Where oh where has Dirty ol’ Harry gone?

Mark Levin reads an old op-ed that will make your hair curl.
We aren’t in Kansas any more. (May 2014)

This was reported around May 2014. Harry Reid rammed (S.744) the aka immigration bill through the Senate in 2013. Look at Harry Reid over 20 years completely abandoning common sense. A spineless lizard slithering around the Capitol. He seems to be a schizophrenic on top of it.

GOP must personalize its message

What the GOP needs to do is personalize its message. That sums it up in a nutshell. If it wants to survive it needs the proper perspective. It may be a bit of a straw man but see what you think.

Churches and ministers have to personalize their message, or risk being irrelevant. Its no different in politics. People look at things from their individual perspective, why should it be any different in politics?

I know, the Democrats have this group thing going on. And it is part of the problem that conservatives see with the progressive left, i.e. collectivism. That is their basic message. Sure they try to take it to the individual level in phone calls and messaging, but its group think and a collective message, top down. They just try to approach it on the individual level. You see it everywhere in their politics. I remember Obama’s great campaign organizing with their drop down lists. Which list do you fit into? They told people what they would do for Latinos, Hispanics, blacks, immigrants, women, or whatever.

Dems’ spiel is always that we are a nation of immigrants, blah blah, and that’s what made this country. Yes, and the beauty of immigrants (real immigrants) are that they don’t all think alike, much less look alike. They aren’t cookie-cutter. But Liberals have for years forced everyone into their collective categories: if by race, then by social status, by income level, by family status, and by sex, gender, or ancestry. But we all don’t live our lives that way and yet are supposed to vote that way – by blocs! (and they make the categories)

So the GOP, or more importantly the entire right, has the general platform but they don’t communicate it the right way. They are afraid if they don’t pander to this particular group and that group they can’t win elections. Democrats constantly tell conservatives the same thing. And that just knocks the stool out from under the Right. Sure it takes swaths of voters to win elections. But that cannot be the sole objective, nor is winning the only objective.

We have a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution based on individual freedoms, not on race or skin color. So why should what group you fit into, or not, be all that matters? I mean that they need to personalize their message to people and individuals. I know it sounds elementary, but how often do they do it? They buy into the notions of Leftists — who have no interest in our success — to tailor their message to groups.

Some say they Democrats have been successful because of it. Yea, to a point, but it is also their downfall. Progressives don’t really know how to relate to the individuals anymore. They may talk to them but only for the purpose of putting them into a demographic or group.(they are good at that) There is virtually no one left talking directly to and for the individuals except for those who pols say are on the fringes. We are a nation of people on the fringes. We don’t all fit into their lists and groups. We are as individual as your grandmother’s apple pie.

This was part of what we saw with Clinton. He might have been a successful politician, but he was into the same mentality. You had targeted policies, and targeted tax cuts. All sounded good till you looked down to the individual level to see if you fit into this classification or that one. Sure they were good at promoting it. So you get that tax cut if, if, if…. You qualify for that based on this, this, and this. Get my point? If you jump through all the hurtles, the right way, then the system worked for you, sort of. The answer to the violence was cater to the police lobbies. The answer to another problem is another program for this, this, and this.

For some of us in the Clinton years, that group think and mentality used to drive us nuts. And it is only certain groups. Then Obama put that mentality on steroids. He plays this group against that group, like a game. So you see how it really works for the left, it’s plantation politics. They call that grass roots politics?

The right does not have to do the same thing. But if you listen to those like McCain, that is what the GOP needs more of. No, no, no it doesn’t! Their reply is always, “then you’re going to keep losing elections” unless you herd them into their groups. And the GOP continually falls for that ruse. Same with elections. They like the talk about diversity up until the general elections when they cram the “approved” choice down our throats.

Like offering a dog a choice between a steak and their dog food, then you remove the steak. Then they swear by their method, well, until they have to make excuses for a major loss. Then they admit having problems, and proceed to do exactly the same thing. At least on the Left when a sizeable group steps up to complain they attempt to listen. On the right they write it off as disgruntled marginal groups. Heck, they can even call them names, like McCain labeled them “agents of intolerance.” That works real well, doesn’t it? It does to their political brains. Just like if you go around ignoring your conscience, sooner or later you are going to have problems.

The answer is always, “fine if that is your view, but you cannot win elections that way.” It’s a sad day for America when the individual, personalized message cannot win elections.
There is more on this my foggy brain has not yet verbalized. Basically, ideas must be personalized, complete with examples, and sold to individuals – not the group of the day. They don’t call it retail politics for nothing.

In my opinion, this is why national pols are losing favor with the people. They come home and speak to them virtually the same way, by group. And that message does not sell well locally. They want to know how things effect them personally, not just illegal immigrants, Hispanics, students, single women, etc. Or are we just a nation of groups? Pols think so.

Profiler- in-Chief is against profiling

So all the hooplah over profiling is just great, if you are a minority, or fit one of the key demographics, or you’re just looking for a cause celeb to hang your hat on. But we know they’ve been profiling right along. And some of the biggest offenders are the very people who are against profiling.

4. A biographical essay presenting the subject’s most noteworthy characteristics and achievements.
5. A formal summary or analysis of data, often in the form of a graph or table, representing distinctive features or characteristics

Profiling has been very good for politics.

Obama sees everything through the eyes of race, ethnicity, union label, income status, etc. etc. And worse yet, he talks to people the same way, by stereotyping them by demographic and group. Look at his campaigns where he had a drop-down menu on his campaign site, Latinos or Hispanics, African Americans, immigrants and on and on. You name it. It was amazing. That is his way of organizing, which is largely credited with taking him to the White House.

So yes, if you are a profiler, you can make people swoon you into office. Just don’t call it profiling, call it…ah, “organizing”. Call it campaigning, even pandering – not “pofiling”.

In his book, he made no bones about seeking out Marxist professors — radicals as I call them. Now we have an administration chock full of radicals. Obama the profiler? You bet. How did Eric Holder, Chu, or Van Jones get their jobs? Profiler-in-Chief.

Even when Congress holds Holder in contempt, they call it racism and stage a walk out. They make a science of it.

Beyond that they even profile what laws to enforce and which not to. And don’t be surprised when it’s in ObamaCare too. He cuts breaks for his union buddies but throws Catholic institutions to the wolves. Notice he holds rallies and makes his speeches on college campuses. Or he goes to speak at Planned Parenthood’s convention. No profiling there.

His allies in the Democrat party are profilers. They literally make a living at it, it’s their bread and butter. It is what they do. Now they are offended by the idea of profiling. Profiling has been very good for them. How else can one pander so effectively? It’s a way of life for career politicians.

The very same people who have problems with voter ID laws are habitual profiling panderers.

In the illinois senate, Obama pushed a bill to profile. He actually claimed that profiling was the answer. Theirs has not been a “profile in courage”. Today, our profiling comes straight from the top. ‘Shhh, we don’t want anyone to profile.’

As far as I’m concerned, we could do a little more profiling of Congress. Maybe if we the people did a little better job profiling in elections, we wouldn’t be in the state we are in? So don’t be surprised any solutions they propose to profiling involve profiling.