Posted on 11/08/2012 2:10:11 PM PST by 7thson
I have thought this over after the election and some other things I have thought about before the election and over the last several years.
Question – what seems to be the common denominator for all elections over the past several ones – that either make it close for our side when we win or bad when we lose?
It may sound trite or a cliché but to me it is the media.
Think about the debates for instance. It seems the liberal media hacks always moderate the debates. Why is that? There were the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960 and not another one until 1976. However, the debate to look at is the Reagan debate during the Republican primaries of 1979/80. When he said I paid for this microphone and will give it up when I am good and ready, it propelled him forward. I think the media decided then and there that they will control the debates from then on. And they have. In ’92, we were coming out of the recession a couple months prior to the election. Yet the media kept pounding that story. For years under Bush 43, the media kept pounding the deaths in Iraq and how bad the economy was, until it took hold in the public’s collective mind. During the convention, the media did not broadcast Rubio’s speech. The Benghazi story – the media refused to cover it. Yet we all know if it were a Republican – it would not matter if the Republican were a true conservative like Reagan or a RINO like Ford or McCain – it would have been 24/7. Look at the contrast of Katrina and Sandy. 24/7 against Bush even though I think his FEMA and administration did much more down there than what is happening in the NJ/NY. On and on it goes. We can all come up with many more examples.
So how do we counter that?
It goes back to an article from Dr. Thomas Sowell a few weeks back – why is it that Republicans cannot talk? Think about that – how come we cannot get a Republican to talk about conservatism and American values like Reagan did? Does it make them uncomfortable to discuss this? Are they afraid? Ashamed? Moreover, why do so many go off message and offer opinions that the media can exploit? I live in an area of Maryland where the MD Delegate was Tony O’Donnell. He ran against Steny Hoyer and got his arse handed to him. Over the years, I have supported him and wrote letters to the local newspaper in his defense. I have met him several times and pleaded with him to write letters to local newspapers explaining his position. His response was always he is not a letter-writing type. He ran a campaign against Hoyer where I could not tell you what he stood for. I never saw one television ad. Never heard one radio ad. Never saw one internet ad. We have way too many people like that. So if the politicians are relying on us to speak for them, let us take away their megaphones and say what the cannot or will not say.
On Free Republic, there are many excellent individuals who can explain conservatism. How much does it cost to make a YouTube video? I am working it out in my head about starting a Liberty Project. Or call it the Tea Party Project. Whatever. Make videos or audios explaining the concept of liberty. Explain the difference between conservatives and Republicans. Send these videos and audios out to people on our mailing lists, even if they do not want them, with instructions to forward them on.
It is just the germ of an idea. Who wants to discuss this – iron out the pros and cons?
Vote fraud by individuals, and in much higher numbers, by democrat party tampering with voting machines.
I believe it was Evan Thomas of Newsweek (hardly a conservative magazine) who said that the liberal control of the MSM was worth 5 - 8 percentage points for the Democrats at the polls. If even a liberal will point this out, clearly it is something that should be addressed.
Vote fraud exists but so does uneducated people. We know the media will not educate them and are pols are unwilling or unable to do it. It is up to us - you know, the People that is mentioned in the Constitution.
I don’t think that is enough. Levin and others promote Hillsdale but we still got beat. We need to engage people. Make them notice and listen. Challenge them.
The two weapons Dems have historically used against all credible conservatives, Reagan included, are these: He's stupid. or He's mean/dangerous.
Variations on this theme have been used as long as I can remember.
Remember what a genius Bubba was, according to the media? Remember all the vicious caricatures of GWB as an ignorant country hick?
Reagan was alternately presented as a senile, old fool or a vile warmonger who would ignite a nuclear WWIII. Remember the whole "mean-spirited" talking points used against Newt when he was Speaker?
A successful conservative candidate will need to be able to successfully get past the "Stupid" and "Mean" accusations that work so well as negative Pavlovian trigger words with lots of voters.
Fixed, natural laws -- like the laws of economics -- and other principles seem "mean" to liberals, because they don't have that moral flexibility inherent in their world view. When a conservative says, "You can't spend your way to prosperity!" the liberal mind responds, "Why not!? I see prosperous people spending all the time! You're just saying that to be mean."
Or, to a woman contemplating an abortion who is told that the baby growing inside her is a human being, a person with its own mind and heart, its own God-given rights and destiny, that's "mean-spirited" because it's not morally flexible enough to allow for taking an innocent life without negative consequences. Of course, many women who have killed their own child later experience profound, life-long emotional consequences that don't respond very well to "That's mean!"
Such plain facts aren't mean, they just are, and no amount of ignoring or bargaining will change them. Conservatives somehow must explain and teach unchangeable facts and their implications, yet avoid or disarm the inevitable "You're mean!" response.
The other label, "stupid", loosely translates to "educated with the right liberal university credentials." Ronald Reagan didn't have a PhD from Harvard, so it was used on him all the time. Just think of all the liberals you know who use something like "You just don't get it" in response to someone who disagrees with their liberal ideas. It's not that the liberal is wrong, or that your conservative idea is worth considering, it's that you're too stupid to understand the higher concepts of the elite left's thoughts.
So, if your adherance to fixed, unchangeable laws and plain facts as recorded in the Constitution isn't "mean-spirited", it's most certainly too "simple-minded." The liberal expects his leader to be Better Than Everyone Else. There's an innate craving for royalty in his leaders. He wants a brilliant, magical Chosen One running the show. The notion that a regular American, such as successful businessman Mitt Romney, could occupy the exalted throne of the Chosen One, Obama is laughable!
Candidates have seen these attacks over and over again, perpetrated by the leftist media. I'd guess they aren't excited at the proposition of having that target on their chests.
Correction: ..."NOT educated with the right"...
Great idea. We need to get more conservative messages on youtube, facebook and twitter. Our side needs to get with it and make it hip to be conservative. Romney is about as un-hip as you can get.
I think this is a good idea. However, I disagree with the “make it hip” part. Just make it real, truthful and genuine.....actually that is hip.
No - the “make it hip” part is a must. No more old 1950s styled fuddy duddys with cadillacs in the garage. We need new young blood that are comfortable with twitter, facebook etc and can reach young people. .
Only one problem with your closing argument. How many degrees does Romney have from Harvard?!
They do beat the dumb and mean drum, and I for one am willing to work any angle to end that blatant lie.
what I mean we need new blood of people that are “with it” and comfortable with new technology and young people. We need to make it ‘hip’ or ‘in’ to be a conservative and ‘un-hip’ to be a liberal.
Out with McCain, Dole and Romney types and in with Reagan and Rubio types that are charismatic, i.e. happening.
You're exactly right. That's why they can't use that particular one on Romney. But they sure use it on Palin.
Obama seems to be making more direct use of the standard Marxist class warfare angle. Maybe there will be three Democrat's favorite emotional weapons going forward: Stupid, Mean and/or Rich.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.