.
.
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Posted on 04/26/2014 8:39:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
Of course, if we ran principled people to begin with, rather than a bunch of compromised and undocumented democrats, gotcha questions wouldn’t be an issue to begin with.
But I’m sure if we just keep running fool after fool and pray to the Blue Fairy hard enough, one will win ‘this time’...
No, he did not.
Let it work; For 'tis the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his own petard: and 't shall go hard But I will delve one yard below their mines,
A petard is a bomb. One can be hoisted with or by a petard, basically meaning blown up by your own bomb.
But it's difficult to be hoisted from a petard, which implies the petard is some kind of hook or lift mechanism.
Possibly a nit.
.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only Republican in the last election who routinely handled these questions well was Newt.
Who unfortunately has massive other problems as a candidate. But the guy sure can talk.
I am coming to the conclusion there is no such thing as a “principled” politician. No real, authentic, principled human being would want to be one.
To expand on what the author suggests, I think what conservatives lack is a Lee Atwater type. Atwater worked with both Reagan and Bush Sr. He was one of the few Republicans who used the left's own Alinsky tactics against them. He was most famous for the 'Willie Horton' ad, which revealed Dukakis as soft on crime. Imagine what an Atwater would do with ammo like Jeremiah Wright and Benghazi.
Newt for vp?
Reagan was the last republican who could think on his feet. And to think he’d made his living speaking words written by others.
The democrats’ way to respond is to hammer the podium act indignant.
If this is the KEY, then Cruz is our guy.
For instance, accepting your opponents premise implicitly by calling yourself a "Compassionate Conservative", implying that, yeah, conservatism sucks, but I'm not really one of them.
Absolutely true.
When I was selling {over five different decades} I knew, that while I had the facts and figures and all logical reasons on my side that buying was an emotion driven event, and in order to succeed, needed to keep that as a major part of my sales strategy.
Facts and logic worked for him, but if you want to persuade people...
You have no mastery of this technique or this strategy, or successes to point to in your own life, so you are left with nothing more to say other than your sophomoronic cliché's about "Blue Fairies."
You make no effort to speak of any strategic successes you have ever had that could build upon the strategy in order to edify the continuing conversation, or to provide insights which might improve upon the model. No. You sit there, play with the lint in your navel and just grouse as though anyone really cares to listen to it.
This is a winning argumentative technique, without which one merely exudes their aimless lack of focus, and inclination toward argumentative distraction, buttressed at best by platitudinous self-righteousness and unconvincing, misplaced hubris as one occupies the moral high ground without the competence necessary to defend that field advantage.
The problem isn't just "... a bunch of compromised and undocumented democrats..." but witless, conversationally challenged, glibly unprepared personalities that our ascendant Tea Party side have put forth in the last 2 Senate contest cycles like Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Todd Aiken and, Richard Murdock.
While by every other measure they were inherently head and shoulders above their challengers, still they couldn't seem to get the message across without becoming befuddled cartoons of themselves by "gotchya" questions that a guy like Ted Cruz could have and would have reverse-skewered his interrogators with.
Your shallow, depressive commentary adds nothing to this thread. Running "principled people" is not enough. If they aren't trained and equipped for battle and mastering the argumentative technique necessary for getting their point across, they too will be left on a back bench somewhere with no more influence on building a winning electoral strategy and consensus than any other depressive blogger like yourself might be, as they post to a thread like this.
The first person to mention the MA "catch and release on weekends" convict program, was demonRAT, algore in a televised 1988 debate with dukaka.
The pubbies picked up on it after dukaka won the primary.
What really "killed" dukaka was his on camera admission that he would not seek the death penalty, even if his wife and daughter were the victims...end of his sad story.
All that said, dukaka, would still have been better than the one is today.
Thank you.
Bump and bump. Newt was and, I guess, still is a leader. I wanted him to at least finish second in his run for the candidacy. Baggage or not, he fights! He actually goes on the offensive. That seems to be sorely lacking on the Right.
Lots of words that boil down to “I love the status quo”.
Get a new hobby.
Here's a couple of graphics to show the difference -- the one involving an explosive is the correct one, the one involving a gallows is the all-too-common misinterpretation.
If you find those terms in direct opposition to what you believe, and antithetical to the generally accepted usage of the word or term, you must from the outset complain, and complain loudly, that what your opponent is proposing you accept has in fact nothing to do with reality, and will not be the way you envision it.
Leftists, as a general rule, lie to themselves as least as much as they lie to the rest of us, and must be called on it every time.
Every time!
CA....
“Reversing the premise of the Left’s arguments like this and using it against them is one of the most effective and devastating ways to make our point, but to pull it off we need to be confident of our principles and have the required courage of conviction.”
I believe Romney lost the election in the debate when Candy Crowley and Barack Obama double teamed him on Benghazi. He came across as extremely weak. Ronald Reagan would have turned the event around by looking at the camera and saying something like - “I didn’t realize this was a 2 on one debate” or “Which one of you am I supposed to be debating?”. He then would have immediately started into a statement where he completely eviscerated Obama’s actions the day of Benghazi and the policy of alignment with the terrorists.
Romney was stunned speechless by the obviously staged double slam for which he was clearly unprepared. Romney failed to project leadership and confidence under fire. In addition he demonstrated he was unable to recover and react quickly on his feet. After watching him fumble I wondered how he could stand up to Putin if he couldn’t handle a street thug like Obama.
One reason GOP candidates can’t respond to the kamikaze attack when it comes is they have no deeply held core beliefs. Most are actors, coached by professional political consults in how to win elections. When something hits them that isn’t in the script, or wasn’t covered in rehearsal, they can’t respond because they are not grounded. No matter the circumstances, Reagan could fall back on articulating his core beliefs.
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.