Political Junkie Too
Since Nov 6, 2000
I am reposting a repost of my "manifesto," which is pieced together from a series of posts from February 2009. I think it explains the behaviors of "principled" conservatives vs. Donald Trump, and why each needs the other to survive and thrive.
As I have posted frequently over the past decade, I believe it is axiomatic that conservatives are not activists, but conservatism needs fighters to defend its cause.
I am reposting a post of mine from 2/26/2009 from the oddly named thread Roger Ailes and Murdock Suppressing Obama Eligibility Story (Vanity), along with follow-up posts, which essentially laid out my "manifesto," if you will. I still think it answers the topline question today. Feel free to browse the whole thread for context.
The game is not providing evidence, the game is providing innuendo. Put Obama on the defensive. We don't have to prove anything to do that, we just have to put the question out there.
That's the Democrat playbook. That's the MSM playbook. That should be our playbook, too.
Proof comes later. Accusations and innuendos come now. Don't hold up on spreading the perceptions because you're not sure you can seal the deal with proof.
Taint Obama's legitimacy with the appearance of irregularity. Smoke him out. Let him either show the proof or continue to live under the cloud of suspicion, but either way, don't hold back.
You know they wouldn't if the roles were reversed.
I kind of like to think we're better than they are.
You know, I was going to put that in my post using the technique of putting those words in your mouth and then retorting, but I figured that would not be respectful to you. I would wait for you to naturally respond that way and then retort. I thank you for supplying the comment on your own.
As Las Vegas Ron replied, "being better than they are" is what "they" count on. Conservatives, by nature, are not aggressive activists like the leftists are, which is why the leftists have no trouble playing dirty. They know that conservatives will shy away from a fight, to the extreme of staying home from an election.
That's why the innuendos that they hurled around before the election were those of being racist if we challenged Obama's experience, being racist if we challenged Obama's schooling, being racist if we challenged Obama's religion, being racist if we challenged Obama's friends, being racist if we referenced Obama's full name, being racist if we challenged Obama's constitutional qualification, and even being racist if we didn't vote for Obama. The result is that it drove conservatives to either vote for Obama or stay home.
So, "being better than they are" is bringing a knife to a gunfight, or rather, not bringing a weapon at all and hoping to reason with them.
THERE YOU GO..., that pretty much explains what the Obama Derangement Syndrom people (here on Free Republic) are doing. You said it providing innuendo and thats all.
As for defining "Obama Derangement Syndrome," it is nothing of the sort. I am not endorsing this behavior out of blind hatred for Obama. I've been endorsing this behavior to be used against ALL Democrats ALL the time. Call it "Democrat Derangement Syndrome" if you must, but I am not an ODS victim.
That being said, I am also not one who is blindly putting my faith in the various court proceedings going on. However, I am also not shy about joining in on the various court threads to debate the possibilities. My focus has been on the PR aspects of the "whisper campaign" of all of this, that is, using the Democrats' techniques against them.
ODS would assume that the Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas alliance would naturally rise up to force a fair hearing of the concerns, which has not happened. I was an early voice suggesting that the Supreme Court would never touch this out of fear of civil unrest, regardless of the merits. I can point to postings over the summer on the various BC threads where I've taken this position.
Therefore, it is the other, softer, backdoor, "whisper" methods that work so well for Democrats, that must be used here. That's what I advocate, and have been advocating for all issues Democrat ever since signing up here.
The mantra is "Perception is more important than reality. The perception of guilt is just as damaging as being guilty." That's why Democrats were so focused on "guilt by association" during the Jack Abramoff scandal, whether the Republican was involved with him or just took a small campaign donation. It's also why the MSM worked so hard to surpress the equivalent Rezko scandal of Obama, or the Hsu scandal for Hillary Clinton. They know the value of shaping perceptions, even if they aren't true to the degree of proof required in a court.
Look at how the Democrats and MSM are trying to create the perception that Bobby Jindal has ruined his chance to be President based on Tuesday night's 10 minute speech. Barney Frank is telling everybody that Republicans caused the banking meltdown, and Republicans didn't applaud Obama out of fear of Hannity and Limbaugh. Harry Reid says we're losing in Iraq and the economy is getting better. I guess we're better than they are to the point of not trying to do anything that might taint Obama's authority, because we can't prove it in court, or even get a court to hear it.
But you're focused on the wrong court -- the court here is the court of public opinion. And innuendo, and whispers, and unproven charges, and hyperbole are the tools before that court.
I hope you're paying attention to the latest round of Democrat hyperbole in attacking Rush Limbaugh as the "head of the Republican Party," and how they are dragging Michael Steele into the fray, and how all sorts of questionable "conservative" pundits are taking sides on this. Or how they're now targeting Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer.
I hope you're paying attention because this is exactly the kind of messaging tactic that our side needs to be more aggressive at. I don't see the Democrats waiting to have proof that will stand up in court before hurling their accusations into the ether. I don't understand why we advocate having all our I's dotted and T's crossed before challenging Democrats.
Setting aside the issue of publicizing Obama's constitutional qualification, our side should also be loudly aiming accusations at Chris Dodd and Barney Frank for the financial mess; we should be going after MSNBC and ABC news correspondents for their laziness in covering these stories; we should be pointing out the failures of major newspapers because they were too biased in reporting the news.
It doesn't matter if these targets complain about being attacked, or that the attacks are just diversions (which they are), or that the attacks are unfounded (which they are not). The point is that while they are reacting, they are also doing several other things: 1) they are dragging themselves into the gutter with the people they hoped to lead into the gutter, 2) they are further exposing the stories that we want exposed by keeping the story alive, 3) they are not reporting on other things while they report on this, 4) they look just as mean-spirited as they are trying to portray others. If they fail to respond for fear of the above, then the accusations stand unchallenged.
That's how it is done in today's court of public opinion.
Conservatives need a fighter. For too long, we trusted the politicians to let them do it their way, the proven way, the accepted way, the traditional way. We have since learned that it is now the crony way, the corrupted way, the self-interested, self-serving, and self-preserving way.
So like the poor dirt-farmers in the movie The Magnificent Seven, conservatives need a hired gun to oust the gang that is abusing them and stealing the fruits of their labors from them.
Conservatives are hiring a fighter from outside to finally defend them.
Donald Trump fights the fight that needs fighting, that conservatives are not equipped to fight.
What pundits won't acknowledge is that this is the bomb-throwing that the voters want. They wanted a candidate to say "where are your Harvard transcripts? Where is your college application? Where is your passport?" Because they want that person to ask Clinton about Benghazi and top secrets and the Clinton Foundation.
The voters know that establishment candidates run away from that and let the Democrats skate from their most vulnerable issues. So this is not about principled conservatism, per se, it's really about willingness to punch, punch hard, and sometimes punch back dirty.
The pundits are falling into the "lose with honor" crowd, when we are at the point of win at all costs or it's over forever.
Win the fight first, then create the environment for conservative principles to flourish, but don't think that demonstrating "orthodox" conservative principles IS the fight.