Micro macro targeting the opposition

Why does the radical left often appear to gain more, faster ground than the right on issues? Well, again, it may have something to do with Alinsky tactics.

Rules for Radicals: rule #12

““Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

I’m not saying they are more successful as a rule. However, it does seem like the right is constantly caught up in attacking institutions, if by their nature, Yet we know the root of it is the Marxist people. Not like you can go through liberal academia one by one, that would be exhausting. We have. So we focus on the institution they’ve corrupted.

We focus on areas of government they’ve corrupted. But we did have the perfect match with Obama in office — even Holder, Lynch, Rice and Hillary. And guess what? We were told those attacks were off limits, or racist. Republicans frowned on those claiming they did not want it to be personal. Why not though? We ceded the perfect weapon and target. It was successful when they finally held Holder in Contempt.

But we do need to make constant personal examples within the institution. Think about this flag controversy. When we made it about the flag, that was a win, and we used Kaepernick as its poster boy, we saw much more success. Notice how everything the left does is personalized at Trump, even when it doesn’t apply.

Name it and shame it can work. I’ve realized just because Leftists have no shame doesn’t matter. It’s the people who see it who matter. If we concentrate on leaders like Pelosi, Schumer, et al, we are getting more bang for the buck, especially when the Left is also thinking of replacing them. Whenever they stick their heads up we should be zooming in on the opportunity to personalize it.

The same must apply to the RINOs in congress. If they get isolated, they feel it. Sure as heck, those like Corker are going to feel it from home. He can’t even run again. But if he is going scorched earth, then his record and pending scandals are fair game too.

Whether it is tax policy or Obamacare, we have a plethora of personal examples. Just what the left doesn’t want to talk about, real people affected by policy. Besides, the left going after Trump on everything is a tad bit old and stale. Another rule applies there. Rule #7:

““A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.“ Don’t become old news.”

At some point even Trump attacks get old. Media can’t keep them alive on life support. Think of how many things Obama just waited out, scandal after scandal, till finally nothing was done. Remember he called it old news when we never got any answers?

Right Ring | Bullright

Saul move on over, reformation is coming

In 2008, the conversation was about a post-racial America. Now all anyone can hope for is a post-racial Obama. But that ain’t going to happen. We know that.

Roger Simon, co-founder of PJ media, wrote a piece on just that with just that conclusion. Racism has become the Holy Grail to Democrats — with their fictitious war on women coming in a close second. As he says, next up it is Hispanics.

Liberal Racism: Hispanics Are Next

Roughly ninety-five percent of racism in America today now either emanates from liberals or is generated by them. The Democratic Party relies on racism because, without the perception of serious ongoing racism in our culture, the identity politics on which the party depends would disintegrate. As presently constituted, they wouldn’t win another national or statewide election. This makes the Democratic Party by necessity a virtual racism-manufacturing machine.

The Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons are not anomalies. They are the motor that drives the car. Barack Obama could in no way be a post-racial president as promised, even if he wanted to be (doubtful). He wouldn’t have had a party anymore.

The idea that the chief executive of our country would want to give special privileges to Latinos above and beyond the wishes of their future fellow citizens is not only morally repugnant, it is highly socially damaging. It drives us apart — and apparently deliberately.

My only question is: isn’t all this getting a bit old, even for Libs? So this is where we are.

Their tactics and arguments have become stale — to be kind — and that is what voters are now seeing. Senator Uterus has learned that lesson. Senator Mark Pryor said Obama was a drag on his campaign. Grimes couldn’t endorse Obama. How long can you push phony arguments until they get old, even laughable? (ridicule can be a positive thing)

Alinsky’s RULE #7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

Liberals can be counted on to do what they always do, when they decide to move on they do so in lockstep. The new thing will be the rage, sucking up all the energy in the room, which backwashes old ideas that are no longer effective. “Don’t become old news.”

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

Of course, the new ideas will be just as specious as the old but that doesn’t matter because they are new. Leftists will tweak them along the way, the same way Obama revises his statements or the way they tweaked Obamacare. When everything is part of an evolving argument, a lot tends to get lost in the shuffle.

Remember the rules for radicals is geared to opposing typical activists or activism, and overwhelming them. If anything, the rules are about breaking rules, and it is always about what works — the ends justify the means. Hispanics beware.

RightRing | Bullright

A rejection of radicalism

As someone else says “….this ain’t bean bag”. But then this is not politics, as commonly understood.

Well, politics is bad enough, I know, but this is far from your mom and pop’s politics. The Alinsky radicals don’t play “politics” that way either. This is part of the problem, and it is only my opinion for what its worth….your mileage may vary.

The point is if it isn’t conventional politics, it is radicalism. Something happened though which seems sort of odd to some people. We the people, the sane ones, saw Barack Obama coming. We knew in no time what he stood for — or what he didn’t. We knew he was a different animal, and the events just validated it.

Sure media played their games. But the people found out, researched and were vindicated by the events. We saw the fraud and misrepresentation. However, Washington doesn’t think and act the same way we do. If they learned of any of this they forgot it, or never grasped it. They assumed, as many still do, that it is just politics and it is not.

Sure progressives now are a lot of things, like extremists, but they are radicals. We need to let that soak in to the beltway mentality. You would think they would have caught on over this 6+ years. But there are some slow learners in there.

So now we have a big problem. One does not just play the same way with radicals. One cannot project the same political strategies and goals on them. The rejection of this radicalism is an ongoing effort, and something elections won’t solve by popular vote.

RightRing | Bullright

Asininity in season

I get pretty offended by the current political strategies of the Left. They don’t make much sense but that was never the objective, was it?

Through all the arguments there is a pattern. They claimed with Obamacare: ‘you don’t like it, then what is your plan?’ You don’t like our open border, amnesty plans, then what is yours?’ Like going to a diner, “what’s yours?”

This is some ridiculous stuff. According to their tactic rule, one cannot criticize their plans or schemes unless one puts forth one in the same mold. Yea, right. Funny for the Party that was criticism central under Bush. It’s an Alinsky tactic.

So by that logic they could not criticize the Iraq war unless Dems advocated a war of their own. Just like we are not allowed to complain about their open border, Executive Order, illegal immigration policies unless we provide an amnesty plan. Only then can we discuss it. Since when did you have to offer a proposal for something you are opposed to? But they keep trotting out these tactics on every issue. By their standard, Dems should not be able to talk about budget cuts without offering real budget cuts. Why not?

The list of examples offenses is endless. The kicker is how many fall for it. Disagreeing with carbon tax schemes, then, means you must offer an alternate carbon scheme or shut up. What rules? If you don’t like a big-government program, you have to advocate a big-government program. Thus, to disapprove of something means you have to write it into law. It goes on and on. The abbreviated answer to “what’s yours” is up yours.

RightRing | Bullright

Ending of an era, changing of tactics

A little personal venting.
Sometimes I just take a news story or current event and go off of that. Its not that there is a dramatic lack of supply anymore, it is just that it seems monotonous at times.

We well proved how stupid liberals are, even if they aren’t done making their case.

So that is why I’ve been easing off, certainly not for a lack of ammunition. It’s a daily thing with Liberals, where one day they will surpass the idiocy of what they did the day before. It is hard to keep up. What do you want, they are evolving?

Some take to chronicling the Liberals’ bobs and weaves very seriously. But sooner or later you look back and wonder if you are getting anywhere? What’s the point, just reminding people all the places they’ve been and the ugly path they are on? It really is simple though and they supply plenty of motivation.

And some of us may appear obsessed  with keeping track of Obama’s lies and his un-American agenda. It may seem like obsession but what should we call Obama’s agenda? Now that is a real obsession if anyone has one.

But it does tend to get boring if not predictable. Then there is exposing what the Right is doing that often falls short of responding to Liberals. There’s a task to keep up with. I saw a few interesting books out( one by Ben Shapiro) claiming the civility is totally absent with the left. I do agree. And they assert that, because of the lack of civility on the left, it is time to step up and respond to their blatant lunacy in kind. I almost agree, sort of. I’ve been doing that for years. Step it up to what? Namecalling, screaming, boycotts or protests?

But just to say we are now going to leave civil discussion behind because there is no civility with the left kind of gets my dander up. That is not the reason to abandon civility for scorched earth. I have nothing aginst scorched earth either. But the point was never just to be civil for civility sake. In fact, I’m not sure what the right’s entire point was till now?

Yes, Martha, there was a time when many conservatives naively thought they would convince, convert, or convict the left with the better reasoned argument. As TV’s Dr Phil says, “how’s that working out for ya?” It never did work. The dorbell rings and no one is home. The more civil the right tried to be, the more irrational and unhinged the left became. They don’t care. It was like a cat and mouse game anyway. Only those who “believed” in that illusion played the game. That got old somewhere around Clinton’s impeachment. The left fnally proved playing handball on a curb was even beyond their mentality when Bush came along. That was almost made to order for leftists’ Alinsky tactics.

So what to do? Well, I’m not recommending or changing my style based on anything the left is doing. That would sort of be pointless. They bob and weave so much its like getting hypnotized by a bobble head doll. Next you’d be buying tickets to the flea circus. The Right is right and the Left is, well, wrong. Changing the chairs on the Titanic does not change the truth.

Why bother saying it’s all out warfare now? It was always that to libs even when they are having success. That’s what Alinkyism is all about. But why the right has to make gestures about stepping up their arguments is beyond me. It suggests they weren’t doing all they could before. (and they weren’t) They merely thought the appearance of well-mannered discussion was enough to win the day. It didn’t; if the last two elections proved nothing else they proved that. It was always about survival – now more than ever.

Still it is time for some adjustments. I’m thinking of a few rules of the road. One of them would  be to take a liberal seriously for what they say most of the time, especially during their emotional fits. They have moments of revealing their agenda. They may be as wrong and dumb as you think but that doesn’t guarantee they are losing, or will. Second, don’t expect that the majority of voters see the fallacy of the left. They don’t, so don’t be deceived. Don’t believe voters are smart enough to avoid doing stupid things. They aren’t.

Don’t mistakenly think the people will see a reasoned argument and agree with you. People are disagreeable, sometimes for the sake of it. Don’t think the truth always wins the day. It doesn’t. Once people are caught in a lie it often takes them a lot of digging to see daylight again. And finally, don’t take a liberal’s word for anything, ever. They live to defy reality.

Above all, never fall for their stupid ploys about how they actually can agree with much of what you say. They don’t, they lie. Don’t fall for the “can’t we all get along” schtick. That went out the window in the 70’s. They have zero interest in getting along. They only want to control as much of you as they can, period…ain’t no “getting along” about it. Now I’m having fun. I could go on here, probably indefinitely, but I need to stop now.

Like I said, it is a task to keep up with their bobbing and weaving. The point would be not to alter your response just due to their tactics or stupidity, it doesn’t help anyone. Conservatives, stop drinking the Kool Aid and thinking that if you only appeal to liberals’ better senses you will succeed. They have no better senses; that’s a fool’s errand. I have a gut feeling I only scratched the surface. Feel free to add your own.

digging deeper: Condescending Obama vs Business Owners

The Virtue of Elite Arrogance — part II

He said, ““If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”
Remember how “if you build it they will come”? Not anymore, apparently.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Rather odd for a guy who uses the “I” pronoun so much. And a guy who tells people to keep believing in him, faithfully. If that is the case, then we should start giving out credit[balme] for Obama, since he thinks he has been that successful. You didn’t do that, Obama, someone else did. White guilt put you where you are, now how about some applause for white guilt, Barry? Pay some homage to white guilt, affirmative action, and otherwise stupid people.

For instance, how many times does he credit his white grandparents with his success? He mentioned them in his own condescending way, the way he talked about his grandmother in none other than his race lecture. Or if he is so honest, then why not release the college records and show us who really assisted Barry Soetoro? He talks about those scholarships that made it all possible.
Now “Show us the money!”

When was the last time he said he got where he is because of his white grandparents? Pay them some real credit, publicly. That is one part; but when did he give government credit for his success? Or that kingmaker in the Illinois Senate where he learned how to vote “present” to evade accountability? The guy he asked how he could be made into a presidential candidate? When did he give thanks to government and bureaucrats for his accomplishments? And how about all those blind voters? The serfs he wants to rule over. He owes them, “bigtime”. When did he say “I didn’t do this myself” and mean it? I don’t mean his Broadway act, narcissist that he is. He hasn’t even told us about the influential, well-connected Frank Marshall Davis either.The name he can’t quite mention. He won’t give a shout out to Frank Marshall Davis for getting him here. How about a big cheer to Rev Wright for fine tuning his Marxist views, and for borrowing parts of sermons? Don’t forget Deval Patrick for lending him some awsome words, or a speech, at just the right time.

But his central theme is the infrastructure, how government made success possible. Just because someone uses the Internet in their business does not mean Internet is responsible for their business. He seems confused. He is awfully dismissive of individual efforts.

On the other hand, if he credits big-government for individual success, then lets look at what all they really do, you know, “to help”. All those applications, regulations, inspections, forms, and ever-growing bureaucracy that, well, makes and keeps you successful. What about that? I mean all the hours and inconvenience of complying with government just to make and keep you legal. Is he talking about those advantages to businesses? More like disadvantages and disincentives: When government bans one product you use so you have to find a replacement. When new regulations mean you must have 2 more people in your office just to handle the extra paperwork. When you have to collect and deliver the taxes to the government on goods you market. What about those expenses and burdens of compliance? What about when, through government taxes and regulation increases, you are forced to raise your prices and squeeze your profit margin smaller and smaller to make it work? What about when that profit margin becomes so slim you cannot operate and have to cut employees to make it? What about when big-government decides to take an interest in your sector and picks winners and losers? Or when they incentivize or subsidize a few of your competitors while you must compete with them? Or when government changes regs in the middle of the process and literally tells you, “You can’t build that here”? (then fines you accordingly) That’s just a few of the benefits government can do for you. What can Big Bro do for you? So they want people to be thankful for those – some call them disadvantages.

They say bridges and roads and governments of all type are the reason you are in business – A, and the reason you are successful – B.

Only if you were schooled in the, Marxism, Alynski radicalism, community organizing, big-government utopianism does it all make perfect sense. What does it mean to a guy who sought out Marxist professors and all that stuff? And remember those helpful “composites”. Maybe he should say, “Thanks comrade Marxists, I owe you. I’ll pay it forward to you all.” What about all those choices he made? Government was there, behind it all. Ones that brought him to a point where, as president, he could give a press conference to call a local police department stupid.

Right, he was not really talking about the help of others, community et al, he was referring to big-government. More specifically big government. So we know. But can he admit that these are expensenses a business has to digest and the help comes with strings? Can he admit the problems, hassles, and resources that it costs to deal with government? Yet it is a one-way street to him; government is the friend and partner, never opponent or competitor. Never mind the truth. What about all the highway taxes people already pay using the roads. Businesses are paying those too. I think he has a problem in the accounting department. There are two sides of the ledger, not one.

Individual initiative drives success. We spend tons of the peoples money on unionized public employees and look at all the fraud and abuse we see. Businesses and people must be thankful for that — like showing preference to a business if it is a union shop. Then politicians make promises to their union organizers to get elected and reelected. How about the pols admitting that help? How the purchase of votes is responsible for their successful career? (using our money) Oh, that is all part of that system Liberals are celebrating here in their defense of big government. Stick it all under one umbrella and say “hoorah for government”. Next, with ObamaCare and evolving national healthcare, we will be told to thank government for life itself. But, on the contrary, I’m sure it would not take credit for deaths though.

I gave up on the rosy optimism that liberals would see the error in a current position they take, as the truth oozes out around them. Regardless, they dig their ideological heels in and will not see or admit it. Want proof of this look at the campaign. Pollster Frank Luntz noted if supporters see a real negative ad about Obama or dems they tune it out. They don’t want to hear it or see it. Look on the web, it’s the same way. If something is very critical of Obamessiah on a popular site, they attack anyone who agrees and call the author names. Of course, when it was Bush that same critical sentiment was celebrated and echoed from all the ivory towers, from media to academia to Main Street. It was “in”, and don’t dare hold it back. Shout it Loud and Proud! Now they suggest no person should be allowed to criticize Obama. It is not appropriate. A comedian could have made a name and career criticizing Bush; while one could end his/her career by picking on Obama. That is taboo.

Round and round they go

When you point out the double standard, 180-degree flip-flop, they won’t even admit the obvious fact. But worse than that, they project their own political behavior onto the Right, and make all kinds of irrational equivications. But they will not come to terms with what they are doing or defending, or the consequences of it. I always say at least Nixon resigned. When Libs are under attack they double down, even when cornered. If you expect to prove their hypocrisy to them you are kidding yourself. This is why anymore I don’t bother. They aren’t listening anyway.

And what is amusing is how those words “you didn’t build that” are the same as Elizibeth Warren’s feverish mantra. More borrowed words from another politician. She did not get much flack about them. Adding further irony is that even Obama’s words would not be as powerful if not for the vast number of sycophants that repeat them and push his arguments. So he can liberally attack Romney about outsourcing and never mind his own. Or he can attack Romney on records or taxes and never mind his hidden records. “What are YOU hiding, Obama?” And no one in media seems to care the pot is calling the skillet black.

A hat tip to the loyal media and his minions. He’s lucky in that regard, they take every word he says and run with them – hypocrisy and all. Truth doesn’t matter when you hear the machinations of the left spouted from every other rooftop and in the airwaves 24/7. With this all out assault on any opposition, no one cares to hear the truth. Barry said it so it is. So Obama has had a lot of help. But rather than “build”… it is systematic destruction.

Postscript comment:
I should apologize for writing about this again except that there are numerous levels on which to take issue with his remarks. Imagine if he directed a statement like that toward unions, like the ironworkers, and their union bosses. No, he wouldn’t but that is not the point. Imagine Obama telling them you didn’t build that. Lets say it might not be recieved very well. Too bad he did not make that point to Solyndra before relieving their liability to the government kitty. Again, nope.


Ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obamas-you-didnt-build-that-problem/2012/07/18/gJQAJxyotW_blog.html

Prior posts:

As always, your comments and Rants, Rhymes, or Reason are welcome.