The GOP Goes Alinsky on Obama
Finally, Romney’s speech also contained some multi-layered items that seemed to speak simultaneously at disparate audiences. Just consider these lines and what they mean to you, and how they might mean different things to others. Like the old hag who is also a beautiful woman illusion, Romney’s speech had a complexity that was both stinging and soaring. It contained velvet gloves concealing iron fists. The gloves introduce a warm, personable candidate, and to those who may have read Obama’s America by Dinesh D’Souza, they also pack the punch of an iron fist:
* My mom and dad gave their kids the greatest gift of all. The gift of unconditional love. They cared deeply about who we would be and much less about what we would do. Unconditional love is a gift that Ann and I have tried to to pass on to our sons and now to our children. All the laws and legislation is in the world will never heal the world like the loving hearts and arms of loving mothers and fathers. You know, if every child could go to sleep feeling the love of their family and God’s love, this world would be a far more gentle place. My mom and dad were married for 64 years. And if you wondered what their secret was, you could have asked the local florist.
* Those days were the these were tough days on Ann, particularly. She was heroic through it all. Five boys with our families a long way away. I had to travel a lot for my job then, and I’d call and try to offer support. But every mom knows that that does not help did the homework done or get the kids out the door to school. I knew that her job as a mom was harder than mine. I knew without question that her job as a mom was a lot more important than mine.
* We had remarkably vibrant endeavors congregations from all walks of life, and many who were new to America. We prayed together, our kids played together, and we always stood ready to help each other out in different ways. That’s how it is in America. We look to our communities, our faiths, our families, for our joy and support, in good times and bad. It’s both how we live our lives and why we live our lives. The strength and power and goodness of America has always been based on the strength and power and goodness of our communities, our families, and our faiths.
No G-Damning America in Romney’s background. And perhaps one of the most devastating contrasts of the night:
* The president has not disappointed you because he wanted to. The president has disappointed America because he hasn’t led America in the right direction. He took office without the basic qualification that most Americans have, and one that was essential to the task at hand. He had almost no experience working in a business. Jobs to him are about government. I learned the real lessons from how America works from experience.
In 2012, the Romney campaign recognizes what it is up against, and last night made it clear they know how to fight.
– chairs, Ionesco, trial in absentia. Thought Dems might bring in Tom Hanks to counter, but now maybe Robin Williams.
“Pick the chair, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” #InsertChair
You can lead a chair (pseudo intellectual) to the tree of knowledge, but with no common sense, he could not reach the first branch.
What if it were an arm chair?
what if it were Sunny & Chair singing “I Got Shoo, Babe”?
‘ chairs, Ionesco, trial in absentia. Thought Dems might bring in Tom Hanks to counter, but now maybe Robin Williams.’
yep…and who els? why it’s none other than betty white….if she isn’t the poster character for the dems nothin is….on a talk show i once heard her opine..’republicans?, they’re JUST NUTS’ heh heh heh we’ll see about that nov 6 th..
It would be nice if the GOP would get around to uploading it to youtube so I could see what everybody’s talking about.
you can see it at cspan http://www.c-span.org
All of the convention videos are available at http://www.gopconvention2012.com
Hey, there is no question that Romney is a smart guy, capable of Alinskyism, or trickier things far more profitable. Taibbi has already documented how the Obama-Summers-Geitner team bailed out (apparently less well-positioned than Mitt) banker-raiders. Now he turns the guns on Mitt:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829
What is it about lefties that makes them, almost instinctively, change the subject when faced with withering fact?
(That trolls give themselves away so easily takes much of the fun out of laughing at their inanity.)
Have you ever raised a child?
(No snark intend. None whatsoever. It’s that children do that exact thing all the time.)
leftists are very opinionated about everything but not very well educated on anything. they have a skin deep understanding of the issue, they never bothered to research it or study it, and have had it condensed into a nifty slogan for them. when you present a fact they dont know how to respond so they throw out a talking point they read or heard because they feel comfortable with that – a fact, that terrifies them.
Hmmm…trust some unknown scribbler for a left-wing rock’n'roll magazine or a successful businessman and politician? Not a hard choice.
Oh yeah, Rolling Stone, such reputable and honest writers.
Sure, yeah, uh huh.
Yeah, everyone knows that only a greedy person would take time out of his schedule and money out of his own pocket to help others, quietly, away from the cameras.
A nice, caring guy like Obama prefers taking money out of other people’s pockets in order to “help” those who will funnel the money back into his campaign or at least vote for him. And he’ll make sure there’s a camera crew and friendly “journalists” around when he decides it’s politically advantageous to appear compassionate.
Barack Obama feels so much empathy for poor people that he’ll give them the shirts off our backs.
And all that while his brother actually lives in a hut in Kenya – and has to call Dinesh D’Souza for help when his son – Obama’s nephew – is in the hospital.
Trolls, schmolls. The point is that Tea Party folks have to realize that it is not JUST the guvment which is screwing us. One has to hope that Romney can apply some of this economic feral intelligence to leading US. As of right now, he still has my vote, but just barely.
The difference is that if you think someone in the private sector is screwing you, you really do have options. You can buy a Ford instead of a Chevy. You can patronize the bar down the street if you think that one’s current joint is serving short drinks. But you really can’t avoid getting screwed if te government is in charge.
But if you read the article, you would know that our new way of doing finance is directly connected to the death of some of our industries. If you could convince the CEO’s of certain companies, who, unlike the workers, get paid huge sums to OK the Bain-whatever deals, not to accept them, because eventually all their workers may lose their jobs, you might evoke a good laugh. Our way of letting (well, they do it whether we let them or not) the smartest guys in the room work out these financial deals which benefit themselves first, the CEO’s being bought out second, and the employees and general health of the company, LAST, you begin to see one factor which is killing some American business. They have figured out a virtual no-lose system; no lose for them, that is. I can’t say that I have any brilliant ideas on how to change, or even regulate this aspect of American business, but you must admit that it is disturbing. I don’t care if the guy writes for Rolling Stone or National Review; the question is, does he have the facts, at least one credible set of them? Staples is clearly a success as is, I assume the steel company Romney mentioned during some presentation last night. What percent of our new way of financing/revitalizing yields a still functioning business?
Let me suggest as an hypothesis that it is getting easier for the very sharpest minds to make millions, but harder for the average guy to get a decent job. I don’t blame this on righties or lefties, and most of them aren’t even smart enough to actually do anything about it. Those smart enough are too busy making money. So it goes.
Look if a company needs a turnaround, there’s usually a story of failure behind it. Somewhere along the line, the company in question stopped delivering on its business goals. Why? Bad management, bad product, bad supply chain management, out-competed by rivals, changes in technology, union greed boosting cost to market, bad weather, etc…
If the business has potential to be a going concern, AND the actions are taken to get it in shape: it can make a comeback. Some companies are just meant to die and make space for those who have a shot at profitability. VCs, and their ilk don’t kill companies that have a shot at expanding and becoming successful. VCs are obliged to sell it for parts if its DOA. This is capitalism: without revenue and a potential for profit, you’re out of business. What to do with the people holding the bag, left behind, laid off? How to get them back to work? Romney suggests that training and education can improve their value to compete in the new market. Paul Ryan’s “Mom story” is all about that.
Who would you vote for if not for Romney? Obama?
I would vote for whichever one would move in the direction of the conclusions of Simpson-Bowles. Tough call, because Obama ignored it and Ryan voted against it. A second term Obama might decide that he now had the latitude to support it, but unless he takes the unlikely tack of using that position as part of his re-election plank, one would still have to say that Romney would be more likely to do it.
What is missing in the debate about the greedy financiers is why the business is failing and what has put it in the position to be dismantled. If you look at the industries that are collapsing in this country, you clearly see that the reason they are not successful and ripe for dismantling is the excessive government regulation that is chocking the life out of them. So if a financier goes into a a company, breaks it up, and walks away with the money, it is almost ALWAYS because the business cannot succeed. More often than not, it is because they can’t compete with the millstone of government around their necks. Remove the millstone and you will see many businesses go the way of Staples, not the way of the steel industry.
I am sure that regulations hurt, just as they hurt Obama trying to find “shovel-ready” projects. With all the regs., there is no such animal. Romney would have more freedom to dispense with some regulations, and definitely would allow more drilling and refining. Put a check in Romney’s box on this one, but it is unlikely that he could do much about more than 5-10% of the regulations.
I am sure that regulations hurt, just as they hurt Obama trying to find “shovel-ready” projects.
When did Obama try that? Can you provide an example or two?
Amen, Brother!
And try to start fresh today. Anything worth doing must have a license. Mandated insurance is hugely expensive, and banks no longer lend to tiny concerns because Bernanke lets them play with his money for free! Those little customers are such a pain, anyway.
How did we ever survive without having to ask, “Mother, may I?” for all these millenia?
Poor Dwight. If he had been in charge we never would have built railroads because that would cause the canal operators to be hurt. Then he would never have built cars or highways or airplanes because that would have caused the railroads to lose jobs. Dwight, you and Rolling Stone need to read Joseph Schumpeter and learn about the concept of creative destruction that is the essence of growth and prosperity and new industry.
Ah, yes, poor, poor me.
The railroads got built HERE, even if a lot of cheap migrant labor got used. But help me out here, what are our new railroads? Whatever they are, they are being built…elsewhere.
Let me suggest as an hypothesis that it is getting easier for the very sharpest minds to make millions, but harder for the average guy to get a decent job. I don’t blame this on righties or lefties, and most of them aren’t even smart enough to actually do anything about it. Those smart enough are too busy making money. So it goes.
Dwight, the reason things have gotten this way is because the average guy was led to believe the lie that he wasn’t smart enough to run his own life …
… then discouraged from exercising his personal initiative to think like a businessman when it came to planning/preparing/decision-making regarding his own finances and career …
… but instead was encouraged to “outsource” more and more decision-making authority and resources to the elite few, under the assumption that those with more education/deeper pockets/more power than he had could do a better job solving his problems FOR him than he could himself, or in cooperation with other, ordinary people.
This is a message that our leaders – in BOTH parties – have been sending for decades, even though that, for its acceptance, one must assume that our leaders are omniscient and can perceive every detail of even highly-individual-specific problems … and that they possess the access and flexibility to effectively and efficiently deal with the details.
Neither is true … the former, because of human nature; the latter, because of our rightful respect for civil liberties and equal protection under the law.
The chickens are starting to come home to roost, regarding this belief … but one side of the Left/Right divide stubbornly persists to perpetuate this belief, while the other shows a willingness to challenge this belief in favor of reality.
The outsourcing we really need to be concerned about … is not the kind involving imports and exports. It is the outsourcing of our personal initiative to “betters” who are anything but.
So like Mitt’s father George, the average guy has been “brainwashed?” Do you know what average means? It is a ways off from the 1%.
Nailed it. Bravo.
Dwight you are a most rambling, incoherent troll.
You have opinions about everything, yet understand nothing.
You must be a liberal.
Rolling Stone? Oh wow man. Far out. Heavy. Trippy.
Anything that has to do with “The Rolling Stone” is a joke. They have less credibility than even “Newsweek” or “The Nation”.
It must be true, because rolling stone magazine is such a font of intellectual reporting.
I wouldn’t know, because I haven’t read it for thirty years, but Taibbi, whose articles I have come to through other avenues, is a lot different than Lester Bangs and Hunter Thompson.
I had never seen this side of Romney before. I was going to vote against Obama, now I feel good about voting for Mitt.
The only reason you never saw this side of Romney (and conversely, why so many still think Obama is a nice guy) is because of the relentless leftwing coverage of the “unbiased” “objective” “news” media. Imagine how good you would feel about Romney if the media were slobbering sychophants for him instead of Obama, playing up all his positives and burying any negatives. Or better yet, how many people would still have a positive personal image of Obama if the media had been constantly attacking him and his character all these years with lies and smears like they did to Bush and Palin?
After the last night it was clear who SHOULD be running the country and that the election in November is just about as Good versus Evil as it gets.
For many election cycles, the choice has rarely been who to vote FOR, but whom to vote AGAINST. (Hence, the humor of the Cthulhu bumper stickers, “Vote for the GREATER of the evils!”)
If Romney succeeds in connecting with people, at a time when many voters are unhappy with Obama’s performance, it could mark an interesting swing, where at least some voters will be voting FOR him, rather than just AGAINST Obama.
In a close race, that could make all the difference, not only in votes, but also in turnout.
Watch both Obama and the media do all in their power to make Romney as unlikeable as possible, for that very reason. Not just a matter of disagreeing w/ his positions (on which reasonable people can, in fact, disagree), but that he is John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, and Bill Daley, Sr., wrapped up in one. Hence the “bully” charges from high school, and the “Marie Antoinette” stories about Ann Romney.
The fact of the matter is that I have long stated the obvious – the only way to win the war is to adopt the opponent’s tactics.
Therefore, using the Rules against the Dems should always be the weapon of choice. So, if this is the case, then I am truly heartened. Perhaps they realize – nice guys finish last, at least in the death match of political warfare!
See, ‘Leftist Dogma The Same World Over. Patriots, Beware’(July 1, 2012) at my blog.
Google – ‘Adina Kutnicki’ . Links bounce here.
Exactly correct. When I argue with libs (which I rarely bother to do these days), I don’t use logical arguments with them. It doesn’t work. Instead, I use emotion – and try to get their heads to explode. For example, if they’re arguing about how conservatives are racist, I like to bring up locations run by democrats where things are hard for African Americans, and then ask them why they hate minorities so much. The results from them are NOT pretty.
While following your and Adina Kutnicki’s suggestion is tempting, I would rather follow Israel’s example. That would adopt those tactics and weapons that keep your integrity intact. No suicide anything let alone bombers, or human shields of women and children, or sending children out to be killed for publicity (even if you must kill them yourself), no massacres and above all No Lies!
The Republicans have adapted some of the Left’s weapons, but not their tactics.
If we do as they do, are we not them?! Certainly!
Wrong. The way to win is to learn your opponent’s tactics and then use better ones.
Bah !
Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
Mongol General: That is good! That is good.
I just left a liberal friend this note. Mitt has Dirty Harry but Obama has Pee Wee Herman. Real men never vote democrat.
It’s the first rule of politics: before you can do anything… you have to win.
I’m sure now Romney understands that.
By all means, Romney should employ the enemy’s tactics in the strategic battle. The ridicule angle is a great one and both 0bama and Biden are open books for ridicule!
As loathsome as it is, Goebbels PROPAGANDA techniques CAN be used against 0bama and the Democrats. 0bama surely is using the Hitlerian PROPAGANDA methods against Romney/Ryan and the Tea Party. A little bit of Hitler’s principles can and should be used against the Dems!
While I agree with your overall sentiment, the proper approach to war is not to adopt your opponent’s tactics, but to understand them and hence outmanoever the enemy. The key, according to Sun Tzu, is to be swifter, and hit them where they’re weakest. The brilliant general causes his opponent to expose his weaknesses, then strikes quickly and ruthlessly.
Except for Ronnie, I have never seen a Republican actually fight back in my entire life. Boehner is a standard issue Pub: a crying mealy-mouthed excuse for a man, and McConnell is no better.
Now, make Jim Demint Majority Leader and perhaps someone like Joe Walsh Speaker, and I’ll start getting all excited again.
“My mom and dad gave their kids the greatest gift of all. The gift of unconditional love. They cared deeply about who we would be and much less about what we would do.”
It’s already been noted that Obama has contempt for Romney. Given Obama’s abandonment by his father, the absence of a father’s unconditional love, that section of Romney’s speech must have really infuriated him — with envy.
Romney has another line about his parents caring more about what kind of people their children turned out to be that what they did in life that I also suspect nay have been aimed at Obama, whose family, such as it was, may have pushed him hard to be somebody important while never giving him much in the way of real love.
Regardless of whether it infuriated BHO, it certainly illustrated a stark difference between the two men that seems to explain who each became and their respective worldview.
Parenting is an interesting metaphor for taking care of a country. The Democrats remind me of a family with two kids: one whom they think is “normal” and the other whom they think is “special” – delicate, sensitive, sickly, utterly dependent on them for everything. As parents, they completely ignore the “normal” kid and devote all their love, attention, and money to the “special” one. The life of the whole family revolves around him.
The fact is, half the reason he’s so sickly is that he’s been treated this way all his life.
When the Democrats are in charge, I feel like the “normal” brother.
Best comment ever!
Yup, this one is a keeper.
– brother of the Prodigal.
But the Prodigal repented.
Let’s face it, the 45 per centers – the blacks, the non-productive, the corporate cronies and the fools in academia – who are in various ways sucking at the government teat aren’t about to repent. They will vote for OEmptyChair.
Define “repent.”
Repent: to make metanoia; to change one’s heart or mind; to literally reverse direction.
That is the word from the Greek Bible (the original) we translate as “repent”.
Phineas Don’t forget hsi mother dumped him too. Look at how nicely Ryan spoke of his G’ma. “We did all the little things that made her feel loved” Obama called his G’ma who raised him, paid for his educatin “typical white woman” (racist remark) and didn’t even visit her in her dying days. Romney gave time and $ (quietly) to people and charity. Joke Biden gave $300 and I never heard of him doing anything for people unless gov’t paid for it.
“My mom and dad gave their kids the greatest gift of all. The gift of unconditional love. They cared deeply about who we would be and much less about what we would do.”
When Romney waxed poetic about the unconditional love of his parents throughout his life, I thought about how Obama must find that beyond infuriating. Obama’s experience was profoundly different and I think it shows in his narcissism and willingness to blame others – just as Romney’s upbringing shows in his instinctual impulse to fix things and help others. Romney doesn’t think about whether a given act will cause others to love him; he’s known love all of his life and simply takes it as a given.
I also think that Romney is right in observing that Obama really and sincerely wants to do right by the nation. The problem is that the lights by which he navigates almost guarantee that everything he touches will turn to ash in his hands.
On National television before the world kind words for your opponent don’t cost you anything and are supposed to soften the blow of the truth that follows. Being an intelligent person I doubt very much Romney thinks Obama is a nice fellow,in private.
It isn’t just Obama’s mistaken belief in a philosophy it’s the cold calculated disregard of it’s effects on others that show his true character.
Published on Aug 30, 2012 by wearechange Ron Paul’s Senior 2012 Campaign Adviser Doug Wead gives WeAreChange an exclusive interview about the Ron Paul RNC delegate controversy, criticism of Jesse Benton, and the real reason Ron Paul didn’t attack Mitt Romney during the campaign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbrUPtwIKuk
There needs to be much more ridicule of the empty suit in the White House. The GOP convention was a start, but although there were a number of great lines, none matched the brilliantly-targeted ridicule which Sarah Palin unleashed on Obama in her speech at the convention four years ago. That’s why she became enemy number one of the left: she could plainly see and wasn’t afraid to point out that there was, as Gertrude Stein might put it, “no there there” when it came to Obama. This year’s speakers made some jokes at his expense, but a lot more of that needs to be done regularly to get the public to recognize this administration for what it is.
I think Clint Eastwood did it just right and that the RNC did just the right thing by giving him the floor to do what he did as he did it. His was a speech with substance but the substance was embedded in humor, not enough of which I had seen there before and more of which will be needed as the campaign unfolds.
The “empty chair” metaphor will, and should, persist throughout the campaign; it can be very effective. At one of the other sites I visit, someone commented substantially as follows, paraphrasing Winston Churchill,
“An empty limousine drove up to the White House door and President Obama got out.”
That and similar snark should be repeated and enlarged upon. It’s accurate, if only metaphorically so, and probably will be well received except by those who would stick with President Obama no matter what is said or done.
Agreed. Romney needs a snark czar. I nominate Iowahawk.
Seconded.
To be assisted by PJ O’Rourke and Dave Barry.
Speaking of using the Left’s own stuff against them…
“Let a thousand flowers bloom!”
I cannot pretend to think like Obama but if Clint Eastwood had said some of those things about me, I would just want to turn into dust.
One of Eastwood’s best lines, “I can’t tell Romney to do that”. A Major “poke in the eye” to our crass and angry President.
And the amazing thing is that Associated Press and many leftist talking heads criticized Eastwood for his profanity in his talk. Clint never used profanity but it is clear what the left was stung by. Yet they would defend the “G-D America” talk of their own.
There was a bullet point at Instapundit this morning. Apparently Jim Treacher wrote that “the president went to New Orleans followed by Obama.”
Methinks the next 60 days are going to be really intersting!
I’d like to see the Romney campaign hammer the contrast between Romney’s charitable acts, many of which occured before he became wealthy, with obama’s actions…particularly in regards to his half-brother George, whose existance the little king doesn’t even deign to acknowledge.
It’s very easy to be charitable with other people’s money but much harder to achieve the same level of generosity and compassion when digging in one’s own pocket. Perhaps we should be more forgiving of obama, who just can’t seem to catch a break even though he went to shool and all that.
“It’s very easy to be charitable with other people’s money” Great point!
This is an oxymoron. If it’s not your money, it’s not charity.
thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Do you recall the parable about the giving of the rich man as compared to that of the widow? Romney’s charity/good works were not and are not for public adulation. I would expect the Romney campaign to be silent in this area. Others may come forward to give an accounting. Romney won’t. His public service and the results therein is enough for me.
Hey, you just wait.
I anticipate that MediaMatters is already on the hunt, sniffing the garbage cans of those families, looking for anything: jaywalking tickets, their grade school transcripts, birth certificates, sealed court records, that can be spun into a negative – another Joe-the-Plumbering(TM) is at hand.
And yet who is the easiest to catch playing Liar, why, it’s the Prevaricator-in-Chief. From fake “former Republicans” to fake unemployment statistics to fake “murder victims of Bain” to fake oil production claims, the list never ends.
Remember the Democratic party is the same one that was grooming John Edwards for the presidency. And remember his little affair with Rial Hunter while his wife (who supported him emotionally and materially) slowly died. This is not a party with decency or a conscience. They are very good at pointing at other peoples slips but never their own. The old saying about how “The devil abhors his own image”
Can’t defend Edwards, that’s for sure, but he may have been following the Newt model.
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
Thinskinned-ness is Obama’s dominant trait.
Eastwood’s needling would naturally hit the mark.
I still think Paul Ryan had the best line. Do you want to still be living in your old bedroom in mom & dad house, looking up at your faded Obama poster? It encapsulates Obama perfectly. For he captured the young people’s votes and now they’re still unemployed and many drowing in debt.
Hi Patty, I agree. The visual of the childhood room and the faded poster is the most powerful. I think it will resonate through the whole campaign.
Ramming through changes to the delegate selection rules in defiance
of parliamentary procedure, and ripping off Ron Paul along the way
does not speak well of the respect for the Rule of Law of Republican leadership, or of Romney.
There could be a bright side; The TEA party people and the other Others
may finally give up on the National government, and concentrate all their
efforts on capturing control of solvent state governments.
@M.Report – I used to agree with you. But after reading how Paul’s people had used the delegate process to essentially turn votes for Romney into delegates for Paul, I cannot support you. And note that I have supported Gov. Johnson with live donations so I am most naturally in Paul’s corner. However, all donations go to Romney now – he is a good and decent man and is going to make a great president.
How does the rule change allowing the GOP to alter any existing rule it wants during the year, without the knowledge, opinion or agreement of the state GOP organizations speak well of Romney or the GOP?
I’m not a Ronulan, but Mark Levin even pointed out how traditionally conventions have been knock-down, drag-out fights about competition, not, as in Romney’s case, coronation. Without this competition, we would’ve never gotten Ronald Reagan. I fear the (national) GOP has done this to ensure they never get a Sarah Palin since Ron Paul is retiring.
These rule changes signify the GOP wants entrenched, centralized power as much as the Dems.
The GOP was blatantly arrogant in going about this.Levin had an interview with blow-by-blow descriptions of what happened. (I tried to link, but it has been taken down). At the Tampa mtg, as opposition voices were crying out directly in front of him re the rule changes, John Boehner said, “Hearing no dissent, the motion is carried”!
My Virginia delegate said the RNC-provided bus driver managed to “get lost” on his way to the convention center until the meeting was finished! (VA was one of the states bitterly opposed to these rule changes.)
If I wanted top-down, authoritarianism, I could be a progressive!
M. Report is correct. The Ronulans abused the rules. Now they’re sobbing that their avenues for abuse are being closed.
By the way, Ron Paul swept the Libertarian Party convention and grabbed its 1988 nomination for President. Back then the Libertarians had in place the same sort of rule that you’re barking about now, a “rule… allowing the GOP (Republican National Committee) to alter any existing rule (of the Republican National Committee) it wants during the year, without the knowledge, opinion or agreement of the state GOP organizations…”. The Libertarians probably have the same rule to this very day. So, what’s your gripe?
Speaking of Boehner, did he sound three martinis past the breathalizer red-zone at the close of the convention to you? Also, Mark Levin for U.S. AG.(or someone like him)
Lyndon Larouche may be dead, but the Larouchie spirit was reborn in the Ron Paul candidacy. I am not in the slightest bit surprised to hear that underhanded tactics were being employed. Remember their internet carpet bombing from previous elections? Skewing surveys using ‘bots to up their candidates ranking? As I see it, the Republicans welcomed them into the tent and they refused to check their weapons at the door. (And despite all the “indignation” that they have since employed to cover the fact that they got caught.) Lets just get on with it, fix the economy, put the country back together and THEN worry about the pissing contests.
I didn’t care much for Clint’s monologue, except when he said we have to let you go (to the invisible Obama in the chair). Nice jab. Romney was ok. He poured it on in contrasting his upbringing and religious education to Obama’s (without mentioning Obama’s sordid past in both regards). And since, Romney has been a verifiable success in life while Obama has bombed since taking the oath of office. The Nobel Peace Prize alas was a huge blunder, more clearly so every minute of Obama’s time in office.
A new phenomenon is born, Eastwooding.
Here’s wishing it a long life
OK, it’s just words – politicians are full of them but sometimes they’re all we have to go on. The RNC speakers spoke my language. Obama and his crowd do not. None of that is sufficient reason to vote for or against, but it’ll do for a start. If only Romney and Ryan will walk the walk…
Obamanation – Jon McNaughton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyv5EovqoJo&feature=player_embedded
This is the line that really struck me, “Jobs to him (Obama) are about government”. This is what every American should think about. The government should not be in the business of making jobs. They should be in the business of enforcing the rules on business and staying out of the way, so that Americans can create their own jobs.
It isn’t possible for government to be a net producer of jobs. Before it can fund anything, government must take money from the economy in the form of taxes and/or debt. The money then gets washed through the bureaucracy and politicians where overhead, graft and corruption take a good percentage off the top. What’s left over is given (often very inefficiently) back to companies or communities to “create jobs.”
Look, if you asked me to give you change for $100 and I gave you $50, you wouldn’t be happy about it. That’s what happens with government “stimulus” spending all the time.
Is there an Alinsky tactic that encourages making false accusations and then demanding the target prove their innocense against the delusional? Or, is that method listed under the ridicule clause? The examples are the attacks on corporations, the Romney tax returns, the evil rich, et al. . .
One line which should not be wasted from one of the speakers at the convention was, ” who would you trust your investments with, Obama or Romney.” Sorry that I cannot remember the speaker, and that line should be the deciding metric. The twisted reply would be that the radical would invest someone elses money for your benefits.” But, let the twisted twist in the wind.
There is such a rule. I published it at American Thinker August 8, 2012: “RULE 13: “Confound the enemy with allegations he cannot possibly disprove.” Whenever possible, turn the enemy in on himself. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety, and confusion. (Watch how organizations flail helplessly when blindsided by irrelevant arguments they cannot refute.)”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/harry_reid_and_alinskys_thirteenth_rule.html#ixzz25EWJOZYu
To which the appropriate response is: “Produce some evidence or you’re a liar.” Then you say, “This liar is so desperate that since he can’t find any real faults worth attacking, he has invented utterly ridiculous charges. If he said, ‘The sky is blue,’ I would look out the window to check.”
Here is something that many of us have experienced: You are driving and stop behind a school bus of pre-teens. They makes faces, rude gestures and laugh at the goofy dummy in the car behind them. Most adults ignore them, or maybe laugh back.
I honestly wonder what Obama would do? I certainly can’t assume he would just ignore the children.
Ridicule is particularly potent, and important, when attacking modern liberalism and the Democratic Party.
For many Democrats, their politics are an exercise in status seeking or an ersatz religion from which they derive their moral and intellectual validation. That’s why the political is inherently personal for so many of them.
Rational arguments and back-and-forth let them work out their indignation before they declare victory and go home, filled with warm fuzzies about how they’re so cultured and smart and moral no matter how the debate really went or what it actually means out in the real world. Ridicule strips them of the status and validation, reducing their fervor and perhaps even driving some to more rational approaches.
I can verify that the left does not like Rule #5 re: ridicule when it is aimed back at them.
I have been commenting regularly for many years on one of the most popular law blogs on the net, the Voloch Conspiracy:
http://www.volokh.com/
It was founded by conservative/libertarian law professors, including Randy Barnett, who popularized the individual mandate objection to ObamaCare and rode it all the way to the Supremes, until Roberts outed his inner Souter. Unfortunately, the comment section has been taken over by an aggressive assortment of leftists, who love to apply Rule #5 there.
I have taken it as my task to throw it back at them, ridiculing all the planted assumptions, unproven assertions, lies, spin and leftwing myths that litter their comments. They freak, as their skins are as thin as Obama’s.
Please, if you have any interest in the law and how it impacts politics and want to have some fun, come on over and ridicule some leftlings. Many are high powered lawyers and law professors, but leftists are leftists, so don’t be intimidated. They say and believe some of the most ignorant, bigoted and stupid things, despite, or maybe because of, all their elite, high-priced educations.
Lots of people rebut Rachel Maddow, but who defend themselves against Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert? Comedians have a license to kill.
“Unconditional love is a gift that Ann and I have tried to to pass on to our sons and now to our children.”
Since their sons ARE their children, I can only assume that the last word in the cited sentence should be GRANDCHILDREN.
“Those days were the these were tough days on Ann, particularly.”
Looks like someone didn’t finish an edit. Am I correct in believing that this should say “Those days were tough days on Ann, particularly.”?
Romney did say “children and grandchildren”.
Alinsky was no genius. A lot of what he has advised is just common sense…..which too many Republicans don’t have when they keep turning the other cheek. I’ve forgotten which speaker mentioned the percent of income Romney donated to charities compared with the percent donated by Biden. Republicans should bring out all the little facts like that to really ridicule the dems.
Common sense?
Maybe – if you want to know how to intimidate, coerce, blackmail, propagandize, race-bait, lie about and smear those whose major crime is disagreeing with you, and you have no morals, ethics, principles, sense of shame or a conscience, then Alinsky is the bible for you, as it is for both Obama and Hillary, and their handlers, Jarrett, Axelrod and Plouffe.
#InsertChair – Obama Now Identified as “Empty Seat” through Eastwood Magic
I don’t go along with the Alinsky angle. A big problem for Romney from a political point of view is that he is uncomfortable on the public stage. His great sense of decency and modestly makes it difficult for him to, as he sees it, brag or or to attack. His style of leadership is not based on rhetorical persuasion but on binding in quiet confidence with a cadre of carefully chosen high-performers to who he gives absolute trust sand fully authority, cementing their loyalty. He is not a spell-binder. He is a Team builder.
Did he spend too much time on his bakground, hiss family life and his faith. Well. no. It reaches out to Middle America, the Tea Party, the Palin followers, evlen wavering Democrats. Axelrod and his running dog press will, except for the nut cases, refrain from mocking lhim because of the damage it would do to their cause.
kThe one Alinsky rule he is applying is identiflying Obama’s sore spot, his failure to produce the results he promised, and relentlessly rubbing salt in the wound. I only hope that he can be be ungentlemanly enough to paint out that his opponent’s agenda is essentially Socialist.
Not Alinsky – Mark Twain.
No God and no religion can survive ridicule. No political church, no nobility, no royalty or other fraud, can face ridicule in a fair field, and live.
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
I agree with Saul right up to the point that somebody who is being ridiculed whips out the ol’ Sig .40 and starts blazing away. Or flattens you nose the way my Texas forebears did when somebody started wising off. Alinskys rules work when Saul is the only one playing. Good lesson and don’t forget it.
Your “Texas forebears” had the guns, firehoses, and nooses. The other side had kids riding on Greyhound buses, sitting at lunch counters, and ministers and priests leading marches of unarmed people.
All across the South, including in Texas, the bigots lost.
Feeling lucky, punk?
Err, “those kids riding on Greyhound buses” also had the National Guard.
You remember, those guys with GUNS that Johnson federalized ?
I am not denigrating the awesome courage it took to stand up against the crackers.
And my kids know how crazy brave the people like Medgar Evers were.
And the price they paid.
And I recognize that the bigots lost, and I’m damned glad they did.
But they did because the United States had a bigger stick than they did.
Non-violence only works when your opponent has a conscience (the British re: India), or when someone else has a conscience and enough guns to put down your opponent (the rest of the USA wrt civil rights).
Gotta disagree with you, Micha.
The civil rights movement had two keey advantages that kept them from simply being wiped out.
1) While there certainty were some murderous thugs among the people who resisted the civil rights movement — no need to bring up the murders, I am aware — even most people who resisted the civil rights movement were unwilling to use overwhelming violence to stamp it out.
2) The civil rights movement was broadly supported by most Americans. As a consequence, laws changed and there were Federal marshals and troops ready to enforce the law, with violence, if need be.
Non-violence only wins against fundamentally decent, law-abiding people.
You do know that the Democrats were the party of the KKK, don’t you?
Sir, you are wrong about Texas. Your imagery is from the deep south –Texas is a western state as far as race history goes. San Antonio and Austin are perhaps the most color-blind set of twins in the whole country. Look it up, see what I mean. If that man’s Texas forebears were rough, it were with the Comanches, not the African slaves of the deep south. Thank you for your kind attention.
I was waiting for the republicans to start using Alinsky against barry obama keep it up use it all the time…………….it can’t get any better than this to turn their stupid rules for radicals Marxism against them
This, seat’s taken. What, you worry?
http://www.rokemneedlearts.com/images/obamaworry.jpg
Tactics are tactics. They’ll work equally well for anyone who cares to learn and apply them:
“Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOK!”
- Gen. George S. Patton.
Gary Trudeau, in his cartoon Doonesbury, used to portray George W. Bush as a floating feather. I wonder if he’ll picture Obama as an empty chair now.
Nah, probably not. He’s too deep in the Democratic tank.
“Gary Trudeau, in his cartoon Doonesbury, used to portray George W. Bush as a floating feather.”
Wasn’t that Quayle who was the feather? (My memory might be off here.)
To paraphrase Winston Churchill’s remark about Britain’s prime minister Clement Attlee (“an empty car came to Downing 10 and Clement Attlee stepped out of it”):
An empty limousine came to the White House and Barack Obama stepped out of it…
20 January 2013: An empty limousine came to the White House and Barack Obama stepped into it. The limo drove away, still empty.
I thought the GOP convention in 2008 was surprisingly effective and got a bounce in the polls. Then McCain/Palin got trounced by the economy shortly after. This one seemed even better run convention with the attacks low key. Even Eastwood’s performance was calculated to the take edge off by acting like a doddering old man. I think Christie used his accomplishments to speak far more loudly than his words – so he didn’t have to beat up on Obama. Likewise Rubio was respectful and, unleashed as only he can, his family’s upwardly mobile story. Next we see the Dem’s performance with surprise speakers and then the run to the wire. Get ready for an October surprise from Obama, and plenty of help from the Press. Israel bombing Iran’s nukes could cut either way. It would push me toward Romney, but I’m not sure how the undecideds would break in response to an attack on Iran. the main thing now is that the GOP has put on a good convention.
Don’t get cocky.
The economy was ready to collapse for years because of the toxic subprime mortgages that were fostered, encouraged and forced on lenders by the Progressive ideal of spreading the real estate wealth, yet it waited until 6 weeks before the election that not only featured a radical community organizer was a supporter and colleague of ACORN, but also just as the Palin bounce put McCain in the lead in the polls. Sheer coincidence? Maybe?
But keep in mind that Soros nearly single-handled crashed the English economy by speculating in the pound and manipulating its value, and he is a big supporter of Obama. I predict, if this is still a close race, something major before the election that helps Obama, not excluding massive domestic violence.
“But keep in mind that Soros nearly single-handled crashed the English economy by speculating in the pound and manipulating its value, and he is a big supporter of Obama.”
I lived in Britain at the time. The British government were destroying the economy through slavish obedience to the EU’s Exchange Rate Mechanism (the precursor to the Euro), and Soros saved us from the fate currently suffered by Greece, Spain and other EU nations who are being strangled by an overvalued currency. I’m no Soros fan, but that’s one thing he did right.
> RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
> RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
These are the tactics of bullies. How is this not evil?
Granting for the sake of arguement these are the tactics of bullies (with which one can disagree), these are the tactics the left has been employing for 30 years to advance a statist agenda. The best way to deal with a bully is to punch back.
Rarely are tools inherently evil. Usually, the tool itself is morally neutral, to be used for good or evil by its wielder. Ridicule is fine as long as the thing being ridiculed is actually ridiculous. Jesus used some rather witty satire and biting sarcasm against the Pharisees to point out their hypocrisy.
For your consideration, here is an excerpt from Bill Whittle’s article a while back, “The Destruction of Sarah Palin”. (NOTE: since the original has been archived apparently, I pulled this excerpt from FreeRepublic here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2309597/posts
*******************************************
Here’s a final, quick little thought for you.
Saul Alinski wrote a book called Rules for Radicals. Hillary Clinton wrote about it in her senior’s thesis. And if Hillary Clinton learned from it, Barack Obama taught from it: the term community organizer was coined by Alinski and was the centerpiece of his theory that the socialization of America could best be accomplished from within the system since Americans were alert to revolutions forced upon them from the outside.
One of the Rules for Radicals is Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. Think about the genius of that. Just let that sink in. When a Republican has an ethics scandal, it’s “hypocrisy” and “double standards” and all the rest. But when a Clinton or a Pelosi or a Charley Rangel or a Chris Dodd or a Barney Frank or a William Jefferson has an ethics scandal, no one bats an eye. Why? Because of course they’re immoral! They’re Democrats.
Alinski could see that moral people have to be held to moral standards when immoral people do not. We’d better learn a lesson from this, right quick. Here’s an example of the kind of lesson good and decent people must learn about people like Saul Alinski and his followers:
The Battle of Guadalcanal was the first real test of the US Marine Corps in World War II. There was real anger toward the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the atrocities they had committed in China and to American prisoners at Bataan, but the Marines had not yet dealt with them face to face and still reserved a professional soldier’s decency towards surrendering troops.
A Marine recon unit reported seeing Japanese troops flying a white flag on an isolated spit of land near Guadalcanal, and so A Marine named Frank Goettge asked for volunteers to help rescue these surrendering Japanese soldiers. 25 men stepped forward, and when they reached the beach the Marines warily went ashore to help the trapped Japanese. Once they were all within range, the Japanese opened fire with machine guns, and after hours of fighting only one Marine was able to escape. As he swam away he looked over his shoulder, and saw the flashing Samurai swords of the Japanese officers as they hacked at and beheaded the survivors. When reinforcements returned they found that their buddies had been mutilated and dismembered, and any Marine corps tattoos had been hacked off their arms and stuffed into their mouths.
The Marines never treated the Japanese the same way after that.
Alinski and his followers want you to believe that if you fight dirty in response to people fighting dirty with you, then you have lost your morals and in fact your identity. But that’s a lie.
We are in a political fight to the death with people who will stop at nothing – and I’m not talking about your average decent Democrat, but rather these Alinski radicals. And if we don’t face the same realization as those Marines on Guadalcanal and give back as brutally as we have taken, then we will lose.
Which is what they want. And if we do lose to these kind of tactics, there will be no more decent people left in politics. As of today, we’re one short already.
*******************************************
When you and your family are about to be pushed off a cliff, you don’t worry about getting some dirt under your fingernails by grabbing hold of anything you can to stop the slide. If we let the radicals win, there will be nothing left to grab onto as this nation slides over the cliff into Euro-style social democracy.
For all their soaring rhetoric the Republicans at the RNC failed to reject
the morality of Altruism & once again laid claim to their superior ability
in governing the Welfare State. They cannot & will not successfully defend
Capitalism which is not based on Altruism (living one’s life for the sake
of others)but is based on rational self-interest or selfishness.
And you heard this…. where?
In criticisms of the 1948 Dewey campaign, among other places.
Our side believes in eternal truths. We believe in charity. We believe in freedom. We trust in God.
We believe that you do unto others as you would have done to yourself.
Charity is not government extortion at gunpoint. It is certainly not stealing that money to enrich your hoodlum buddies. It is freely given, an offering in thanks for your own success, whatever that may be.
Altruism doesn’t enter into it.
But it NEVER even pokes its head up on the liberal side. Biden gave $300 to charity? And had the balls to even claim it?
Pathetic.
Romney understands the free market power of creative destruction in capitalism while Obama does not. Please pray for Obama. I would suggest Psalm 109:8.
McNaughtonArt Obamanation (One Painting That Says It All) I chose to use an undisclosed studio so I could paint privately, without interruption, to focus on the task of embedding in a single painting all the subtle, mindless, radical and dangerous atrocities of the Obama administration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyv5EovqoJo&feature=player_embedded
And the picture shows only the highlights of this man’s destruction. The canvas would have had to be a thousand times larger to hit all of them.
I absolutely HATE Alinsky’s rules. They grossly unfair, intellectually dishonest, divisive, and destructive. What’s worse is that they are absolutely poisonous to the reasoned and substantive discourse that democratic politics and public decision-making require. And they are every bit as harmful to the country and its governance when Republicans/republicans employ them as when Democratics/liberals/progressives do.
Totally disagree with you. For example, holding someone to their own standard isn’t dishonest, divisive and destructive. Reasoned and substantive discourse, you mean from like 1990? There isn’t any any more.
I refer you to my reply to Greg Swann, above.
Encouraging, but Romney is still basically just the Republican Party’s 2012 crap sandwich offering.
BJS, I think Mr. Romney is good enough … it is the professional/political complex around him that fills the crap sandwich and turns my stomach.
But hey … you go to war with the leader you got. Besides, we still have a lot of opportunities to elect a Congress that will keep him honest and active with regards to the CTL-ALT-DEL of Federal governance that needs to take place.
Not to mention that the Tea Party movement is moving as an insurgency within the GOP, in order to restore principled conservatism over the top of the professional/political complex that currently runs it AND leverage its major-party advantages in the electoral process to promote those principles. Shoot, I’m even going to change my registration from independent back to GOP (after a 14-year run as an indy) to get in on the action where/as I can … because that is the only way I can see that we can restore sound principle to our systems of governance in the foreseeable future.
When i hear the ring of truth, i ought to say so, so that’s what i’m doing.
Remember the Left’s merciless attacks on GW Bush, claiming he had “daddy issues?”
After seeing D’Souza’s 2016 (twice), it’s very clear Obama has actual daddy issues.
The book version of 2016 (Obama’s America) describes some mommy-issues too.
They were both conmen of the first water.
Google Stanley Ann Dunham Immigration, and prepare to be amazed.
What is it about apples and trees?
Obama does have some severe Daddy and Mommy issues! He also has some severe ideologue issues having been programmed by Mommy, Daddy, Frank and his Marxist-Socialist and Left Wing Terrorist during his college years.
Time for Americans to flush the Obama Administration Marxist-Socialist toilet and let em all go down the drain.
Just a not to PJMedia. The popups ar interfering with reading the blog. You should have an easy way for readers to click them off [x]. Otherwise PJ Media rocks!
If BHO leads from behind, it’s because that’s where his head is firmly embedded giving him a dark view of America. Awareness of Alinsky’s strategies and tactics in pursuit of power are useful for both dastards and their opponents.
Alinsky sought power for the then powerless disenfranchised. But power serves to corrupt the powerful if the motive devolves into GREED for more than one’s fair share. Thus, power does not corrupt; greed corrupts. Ask Gandhi, who held power over millions of Hindus and Muslims, but used that power in the service of justice by tough, tenacious, peaceful resistance to tyrannical British rule.
Au contraire, the British took India from being a backwater of dozens of warring tribes to a united and functional country. Once they had introduced stability and a unified code of laws, Ghandi and crew decided that since the heavy lifting had been done, it was time to take over. That it was done peacefully is a testament to both the Indians and the British. Is it just coincidence that all former British ‘colonies’ have become functional, if not prosperous, democracies?
Yeah. If Ghandi had tried that crap on Stalin or Hitler, heda been feeding worms instead of giving speeches.
He did pick his enemies carefully, so he wasn’t so dumb. That’s why he left South Africa. They were gettting ready to have him whacked.
more pathetic PJ lies
Stupid lefty punk; pretty much everyone here understands that when used by a stupid lefty punk the word “lie” means “said something that doesn’t comport with lefty dogma.” You people have no notion of truth or falsity. You’re just mind-numbed robots fit only for cannon fodder and your time is coming.
Re: Alinski, Eastwood and the (empty) chair. It struck me as the type of prop (method) actors use to get into the proper frame of mind. In this case, a certain Mr. O, a poorly performing, arrogant and sullen employee is about to get a dressing down from his boss, Mr. E in the role of we-the-people. Which (after disrespecting his employer with language and an attitude Mr. O is known to use) is going to end with “your measure has been taken and you’ve been found wanting, you’re fired, now get out of my sight.”
Mr. E even asks him to step aside to let Mr. R begin cleaning up the mess he’s created. Hmm.. Remember the clamor in the MSM in 2008 asking that Mr. B remove himself in November so Mr. O could begin to save the earth and earn his Nobel immediately? Certainly seems more deserved in this case.
Well done. I hope I am half as able when I’m 80. I suspect the leftists have yet to appreciate how Mr. E’s skit has exposed their emperor, and is inexorably destroying the facades of their entire Potemkin village.
Even better every response by the Left to Mr. E will expose how they really think about and treat the elderly (His zero-interest rate policies have halved the income of most the elderly, and Obamacare has promised to take trillions out of the elderly’s health-system – ending medical-innovation as we know it, leaving who-can-get-what treatment to a government panel who will also be telling us how we have to live, etc.). Remember Mr. O’s treatment of his grandmother? And his never missing an opportunity to neglect to ask his Muslim friends to emancipate women? (doubly striking given his own use of racialism and history). His family, brother in Africa? Even children, condemning many of the least of us to a worthless education in government schools, to say nothing of the ethnic cleansing we see of unborn children.
So Mr. E has pitched, and the Left has hit into a triple play – every retort showing the Left is at war with the elderly, with women and with the family.
Employing Alinsky Rule 6 (A good tactic is one your people enjoy) with #Eastwooding.
What’s amazing is that our vaunted late night comedian class — so proud of their ability to mock the powerful but so missing in the last 4 years — were so totally shown up by an 82 year old actor.
The marriage of Barack Obama and American leftists is one of the worst things to ever happen to America.
The marriage of Christian Adams’ parents was one of the best.
Alinsky is a piece of garbage and stole most of his ideas.
Look to the “Art of War” there you will find the answers.
Why has it taken the GOP so long to wake up and fight fire with fire. In dealing with the Republican women’s clubs, I found they are very reluctant to spend ANY money on their projects….or use any of the newer media.
Murgatroyd –
The Obamabots really did have a “shovel ready” job – its name was Ted Kennedy and it had been ready for years.
I find it funny when both Parties use the mantra “Education and job training”.
The guy crashing in my spare room has two degrees, a US Navy vet, managed a industrial plant, has a list of accomplishment a foot long, and the best he can do is 24 hours a week at Wal-mart?
If Romney is serious, he’ll have to kick out all the illegals, halt immigration, and slap some heavy import duties on Mexican and Chicom goods.
That will take a large set of stones of course.
Alas, the Romney Family brags that not one member of their clanna has ever served in the US military.