Who knew it was wrong to visit underage hookers in the Dominican Republic while lying about who paid for the trip to get you there? Oh, and did I mention that the person in question is a US Senator? Did you know the donor who paid $58,000 to make these trips happen via private jet is under criminal investigation for Medicare fraud? The Democratic Senator in question is New Jersey's Robert “Come here little girl” Menendez. The reason you haven’t heard much about this is what I want to talk about because this highlights several lessons the Republicans must learn.● Media “Silence”: This scandal has been a virtual paradigm of how the MSM helps Democrats. Under normal circumstances, when someone is accused of a sex crime, the media can’t get enough. . . because they’re perverts and they love that stuff. Add in a political angle and you’re guaranteed to have “journalists” camping out before homes and chasing down limousines to get you pictures of the perv all the while using the word “alleged” to avoid legal problems. This time, however, there is near total silence.
Why? To put it simply, because the MSM would rather protect a kiddie-phile than be forced to unseat someone of their ideological liking.
But the MSM couldn’t get away with total silence, so what they’ve done is a rather fascinating bit of advocacy. First, the leftist New York Times ran an article saying that Menendez should lose his committee chairmanship in the Senate until this thing blows over. Notice that they didn’t call on him to resign, nor did they demand a witch burning, as they would have done had Menendez been anything other than a sitting Democratic powerbroker. The purpose of this article was two fold. First, it saved the reputation of the NYT in the event Menendez finally goes down because they can claim they were calling for his head from the beginning. . . even though they didn’t. At the same time, the article actually buys the Democrats time by suggesting that a pointless slap on the wrist is the appropriate punishment and it basically advocates referring this issue to committee. . . where all investigations go to be forgotten. In effect, they are telling the public to be placated if Menendez simply maintains a low profile until the thing blows over. But they are keeping their options open to claim they were after him should things turn ugly.
Meanwhile, fellow travelers like The Washington Post are running articles quoting unnamed sources who assure us that there is no truth to these allegations, that the allegations are politically motivated (even if true), and that there is nothing to see here. This is a classic whitewash.
● Harry Scumbag Reid: Harry Reid has handled this perfectly too. First, he has refused to say anything other than to repeat the mantra that this is under investigation and we need to learn the facts first. This does two things. First, it makes him sound like he is taking this serious at the same time he’s telling people that this is not a big deal. Yet, it also leaves the door open for him to jettison Menendez should things go wrong for Menendez. Moreover, by refusing to say anything more, he shifts the focus to the investigation itself, and with the investigators not talking, the story basically dies. . . as there are no journalists doing their own digging.
At the same time, you may notice that not another single Democrats has uttered a word about this. This is a lesson the Republicans really need to learn. Every lawyer knows this. . . when your client is in trouble, you shut up, you tell them to shut up, and you tell their friends to shut up. Why in the world Republicans always think they need to opine on any scandal against one of their own is beyond me, but it’s stupid. Seriously, if you can’t say anything good, then stay away from the microphone until it’s time to put a knife in the guy.
● Republican Silence: There are many lessons here for conservatives. First, follow Reid’s example when one of your own gets into trouble. Don’t volunteer to try the guy in the media. Don’t offer juicy quotes of support or condemnation. . . send it to committee unless you’re sure how it will turn out, and then act decisively with a total defense or a total condemnation.
Secondly, the MSM will never do their job when a Democrat is at risk, so it’s time for conservatives to develop their own journalists. The Democrats couldn’t hide this if there were a dozen real conservative journalists digging into this story and writing story after story about it. That would force them to respond, which will smoke out the Harry Reids and the Menendezes and force their hands before they are ready. Right now, there is no one doing this. . . conservatives just spin AP stories, they don’t investigate.
Third, where are the people screaming from the sidelines? This is perhaps the biggest lesson. If Menendez had been a Republican, every Democrat on Capitol Hill would have attacked this as illegal, disgusting and a breach of Congressional ethics. They would be filing complaints, demanding censure and demanding ouster. Every head of every interest group would be doing the same. Feminists would be screaming about the abuse of women. Child-advocates would be talking about the abuse of children. Immigrant groups would be talking about the abuse of foreigners. Child-sex people (con) would be out there screaming that Menendez is worse than Hitler. Child-sex people (pro) would be calling him a hypocrite. And it wouldn’t matter to these people if this was true or not, they would be screaming away. And if it turned out he wasn’t guilty, so what. . . they move on to the next target with no sense of shame.
So where are the conservative groups? No one on our side is screaming about him, disrupting his office or his press conferences, writing editorials, putting up billboards, whatever. Nada.
I think this is the result of several factors that need to change:
● Conservatives need to learn that politics is bloodsport and they need to learn to attack everything. You can’t kill an idea, but you can kill the messenger, so start aiming for the people. There are no points given for manners or nobility. Honor is for chumps.Thoughts?
● Despite the fact conservatives whine about the MSM, they bizarrely turn to the MSM at moments like this and trust that the MSM will “do it’s job.” This is sheer stupidity. Stop relying on institutions that oppose you. Conservatives need to become journalists and generate their own stories.
● The real issue, however, goes back to conservatives no longer caring about people. Conservatives are happy to talk about budgets and theory, but the moment they need to actually talk about a human being (and especially specific human beings) they clam up. For reasons I do not understand, conservatives just don’t like talking about things that make the blood boil or which are likely to upset people on a personal/emotional level. They dismiss this as a sideshow or as Jerry Springer. The truth is that these are the issues from which public perception is made. To give Menendez a pass is to help the Democrats maintain their image as non-corrupt and decent. It’s time conservatives start realizing that the public, like soylent green, is made from people, not robots, not computers, not economics or theologians. . . people. Reagan campaign guru Lee Atwater once said that he read the National Enquirer ever day because that helped him keep a pulse on what people are thinking. Conservatives need to put down the textbooks and start looking at what really matters to people.
45 comments:
Let me add something else. There is an idiot Colorado Democrat who today said that you can't trust rape victims to have guns....
...this SHOULD result in every Republican on the planet demanding he resign. There should be women's groups screaming their outrage. Victim's advocate groups. Republicans should be pounding this morning for hating rape victims.
Yet, they let this pass as just stupidity. This is why our side never wins the PR wars. It's very easy to win when the other side won't fight.
Curious case of the women's groups that didn't bark in the night is just par for the course, Andrew. The response from them when Bill was harassing an intern in the WH was that they wished they could be so harassed as a reward for keeping abortion legal. Proving, of course, that NOW et al are simply socialist front groups that have no interest in feminism per se.
=Tammy Bruce
If you want outrage, then you need something where the groups that support Republicans can get their teeth into it. Like tax increases or gun control. Unfortunately, only the NRA is holding up it's end to fight back, the anti-tax groups seem to be missing in action lately.
Menendez may be jailed or resign, but nothing I've heard so far is the sort of thing that costs politicians much in the way of public popularity.
A single guy having sex with adult (or even late teen) professionals isn't going to fill many people with outrage no matter how many articles are written about it. Its morally wrong, risky and sad, but not really the sort of thing people get worked up about.
Similarly, the notion that a Congressman did special favors for someone who wrote him a massive check isn't going to spur outrage. Right or wrong, the perception is that money buys access and favors.
I think Salazar's comments are more likely to stoke public outrage, though I also think Republicans are doing themselves no favors by wildly distorting his argument (as opposed to subtly distorting it).
Salazar's argument was that women on campus shouldn't have guns because if they had guns, they would shoot innocent people who merely made them nervous.
That is pretty f***ing condescending. I read the news religiously and I can't think of any case where a woman has shot an innocent guy for making her uncomfortable/afraid (which isn't to say its never happened, but it must be incredibly infrequent).
I'm a not a political activist, but if I were, I would play up the 'lack of faith in womens' judgement' angle.
Andrew...The problem is just as you say in your article.
And?
This is the problem with our side in this battle for this country. We abdicate the sleaze and slime and hope and wish the MSM would treat a Dem like they would a Repub in situations such as this. As you say, the silence is deafening from the MSM on this. These f*&#$!ng politicians are smooth lawyers with the skill to say something that sounds good yet means nothing! There is always an out (Depends on what the meaning of is, is) that leaves us scratching our heads going wha?!
And then the Dem "moves on" from the scandal and it becomes "old news" that we try to continue fighting.
Look at Benghazi....."I can't comment on that while the investigation is ongoing." Worked to get Zero through the election. So...how IS the investigation going? Hello....Buehler? Anyone?
I don't see anything changing. There are a few on the right (Andrew Breitbart understood) but mostly conservatives going on "attack" are limited to talk radio and Fox News. Both of those sources tend not be listened to or watched by others than members of the choir. Unfortunately, sources such as Associated Press, ABC and CBS news, White House Press Corp., WAPO tend to be the sources that get to set the agenda for what is newsworthy.
I actually thought Fast & Furious, and Benghazi were two stories that might have legs, and in the end, it's seen as nothing more as partisan sniping. Nothing short of a loaded gun will bring down a liberal. This was proven once and for all by the good girls of N.O.W. who took a C.E.O. who committed classic sexual harassment, had a cold calculating wife without shame, and so lived to survive and resurrect himself in the eyes of history.
"There are a few on the right (Andrew Breitbart understood) but mostly conservatives going on "attack" are limited to talk radio and Fox News. Both of those sources tend not be listened to or watched by others than members of the choir."
Forget the media. Breitbart did a great job but it is interesting that he was not a "pure" conservative himself, though he is beloved by conservatives. He became anti-left because he saw and understood what the new left was doing. He was not in a bubble and he had no illusions.
The same cannot be said of the GOP. If they had any actual politicians their reaction wouldn´t be so lame. You can almost see them thinking "Oh well, campaigning doesn´t start until next year". Yes, and then they will moan how misunderstood they are.
They remind me of "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp". Early in the Powell/Pressburger movie - which everyone should see - Colonel Candy is surprised and taken prisoner during maneuvers because his opponent did a preemptive attack. This causes him to sputter that "War starts at midnight!". But the old rules don´t apply. Late in the movie it is a former German officer who explains to him the terrible new reality.
Quote:
Theo Kretschmar-Schuldorff: I read your broadcast up to the point where you describe the collapse of France. You commented on Nazi methods - foul fighting, bombing refugees, machinegunning hospitals, lifeboats, lightships, bailed out pilots -by saying that you despised them, that you would be ashamed to fight on their side and that you would sooner accept defeat than victory if it could only be won by those methods.
Clive Candy: So I would!
Theo Kretschmar-Schuldorff: Clive! If you let yourself be defeated by them, just because you are too fair to hit back the same way they hit at you, there won't be any methods but Nazi methods. If you preach the Rules of the Game while they use every foul and filthy trick against you, they will laugh at you! They'll think you're weak, decadent! I thought so myself in 1919!
[....]
Clive Candy: I heard all that in the last war! They fought foul then - and who won it?
Theo Kretschmar-Schuldorff: I don't think you won it. We lost it -but you lost something, too.
You forgot to learn the moral. Because victory was yours, you failed to learn your lesson twenty years ago and now you have to pay the school fees again. Some of you will learn quicker than the others, some of you will never learn it - because you've been educated to be a gentleman and a sportsman, in peace and in war. But Clive ... dear old Clive ... this is not a gentleman's war. This time you're fighting for your very existence against the most devilish idea ever created by a human brain - Nazism. And if you lose, there won't be a return match next year... perhaps not even for a hundred years.
End of quote.
Powerful stuff, eh?
Apparently, Menendez, Chairman, yes, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (oh, seriously, where are the comedians?) went to Afghanistan to introduce himself to Pres. Karzai. And was schooled by Karzai on how corrupt US politicians are. It just doesn't get any better than this on the stupid scale.
If nothing else, if Menendez is going to buy whores (underage or not), the least he can do is buy American! See, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, SNL, it can just write itself if you are willing!
On a related note, do you think it's time conservatives started boycotting the news networks altogether? I don't mean just not watching Brian Williams or whoever, I mean GOP politicians choosing not to appear on the Sunday morning news shows or giving interviews to the NYT, etc. This is very tempting to me (and a lot of others, I suspect), yet I don't know if we have the political capital to make an impact. At the same time, with the deck stacked against us so, do we really have that much to lose? Just something I've been mulling over.
K, That's the point though, conservatives need to learn to attack at these people. Conservatives whine that "somehow" scandals never stick to the Democrats but they always stick to the Republicans, and yet here is the perfect example where we have a prime target to attack and no one our side is doing it.
This is why we lose the media wars, not because the media is biased but because we don't fight. We just sit on our hands and let the media define the country.
If conservatives want that to change, then they need to get their hands dirty.
Anthony, Very few scandals will ever bring anyone down, but that's not the point. The point is that you attack and blow them all out of proportion. You create momentum by having dozens of different groups attacking and keep attacking.
Until conservative learn to do this, they will keep being the only ones hurt by scandals and by misstatements.
Ask yourself how the Democrats would be handling it if Ryan were caught having done the same thing? That would be the only news because they would all be out there attacking him, distorting it, and blowing it out of proportion.
It would be the same thing with the Salazar quote. You would have dozens of groups out there talking about a war on women and how this guy needs to resign because he's insulting to women.
Those things add up over time.
Great article, Andrew. One thing that sets most of your writing apart from the professional commentary that I wouldn't pay for anyway is that you actually include possible (if not probable) solution in your writing. Today you even concluded with an action item that anyone ought to be able to take up: focus on people!
And just to flesh that idea out a bit: that shouldn't just apply to arguments with liberals and independents, but also with other conservatives. When your right-wing buddy starts getting all wonkish about something, ask him what that means for ordinary people. Make him think about it. Refuse to acknowledge whatever good point he may have until he puts a human face on it. (If there's one thing a wonk hates, it's not being acknowledged!)
I think a lot of conservatives are under a couple of false impressions about humanizing politics.
First, the human angle is what makes a story compelling, nothing else. There is nothing inherently compelling about ObamaCare or Benghazi or illegal immigration or Fast & Furious. If any of those ideas stirs something inside you, it's because of a story you've attached to that idea. Democrats are better story-tellers, both in content and in reach. Republicans, on the other hand, don't even tell many stories. I think most would agree that the story of innocents dying because of a leader's hubris is more sympathetic than the story of a mob who murders because they don't like crappy YouTube videos. But nobody told that first story.
Second, the human angle is not automatically the liberal angle. Sure, liberal trot a human tragedy up on stage every time they make a speech. But have you ever noticed the disconnect between the stories liberals tell and the policies they enact? Of course you have, b/c you're a conservative. But it's not enough to turn around and point out the disconnect. There's a reason why the critics can pan everything and yet people keep shelling out for movie tickets. A bad story is like bad sex, at least you're getting it. So you have to illustrate the disconnect with a counter-story--and it will be more powerful because it makes the first story seem disingenuous.
Patriot, What frustrates me is that (1) the tricks to deflect a scandal are really well known, yet Republican politicians don't use them, (2) the ways to break through those are well known too, and yet our side doesn't do that either, and (3) conservatives bizarrely seem to think that the MSM will lead the attack on these things.
I think there is an attitudinal problem on our side which makes conservatives decide that they don't want to attack the other side personally. That needs to change.
Incidentally, I love the caption. "Smiling Bob Menendez"....ugh, that commercial brings back bad memories.
Jed, The MSM is not our friend and never will be, but it's been shown in the past that they can't sweep things under the rug when our side doesn't let them. Unfortunately, our side only wants to talk about "cold" topics and doesn't seem to have any grasp on what the public is thinking. Until that changes, then we will keep losing the media war.
The thing about Fast and Furious and Benghazi is that they were difficult scandals for average people to care about. Both involved overseas issues which automatically reduce the public attention by 90%. Even here, when I do a foreign policy article, the readership drops by about 40%. Secondly, neither scandal was connected to a particular person. It's hard to create a scandal in the abstract.
But compare that to Menendez: sitting US senator... private donor, private jet... medicare fraud... $58,000 in undisclosed payoff... favors exchanged... prostitutes... underaged prostitutes... foreign prostitutes.
Those are hot button issues because (1) they are salacious, (2) they are connected to a person, and (3) they can be spun into perversion, fraud, crime, and violations of trust or national security. That is tailor made for a scandal, yet conservatives find it distasteful to discuss. So they give Menendez a pass and the MSM/Democratic Party will bury the scandal with little opposition.
Then, next time a Republican get caught (like the guy in Montana or Nebraska or wherever he was), they will be driven out of office by the Democrats who will declare that anything like this is akin to treason. And conservatives will shake their head and wonder why this worked for them, but why Menendez didn't go down.
T-Rav, I thought it was appropriate. :) And yeah, that commercial was creepy.
El Gordo, Great quote and very appropriate. That is exactly the problem. The Republican Party (and conservatism generally) is made up of people who pine for a 1950's that never was. They long for the world of Leave it to Beaver and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington where everyone follows the rules and politics is a gentleman's game with clear rules of conduct.
But that was never reality.
Politics is a bloodsport, and if you aren't fighting to take the other guy down, then you are losing.
Right now, conservatives everywhere are whining about how unfair the media is and how the public can't see through the media, but the truth is that we are aiding and abetting this because we don't state our own case. We don't attack the Democrats, we don't puff ourselves up. Conservatives cringe when someone calls politics "marketing" because they don't understand that's exactly what it is and they want to believe it's somehow something more noble. They run like crazy whenever scandals like the Menendez thing comes up because they don't want to get their hands dirty. They have become incapable of connecting with people because they no longer understand what interests people.
That needs to change.
P.S. El Gordo, As an aside, I saw "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp" once a long time ago, but I've never been able to see it again and I don't remember much about it sadly.
Bev, if Menendez is going to buy whores (underage or not), the least he can do is buy American!
Bravo! :D
This is something else I wish conservatives grasped -- humor can be deadly. If you mock a guy like Menendez, you can kill his career much quicker than through just outrage.
I saw the thing about him going to Afghanistan and I just had to shake my head. This is the man we're sending overseas to represent us, huh?
T-Rav, I think it would be a very smart move for conservative politicians to boycott certain networks. I would pick MSNBC and then the worst of the networks.
Unfortunately, that won't happen. For one thing, you'll never get enough of them to agree, and people like John McCain will go because he loves the camera time. For another, there is an army of fake analysts who will still go because it gives them a paycheck.
Andrew...Reflect back on the Anthony Weiner "scandal." What made it a scandal? It followed all the usual spin and timing, yet we won in the end. Why? Andrew Breitbart if I remember correctly. He took over the media. He knew how the media operated and he beat them at their own game.
Who do we have around now to do that for us? Who will grab a mike and stand post? Who? You Boner?
Until we have another brave, media savvy advocate for our side we're right back to where we've always been. Imagine what Breitbart could have done with Benghazi?
Umm...That's spelled Boehner if you please
BTW, from the Huffington Post:
While arguing in favor of House Bill 1226, which bans concealed-carry firearms inside of all college campus buildings in the state, Salazar said:
It's why we have call boxes. It's why we have safe zones. That's why we have the whistles, because you just don't know who you're going to be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're going to be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop... pop a round at somebody.
So he did bring rape into the conversation and suggest that women just assume everyone is out to rape them. I'm not sure what distortions are out there, but most criticisms of Salazar I've heard are along the lines of Salazar condescending women as irrational, skittish and untrustworthy to defend themselves. Shall we assume that a man will respond to the call box?
Lee Atwater was a boon to the GOP. We desperately need another one like him... If someone could step forward who combined his political savvy with Breitbart's media savvy, the GOP would be beyond golden.
Thanks tryanmax! I do my best to include ideas on how to improve our side. :)
On the people angle, the more I think about this, the more convinced I am that this is THE fundamental problem for our side. Our side simply doesn't want to think about people -- it wants to think about theory, theology and wonky-policy. There is never a focus on the actual people who will be affected.
And every time the Democrats have done something to connect to people, conservatives have scoffed. Here are some examples off the top of my head:
1. Clinton went on the Tonight Show and played the saxophone and talked about his underwear. In so doing, he connected to the same people who tune in every night to network television because those are things that appeal to them. He made himself feel like a regular guy and came across as very likable. Conservatives said, "it's unseemly." And then they wondered why there were seen as out of touch.
2. Liberals always trot out people as props whenever they give a speech or sign a bill. Conservatives rarely do this because they consider it exploitive. Then they wonder why they are seen as uncaring.
3. Obama did that petition thing which millions of people enjoyed and which got millions more to feel like they had somewhere they could talk directly to his government. Conservatives mocked it for being stupid and ran articles about how it was a waste of money. They never understood the PR value of it. Personally, I thought it was a brilliant move. It was purely a goodwill device.
This has been an ongoing thing for decades. The Democrats find new ways to connect with the public, and the conservatives grouse about how unseemly it is. We shun the culture, we never tell the stories you are talking about, we don't do any of the political theater, we don't do people outreach, and we never explain anything in terms of people rather than ideology. Then we wonder why people don't like us. Numbers don't vote... people do.
That's a huge problem.
I also think, that this is a mindset. And what I'm seeing is that the problems we are having now in terms of building a platform and understanding why the public is rejecting our side spring from that mindset. Conservatives really don't have the ability at the moment to understand how they are perceived or how to change that perception. It the bubble/echo chamber to end all bubbles. We've become the Paulina Kael party... "I don't know anyone who doesn't think these are the only issues that matter."
Patriot, I agree, and that was the perfect example. Brietbart went to the media and pounded away. He said thing conservatives never say about Democrats. He mocked the hell out of Weiner. He kept it as news. As he did, the MSM had no choice but to cover it, which increase the pressure until the Democrats had no choice but to act. Now compare that to the crickets you're hearing on other issues.
The thing is, while we do need a Brietbart, conservatives also need to put in place the infrastructure so that this happens automatically each time. That means we nee a real change in mindset. We need to get our journalists, our politician, our interest groups to wake up to the fact that the things they shy away from matter and the things they think matter don't.
tryanmax, It's easy to pain Salazar's comment as being that women can't be trusted with guns because they're so freaked out about being raped that they'll shoot innocent people. And that's how it should be painted... and it should be screamed about by conservative women's groups, politicians, gun groups, crime groups, etc. And they should all be demanding that he resign and that the Democratic Party repudiate his "misogynist views."
rlaWTX, What frustrates me is that Atwater wasn't even a genius. He just had a common sense grasp of the public, just like millions of other people in this country. Yet, somehow, we have an entire party that is devoid of these people. I don't get it.
I agree with your comments but I think it is a more difficult problem then you even realize. It often seems to me that many conservatives are by nature somewhat introverted. Those who aren't are mocked and ridiculed. For example, image the response if Sarah Palin did come out against Salazar's stupid statements criticizing him just as you did. Most mainstream news won't carry it. The "news" shows such as on CNN and MSNBC will mock it. SNL would more likely mock her than Salazar as a crazy, gun totting militia member perhaps dressed up in fatigue-tights with a cape. Now she could look insane and keep yelling and trying to get attention but then many on the right will tsk tsk tsk her for being immature regarding an adult topic. It would surprise me if you or someone on this blog would consider her an idiot.
Then you wonder why so many conservative law makers are reluctant to make a big stink.
Frankly, I think it should be done by someone else. Breitbart was awesome because he took this on and was incredibly successful. He was also very intelligent and witty so any nastiness directed at him he could give right back.
The MSM is the true scandal and expect more will go away or change with bankruptcy. Now they are complaining about lack of access but what do you really expect when you have been Obama's bitch for the last 5 years? They are the kind of people that would keep going back to the abusive spouse. Heck, they refused to investigate or publish anything about Edward's love child. The story was broke by The Enquirer.
I don't have a very good solution but my gestalt is slow and steady wins the race.
I think another part of the problem with being out of touch is that Republicans are still living in the days of Buckley vs Vidal, when both parties were trying to prove who's smarter. The left has moved on from that and are busy being more hip while the right keeps bragging about its smarts. It's like an 80s high-school movie. (As opposed to a 2000s high-school movie, where being a nerd is cool. Ironic.)
Speaking of the 80s, it's apparent to me that the reason why the left so viscerally hated Reagan is that he was better at their own game than they were, and was smart to-boot.
Slow and steady wins the race.
Great example of how a story capped by a pithy (and somewhat inaccurate) summary affects peoples perceptions. Slow and steady only wins if the opposition takes a nap, as the hare did. When's the last time you caught Democrats napping?
Koshcat, I agree that this is an attitude issue. I've really noticed this lately in the conservatives I know in the real world and interact with on a day to day basis. They have this contradictory view that "someone should do something," but then they tsk tsk anyone who does. And they seem to be incapable of seeing how their own choices hurt them. This is very counter-productive.
Conservatives need to learn to support their own (which I can tell you they don't). They also need to stop denigrating the very choices we need. For example, right now conservatives denigrate journalism, Hollywood, education, the legal profession, etc. The result is that they poo poo anyone who would go into these fields. Consequently, we abandon the institutions which we now complain about being biased... media, judges, culture, academia.
This whole attitude needs to change.
Also, your mention of Palin raises several points. First, Palin is a bad example because she honestly is a self-promoting moron. She is exactly the kind of person conservatives need to learn to recognize as not being their friend.
That said, one of the problems with our side is that we send our people out there one at a time. It's like conservatives can't accept the idea that we could have multiple leaders. When you send out one person, it's really easy for the media to focus on that person and destroy them. That's why they could all focus on Palin for months because there was no one else. We need to learn to have dozens of leaders, then it becomes impossible for the media to tear them all down. That would also mean they don't all need to be geniuses. Right now, we truly need exceptional people because we toss them into the ring and expect them to stand up against a trillion dollar media/entertainment/Democratic Party machine. Very few people can handle that.
Unfortunately, each of these things requires a change in mindset. Conservatives need to realize that (1) everything is political, (2) your own tastes don't matter in politics, only the public's tastes matter and you need to fight on the public's turf, (3) stop surrendering the institutions we need, and (4) start supporting conservatives... honestly, it's shocking how anti-conservative most conservatives actually are when it comes to supporting conservatives.
But, you just did it right there. You dimissed her right from the start. So what if Palin is self-promoting? She is well known, she is a woman, she believes in gun ownership and use, and she is willing to go on the shows and in public to speak out. I agree that it should be a multi-prong attack but we handicapp ourselves right out of the gate. Wouldn't want to be associated with that media whore Palin! The dems don't do this. They embrace all their nutjobs. Uncle Joe as an example.
tryanmax, That's exactly the issue with Reagan. The left attacked Reagan the same way they smeared Palin -- nothing was off limits, including flat out lies. Yet, nothing stuck to him.... the monicker "The Teflon President" was originally meant to be insulting. And the fact they couldn't get through his armor despite their best shots and that he was able to use all their weapons against them, made them venomous.
They loved G. Bush Sr. though because he was easy to lampoon and he never fought back the way Reagan did, he fought back the way modern conservative do by pretending he held some mythical high ground.
On the smarts v. likeability thing, I think the problem with conservatives is that so many of them really despise the culture. They hate everything about it and they view the people who enjoy it as trash. When that's your view of the world, it's really hard to win people over.
In fact, look at the number of comments even at BH (which should draw people with an interest in Hollywood) about how they won't see movies or watch television, how it's all garbage, how they hate one celebrity or another, etc. etc. Conservatives have a real dislike for modern Americans. Hence, they seem to huddle together in these bubble where they can pretend that the world is still 1957 and that everyone they know agrees with them that's how it should be.
Koshcat, Let me try to explain on Palin. First, I dismiss her for specific reasons related to her value to conservatives (not based on anything the left said).
1. She's a moron. She knows nothing. But what's worse... she has no desire to know anything -- this last part is the most dangerous because it means she's not someone whose judgment you can trust.
2. She's a liar and a quitter. That's not someone you ever want to name as your leader.
3. She exploits conservatives to enrich herself. Her entire political career since McCain has been to milk conservatives for money. She USES the movement for her own purposes, not to further conservatism.
That is why I dismiss her. And the fact that I agree with her on some issues does not mean that she's someone I should hold up as my representative. Ted Bundy and I probably agreed on a lot of stuff, but I wouldn't want him as my leader either.
The problem with Palin is that conservatives have gone blind with her. They see the MSM attacking her, she played the victim card, and conservative fell for it and they've been defending her ever since no matter what, even though she's really bad for us.
I fully support the idea that we need to defend conservatives from media/democratic assault, BUT we need to be more careful about weeding out the skunks in our midsts. This is something the Tea Party is finally learning -- just because someone claims to be a "reel 'merkan" doesn't make them a conservative or someone you want to run.
And let me add that the same people who made the most bizarrely irrational defenses of Palin tossed Herman Cain under the bus, attacked Romney, saved Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry, and are now smearing Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal.
The problem with Palin was that she became a knee-jerk reaction and it was a bad one. And I think conservatives need to think about the lessons with her: (1) figure out if someone really is on your side and brings value, (2) if they do, defend them unless it's impossible, (3) otherwise, dismiss them in the same way the left does with Uncle Joe with a pat on the head and then redirect the conversation to the better representatives.
Koshcat, Let me add one more thing. Keep in mind that I'm trying to be honest with each of you. My goal isn't to be a cheerleader for conservatism or Republicanism, my goal is to offer honest ideas and opinions to give you something to think about and to hopefully make our side stronger. I think it would be a disservice to you all if you didn't know what I honestly thought and if you couldn't trust that I believed what I was telling you rather than me just toeing the party line.
It still feels like you are attacking the attacker, which then leads away from the original problem. Although I don't agree with your opinion on Palin I also don't see her anywhere near to being next leader of the free world. She can be an important asset if used well. My point isn't to argue about Palin, it is to point out the inherent problem that many conservatives have of the tendency to attack the attacker as often as the original idiot.
Koshcat, Palin isn't someone I want to talk about either, she had her 15 minutes, she made her money, she's now irrelevant. The left learned to kill her the same way you always kill vacant celebrities... you stop talking about them.
As for attacking the attacker, I agree that we absolutely need to stop that. BUT the point with Palin is that there is a HUGE difference between not attacking an attacker and irrationally defending someone when it's not in our interest to defend them.
And I'll tell you, the reason so many conservatives have attacked Palin is because they saw through her crap and because of the way she and her supporters have acted. Her supporters became a cult of personality who refused to see the obvious, who demanded fealty to the cult while simultaneously smearing everyone else in the conservative world, and then wrapped themselves in the victim cloak to the point that they generated a violent backlash among conservatives. They were like angry Paul-bots or Obamazombies.
Palin + Zombies = Pambies? Palies?
It is funny how sometimes even one event can your perception of a person. I was a big fan of Bachmann. Loved how she would go on MSNBC and counter-attack. My father met her and said she was electrifying. Then she started spouting off about vaccines, especially HPV...
Palies, LOL! I have to tell you that Larry and I used to get a lot of angry e-mails from her supporters for any number of perceived sleights... very conspiratorial stuff, about how they knew the real us and they would not be fooled.
I think you're right that single events can change people's opinions dramatically. Look at the Howard Dean scream, which didn't strike me as all that out-of-character, but it killed him.
Bachmann concerned me more and more over time, especially as it became clear that she had no idea what she was talking about when it came to economics -- she was just repeating what lobbyists were telling her and saying it like she was a populist. The vaccine thing just fit right in with the more conspiratorial stuff with her and was just one more straw on a dead camel by that point in my book.
So, the GOP should tag him as "Democratic Party's personal Roman Polanski"?
"In fact, look at the number of comments even at BH (which should draw people with an interest in Hollywood) about how they won't see movies or watch television, how it's all garbage, how they hate one celebrity or another, etc. etc. Conservatives have a real dislike for modern Americans. Hence, they seem to huddle together in these bubble where they can pretend that the world is still 1957 and that everyone they know agrees with them that's how it should be."
Oy vey! Its one reason why I rarely read BigHollywood anymore. The comments are so filled with idiocy.
Kit, I stopped reading the comments long ago. There's nothing worth reading there. I actually don't drift over there very often at all anymore since the format change because I just rarely find anything that interests me.
I'm just very disappointed in Breitbart.com's direction since Andrew passed. It's not really breaking news anymore. It's just commenting on the same things as every other well-trafficked site now.
I agree. The sense of fun and group participation has been lost. It's just a bunch of articles spinning what's already been spun and generating fake outrage at minutia, while the commenters take shots at each other.
Andrew
The minute Bush took office Pelosi was calling him everyh name in the book. Yes it did not work at first but the constant drumbeat eventually created a perception of incompetence that was unjustified. Our side goes out of its way to not appear to be attacking for fear that the MSM will go after them.
Look at what they do to the Tea PArty and Tea Party candidates. Michelle Bachman was unfairly attacked and unfortunately many ion the GOP don't want to be placed in that role. They know that to call Obama a liar is to have every aspect of their life investigated.
The people that tend to speack out (Tea PArty members) are unfortunately the same people at odds with the GOP establsihment that really does not want to enact spending cuts or other conservative values becasue it would hurt their power brokering in the government.
This is the problem.
Post a Comment