince Democratic supporters that they were right in selecting her.
Instead, the proper approach with a nominee like this, who flies in the face of the image the Democrats try to sell of being opposed to Wall Street, is to mock their supporters. Call them suckers for believing the rhetoric that the Democrats oppose Wall Street and the Big Banks when they really pimp for them. And then walk away after you mock them.
Trust me on this, condescension stings. It’s the one form of attack that is guaranteed to raise blood pressure and get the other side upset because it makes people feel like you don’t respect them at a fundamental level. Moreover, because mocking someone presents a picture of total indifference, there is no avenue for liberals to alleviate their frustration by counterattacking conservatives. Instead, they will direct their frustration at the person who made them look like a fool... Obama. That’s human nature.
If you want to break the Democrat’s PR about them fighting the big guy on behalf of the common man, and you want to force them to actually need to follow through on their rhetoric, this is the only approach that will work. This is the only approach that is guaranteed to cause dissention in Democratic ranks.
Laughter is not only the best medicine, it’s also one of the most powerful weapons. Conservatives should learn to use it.
Some lawyers ar unethical?
ReplyDeleteI take it you mean "some lawyers are ethical?" And the answer to that is... well, no. But some are more ethical than others. :)
ReplyDeleteLawyers don't hurt people--people with lawyers hurt people.
ReplyDeleteFor non-criminal issues, there should be a 90 day waiting period before you can get one.
LOL! Nice! "People with lawyers hurt people." :)
ReplyDeleteWe should also restrict the caliber of lawyers.
There used to be a show on the Fox News channel called "The Half Hour News Hour". It was funny and it was right on target. It mocked the ACLU, AGW and mercury filled eco-lights. It would be the perfect place to mock the Obama administration on a weekly basis ala "That was the Week that Was".
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, there didn't appear to be a sufficiently large conservative audience to support such a program as it went off the air after only a few episodes. Some of the alumni are with Greg Gutfield now which at least seems to be doing well enough to survive.
K, I think one of the problems with the conservative mindset is that it compartmentalizes politics. Conservatives see politics in the same way they see going to an accountant or a dentist -- its something that happens in a certain place (Washington) following certain procedures and with strong boundaries on acceptable conduct, and which you only think about at certain times of the year.
ReplyDeleteConservatives don't seem to grasp that politics can be played in many different ways and that everything is ultimately political. That's why they are blind to things like the danger of losing Hollywood or the media until it's too late.
I still remember conservatives scoffing at Clinton for going on the Tonight Show because they felt it was "beneath the dignity of the office"... they didn't get the connection he understood between engaging pop culture and being popular and how that would then reflect back into politics.
That's one thing Andrew Breitbart really understood.
Andrew, you are absolutely right regarding the conservative mindset. It is honorable, even lovable, but at odds with the world.
ReplyDeleteBut due to their mindset, most liberals will not see the problem either.
First, they have been trained to notice her gender. "To focus mainly on the whole" as a British comedian once put it.
Second, it does not really contradict their ultimate goal.
Conservatives still think the problem is that leftwing policies have unintended outcomes. But what is the intended outcome? You all know that what the left says and what it wants are two different things.
The Left hates their inherited society, if it is a society of free markets, traditional values and independent citizens. They want a system where everthing that matters is planned, designed, controlled, directed by a ruling class. Then they have a system that their little minds can handle.
Once that point is reached, the goal is stasis, not progress. They outcome in terms of the general welfare is irrelevant.
Crony capitalism is the logical synthesis of reality and left-wing thought. You still have corporations, but they act in concert with the state and their heads are part of the same ruling class. That way all contradictions are dissolved.
Andrew....Obviously I agree with your point that conservatives should be mocking the left for this and all the other contradictory and hypocritical statements and actions they do every day. My question is...how? How should they mock it? Who should mock them? If you say repub lawmakers, you already know the answer to that option. If we say, conserv pundits, you know that no one repeats what they say and it would all be politically "biased" anyway. If we say conserv talk radio, this is what they do on a daily basis, yet we have to deal with all the other baggage/issues/approaches that talk radio brings to the fight.
ReplyDeleteSo, I ask you....how do we conservs mock these buffoons as the fools and hypocrites they are? You have been consistent in your condemnation of the repubs, talk radio and pundits, so who is left who will take this mockery to the left?
I really am at a loss as I mostly agree with your arguments on the current political climate and politicians in general, but I really would like to know who will be the front line in this mockery? And you can't claim leading conservs as I don't recall you ever identifying who the leaders of the conservative movement are these days.
I would nominate Jindal, Rubio and Cruz to start in the news right now, but do you really think they will resort to mockery of the sort you advocate?
I think this has been the problem we conservs have had for years...who speaks for the movement and can get our points of view out there in front of the general public. Anyone who has stepped forward since Reagan has been either ignored, marginalized or ridiculed in their own right by the left.
So, who do we conservs rally around as the voice of the movement who can begin the mocking you so aptly write about?!
Interesting article. A party accusing its rival of hyprocritical moderation would certainly be the opposite of the strategy normally employed by both parties.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure mockery causes dissension. Parties tend to forgive people who win competitive elections quite a bit (guys in safe seats are held to stricter standards).
If Obama had lost in 2012 he would have become a figure of scorn among many liberals and Democrats, but he squeaked out a victory and the Democrats won a few seats they weren't expecting to, so he isn't going to have anybody who matters (sorry, Cornel West) going after him.
Likewise, Bush's popularity among conservatives strongly correlates to how well Republicans did in election years (2000-2004 he had a lot of fans, from 2006 onwards, he became cancer in the eyes of the party).
In politics, success has many fathers and failure isn't merely an orphan, it is a friendless orphan whose former friends disavow all knowledge of its existence.
[1] OT: the Daily Caller headline about Weiner is distracting!
ReplyDelete[2] I think mockery is an excellent battle plan. It needs to be carefully styled so that it is clear that the ones being mocked are the Dem followers, not the candidate ('cause that'd backfire). I think Sarah Palin would be a good one for this position - she's been the mock-ee, she's not running for anything specifically, she's news when she talks. And gender can't count against her...
[3] we really need to have that secret conservatives club meeting where everyone can know the game plan so when the mocking commenced no one on the right side of the aisle (in office, talk radio, or in the blogosphere) will start throwing mud at their "own"... why haven't the Koch brothers gotten on that?
El Gordo, I think that crony capitalism is actually what the left is striving for -- at least the elites. Elite leftists have seen that pure socialism doesn't it. It grinds down the economy until it explodes and then they end up with their backs against the wall.
ReplyDeleteThey do, however, think that fascism works. So their goal is a world of capitalist institutions, e.g. business, all strictly under their control. Thus, they think, the economy won't grind down because capitalism is still in place, but it does their bidding and they can control everyone and grow rich. They see that as the ideal state.
But the rank and file aren't like that. Rank and file liberals believe in capitalism only "happier"... they aren't sure what that means except freedom for themselves, control of "bad people" and "fairness." Progressives believe in socialism and punishment for the rich.
I think that disconnect between elites and the rank and file would be easy to exploit. And I think a constant stream of pointing out how the Democrats are exactly the opposite of their rhetoric would eventually cause a schism between them and their supports and between liberals and progressives.
Patriot:So, I ask you....how do we conservs mock these buffoons as the fools and hypocrites they are?
ReplyDeleteOne possibility:
LINK
K said...
ReplyDeleteThere used to be a show on the Fox News channel called "The Half Hour News Hour". It was funny and it was right on target. It mocked the ACLU, AGW and mercury filled eco-lights. It would be the perfect place to mock the Obama administration on a weekly basis ala "That was the Week that Was".
Unfortunately, there didn't appear to be a sufficiently large conservative audience to support such a program as it went off the air after only a few episodes. Some of the alumni are with Greg Gutfield now which at least seems to be doing well enough to survive.
-----
In fairness, the Half Hour News Show wasn't the last foray Republicans made into comedy. Right now Greg Gutfeld is involved with two shows on Fox (Red Eye and The Five) both of which have been around for a bit. And there's also Adam Carolla (podcast guy) and Dennis Miller (no idea what he's up to these days).
All three guys are libertarian and two are agnostic/athiest, so they might not be Republican party's dream picks, but they are certainly the most popular comedians who identify themselves as conservative or Republican.
Patriot, That's the problem. The conservative world is not going to get this any time soon.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the great things about Ann Coulter when she first came along and then Andrew Brietbart is that they understood this. They were great at pointing things like this out, and that really got under leftist skins. Unfortunately, Ann Coulter alone is not enough.
You are right that our politicians won't do this because it flies in the face of their mindset. They think that being a politician is about appearing honorable and "being the only adult in the room" -- plus, they share the same donors as the Democrats.
The pundits won't do it because they come from the same mindset and think they need to appear "learned."
As for talk radio, they actually don't do this, they help the Democrats with their base. How? Take Obamacare. Obamacare was the prime example of something that is pure crony... 100%. Yet, talk radio didn't focus on the cronyism and laugh at leftists for believing this would break the evil insurers? Instead, they screamed that this was "anti-business" and "socialized medicine!"... exactly the message the Democrats were struggling to sell.
Conservatives (especially talk radio) do this all the time. Look at the gun control stuff. It's a total placebo, yet you've got right wing hosts gathering petitions and screaming about the end of gun rights in America. So here are the Democrats saying to their followers: "don't believe your eyes, this really is a strong plan to wipe out guns," and here come the conservatives and to help them prove it. This happens on issue after issue. "Obama's a socialist!" "Obama hates business!" "Obama hates ___!" It's never true, but it's always the message he wants his people to accept.
As for who can help us? I'm not sure, and I find that frustrating. But you have to start somewhere, and I think us talking about it is a start at least.
O.K., so White is a "paid ho" for her client. Well, potus is her client, so it's really a perfect fit. I'm sure he is most comfortable having the SEC do whatever he wants them to do.
ReplyDeleteI understand that federally elected officials from both parties have screwed us for their own power and aggrandizement under the twin jack boots of Big Business and Big Government. But conservatives can't and won't gain much headway with the mockery tactic. Libs have sucked up to "cool" for far too long for it to work very well for conservatives. Cheryl Crow was rightfully mocked for her preaching on toilet tissue conservation, and her willingness to only entertain troops if she could travel with her gal pal role model, Mrs. Clinton. Did that hurt Ms. Crow's record sales? I doubt it. And even though Mrs. C tearfully took responsibility (without blame or consequence) for our failure in Libya, I see she already has a super-pc and plenty of lib fan boys and girls to start things up for 2016. Dismiss her at our peril :(
Anthony, I disagree. Internally, both parties flip out when they feel like their leaders aren't with them ideologically. In fact, the progressive sank a fortune into taking over the Democratic Party because they felt Bill Clinton and his wing had sold them out. Conservatives are even worse.
ReplyDeleteAnd while most people are willing to accept some bad things from their side, they generally expect to get the things the party claims to stand for -- liberals in particular accept this because they've been told "it's just a first step."
If conservatives started pointing out a steady-stream of how the Democrats are doing the exact opposite of what they tell their base, it will sow dissension.
Moreover, "moderation" is not the right word. This isn't moderation, this is betrayal. Moderation would be "we wanted a 50% tax hike, but the party only gave us 25%" or "we wanted universal coverage, but they only covered 80% of the public." That is not what I'm talking about.
What I'm talking about is pointing out the things that run directly against their angriest rhetoric: "banks are evil, insurance companies are evil, Wall Street is evil!" .... "Yet, your leaders just sold you out to Wall Street, to the banks, to the big insurers." OR "Guns are evil" .... "Yet, the bill they are proposing won't stop a single gun from being sold." The point is to point out the hypocritical lies and how the Democrats' real masters are not their base, but the very people their leaders claim as enemies. That's not attacking their moderation, it's undermining their base's loyalty.
They do, however, think that fascism works...They see that as the ideal state.
ReplyDeleteI believe you are correct. And if one was dubious about the sycophantic nature of the leftist media, look at how they collectively attacked Whole Foods CEO John Mackey for very straightforwardly comparing Obamacare to fascism. To them, fascism is defined by the trappings: hyper-nationalism and single-party dictatorship. The core economics are, to them, incidental.
Dodd Frank designated five banks too big to fail.
ReplyDeleteI am assuming this means of they go over the government must bail them out. If the goverment bails them out they will probably take stock in them like they did with TARP. Even if they don't take the stock they will control them with more regulation.
At this point I think it is difficult to define what makes one a banker and what makes one a government bureaucrat given the size of the regulatory footprint in the banking industry.
The head of the SEC going out to "get" Wall Street is akin to the left arm going out to main the right.
rlaWTX, LOL! Nice headline.
ReplyDeleteOn point two, EXACTLY! Mocking their leaders only generates the wagon circling effect. We need to mock their followers as dupes. That's what works. "Ha ha, you hate Wall Street and your leaders just sold you out... morons... we win, you lose!" That is the kind of thing that makes blood boil.
On the secret meeting, that would be great. The thing is, we just need to get some conservative pundits to start doing this because the rest will pick it up.
K, Excellent! LOL! Thanks for the link.
ReplyDeleteI suspect (and hope) that younger conservatives will pick up this idea and run with it. And since the web gives people the freedom to run around the establishment now, this is the sort of thing that could well catch on.
"Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable." -Otto von Bismarck
ReplyDeleteJed, It will work. It's a matter of breaking the bonds of loyalty between their base and their leaders. And the key is not to mock the person themselves -- that fails, the key is to mock the supporters who are saddled with these people as their leaders.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what does it hurt to try?
tryanmax, I think that's right. The left knows that the trappings of fascism -- open-nationalism and a uniform fetish are bad (I would have included militarism and racism, but that's back in favor on the left)...
ReplyDelete... but beneath that, they envy what they think the Nazis achieved. They think that the Nazis created this hyper-powerful economy that allowed them to almost take down the entire world and the model was oligopoly companies run in a revolving door between the highest levels of government and the highest levels of business. Liberals love that model. And that is the model Big Business/Big Government have been emulating in the US in the past couple decades.
Indi, I don't think anyone knows what it means. My guess is that it's just a placebo and it really means nothing. My guess is that it means that anyone else will need to ask for a bailout before they get it, but these banks will get one automatically.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're right, the bank and government are so closely tied now that they are basically the same thing... and yet, the Democrats claim to be at war with the banks. Interesting, isn't it?
Kit, True.
ReplyDeleteThis should just stand as further proof that you can't trust lawyers, ever. (Sorry, Andrew.)
ReplyDeleteYou are a wise man, Mr. Rav.
ReplyDeleteAndrewPrice said...
ReplyDeleteAnthony, I disagree. Internally, both parties flip out when they feel like their leaders aren't with them ideologically. In fact, the progressive sank a fortune into taking over the Democratic Party because they felt Bill Clinton and his wing had sold them out. Conservatives are even worse.
------
That is all true, but it doesn't contradict my claim that successful revolts don't happen when the party holds the presidency and is winning seats. People will accept 'Now isn't a good time, we need to be practical' for a looooong while provided they believe the leader is one of them.
Only electoral defeat and the subsequent time in the wilderness trigger dissent ('They compromised our ideals and they lost!').
Anthony, I agree with that. But I think we also need to realize that politics is a LOOOONG term and constant game. In other words, doing this one thing won't get them to decide to impeach Obama, but we can (1) tarnish his legacy, which will hurt them in the long run, (2) sow dissension for the future, and (3) set them up for to make really stupid moves.
ReplyDeleteThe idea would be to make life much harder for them by splitting liberals and progressives from each other (right now they can gloss over the difference because both are being told what they want to hear), by splitting the base(s) from the leadership and forcing the leadership into difficult choices by actually making them pick a side and exposing them when they don't, and by causing infighting which makes it harder for them to attract moderates.
Keep in mind, they're bleeding voters just like we are. Toss in a little more unpleasantness and they could be bleeding them a lot faster.
The goal here would be to break slowly break the image they've manufactured which lets them hold together people with different views and present the party as unified and happy.
Here's a couple suggestions for entertainers who I think "get" the conserv brand and should be on air as often as possible: (In no particular order)
ReplyDelete* Bill Whittle
* Adam Corolla
* Dennis Miller
* John Stossel
I just have no faith that any congress-critter that is elected will push the envelope once they see the sweet, sweet lucre of DC politics as an insider.
As an aside, I first heard Reagan in 1976 when he was former Gov of CA and the radio had him on periodically when I was living in NoCA. I remember thinking that what this guy was saying made an awful lot of sense, and hearing him basically opened my mind to how government could abuse us and threaten our liberties. Very simple, very succinct. I got it as young, apolitical guy as he made common sense. We just don't have anyone out there right now with his communication skills...and probably never will again. So we fight the fight with the army we have. I guess I'm just looking for a few good leaders that could inspire the troops.
Over and out....
P.S. Anthony, I have come to believe that we cannot win by attacking the Democrats. Our problem are of our own making and we need to fix ourselves.
ReplyDeleteStill, that doesn't mean we shouldn't attack them, nor that we shouldn't use every tactic we can. We can weaken them and cause them lots of turmoil. And that's always a good thing.
Patriot, I think any change will need to come from the outside in, and the names you mention are a good start. I think what will change things, however, are younger conservatives who aren't tied to the current mindset and who are doing things like fighting on Facebook and on blogs... and hopefully will go the next step and become the next generation of writers, etc. We need to sport the clever ones, not the ones who just mimic the current pundits.
ReplyDeleteOn Reagan... I've been giving this a lot of thought and I've realized the problem is one of focus. Reagan focused on talking to people about their concerns. Think about everything he said and you will see that it's aimed at helping someone: a business owner, a home owner, a parent, soldiers, etc.
Now compare that to the current world of conservatism and you will see that we no longer talk about people -- we talk theory. We talk about macro-economics, corporate balance sheets, government accounting and theology. There is nothing there for actual people to latch onto... it's all theory.
Andrew....exactly. Reagan was able to get through my thick head at that age that government DID IN FACT have an impact on my life, and proceeded to provide examples.
ReplyDeleteSome examples (From his "A Time for Choosing in 1964):
"Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth."
"We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they've had almost 30 years of it—shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead."
And how about this one, updated with current numbers?:
"A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due—that the cupboard isn't bare?"
Surely we have the talent that can write this type of stuff for our brain-dead pols that would combat the left and their propagandists?!
Patriot, Excellent points. I particularly like the point about the government having 30 years (now 50+) and yet the things the government is supposedly trying to fix just keep getting worse.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about each of those quotes is that they talk about PEOPLE. Conservatives seem to have forgotten about people and all they talk about today is theory. Look at the budget debate. Show me one argument any conservative is making how spending cuts or the issuance of a budget will affect any single person... they only talk about theory and procedure.
Andrew....the left/dems are very good at this. They ALWAYS personalize the issue. So, if the right wants to criticize the issue, the left throws it right back at them that they are criticizing the "people" that they put up as the face of the issue. No win situation for the right unless we turn the tables and do the same thing to them. To wit, your point about talking about "PEOPLE."
ReplyDeleteSo, the right needs to find sympathetic, normal, everyday people to highlight their side. NOT a succesful small business owner that employs 100 people, but a barbershop owner, the cornrow hairdresser in LA, the cupcake baker, etc....
Unfortunately, our side always picks someone with exploitable issues that the left can demonize at will. Look at what they did to Condi Rice for god's sake! But did the repubs hit back twice as hard and accuse the left of racism?! No....of course not. Because it was "just politics." The left knows how to play the game to win...the right knows how to play defense...and even then they lose yards on every play.
Patriot, Agreed. We need to get much better at focusing on people and picking examples who don't blow up on us.
ReplyDeleteBut even beyond that, think about this: Forget the left for a moment. Think about our pitch to just normal people. Even without the left spinning us, what exactly do we say to connect to those people? We talk in terms of numbers -- economic numbers, profits, corporations, statistics. We NEVER tell people how we will make their lives better in any tangible sense. That's the problem. We are talking in macro and we're assuming people will do the math themselves and see how it will affect their lives... but they don't. That's why we aren't winning people over.
We are like a roofer you want to hire to fix your roof who refuses to talk about your roof and instead tries to tell you about roofing trends in the industry.
Andrew if by interesting you mean terrifying then yes it is interesting
ReplyDeleteTerrifying? Oh come on, so a few people can become obscenely rich using taxpayer money to back all of their crazy bets. And if they go too far, they just collapse the banking system and the country... while they live happily with their billions in riches.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the problem with it?
//sarc off
Yeah, it's pretty crappy isn't it. Honestly, if there's another banking crisis, I'm not gonna shed any tears if an angry mob rips those bastards to shreds.
If it's not already on your radar, please be sure to add countercontempt.com to your bookmarks. David Stein's the name, and mockery/satire is his game.
ReplyDeleteEric, Thanks! I've never heard of that before, but it looks interesting!
ReplyDeletecountercontempt
Gary Graham! I was thinking about his today when I was responding to comments. :)
Another log for the fire: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/politics/state-dept-closes-office-working-on-closing-guantanamo-prison.html
ReplyDelete