November 30th, 2012

Pin the tail on the donkey

Commenter “beverly” suggests a new meme: “Pin the tail on the donkey.” Blame the Democrats.

I like it. Spread it around.

Only problem: without the cooperation of the MSM it’s probably impossible to do.

Paul Mirengoff points out that:

…[Obama's offer is like that of] Michael Corleone, “My offer is this, nothing. Not even the money for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.”

Even Times reporter Jonathan Weisman seemed taken aback by the White House’s position. He described the offer as “loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts.” As far as I can tell, however, there are no detailed spending cuts. Obama did propose some upfront cuts in programs like farm price supports but, according to Weisman, did not specify an amount or any details.

The decision to present this absurdly one-sided proposal comes straight from the Obama playbook. Recall that the president has presented budgets so ridiculous that they could not garner even one Democratic vote in Congress. Republicans then presented detailed budgets that, unlike the president’s, actually address the debt crisis. Obama responding by demagoguing the Republican cuts.

When the NY Times points out (even if subtly) that Obama’s proposal is one-sided and no real proposal at all, you know how one-sided it must be. And as Rick Moran writes:

…[T]his gambit by Obama was not meant to outline the parameters of negotiations. It was initiated to begin the political process of blaming the GOP if talks fail. It is not serious governance. It is a reflection of the fact that the president has no clue how to govern, only how to run for office. This is a ploy one might find during a campaign, not an attempt to reach out seriously to the other side. Hence, there are so many poison pills in this proposal — pills the president knew the GOP would never, ever accept – that one can safely assume the president is perfectly willing to go over the fiscal cliff, confident that the American people, as instructed by his allies in the media, will blame Republicans for the disaster.

The only quarrel I have with that quote is that I’d say the president does know how to govern, by his own definition at least—which is to try to grab as much power as he possibly can. “Reaching out seriously to the other side” would be an unnecessary hindrance to Obama, so he does not do it, and it is not required of him, because the consequences that would occur for a Republican president who tried to do the same (excoriation by the media) do not exist for Obama.

Note that in the comments section of the Moran article, as well as comments on many other blogs, a fair number of conservatives respond by saying they will abandon the Republican Party—thus effectively pinning the tail on the elephant. IMHO that can only help Obama, although they are rightly angry at the Republicans’ propensity to play the role of Charlie Brown to Obama’s Lucy (an anger I share).

But I see Republicans as having no good alternatives here. Their biggest error (and it was a big one) was underestimating Obama’s ruthlessness, and exhibiting insufficient toughness themselves. And this error of perception about Obama is inexplicable, because he showed long ago, before he was elected (probably as early as his very first run for office in 1995), what he was made of.

So this is my question for you: what could the GOP do right now that would satisfy you? Is there anything? And do you really think turning on the Republican Party is the answer? What do you think will happen if significant numbers of conservatives do that?

47 Responses to “Pin the tail on the donkey”

  1. Bob from Virginia Says:

    Neo wrote “what could the GOP do right now that would satisfy you? ”

    State publicly what Obama is doing, loudly and often and walk away, stating why.

    People back the strong horse, at least that way the Republicans will lose less than if they seriously attempt to negotiate; a sure sign of weakness under these conditions.

    Negotiating with Obama’s is similar to negotiating with a suicide bomber’s, you have to concede everything in the hope that maybe he will allow you to live.

  2. Michael Brazier Says:

    What can the Republicans in office do? Stonewall. The media will blame them for obstructing Obama and abuse them as radicals no matter what they do; therefore the GOP pays no price for being obstructive and radical in reality. If they don’t stonewall, though, the conservatives abandon federal politics and the GOP loses what little power it still has at that level. Most conservatives are realistic enough to recognize that the GOP can’t stop Obama from wrecking the country now, but if they don’t even try to limit the damage they won’t deserve to govern when the time comes to clear away the wreckage.

  3. Long-time-lurker Says:

    “what could the GOP do right now that would satisfy you? ”

    Quit the dead man walking routine and just die already.

  4. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    Yes, there are no good alternatives. I do think, though, that a well planned and publicized campaign of non-interference can work. Get the GOP Leaders McConnell, Boehner, etal together and issue a statement detailing the ways they find the President’s proposals breathtakingly one-sided and wrong. Follow on with a statement to this effect:
    1. Taking the nation over the fiscal cliff would be immediately damaging to all citizens. Therefore, the GOP will not do that. However, the President’s proposal is not serious and we willl not be trapped into further fruitless negotiations in which we can be blamed for falling off the fiscal cliff.
    2. State that Obama’s policies will not work in the long run. However, it is apparent that the only way to demonstrate that fact to the citizens that voted for him is to allow those policies to go into effect. Further state that the GOP, by abstaining from voting on the policies, is showing disapproval but not obstruction.

    My guess is that such a strategy would create a firestorm in the democratic party and the MSM. There would be cries that, “You can’t do this! We depend on you to opose us. This is treasonous! This is cynial game playing!” Etc. It might even spur the dems to offer some concessions so they could entangle the Republicans in their policies enough to be able to use them as scapegoats. But the GOP should continue to go Galt until the new Congress is seated. At that time a new strategy of continually trying to block any new policy proposals and continually detailing why Obama’s policies are not working should be followed.

    It might not work, but trying to negotiate with Obama now is going to lead to either going over the fiscal cliff or something close to what Obama is asking for now – with the GOP’s fingerprints on it.

    Decisions, decisions.

  5. Baltimoron Says:

    I’d just like to say that the whole Pin the tail on the Donkey vs. Pin the Tail on the Elephant game is mostly a preoccupation of a very small group of news junkies.

    If the “fiscal cliff” negotiations fail, most voters will only know that something has gone terribly wrong and that a Democrat happens to be president. Point goes to the Republicans.

    We actually saw something like this in the last election. Republicans thought that because the Democrats policies were broadly unpopular, independent voters would turn to Republicans.

    However, Republicans in the House of Representatives have forced a certain amount of moderation in Washington. It didn’t matter to those voters why Washington had gotten so much more moderate, or that Democratic politicians didn’t like it that way. They just saw that for practical purposes we have a moderate (though dysfunctional) government and decided to keep the same guy in charge.

  6. M J R Says:

    Bob from Virginia — yes.

    Michael Brazier — yes.

    Long-time-lurker — not so fast.

    J.J.f.J.J. — yes.

    Baltimoron — Point ^never^ ever goes to the Republicans; the MSM will see to that and sees to that.

  7. Baltimoron Says:

    M J R,

    You say that like no Republican has ever won a national election.

    Anyway, I don’t understand this obsession with the MSM, mostly because they’ve been losing their claim to be mainstream for years. No one under fifty watches network news. And Since the over fifty crowd is pretty solidly republican, I think we can say that their influence is limited.

  8. kaba Says:

    The Republicans missed their opportunity in early 2011. They should have passed a reasonable budget similar to that proposed by Paul Ryan. Then immediately adjourned the House with a promise they wouldn’t return until the Senate had passed and the President had signed their budget.

    Meanwhile they should have returned to their districts and gone door-to-door explaining the importance of getting our budget process and deficit spending under control. The MSM will not give the Republicans a fair shake during our lifetimes. But they have the opportunity to bypass the MSM and take their message directly to the people if they would make the effort.

  9. vanderleun Says:

    “,,,, what could the GOP do right now that would satisfy you?”

    1. STFU
    2. Fire everyone working for the party in the long term right now.
    3. Clear history.
    4. Drop dead.
    5. Reboot.

  10. Scomo Says:

    They need to stop negotiating in a very provocative manner. They need to announce they are no longer negotiating because Barack Obama’s stance on the fiscal cliff is a lie and a fraud and that he is an utterly unserious negotiator at the most serious of times. Then note that the day after he drives America over the cliff he will be taking a 1%-style-4-million dollar vacation to Hawaii and you, America, get to pay for it. Specifically state that this vacation is emblematic of his utter lack of concern for negotiating, for American jobs, deficit, medicare etc. D’s and MSM will go bug-eyed crazy at the language and, of course, will blame R’s for being so impolite.
    R’s then simply keep repeating the charge over and over again until people start getting it through their heads that there is/might be something to this charge.

    Obama is doing nothing but prepping the battle space to blame R’s. We need to do the same but the only way to get the message out is to be deliberately insulting to Obama. The MSM coming to the defense of their boyfriend is used to bring attention to the reality.

    The additional benefit of this strategy is that the deliberate insults will fire up the R base so that we do not abandon a spineless GOP even if we lose on substance. This helps solve the GOP abandonment problem even if it may not solve the substantive economic problem or the blame problem.

  11. Sam L. Says:

    Say loudly and often “Show us your plan, and these ‘cuts’ you’ve only been talking about. Put them in writing. We’ll get back to you.”

  12. vanderleun Says:

    Nothing will come of nothing.
    King Lear, Act I, Scene 1

  13. Papa Dan Says:

    I said in another thread that the Republicans should vote present and let him Obama own it. After Treasurer Timmy’s offer yesterday, that’s no longer possible. If Republican’s stand back now, they’ll loot the American people like a flash mob in a 7-11.

    Perhaps there is still a chance to make kaba’s plan work. Give him his foolish tax increase, thus avoiding the cliff, ship the bill to the Senate, go home and call town meetings all over this land, and appeal to the American people.

    The old guard of the GOP is getting old, and it’s time for the Tea party to step in and take over the party one race at a time.

  14. gcotharn Says:

    What could Repubs do, RIGHT now? in short term?

    Stop negotiating in secret. Such negotiation:
    1) is unconstitutional
    2) amounts to playing the Dems game. Repubs cannot win via playing the Dems game. Maybe Boehner, personally, can win, via Boehner personally wielding more power. Is that what the Repub Party currently stands for? Boehner, personally, acquiring and wielding more power?

    STOP NEGOTIATING IN SECRET. Follow the Constitution. Do not play a game which conservatives cannot win.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Separately: Repubs should do what Whittle says, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLoYxr8gOP4
    i.e. believe in our own philosophy; actually believe it, and show it in our rhetoric and in our actions. Whittle is not saying to be rude, or impolite, or impolitic. Whittle is simply saying: believe in our own philosophy. Do not apologize for believing in our own philosophy. Being apologetic, about one’s own principles, is a certain way to lose and lose, forever. Repub politicians must either get smarter, and get better, or get off the stage, and allow the Rubios and Ted Cruz, who are smarter and better, to inhabit the stage. That is all.

  15. M J R Says:

    Baltimoron, 2:10 pm — “You say that like no Republican has ever won a national election.”

    Of course I need to concur on that, although I will note that excepting 2004, no Republican has won a national election popular-vote-wise since 1988, and -1- the country’s demographics have changed dramatically since then; and -2- the mainstream media, slanted as they were in 1988 (“Annoy the Media — Vote for Bush”), are even more so now [see, for example, "Crowley, Candy"]. Which brings us to your second paragraph:

    “Anyway, I don’t understand this obsession with the MSM, mostly because they’ve been losing their claim to be mainstream for years. No one under fifty watches network news. And Since the over fifty crowd is pretty solidly republican, I think we can say that their influence is limited.”

    They are collectively the product of the decades-long Gramscian march through the institutions [a very familiar phrase here on this forum]; they have consolidated their power and monopoly, and they’re not going to concede a micrometer.

    “No one under fifty watches network news” — they get their information from Stewart and Colbert.

    You believe “the over fifty crowd is pretty solidly Republican,” but I confess I’m not aware of that fact, and I’m either without documentation or too lazy to research any relevant figure, so I’ll plead “no lo contendere” (no contest) on that.

    (Just like former Baltimoron native Spiro T. “no lo contendere” Agnew — hey, I once lived in Ball’mer, and in Maryland for many, many years, so I’m partial to ya. No disagreement here is personal. Go O’s!!)

    “I think we can say that their influence is limited.” All our influence should be so limited. Somewhow, the bad guys control the loudspeakers, the bullhorns, major population center presses, and the non-Fox networks. If their influence is limited, the incumbent should have been smothered in a landslide in 2012.

    Beg to differ with ya, friend.

  16. Papa Dan Says:

    gcotharn said:

    “Stop negotiating in secret”

    You may be right. The Republican’s may well call Obama’s bluff. But not if it turn’s out to be another Blair House type of setting where it turns into long droning lectures from Obama with snarky comments tossed in.

  17. holmes Says:

    Negotiation is one thing I actually know something about (the rest of the time I’m just babbling, really).

    When the other side is being unreasonable, when the only tactic is to try to strong arm you (in this case with a PR campaign), without any concomitant reasonable discussion, you walk away from the table. “Call me when you’re serious.”

    That’s the only option. Tell the public what your offer was, ensure that it’s reasonable and includes concessions to the other side, then don’t return until the other side accepts the offer or something close.

    The President has staked everything on increasing the tax rates. Everything. It was, in fact, his only real bullet point in his campaign. That means, in theory, you can get a lot for agreeing to that term. I think the R’s could get about 75% of what they wanted if they agreed to increase the top rates. So make that their final offer. Then walk away.

  18. Ann Says:

    No one under fifty watches network news.

    But the under-fifties do go to the Yahoo! portal many times a day, and the news there is totally skewed left. Has to be a huge influence on their political views.

    That’s in addition to Stewart and Colbert.

    Pretty tough competition.

  19. holmes Says:

    “The fiscal cliff” is really just a meme anyway. What’s so cliff-like about it? Tax rates go way up, hurting the economy sure, but that may be inevitable at this point. Along with that are fairly large spending cuts, which we need. What’s the issue? That it hurts special interest groups? Screw ‘em. If it hurts them that badly, they’ll push the President to making a deal. Saving the economy from the D’s is basically tilting at windmills at this point. Give them what they want, but get the underlying reforms the R’s want in exchange. It’s much easier to simply change the rates when you’re back in power.

  20. holmes Says:

    The game is rigged right now. Walking away changes the paradigm. They won’t be hailed as heroes of course, but it needs to be done.

  21. Paul A'Barge Says:

    …they will abandon the Republican Party—thus effectively pinning the tail on the elephant. IMHO that can only help Obama…

    That’s the Catch 22, isn’t it. Classic. Conservatives have not put us in this bind. RINOs have. And thus we have no way to change the Republican Party. Because they will continue to do this (come kick the ball, Charlie Brown). For ever. Because they win either way.

    You ask what I would want? The end of the Republican Party. Replaced by the Libertarian Party and the Conservative Party and perhaps a Social Con party.

    I will no longer be suckered into supporting a RINO. Let the house burn to the ground.

  22. b. Says:

    Jennifer Rubin writes on her blog today: In their own ways, Sen. Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner have handled the past couple of days rather expertly. McConnell’s reaction to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s ludicrous proposal — laughter — was exactly right. It is a joke, and rather than railing at specific parts, a guffaw nicely communicates to voter how un-serious the president is at this point.

    Likewise Boehner’s more-in-sadness-than-in-anger tone after his call with Obama keeps his party from becoming unhinged and keeps a respectful dialogue with the president….

    The GOP’s message this week to the Dems can be summed up in two words: Grow up. Only after the president has definitively shown that the Democrats prefer the politics of adolescence should the GOP begin passing out parachutes for the group jump over the cliff.

    I think she gets it exactly wrong — it’s time for Boehner to skip the more-in-sadness-than-in-anger tone, and go out in front of the camera and use just those two words:

    Grow up.

    or, You’re sh*ttin’ me.

    or, You can’t be serious.

    That would penetrate the MSM fog and get on air…

    We do need anger and colorful words.

    16 trillion is too much money.

  23. M J R Says:

    I think a Bidenesque “MALARKEY!” would have been a most appropriate response to Geithner & ilk.

  24. parker Says:

    “Negotiating with Obama’s is similar to negotiating with a suicide bomber’s, you have to concede everything in the hope that maybe he will allow you to live.”

    I offer a correction. The bomb is not attached to BHO or his children, he wants to attach the bomb to my latest granddaughter who is only 4 months old. May he fold it five ways and own the disaster. My advice is to walk away, walk very far away beyond the blast zone radius. Do it for the children.

  25. parker Says:

    “2. State that Obama’s policies will not work in the long run. However, it is apparent that the only way to demonstrate that fact to the citizens that voted for him is to allow those policies to go into effect. Further state that the GOP, by abstaining from voting on the policies, is showing disapproval but not obstruction.

    My guess is that such a strategy would create a firestorm in the democratic party and the MSM. There would be cries that, “You can’t do this! We depend on you to opose us. This is treasonous! This is cynial game playing!” ”

    Yes! I say yes(!) because that is my exact thought. Let 10,000 tantrums blossom!

  26. Ann Says:

    I still feel pretty numb emotionally about the loss of the election. I thought it would be obvious to almost all that the Obama campaign was absurd and dishonest, that he and Biden did terribly in the debates, and that most people couldn’t fail to see that Romney was a really decent and highly capable man with valuable experience.

    So, I guess you can say I was actually stunned by the loss, and I think this has probably been the same reaction even among many Republican office holders. Best thing to do in such circumstances is to be quiet for a while and not attack your own side, and also to work like crazy to thwart Obama’s plans as much as possible.

    I also think future Republican wins will be just about totally on the basis of the appeal of the candidates themselves.

  27. parker Says:

    “GOP can’t stop Obama from wrecking the country now, but if they don’t even try to limit the damage they won’t deserve to govern when the time comes to clear away the wreckage.”

    Sometimes you have to retreat, step back and avoid the strike. I think now is a time to retreat and wait for an opening. BTW, the republicans have seldom IMO governed well. I trust them as far as I can throw them… perhaps 10 feet. Conversely, I trust democrats to kill and consume the goose. I think the voting public has earned their supper, meager as it will be, and they need to discover the consequences.

  28. parker Says:

    “16 trillion is too much money.”

    Actually, its 16.3 and rapidly accumulating. Plus, its nearing 60 trillion when state, local, and private debt is tabulated. Then there are the unfunded liabilities. In other words, we’re %&@*ed without a serious change in course, and the window is closing. The people have voted for full steam ahead. Let the useless idiots discover where their choices lead and scream about recharging their Obamaphone. I am debt free. I have the resources and skills to survive. Ashes, ashes.

  29. M J R Says:

    parker, will your resources survive the ravages of an inflating currency, if that’s what’s in store? will your skills survive rapidly changing technology?

    Mere rhetorical questions, not just for parker but for others, very much including moi.

    Motivation for those questions: we don’t know what the h#ll’s around the corner. It may be very little change, it may be catastrophic change, it may be something in between. We don’t know.

    At least ^I^ don’t know.

  30. DonP Says:

    Let it burn.

  31. soupcon Says:

    What is it with many on the Right to blame their own side? I suspect many are just libertarians indulging their juvenile fantasies, but their is something psychological going on here with the CONSTANT anger directed at one’s own side.Never as much towards the Democrats.It’s a loser’s mentality and utterly demoralizing, but maybe that’s how so many like to go through the day.

    Democrats do not care who the candidate is, or their own ethics, as long as they are a D.They know the brand and that’s all they care to know.Meanwhile, the GOP tears itself in pieces wrestling with their conscience over an idealized, perfectible politician who will be the perfect distillation of all that is noble in each voter’s character. So many of the posters are like this.

    Get over yourselves.

  32. M J R Says:

    Hey soupcon, over there on the left they have their purists, too. There’s the Green Party and there’s the usual-suspects variety of socialist, socialist-labor, etc. parties.

    I think the difference is, over there, there’s a lot of people who know that “D” = Santa Claus; our only comparable faction on the right are those who stand to benefit from corporate welfare. But those latter folks are a-political, for the most part, from what I can perceive: they’ll support any and every candidate who has a chance of winning, so they’ll be favored when the winner hands out the goodies.

  33. b. Says:

    I got the “you must be sh*tting me” from the original Quantitative Easing Explained on YouTube.

    And, “I want to bang my head against the wall.”

  34. jon baker Says:

    The following suggestion is a bit smaller piece of the pie than the current situation over the approaching “fiscal cliff”, but it is along the same lines of letting people know who is who. A little back ground: Under Obama care, the Family owned chain store Hobby Lobby , with over 500 stores nationwide, is facing $1.3 million dollars in fines per DAY starting in January due to their religious beliefs against providing the morning after pill in their employee health care plans. They do apparently provide pre-conception birth control (apparently they are evangelicals, not catholics). Regardless of your views on birth control/ morning after/ abortion reasonable people should understand the larger issue of religious rights of conscience. I wish we could get something modelled after the chic-fil A day for Hobby Lobby to raise people’s awareness of one of the totalitarian parts of Obama care. When I mention the situation with Hobby Lobby to people, many do not know! Maybe someone here with Tea Party connections or similiar could do this? Provide the initial critical mass to get it started? A Facebook “event” thing? It would give many on our side an outlet during a time of set back.

  35. jon baker Says:

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-09-12/hhs-mandate-birth-control-sue-hobby-lobby/57759226/1

  36. beverly Says:

    Pin the tail on the jackass.

    That’s our only hope.

    Look to history: those who are BLAMED for the calamity will own it forever — no, it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, only who yells the loudest.

    That’s why it’s time to, oh, hell — get RUDE. Our guys need to be rude enough to make the evening news and the chat shows.

    I agree, too, that our internal enemies (and yes, they are our enemies) just LOVE our circular firing squads. They buy popcorn and beer and sit back guffawing as we decimate each other.

    Any corrections should be administered privately, on the QT. Just IMHO.

    I also agree 10000% that we cannot, must not EVER be a party to the coming disaster; that we must yell from the rooftops our opposition to the whole damned business, and start screaming that the Vicious Party is to blame.

    And start calling them “The Vicious Party[TM]” At all times, and in all places. After all, it’s their cute little nickname for themselves inside the Beltway. Aren’t they precious?

    (Tip to Boehner, McConnell, et al.: “TAXES” to us poor schmucks out here ain’t “REVENUES.” For God’s sake, stop using their terminology.)

    But we need one goal, and one goal only, right now: PIN THE TAIL ON THAT DONKEY.

  37. Phil Dayton Says:

    Going over the cliff is the better result of any result the Rs can get at this time. Some cuts to spending kick in and everyone feels the pain of our past profligate spending. Don’t was time with negotiations therefore. Instead the House should move on to revising the tax code by mid-2012 in a fair way probably along the lines suggested by Romney (severely limit deductions), but where everyone pays some tax. In 2012, House presents new tax code to replace the Clinton tax rates, saving tax for most. President and Senate can accept or risk looking like they prefer higher tax.

  38. Hangtown Bob Says:

    The Repubs should do what Barry did in his limited time in Congress……..

    just vote PRESENT!!!

    After all, if it’s good enough for a future President of the United States, it’s good enough for some spineless Republicans.

  39. NeoConScum Says:

    Walk the ***k away from the Punk, his Thugs and Yappers, his absent ‘plan’, his cliff, his makings, his utter inability to lead, or work and compromise.

    Just take a WALK Away.

    Sick of this shit is what I am.

  40. NeoConScum Says:

    Dreamt of a Taliban Stoning Pit last night. Instead of Afghan Women & Girls, some Fools from America were marching into that big hole in the Hindu Kush: Dicky Durbin, Feckless Harry, Mam Boxer, Tommy Harkin, John-Boy Kerry, Chuckles Schumer, other Lefty Twits of Power…

    As the rocks were hitting their marks, I awoke with the first true smile I’ve worn since Nov.6th…Ahhhh, to be Potentate for One F’ing Day!! (-:

  41. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    MJR said, “….we don’t know what the h#ll’s around the corner. It may be very little change, it may be catastrophic change, it may be something in between. We don’t know.”

    Some quick guesses. Going over the cliff would create a firestorm. So many more people would have to pay increased taxes, there would be an immediate outcry. Stock market probably drops 10-15% in a matter of days. Congress, seeing the seething anger, would do emergency work and fix the tax situation pretty quickly. Would it be a good fix? Probably not much better than what they could do right now.

    Same way with all the sequestered funds. (Spending cuts.) Huge outcry from all those who are affected. Emergency fixes. Back to square one.

    Stock market begins to recover as fixes are made. However, economy remains stagnant because of general lack of confidence.

    Under Obama the best we can hope for is continued economic stagnation and downgrading of the dollar. Since 2008 we have all lost on average $4000 in purchasing power. We have lost several trillion dollars in real estate and securities values. Retirement funds (401ks, IRAs, defined benefit plans, annuities, etc) both private and public have deteriorated in value. We can expect more of the same under the next four years of Obama.

    Will we become another Argentina? I don’t think so, but we will be moving in that direction. We have too many resources, (Farms, oil/gas fields, mines, timber, infrastructure [airports, sea ports, super highways, etc], hi tech facilities, heavy manufacturers, [Boeing Caterpillar, Deere, Joy Global, etc] and other assets that will help slow our decline and stave off default/bankruptcy. We will all be poorer, but I don’t think we will be in a disaster bankruptcy scenario like Argentina.

    That’s my take and one reason I believe that we have a chance at getting the economy growing again, if we can wrest power away from the progressives who demand equality of outcomes even if it beggars us.

  42. parker Says:

    MJR asks: “parker, will your resources survive the ravages..”

    I don’t want to find out, but perhaps the time will come when I do find out. I have food and water stored against a long term disaster. I know how to grow and preserve food. I save seeds. I can hunt, skin, and butcher. I know how to purify water. I have silver. I have ammo and I can still hit a paper plate at 400 yards. I have children and grandchildren. I will gladly die before I allow goose stepping, jacket booted thugs to come marching down my street.

    All I can do is prepare as best as I am able and stay ready to defend what is mine. That is all I can do. It takes no village to raise my grandchildren and I am completely willing to kill anyone who seeks to enforce the opposite. If it becomes everyman for himself time, I am as ready as I am able. Do not tread on me or mine. All it takes is 5 million to feel the same.

  43. Baltimoron Says:

    M J R & Ann,

    Here’s the mistake both of you are making; The “MSM” has to mean more than simply pro-Democrat. For it to have the kind of power Republicans generally attribute to it, they need to have some kind of benefit of incumbency (like the three networks in the days before cable) that allows them to promote liberal stories and squash conservative ones without any competition to point out the bias.
    As I pointed out about above, those days are going away. The examples you use for where the younger crowd gets its news (the Comedy Central late night shows and Yahoo News) have no advantages of incumbency. If the Daily Show is part of the MSM, then the term has no meaning. Anyone can start a website, anyone can put a show on cable and people can decide to get their news from them or click on something else.
    If Democrats have been more successful branching into alternative media than Republicans, it is because they are better at marketing their product to the under 30 crowd or younger people simply agree more with the Democrats. Either way, they won fair and square.

  44. neo-neocon Says:

    Baltimoron: as I pointed out in the comments of another thread, the left had a monopoly on the news for a long time, and it still controls the vast majority of outlets. It also controls education and the media. So any upstart outlet on the right has to compete not only against a vast barrage of leftist messages from many, many news sources and also the other most formative information sources for young people (education, media, and then peers who are also exposed heavily to the same sources), but against an overwhelming message from those sources that news from the right is uncool, not to be trusted, and not to be watched (“Faux News”). Against that, it is very very difficult for the right to get a toehold, especially with the younger generation. Any new show or news outlet would have to be vastly more entertaining than any of the ones on the left, and how could that be done? It’s so much more fun to watch Jon Stewart (who really is very funny) or to call your opponents racists and rich old farts than to try to follow complicated dry arguments about stuff like the economy. Who wants to watch that?

    That said, I think that “Red Eye” on Fox is a nice start. But why is it on at 3 AM?

  45. Baltimoron Says:

    neo,

    Simply being big in a field isn’t sufficient to give someone the power of a monopoly. Republicans seem to have no problem understanding this as it relates to most areas of business, but when it comes to the media everyone starts talking about corporate conspiracy theories. The fact that Newsweek is a charity case and the New York Times had to mortgage their headquarters to stay in business never makes anyone stop and think that maybe there really isn’t any kind of monopoly in the news media. Anyone can put anything out there, and if they market it right, the people will come.

    Let’s look at the Daily Show as an example (since I’m told its the only place twenty get their news anymore). When the show first started in the late 90′s, it was mostly a variety show. They did celebrity gossip, went out and found silly and bizarre local stories. There wasn’t much political bias, because there wasn’t much politics.

    Then the 2000 election came around. The Daily show had a field day making fun of how terrible the news coverage was and started presenting some real news themselves, but in an entertaining way. The audience loved it and the rest is history.

    Now my point in all that is that the Daily Show’s rise wasn’t inevitable. Anyone could have stumbled into that market with a good show. The thing is, Republicans aren’t trying to get into that market. Look around the Republican leaning media and you see lots of very talented guys all making shows for older men who already vote Republican. You can’t complain that the other guy is cheating when you’re not even playing the game.

    By the way, I’ve never seen Red Eye, but I’ll give it a look if I’m ever up that late.

  46. neo-neocon Says:

    Baltimoron: my point was that Red Eye is trying to get into that market, although as I said, 3 AM isn’t really going to do it.

  47. Baltimoron Says:

    neo,

    Fair enough. But now I’d like to go back around to my original comment to M J R. We can both agree that the pro-Democrat bias in the media is a problem Republicans have some power to fix (though we disagree as to how much). Still everyone sits around complaining that nothing can stop the all powerful MSM. In fact, a lot of Republicans get an odd kind of satisfaction from sitting and complaining. Why are people so eager to believe these news organizations have a level of power they clearly don’t, and why are they so comfortable not doing anything about it?

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge