Newt Gingrich wasn’t buying David Gregory’s MacGuffin today. Some people might be asking themselves, “gee can I do that?” Yes, but realize the secret to emulating the persuasive power of Newt Gingrich and the late Andrew Breitbart lies principally in never leting the media set the frame. Never buying the MacGuffin. Notice how Gingrich took back the initiative from Gregory at the earliest possible opportunity.
The single greatest advantage a broadcast interviewer enjoys is control of the setting. You are on their killing ground, an enormous advantage. As Steven Zaloga pointed out in his analysis of combat between Panthers and Shermans, even the poor old M4 would knock out the Panther nearly every time if it got to bushwack the German AFV. By the same token, even a mediocre broadcast interviewer can break down a more formidable opponent by pre-scouting the weakness and going for it bareheaded.
Unfortunately for Gregory, Gingrich (like any good speaker) had a set of immediate action drills which allowed him to break contact with David Gregory’s narrative and reframe the debate in ways that were impossible to refuse. Gingrich contrasted Limbaugh’s words to Obama’s groveling on the Koran burning issue which he described as “appeasement of extremists while making war on the Catholic Church”.
At that point Gregory had to answer, even if it meant moving out of his killing ground right into Newt’s sights. And the consequences were pitiful to behold.
But if Newt relied on his tactical skills to get out of a jam, Breitbart worked at the operational level. His method was to prepare the frame at the level of campaign: the teaser, the bait and the shutting of the trap, never giving the other guy a break.
His approach to media warfare is reminiscent of the Autralian ambush of the 5th Japanese infantry division at Gemas. Accustomed to seeing British troops withdraw before them and unaware they were now facing dastardly and low Australians, no gentlemen these, the soldiers of Emperor poured over a bridge in pursuit as they always did, and were astonished when it blew up behind them. Only then did they notice the high embankments to either side of the road were lined with Australian machine gun positions.
But Gemas made no difference in the Malayan campaign; and perhaps Breitbart will ultimately make no difference if the one side fights according to the Marquis of Queensbury while the other like Kimbo Slice. Professor William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection says that only the Left truly knows how to wage “total political war” in contrast to conservatives, who should never stoop to that level.
When King & Spalding agreed to represent the U.S. House of Representative after Obama changed positions and announced that the Justice Department no longer would defend DOMA in court, there were not only protests against King & Spalding, but threats to picket and protest clients of the firm who had nothing to do with the dispute. The threat that clients of the firm who were completely unconnected to the dispute would be harrasseed was enough to cause the firm to withdraw the representation.
Similarly, when the new Rhode Island Attorney General announced that he would cooperate with the federal goverment in the enforcement of federal immigration laws, protesters not only invaded the lobby of his offices, they picketed his house and confronted neighbors about the issue. Dragging his neighbors into a dispute which had nothing to do with them did not cause the RI AG to back down, although not for lack of trying.
Which brings me to the present dispute with Rush Limbaugh … This total war, in which no one is allowed to be non-political and neighbors and clients become mere pressure points, is a dangerous development …
I would not be surprised to see a similar reaction from the right to the left’s attacks on advertisers, but that would be a mistake.
Why would it be a mistake? Since, Jacobson says, it would make conservatives “like them and engage in their tactics, although the temptation will be great.” It’s the same old moral conundrum: win dirty or lose fair.
So do you want to be like Newt Gingrich or Andrew Breitbart? Part of the secret is in their skill. But mostly the secret sauce is in their attitude. Neither wants an even fight. Even fights are for losers. Their whole being was devoted to struggling for the frame so that the enemy could do nothing but go down like David Gregory.
How to Publish on Amazon’s Kindle for $2.99
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $3.99, print $9.99
I am truly surprised that neither Gingrich nor Limbaugh has used the racial elimination element yet. The reason Margaret Sanger wanted easy availability to abortion was to reduce the population of African Americans. At one time abortion was decried by African Americans as a plot against them. Now the roles are reversed. A simple reveiew of this episode in history would be an effective debating point. But it’s not used. I wonder why.
As I’ve been saying for several months: Newt seems to be the only candidate with the wit and rhetorical spontaneity to actually change the conversation.
Somehow I can’t imagine Mitt or Rick responding in this fashion. But somebody needs to respond in this fashion.
Let’s all watch over the next few days to see how Mitt and Rick deal with this non-issue/issue.
For what it’s worth, the thought of Rush apologizing for his comments, in view of the invective freely and constantly tossed out by the Left, makes my skin crawl.
This post is a thing of beauty. Just damn!
The point I made at L.I. was that it’s as if we’re singing the praises of the foot soldier on the frontline, who is victorious though muddied and bloodied with the intensity of the battle, and then denounce them for their choice of weapon because “we’re above all that.”
Great Post W and thanks for the Video. Newt smashes it out of the park
I too, grew up on the wrong side of town.
If winning is the deal, there is no such thing as a Fair Fight.
Boxing is for funsies. Real life is quite different.
“Part of the secret is in their skill. But mostly the secret sauce is in their attitude.”
Absolutely true. That attitude doesn’t seem to be teachable though. My observation is that a few people have it and most don’t. Those who do have the Breitbart/Gingrich attitude must also be able to withstand the bullying and the unprincipled attacks that will come right back at them. People with this attitude also end up fighting alone. Just try getting into one of these things together with people who don’t share the Breitbart/Gingrich attitude. In the blink of an eye, you’re on your own.
It’s a hard act to follow.
David Gregory seems to have at least a touch of sympathy for Gingrich personally and maybe even for his points.
Gingrich did quite well here, 91 out of 100, maybe a tad higher. But he did NOT blow Gregory and the MSM out of the water. Nor did Gregory try to steamroll him.
I didn’t watch MTP, I did watch the ABC Stephanopoulooza until it became too much, it was ALL about Rush, and neither Will nor Noonan gave more than half-hearted support. And even here, what else did I want from Gingrich? I think he should have unapologized for Rush. He should have pinned the hatred for religion on Ms. Fluke. He should have pinned the hatred for religion on Gregory and NBC. That’s what it would have taken to get to 100.
That’s where we are today.
“go down like David Gregory”
That was a most unappetizing image. What is it about the social cocoon of the Left that makes some men act like drama queens? Gregory is presumably straight. He married a former Fannie Mae executive and has four children but the snarky triviality of his pose makes the effort at an ambush seem like it was scripted in some red lighted bath house. By comparison Anderson Cooper would appear a model of gravitas.
Where Gregory stepped over the line was when he tried to shut down the real story, Gingrich’s raising and linking the issues of the Koran burning and the repression of religion in America, to return to his trivial question. In doing so Gregory not only practiced bad journalism but he destroyed his own credibility before any observer who was not hopelessly partisan. He could have followed the story, and done so while critically pressing Gingrich.
If a tree falls on an NBC “news” program, does it make any sound? Good for Gingrich in swatting down whichever running dog of the Totalitarians was reading off the White House playlist, but was anyone watching?
The media are killing their already low level of trust, pumping out garbage from Democrat Central. They are in the impossible position of telling people to ignore their lying eyes — unemployment is down, Obama’s figures prove it! inflation is non-existent, Obama’s figures prove it! Media credibility is bleeding from every pore.
Maybe the Big Government Media have become the modern equivalent of the Maginot Line — unassailable, but irrelevant. All we need are the commanders prepared to drive round the obstacle.
Fighting your enemies in an honorable fashion should be reserved for enemies who are honorable themselves. Once you know who your enemies are, do onto them as they do onto you, only with compound interest.
I think Glenn Reynolds hit the target when he remarked the other day to the effect that the great triumph of the Left was to get those who opposed them to believe that directly attacking their ideas and motivations was simply bad manners.
In the old silent westerns the good guys would knock the bad men down with a punch and wait for them to get back up before the fight was resumed. It looks noble in the movies but in real life its a recipe for disaster.
Gingrich is really an able foe to leftist turds like Gregory and the reptiles on MSNBC, not to mention the frizzy headed idiot spokesperson for the DNC,Debbie Wasserman Test Schultz. If only Newt would have been smart enough to discipline his life so he wouldn’t be dragging it around like an albatross.
Gingrich always had a quick wit and good instincts as a general. Don’t be fooled. I was there during the Revolution of 1994. He was never so lousy as they make him out to be now. Those were exciting, heady times for conservatives. I was a soldier for him once, I’d re-up.
#9. Kinuachdrach
Yes–our ration of four grams of chocolate per week has been increased to two grams per week. All hail Big Brother and the Party, without whom such a feat would not have been possible.
I only wish that the MSM were truly irrelevant. They may be headed in that direction but they haven’t gotten there yet. Lower life forms are very tenacious of life.
9 @Kinuachdrach
Maybe the Big Government Media have become the modern equivalent of the Maginot Line — unassailable, but irrelevant. All we need are the commanders prepared to drive round the obstacle.
A most excellent analogy, sir. If they don’t completely lock down the Internet (not that they aren’t trying, see what Subotai refers to as Obama’s Enabling Acts: SOPA and NDAA), we just may have a chance of outmaneuvering the old dinosaur media. Breitbart blazed the trail. I pray to God that there are many with the fortitude to follow that path and extend it much further into enemedia territory.
conservatives are towel boys in a bangkok brothel. they are gutless worms. they have no part to play in the forthcoming games. ef them and their dainty white gloves. remember Road Warrior (aka Mad Max II) ? conservatives are the flit on the back of the motorcycle that catch a boomerang with their heads. nutless wonders one and all.
Apparently cjm is an authority on Bangkok brothels.
Ever wonder why the beltway apparat and their lickspittle coasties fear and loath the TEA partiers so much more virulently than OWS goons? Why their various ministries shunt memos hither and yon warning of the dire “potential threat” posed by; Constitutionalists, Conservatives, Preppers, Libertarians, the AM radio spectrum, ungoverned inter-tubes, bitter clingers, coiled rattlers, intemperate tattlers, returning soldiers, Jesus freaks, Freepers, Threepers, and Patriot sleepers?
Their spidey-sense is whispering that the power of BS is on the wane in America, just when they’ve run out of other people’s money…And righteous indignation is teaming up with competence.
16 @Cowboy
I dunno, I kinda got the impression he was more familiar with Man’s Country in Chicago.
18 @Dworkin
I dunno. All that can be said with certainty is that, unlike Rush Limbaugh, he would never falsely impugn anyone.
Access, access, access. It doesn’t mean what it is being used to represent. I wish he had time to address that also, but he had to keep to the main issue.
“David, Do you have access to bread? Can you stop at any market within 20 miles and purchase a loaf? Notice David, we all have access, but it is the product of someone’s labor, how they make their living. Therefore it cannot be given freely without depriving those people of their livelyhood.”
Yes, I know. I’m back on the bread wagon again.
I do admire Newt’s ability to turn an interview. I only wish he had the rest of the presidential package. A few too many flaws and they caught up with him. But that is true in degree for all the GOP candidates. Any of them are still far far better than President Obama.
STOP THE PRESSES!!! OBAMA SUPPORTERS DON’T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SELLER AND A BUYER!!! http://tinyurl.com/7v8zsgm
“In its briefs, the administration has frequently quoted from a 2005 opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia. In that case, Scalia wrote that Congress may use its authority under the Commerce Clause — pertaining to interstate commerce — to regulate an individual who wanted to grow medicinal marijuana at home and then sell it.”
P.S. As to the kerfuffle surrounding Ms. Fluke.
It is ironic that the radical feminist movement grew from the Vietnam era anti-war movement, since so much of its focus has been to de-value the epithet BABYKILLER!, an epithet that has been quite powerful in garnering support for the anti-Assad movement in Syria
These media freaks should be “tried for their tactics” every single time they ask a question. You can watch these Sunday shows for a year and never hear a question that didn’t contain some logical fallacy (or fallacies)-red herrings, strawmen, begging the question, false dilemmas, non-sequiters, fallacies of division, appeals to pity and to the popular, guilt by association, etc. etc., etc. The MSM have done this so long they couldn’t recognize if it bit them in the ass and our own mental midgets keep answering the unanswerable. We keep letting Lucy hold the football.
The Stephanopoulis “out of the blue” contraception debate question should have been shoved up his partisan rear end.
Guiliani had what it takes too, but fell by the wayside. America, please rediscover what it takes to have a unified, coherent polity. It takes a lot of tough talk, a lot of tough love.
OK, let’s see:
Obama makes huge error, attacks Catholics in such a way that they can’t back down. Catholic Bishops protest vigorously, and frame the issue correctly as Church/State issue.
Obama’s in a box, since this is a no compromise issue on his side as well. He’s got a real problem, and as dim as they are the Dems sense it.
So they try to change the narrative to an attack on womens rights, mumble some fictional compromise that looks more like an Enron accounting trick, and hope. Sister Nan calls an unofficial hearing to highlight the “fact” that women’s “access” to contraceptives is being withheld.
This is a pretty transparent ploy, and one that someone like Limbaugh has seen a thousand times. So he immediately does everything he can to assist them by calling a woman who testified before Congress a slut.
This was wrong for several reasons. First, it’s just flat out wrong. People should be able to testify before Congress without being called a slut on the radio. I didn’t like it when “Joe the Plumber” started a media feeding frenzy simply for asking El Presidente a question, and I don’t like this.
Even if you disagree with me on that and think there are no limits anymore, and decent behavior has become a casualty of the political wars, then you can say it’s wrong because it was plain stupid. Pelosi must be patting herself on the back for this one, since it’s one very successful political diversion, ably assisted by a leader of the opposition who should have seen this coming a mile away.
Gingrich has the right idea, but Limbaugh has done a lot of damage, and much of it won’t be undone. The waters are muddy, and the MSM will keep stirring.
So no, Limbaugh doesn’t deserve support on this. He’s done a lot of damage, and maybe let O and DEMS in Congress who rely on heavy Catholic support off the hook.
Can Ms. Fluke buy contraceptives now? It’s a simple question and one that conservative simply refuses to ask the questioner. The liberal media in conjunction with the WH and DNC are simply sticking to the “they are denying women contraceptives” ploy. It’s working. They should keep asking it back to the media until they are forced to say “yes” she can buy contraceptives. The real problem is that she wants someone else to pay for them.
It is no Fluke that this issue is coming up now. Gingrich points that out clearly. Gregory is simply a waterboy for his team and as every good journalist does when confronted by his errors he simply retreats to the standard “I’m only a journalist simply asking a 2 minute question that I am only going to give you 30 seconds to answer.” I thought it was interesting how he tried to cut Newt off.
Look, the only way this is all going to stop is when the money stops flowing to ABC/NBC/CBS and the companies that support them. Until that time the liberal media is going to pander to their audience.
this whole contraception thing is classic agit/prop from the clowns that bring us the political theater called our government….they can whack away on this stupid issue but can’t pass a budget (for three years!).
Georgetown University is a Jesuit/Catholic school. Fluke is an “activist” and has access to contraception – the whole situation was contrived (she “testified” (wrong word but that is what they are using) before a subcommittee of Issa’s committee examining government efforts to force catholic institutions to provide birth control/abortion medicine – she was not an “expert”, was a last minute substitution, her rights were not violated….
Rush correctly apologized for the right thing: Fluke was not asking to be PAID to have sex, so it was incorrect to call her a prostitute. His apology also correctly did NOT apologize for calling her a slut: someone who wants to have sex outside of marriage. Everyone knows this, since the Left “apologizes” for “inappropriate word choices” all the time without ceding the central argument. Fluke the lefty, immediately recognized the tactic being used against her, and correctly said the apology meant nothing, which is EXACTLY how much Lefty apologies that use the same tactic are worth. I await HER apology for misrepresenting the position of the University, whose policies DID pay for drugs to treat illnesses whose side effects include infertility (a position of the Catholic Church since the beginning that the Left refuses to acknowledge because it refutes their “religious===stupid” meme.)
A leftist, no matter how sincere, can only maintain their position and win arguments through a form of logical hypocrisy: MY set of rules for ME, and YOUR set of rules for THEE. THAT position, however, is a MORAL position, not a logical one, so don’t buy into it, but call attention to it.
I say the above to point out the “limpness” of some commentators here, as if they were AFRAID of hurting a Leftist’s feelings more than uttering the truth, without thinking of WHY their feelings would be hurt BY the truth.
My rule of conduct is Jesus Christ, who NEVER respected the feelings of hypocrites (or ANYONE for that matter) if they would have been hurt by the truth. His skill (freely available to the qualified), was in what he said BEFORE he said that truth.
Truth is like humor: it’s all in the timing.
16 &18:if only david carradine had taken my advice, he would be with us today.
dtmack:
I think Rush’s main problem is that we do not have a word to describe Fluke, a woman who wants to have sex as often as she wishes but neither have to pay for contraception or select her sex partners so that she only does it with people who will pay for it, and also, have free and unfettered access to abortion if she spends her last nickle on a beer instead of a condom.
Talk about framing something – I don’t know what to call that kind of a person. “Slut” and “prostitue” are not merely the wrong words but inadequate. Sluts presumably have sex and don’t worry about having to pay for the associated consumables. Prostitutes presumably provide a service for a fee and don’t worry about who pays for the consumables. Fluke does not even seem to come up to that level; she best resembles one of those people who runs a red light while street racing and then sues the person she hit for getting in the way. As lawyer she will not doubt be chasing such clients.
As for “the right not to be called a slut on the radio” once you do what she did you are a public figure and are fair game. She made her private life a public issue; no one else dragged it out into the open. Ask Justice Thomas about that.
Personally, I think it is delicious the the President called a poor student to console her. And if this in turn causes independent women voters to vote for Obama, well, the phrase “women and minorities hardest hit” will apply to what follows an Obama re-election.
Dworkin/14: “enemedia” is very nice. A double pun and a very handy neologism. Thanks!
Meanwhile, as the economy sinks under actual inflation, the administration and its elves in the media fire more chaff,flares, and smoke bombs to distract incoming attacks on the issue. At the current rate of use, failing effectiveness, and increasing loss of defensive manpower, by September Obama will be lighting farts in attempts to distract.
28. PA – Rush correctly apologized for the right thing: Fluke was not asking to be PAID to have sex, so it was incorrect to call her a prostitute. His apology also correctly did NOT apologize for calling her a slut: someone who wants to have sex outside of marriage.
A slut is a woman. Your definition covers Rush and Newt, but if you mentioned that to them they’d probably get mad.
The Republican party has missed a great opportunity. Going after Obama with Romney is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
This year’s rallying cry “anyone but Obama” is just not going to cut it.
I think Gingrich would have been the best choice but anyone would have a tough time of it. Statistically the best predictor for an incumbent to be reelected is the stock market. The Dow is up 60% since Obama took office.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/markets-predict-next-president-134155674.html
”win dirty or lose fair”—reminds me of the saying, ”Show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser.”
And I agree with Cowboy/12 that Gingrich was not bad at all back then. He was an exciting force and gave a lot of us hope. I’m sure he wasn’t popular with the eunuchs in his own party because, as we know now, they’re part of the scam. Of course they’re badmouthing him now.
G-8 UPDATE
The Rahmfather has been trying to spin the situation in the local papers. Why didn’t he know that the G-8 meeting was being moved to Camp David? He remains clueless!!
Meanwhile, SEAL TEAM 6 has advanced plans for the NATO meeting in Chicago. They are planning to allow the Occupy Wall Street Crowd their own day in the sun!! The main concessions that will be required of the draft-dodger spawn are
1) That they rename the occasion as OCCUPY SOLDIER FIELD – DISCO DEMOLITION DAY II! http://tinyurl.com/y7jwu7
2) That once an hour they all chant “GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY!!!” http://tinyurl.com/7e77yzc
In exchange they will be given access to Soldier Field and will have themselves broadcast on Global TV!!!! We will even invite Steve Dahl to MC!!! http://tinyurl.com/hroe8
Any draft-dodger spawn caught acting up outside the OWS Containment Area (Soldier Field) will be subject to public beatings that will make the 1968 Democrat Convention look like child’s play! http://tinyurl.com/8x3o49z
Okay, Rahmfather, MAKE IT SO!!!!
The MSM are good at not playing fair. If allowing Newt to have a live interview means the MSM will lose, then they will simply not have interviews with Newt, but will instead report soundbites of what people say about Newt.
Newt makes a great conservative pitbull but drags along too much personal baggage to be president. He believes it is “his turn” which is the entire problem with two-party politics. Professional politicians see this as a career instead of public service. IMHO, he is best suited as a conservative attack dog, getting down in the mud, giving tit for tat, so the candidates can stay above it all. But he has too much ego for that.
The frame, yes. The reason Republicans should not allow the MSM to set them up in debate venues. I stopped watching long ago because I spent the whole time screaming at the candidates not to be distracted by the set-up questions. I would have brought every question back to three concepts: The state of the economy, the circumventing of the Constitution, and fast and furious. Anything else can wait.
Appears that Ms. Fluke also demands that private insurance cover “gender re-assigment surgery,” which, if I’m not mistaken is a PC word for sex change-(the medical term for women who desire to be men is “adadictomy).” See link-http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance
Of course, Drudge and the Media Research Center were the only media to excavate this nugget. The contraceptive crap might work on some voters who don’t see the real issue, but I think this shreds her “credibility.” Any fool who saw her drama queen testimony should realize that a true believer’s gonna overreach 90% of the time. More effective to call her a lunatic that a slut-more accurate also.
This is largely about control and loss of control. The Left has pretty much had control of the cultural playing field since at least the 60′s and no doubt has been its “game” from the 30′s on. The Right has watched, and as many commenters here have noted, have either felt that this “game” was morally wrong, or many maybe just didn’t have the time or desire to engage in it. Many of those who did appeared like fish out water, awkward, left trying to run away after the pie hit their faces. After.
Mr. Fernandez points out Aussies, and Gingrich as examples of how to turn the tables. Mr. Breitbart was there as have been several others (James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles). Even with the Left’s overwhelming advantage in the MSM, there is no reason why on a personal or local level (Gingrich) this situation cannot be used to level the playing field, and dare I say, gain an advantage.
It’s there for the taking. The Left has become so ossified in its thinking, it marches so lockstep, that picking off the cannon fodder is like that fish/barrel metaphor.
I’m a professional musician, I grew up ( Marin County and San Mateo County) and have worked at Modern Liberal Ground Zero much of my life. My worldview is different than that Bay Area consensus. Logic and observation made that happen. I do know the Left well.
Certainly I have experience facing crowds of people, as personal interaction is an important part of being an entertainer, and there is an advantage there. But it wasn’t always like that. You can develop very good sense of who you are by engaging those who may not agree with you. Your positions become more known to you and the back and forth with those might disagree becomes a learning experience. People know this, nothing new, but putting it into action can be quite a different experience.
I can say, with out equivocation, that Modern Liberals are sitting ducks (fish), especially with a one on one, and even when they have a numerical advantage (5-1, 10-1, who cares). They rely on group reinforcement a great deal. Logic is not their forte. They tend not to know their own positions well and rely on others to fill in the blanks. In larger groups they tend to drown you out, so you simply concentrate one person and ignore the rest. You must be ready with your positions, and must be ready to admit what you may not know at that time. However, simply not knowing something is remedied by finding about it. The Internet. If you expect to “win” every time, or convince someone else of something, don’t go there. You are there for your own purposes.
The goal is to expose them to dialog, not the monologues that they are to accustomed to. This can be very disconcerting to Modern Liberals, and can cause them great discomfort, and possibly, just possibly, cause them to examine their cherished beliefs. Or you can just watch them “freak”. Some are good people, and just disagree.
Calm, resolve, humor, and control are keys. As Mr. Fernandez observed with the Gingrich-Gregory situation, you achieve control from the get go. How? By knowing their points of argument as well as you know your own. You speak their language, but not their ideas. This won’t always “work”, but it is a hellava lot better than pie in the face and retreat. They will attempt to set conditions. Don’t accept that.
Yes, this is not for the shy, but in time, you can develop a sense of presenting yourself in a way that disarms or mitigates the notion of the Modern Liberal expectation of control. Loss of that expectation of control, and that control severely disorientates them. They quite often become very angry. Or silent.
They are not as political as you might think. It is the control factor that is most important. Look around, Mr. President strives mightily in this way, when he loses it, there is no mistaking it. He blames others. Others he could not control. An admission. Simple. This has been happening more in the open with Breitbart and others, and you can see the results as the Modern Liberal is becoming more desperate and can sense that the assumption of a priori control slipping away.
You can and are making a difference.
Obama said that under his reform plan you get to keep your insurance. But now Washington can change everything about your coverage on the whim of a Big Boss Bureaucrat. Contraception can be free and easy today and difficult and expensive tomorrow — based on the political needs of DC Democrats. So you get to keep your insurance as long as the DC Democrats get to keep you.
There is a syllogism in the arguments of left Democrats: Republicans are selfish and greedy and cannot be trusted with power! All power should be concentrated in Washington so DC Democrats can protect plain folks from Republicans. Therefore, all power must be concentrated in Washington and Republicans never again allowed to have it. OK, it is not exactly a syllogism. It would be a silly old ‘gism but for the inevitable tragic results.
The left relies heavily on “Grifter Logic.” They are doing the long con and ordinary “folks” are the marks. In the long con the mean old trolls have “it” and won’t share “it” with the victims who actually deserve “it” (Republicans are at war with women and provide tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of folks and so on). The conman-congress member offers the victim access to what the Trolls have hoarded. This requires doing some mean things to the mean old trolls that the victims are complicit in. In the end it is the con-artists in Washington who actually benefit and the “victims” are victimized all over again. It is the job of Journalists and other activists to blame the trolls for this outcome. You see, some version of “the wrecker theory” can always explain the failure of the beneficiaries to get much benefit — if shouted loud enough. It is Great Society neighborhood improvement all over again.
RE: slut
My circle includes some men in their 80′s whose crust would make the Rush Right look effeminate, if not effete. For them the s-word can’t be gotten past. I had one ask me, who is behind this guy (Rush)? I had no one-word nor even a one-sentence answer (Can Shamu jump the shark?) But I see the Koch brothers are going after control of Cato, with the passing of Niskanen. The libertarian base is unhappy but Arnold Kling is in full dress Meryl Streep Whatever mode.
On the subject of rhetoric vs stability, here is a graph that helps to explain the unpredictability of American politics: 20:40:40, as every campaign strategist knows.
Mad Woman @ 42: “For them the s-word can’t be gotten past.”
Not sure what you are trying to say there, Mad Woman. Certainly, any 80-year old crusty individual knows the language has been coarsened over the last 50 years. (Thank you, Leftists). When they were young, ‘son-of-a-bitch’ was fighting words.
Fluke wants other citizens to pay for her contraceptives. Two possibilities:
1. She is in a committed relationship (unmarried, of course, but who care about that?) and her boyfriend does not want to pay for their recreational sex. That makes her a selfish woman with very poor taste in men.
2. She sleeps around, and obviously none of her casual male partners feels any need to pay for her contraceptives. Even 80 years ago, a loose woman who slept around was a slut.
Is she a slut or a selfish woman with very poor taste in men? Only Miss Fluke herself could say. Frankly, I have no respect for her either way.
I do like Newt’s ability to turn an interviewer. But you are absolutely correct, an interviewer never loses on his own turf (unless he screws up). The advantages are all there. Which is why GOP candidates need to invite interviews at their locations when possible, record the interview themselves, and generally be on guard. Of course a candidate in the primaries cannot do that…but when the general election comes around the GOP nominee should do that.
I love the tank analogy.
As for this whole Rush-Fluke thing, I knew this story “jumped the shark” when this guy denounced Rush Limbaugh. Does the Left keep him on ice (drinking bad gin) like Winston Smith in 1984 (after they broke him)?
Kinuachdrach/43: what you said. Whatever her name, she wants us to pay for her fun. Why?
I think (and certainly I hope) the Dems have overplayed their hand here. Fluke is a most unlikeable martyr for the Social Justice cause. The more we learn about her the worse it gets. She is not a struggling young woman just out of adolescence (23) who stumbled into a misogynistic trap of inadequate insurance costing her thousands of dollars of necessary coverage for healthcare. She is a player, aged 30, who chose Georgetown Law because it is (a) Catholic and (b) has a policy which clearly does not cover her contraceptive expenses so that (c) she could tee this up in Congress with her backers. The expenses in question are staggering: about two lattes a month. Hard to manage when you’re paying $43K a year to become one of the 1%.
The issue can be attacked at either level –religious tolerance or simple redistributive justice. At both levels the Dems lose. Once the shouting dies down, and people realize how they have been played by Fluke and her party, maybe they will remember at the polls. I hope so, anyway.
@43: Not sure what you are trying to say there
Rush “reframed” the issue in his own inimitable way. It backfired. Choreographed or not, this round goes to the Dems.
What does Ms. Fluke claim her contraceptive costs are — three thousand dollars? Is that the going rate for “folks” to give up their used Constitutional rights (used by someone else)? Of course in the end they will loose their “freedom of conscience” and not get the three thousands dollars.
Indeed, it will cost much more. The goal here is the “multiplication of positions” in the bureaucracy. The DC elite need these services to be costly (regardless of the apparent price charged) and inefficient to create the multiplication of positions in their political patronage networks. These networks value loyalty to the patron over competence. So quality will deteriorate and the corrupt will be protected. Soon it will consume vast sums and “new” sources of revenue will be needed. So what was sold as free will both be heavily subsidized and pricey. See eduction, college.
Meanwhile the insurance companies — now little more than lackeys of the bureaucracies — will take the lambasting for the failure. At one time top executives were rewarded for producing value. Now they will be rewarded for accepting blame for its destruction. Who is to blame? The ones we once called responsible. Who is responsible? The people who are now to blame.
Carbonite stock price dropping like a gut shot goose. Customer base shrinking. Investor relation department not answering phones. The rest of the list of advertisers that dropped Limbaugh are starting to sweat, because it looks like the counter boycott is bigger than the Slut boycott. Obama can’t bail them all out.
Off the topic of contraception but on the topic of dopey claims framed as a denial of human rights. If you think that Ms Fluke’s claim(s) about a woman’s right to get subsidised contraception are lame, know that a Canadian woman is proposing what the National Post calls the lamest discrimination claim ever.
In part, this National Post article comments ” To recap — we have a woman who claims that driving her car down a laneway that’s wider than the average garage opening is violating her human rights, because of her “family circumstances.” Why her family circumstances are the city’s problem are unclear. And she actually hasn’t been denied approval to park in front of her house. She never even bothered applying. That all sounds pretty weird, but there’s one last detail.
Howson is a former investigator for the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal — the people whose job it is to gather the facts that lets the Tribunal make their judgments. Anyone who has ever wondered about some of the more inane rulings made by that august body now has their explanation — if the bar for what constitutes discrimination is set this pathetically low, we’re all guilty of something.”
You’d think these people would lurk in the bushes to avoid embarassing themselves, but no, they stand up and go “cooooey, I’m right over here standing under this spotlight I just set up.”
I would personally pay for her contraception, in all forms, just to insure she doesn’t download a kid with her DNA.
If you want another McGuffin, here’s a bipartisan one: Putin absolutely positively could not have fairly won the election in Russia.
Entry in the “Who coarsened the rhetoric?” contest.
Federal Judge Richard F. Cebull, nominated by George W. Bush May 2001.
Re: 49. toadold. I’ve sent emails to all those companies that dropped Rush telling them that they will get no (more) business from me. Just doing my Breitbart part.
I did the same thing when Levi Strauss dissed the Boy Scouts in the 1990s. I have bought nothing from them since and I never will.
JWarrior #54:
I did the same thing for Levis for teh same reason. I was pleased to hear a couple of years later that they had developed some serious financial difficulties.
And just in case no one recalls, the Levis Co. quit contributing to the Scouts because of the BSA policy that homosexuals would not be allowed to be scoutmasters, a policy that sounds like simple good sense to me. When I lived in Calif a decade before that I even heard a homosexual man call into a radio talk show and warn everyone that they better make sure their kids scoutmasters were not gay, based on his own experience of being a scoutmaster.
Then there is Ivory Soap. Used to use it exclusively because it did not interfere with my contact lenses. But when the company knuckled under to gay groups pressure to drop their advertisements on the Dr. Laura radio show, I quit using their products.
Fluke looks and acts every inch as a lesbian activist. One look at her face and coif– it reads too much testosterone.
This profile is a perfect match for her legal avocation: womyns rights and putting down the Man; of which this is an opening shot.
The reason for her outlandish estimate of contraception costs: she’s never needed more than an aspirin between the knees.
Such a bent would also explain her ultra-high profile. For she will surely be radio-active in the dating market forever afterwards.
Roissy would rate her no better than a 5 on his one-to-ten babe scale. She’d be down to a 3 by the time she passes the bar.
This foreseeable BAD publicity is, of course, entirely toxic to marrying Mr. Right.
Instead of Federal sexual indulgence credits she should be pursuing free cosmetics and surgery to match.
——-
If she actually plies a hetro-sexual life-style then she’s a pump-and-dump target for sure.
Why? Ms. Legal is widely considered a divorce case walking on heels. It’s a running gag in law colleges that once such a shrew passes the bar exam she’ll cut loose any lover/ husband — to trade up in the mating market.
And, it’s in the nature of the profession that its practitioners have virtually no personal life until they’ve made partner. That may take ten or more years.
So, already being 30-years old, Ms. Fluke is already vectored onto the non-mommy track in a major way.
——-
Mad Woman:
It is a harsh truth: the eighty-somethings don’t decide elections. ( Darth Soros not withstanding )
Another truth is that marriage worthy men of her generation would absolutely consider her to be a slut, attention whore and much worse: shameless.
Yes, there’s a generational difference. Gals like her are presumed to be wild and loose — by their peers.
Nothing Rush says or leaves unsaid changes that presumption.
If a woman wants a successful marriage to Mr. Right then the LAST thing she does is mount the national stage whining about playtime expenses. ( Which must come up to nil versus her astounding yearly outlays. )
——-
If there is one reason that Ms. Fluke is no fluke it’s because every second spent on her crusade is a distraction from the heavy issues at hand.
It’s a real bread and Circus moment — signifying nothing.
b @ 56: Another truth is that marriage worthy men of her generation would absolutely consider her to be a slut, attention whore and much worse: shameless.
m’boy, I think mebbe you forget two things, first that she’s into the public interest field where high profile is the name of the game, and that these Gen-Y,Z,AA wotevers live live on FaceTube or at least grok those who do. she probably has “shameless” tattooed above her tramp stamp, and I’m surprised it’s not on her forehead. in closing, I add only one further syllable, repeat it for full effect: Ga.
Oy,yuck. I went off political material for lent but got weak today. Try it sometime. The cesspool that liberalism has wrought is so much easier to smell when you’ve been out of the room for awhile.
Time to take a shower, go back to things that matter, and just keep eyes and ears open in case planets start colliding or the ground starts to shake and the tower to come down.
blert: “It’s a real bread and Circus moment”
At least the Roman rulers felt the need to provide REAL circuses to keep the populace docile. The conmen in Washington are telling women that the only circus they’ve got is between their legs, and if the Republicans shut down the magical pharmacy they’ll be stranded in a meaningless desert of suffering and horror. Now, that’s what I call a cheap date.
Rush apologized and lost, at least for the time being, 10 advertisers.
If he had not apologized maybe one or two more might have capitulated.
I do not countenance apologizers.
Rush and many on the right have made the same mistake.
Would Andrew have apologized? I think not.
Those who would be enticed to play the game without rules of conduct are destined to fail.
In the Talmudic tradition:
Hillel would say [Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 2, Paragraph 6.] He also saw a skull floating upon the water. Said he to it: Because you drowned others, you were drowned; and those who drowned you, will themselves be drowned.
In a more contemporary fashion: try playing chess with an opponent who moves the pieces when he thinks you aren’t looking, or better yet, while he knows you are looking and doesn’t care…
Yes, of course there are moments of exception. For example, the Prophet Samuel executed the Amalekite king [I Samuel 15:2-34]. Perhaps this is the meaning of “the exception proves the rule”.
One must try to be honest and truthful in all his activities. War, real, physical, all or nothing, “knock down,drag out” is the exception. Politics is a game, not a war. Use you head, try and outwit, but be honorable. Anything else is the start of destruction of civilization.
#28:
She did nothing in front of any real committee. She made a statement at a press conference that was laid out by the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee to appear as a mock hearing.
Rush’s error was that he did not read her statement before pronouncing on it but only a news report of it. Since it was called “testimony” he likely assumed she was stating things about herself. What she did was speak nothing but hearsay about unnamed others. It was never intended for her to actually get in front of a real Committee and read that tripe. Scripted theater, every bit, then and now.
#53 shm – Thanks for bringing up Judge Cebull’s current publicity. The Village Voice quotes the joke that the judge emailed to others, and then deliberately misinterprets it. Presumably all the “racist” criers are also misinterpreting it, presumably also deliberately, hoping to fool someone and at the same time, destroy someone.
http://tinyurl.com/6sz94hg
Nice try.
Addendum to 63 – OK, on further reflection, I can see the connection the “racist” criers are making, and who knows what was in the mind of the originator of the joke. At first it seemed to me to imply that the mother was just too out of it to know what she was doing, and a play on Barack’s name.
I will now return to silence.