Conservative’s Lack of Vision…And James O’Keefe
[Guest post by Lee Stranahan]
The Republican’s biggest problem going into the 2012 elections is that there’s nobody presenting a clear, forward looking vision of the future. The issues are important, obviously, but the kind of leadership that wins votes for either party is the sense that the candidate has some unique, confident view of what the future will bring. It’s not enough to just criticize the current administration. The doom and gloom about spending may be warranted and citing the founding fathers may be inspiring but neither is an effective substitute for a passionately stated sense of what is to come next.
So, who’s doing that? Who even looks like they are capable of doing it?
If you want to know why Donald Effing Trump is surging in the polls, it’s because he at least sort of kind of has that sense of forward looking – he has to as a businessman – and he’s got the field of quasi-visionaries more or less all to himself. Sarah Palin Is chipper on the stump but isn’t really projecting forward and I’ve never been convinced she’s going to actually run, anyway.
Which brings me to James O’Keefe.
Playboy has a really great article by Jordan Lieberman on O’Keefe online right now and if somehow you can avoid being distracted by girls smiling at you from the surrounding ads, it’s well worth a read. It’s not a hit piece but a well-researched profile of one of the most effective and controversial young conservatives in America today. (And the others in contention for that title are largely people who’ve worked with O’Keefe at some point, like Lila Rose.)
As the article points out, O’Keefe and Hannah Giles took down ACORN in a few months. That was something the right has been trying to do for decades. But all that efficacy seems to be in another dimension from conservative electoral politics. That’s in part because the tactics of O’Keefe and Giles are a product of the high-tech present day. O’Keefe has said, “This ain’t your father’s 60 Minutes” but it’s still, by and large, your father’s Republican party.
The GOP doesn’t know how to integrate an O’Keefe. The rank and file laud him and the opposition clearly hates his guts but the Republicans still have acknowledged old-time mediocrities like John Boehner running the show.
And now I’ll circle back to that vision thing. Lieberman concludes his piece with advice for O’Keefe and I think it’s good advice for all conservatives as well. Substitute ‘The Republican Party” for “O’Keefe” in the following paragraph.
If O’Keefe were my client, I would hand him a flowchart of the positive people and the parasites in his life. Then I would take away his internet connection until he could come up with a long-term plan. And I don’t mean a new hit list of liberal targets to lampoon. He needs to figure out how to leverage what he’s accomplished into a paying gig that doesn’t rely on the generosity of anonymous wealthy donors with an ax to grind.
Is anyone going to heed that call?
– Lee Stranahan
Oh hell yeah, Lee. Right after the election. Right on the money with..”old-time mediocrities”. Seems to me, there is even a TAD of testiness, with the not long ago seated, young turks.
SSDD. “old-time mediocrities” intimate, WE don’t do it that way!!
JP (c4988c) — 4/18/2011 @ 1:09 pmUm, why? Is there a shortage of anonymous wealthy donors with an ax to grind? AKA “paying customers”? That’s like telling a dentist he needs to leverage what he’s done into a paying gig, instead of relying on people with bad teeth and money…
Brett Bellmore (6652c2) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:00 pmDear Lee,
You are a great addition to PP! I’ve enjoyed every word you have written for this blog. Thank you.
I don’t think it is easy for someone starting out in life, particularly one whose start is as auspicious as Mr. O’Keefe’s, to decipher what is possible. What, exactly, is the career path for a wunderkind? “Yes, Mr. O’Keefe, you should lock yourself in your room and not come out until you can tell us how you will transform yourself into the next Bill Buckley” – give me a break! I think your take on where O’Keefe might go and how he might get there would make for fine reading. James O’Keefe may ultimately prove to be a one-hit wonder, but what a hit that was!
As for the Republican Party, they aren’t just starting out and they have no excuse for being so far behind the curve. We like to call ourselves the “Party of Lincoln and Reagan,” yet we act like the party of Nixon and Bush. The river is wide, but not very deep.
Yours truly,
ThOR
ThOR (94646f) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:01 pmMy reaction to Lieberman’s advice was a lot like Brett’s. So long as O Keefe is doing his own thing that’s not a concern, nor would or should it be for Republicans of any variety.
SarahW (af7312) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:09 pmEh i’am with you.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:12 pmSome very good points, Lee. Conservatives have some very attractive principles, but they often exclude themselves from mainstream debate by being too inured of their own victimhood.
Big Median (2b1825) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:13 pmPeople like Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Breitbart fill the conservative media space with material that tittilates this insecurity rather than resolving it through any kind of action. Their appeal depends on portraying conservatives as a put-upon minority and on blurring in the concept of white male victimhood.
Breitbart’s less guilty of this to the extent that he has created and helped fund acolytes like O’Keefe, who are more about political aggression — making the other guy the victim, rather than about sitting back and whining about how terrible it is that liberals run the world (whether or not they actually do). Sadly, Breitbart is quickly moving away from what OKeefe is doing and toward the more lucrative, parasitic Limbaugh model.
Don’t get me wrong, I think O’Keefe is a full-on fraud who relies almost entirely on deceptively edited videos, but I do think he is at least willing to admit that the kind of whining that makes Limbaugh and the Fox talkers gazzillinaires can’t take the movement very far.
And for O’Keefe, wingnut welfare can only take him so far. At some point, he’s going to actually win an audience…
Wingnut welfare.
So says the fascist commie that believes in section 8.
And I like how the obamaphiles accuse the right of wallowing in victimhood.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:17 pmBM,
What Breitbart is doing is working with me on a Pigford documentary — kind of the polar opposite of what you suggest.
Lee Stranahan (708cc3) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:17 pmI see how one of the links on that piece, is yet that perennial chestnut, Kennedy assasination conspiracies
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:17 pmIsn’t big median a fascist moron that thinks Glenn Beck should have been taken off the air when he started criticizng Maobama?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:23 pmBig Median makes up stuff still, I see. Well, that’s what we expect from Yelverton.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:24 pmThat’s good, Lee. Perhaps Breitbart does understand that the media victimhood card requires repeating the meme that you’ve got a losing hand.
Big Median (2b1825) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:43 pmBut I have seen no evidence Breitbart is capable of assembling a documentary. That would require giving numerous points of view and his media product is built on assiduously eliminating all points of view except his own…
Rich coming from you Big Retard.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:48 pmAnyways isn’t it funny that leftys who ban people for disagreeing with them call breitbart intolerant of others opinions.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:49 pmLike Michael Moore’s criminal edit of Charlton Heston, or Dateline’s exploding Chevys or ABC’s attack on Food Lion
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:52 pmHow can he rely on a technique he’s never yet used? It’s a mystery. Perhaps you mean he keeps it in reserve, as a backup in case he can’t find the evidence he’s looking for, and in that deep-down hypothetical sense he’s “really” a fraud. Of course this would require telepathy to determine, which I doubt you have.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:55 pmExactly. Thinks O’Keefe has never yet done, but perhaps might one day do. Who knows? Let’s pre-denounce him just in case.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/18/2011 @ 3:56 pmMr. Daniels is a lot presenting a clear, forward looking vision of the future I think
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/18/2011 @ 4:08 pmToo bad he doesn’t believe in a right to work law.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/18/2011 @ 4:09 pmIMO, the media has done such a good job of portraying James as a devious tape-editing scumbag, that he may be well served being behind the scenes, much like an author who uses a penname. Whilst typing that, I had another thought. Only those of us that are true political junkies and follow the blogs know what is really going on, as I find my peers at work can’t be bothered with much, aside from who got cut from Dancing with the Stars. They know gas is skyrocketing as are food prices, but, we will never get them past the minutia that you and I feed on.
sybilll (e0f377) — 4/18/2011 @ 4:10 pmPutting the right face, with the right message seems to be our only hope. But, who?
he absolutely does believe in a right to work law he just said he thought Team R should earn a mandate for it instead of ramming it through like the dirty socialists rammed through obamacare, cause of he didn’t want the agenda Team R did campaign on derailed
here is his stated position on right-to-work:
And you’ll of course note that the Palin hoochie quit quit quit to become a Fox news babe as opposed to staying in Alaska and fighting for right to work from the governor’s office.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/18/2011 @ 4:16 pmHe needs to figure out how to leverage what he’s accomplished into a paying gig that doesn’t rely on the generosity of anonymous wealthy donors with an ax to grind.
Why? That model works for Think Progress, The American Prospect, Center for American Progress, and until recently Arianna Huffington (although she wasn’t anonymous).
MayBee (081489) — 4/18/2011 @ 4:36 pmBig Median does have a wider range than Mr. Feets, but he’s got no staying power.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/18/2011 @ 4:41 pmBig median just likes to makes assertions, and call people racists. It is who it is. It is what it does. Point and laugh.
JD (306f5d) — 4/18/2011 @ 4:42 pmHaving provoked a whole new flock of flea baggers, doesn’t serve him, terribly well, That said he should run, the more the merrier, well except for
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/18/2011 @ 4:45 pmTrump, who really has proven how clueless he is,
Palin, Breitbart, and O’Keefe are the most effective conservative media figures in America. They got balls. They deserve the right’s gratitude. In a slap fight between these three and ANY three from the left, who would you take?
Birdbath (19803d) — 4/18/2011 @ 4:59 pmYou know Lee a majority of Conservatives just want to live their lives without the government interfering, they never thought they would be taking on a bunch of radicals year in and year out in a 24/7 political cage-match. That might be considered “quaint” and perhaps old school but damn it life isn’t supposed to be a deathmatch for our beloved Country. It was always assumed that the Democrats loved this Country too, that has been proven not to be the case and it is the younger generation of Conservatives that UNFORTUNATELY will have to play the game that the left has set up, shame, a real damn shame!
JadedByPolitics (d652e9) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:00 pmvery nicely said Jaded person
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:02 pmWhy are you calling for racist violence, birdbath. CIVILITY NOW, teabaggerz.
JD (306f5d) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:03 pmI missed that. I mentioned three white guys on one side in a slap fight. Okay, switch out O’Keefe for Thomas Sowell. Thanks, JD.
Birdbath (19803d) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:07 pmI think this is a great point.
Why in the world should the right live by a set of rules provided to it by democrats? OK… we can’t be backed by anybody… PACs, politicians, corporations, wealthy patrons… or our ideas or video evidence can be disregarded as tainted. Meanwhile, the NYT is a rich corporation that gets to patronize radicals. Soros infamously backs Moveon or Media Matters. Chicago organizations like Annenburg backs both democrat politicians (hell, they employed Obama) and take it upon themselves to be objective (factcheck.org).
We act like conservative ideas are somehow inherently suspect and require additional protection from evil conspiracy influence. In reality, we can just ignore these rules. If this Koch guy wants to take a break from his Kansas factory and pay me some money to help get my arguments out there, I think I can let the American people evaluate my arguments on their own merits.
Anyway, if we continue this total grassroots, the left will disregard us for our less refined message. I don’t think I’ve gone a single day in over a year without someone making reference to old ladies who didn’t know what ‘teabagger’ meant, therefore justifying nasty sexual slurs in place of arguments.
My point: we can’t win. No matter what we do, we’re wrong. We’re either too well organized, or not organized enough and thus a joke.
Big Median provides a great example with his hilarious demand that conservatives can’t make a documentary without providing the left’s argument. I’m sure that rule only applies to the right.
Let’s forget all that. O’Keefe is not the only guy out there. Stranahan has a great method that relies on even handedness, and O’Keefe tends to go in specifically with an outcome in mind. We don’t need to turn O’Keefe into Liebermann’s ideal.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:17 pmsybilll @ 19,
While I agree with most of your comment, I’m disinclined to allow the media’s attempts to shape O’Keefe’s public image to control the right to the extent that we now have to find someone fresh to get the message out and represent us. What makes you think the media won’t do the same smear job on anyone in that position? It should be a given they will do just that and I think the right just has to forge ahead and confront it at every turn.
Dana (4eca6e) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:25 pmSo, Hot Air is pointing out the DOD has found the whole Rolling Stone piece of psyops in Afghanistan
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:25 pmwas bogus, yet again, back to the ranch
Narciso,
I was reading about that at WaPo – so did President Obama fire McChrystal based on a rock ‘n roll journal article? Didn’t they think to investigate this *prior* to his termination? Is a beer summit in order? So many questions…
Dana (4eca6e) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:28 pmThe main thing Trump has going for him, I think, is he is big enough to determine his own image rather than be subject to how the press portrays him. Now, that image may be one many people don’t like, and those who look at policy positions may not like him.
So all we need is a candidate who is bigger than what the media can do to him/her, portrays an image that the majority likes, with views and positions conservatives agree with that will be attractive to independents.
Yeah, that’s it…
IOW, I’m still waiting for the person to appear. What we need is on the order of Gen. Petraeus resigning his commission and running for president so he can “get the job done right”.
I’m not saying that is who needs to do what, but the kind of statement that needs to be made.
IF Paul Ryan could win the public debate on the budget, he would be in the position.
Obama captured the imagination of the American people, they believed he could approximate what he was promising even if there was no evidence for it. There will still be no evidence for it, and more against it, but I’m afraid enough will stick with him to win unless someone else can compete for “the imagination”. Allen might be able to do it in a few years, but I’m not sure he can do it now.
O’Keefe is good at what he does, has more to learn, but being a politician is not his future, I don’t think. Breitbart has the presence of a politician.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:32 pmIs the Pope German, I thought it was the other bogus
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:33 pminvestigation, so many lies, in favor of the Taliban, so little time
The challenge for people like Breitbart is to break out of the noisemaking mode and into the mainstream. As long as his style and tactics are fringe, his political impact will be marginal — a paradigm conservatives’ love-affair with/dependence on media victimhood prevents them from acknowledging.
O’Keefe took down Acorn with noise, not exposition. He never even bothered to present any evidence that Acorn management was involved in anything untoward and never even approached the widely repeated assertion that Acorn has been involved in voter fraud and/or that Obama and other Democrats were involved. (or perhaps he approached the subject, but found they weren’t involved and never reported it.)
Nor did he bother to follow up on the fake-pimp sting, because he knew it was noise, not exposition, and that there would be no payoff for trying to move the scandal up the chain of responsibility into Acorn management. After all the time, money and media space invested by O’Keefe and his sponsors, the assertion that Acorn management was involved in voter fraud remains without substance.
Contrast that with the kind of mainstream media investigations that exposed Jack Abramoff’s Republican shakedown network. The media assiduously, ethically and doggedly pursued the story to the highest levels, eventually taking down the Republican speaker of the house, right-wing Christian uber-fraud Ralph Reed and half a dozen other top conservative operatives and elected officials.
That scandal, more even than the Iraq debacle, led to the Republicans defeat in 2006 Congressional elections.
The left has its versions of O’Keefe/Breitbart — Max Blumenthal and Michael Moore come to mind — but they don’t pit themselves against the mainstream media and instead present their work as supplemental to broader investigations by professional journalists.
True, it’s a lot more work doing the mainstream media style of investigation, but it’s the only way to go if you want to win mainstream support and moderate voters, rather than just get rich like Limbaugh by constantly reminding conservatives of what failures they are in the media and mainstream culture.
Big Median (2f532a) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:36 pmWith the Pigford sting, or documentary, if that’s what it actually is, Breitbart only deepens the challenge of showing that he isn’t a racist. I say that not because I know Breitbart is a racist but because I know that he has positioned himself as a champion of white male victimhood and has consistently attacked established black political interests. That’s why the burden of proof is logically on Breitbart to show he isn’t racist.
You’d think he could find a bastion of white privilege to sting instead of training his fire on one node of black political power after the next.
It almost seems unfair that Breitbart can’t just come straight out and present himself as a champion of white male interests. His unwillingness to acknowledge this, while blatantly appealing to white male insecurities, hampers his entry into the mainstream and inflames suspicions that he covertly views black people and interests with suspicion.
eh…sybilll @ 19, clarification: I am not referring to O’Keefe as a possible politician but rather doing what he does now.
Dana (4eca6e) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:37 pmBM, are you still on the “Breitbart is racist” theme- that will not gain you points here, just watch…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:38 pmLee knows Breitbart and has worked with him. So Big Median, who does not know Breitbart and has obviously not even read any of his actual writings, thinks his opinion of Breitbart is important for Lee to know.
ROFL.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:51 pmHAHAHAHAHAHA
So clueless.
SEIU sees a black conservative and launches into a ridiculous attack that he probably abandoned his own kids.
SEIU beats the crap out of a black guy who isn’t on their political page. And soon after: Media Matters claims Gladney wasn’t hospitalized because he reported to the hospital himself, rather than being taken via ambulance.
And look at this Moveon.org weirdo insisting a black conservative is on the Koch plantation.
I guess I could spend the next hour linking 100 more examples, but the point is that Big Median insists that conservative POVs is anti black because it is so important to keep pushing this idea that blacks ought to have a certain POV. And that is racist. Big Median is the bigot, here.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:53 pmExposing corruption is really not a right or left issue. I have no problem with exposing corruption on the right. Unfortunately, the left, and it’s willing enablers, have decided that waging a war on the right is more important than actually fighting bad guys.
So it goes.
Ag80 (acb12c) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:55 pmI think this is the best link.
Here’s Al Sharpton and Ed Shultz explaining to eachother that Walker’s budget is racist. Not because it treats anyone differently according to race, but because to them, more money in government is the ‘black’ pov, and less is ‘white’. And these people aren’t the racists, Big Median? Breitbart is? Are you kidding me?
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:56 pmBig Median champions every single leftist moon bat canard. Every one. Oh, and you are all racists. But he did not call you racist. Because he does not have the stones. What a pathetic verbose lying dishonest f@ck.
JD (318f81) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:57 pmAh, Max Blumenthal, that really shows you have no self awareness, to bring up that agitprop weasel,
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:58 pmwho really deserves the Lillian Hellman test ‘every
word, including and and the’ should be regarded as a lie, the fact that both the Huffington Post and the Daily Beast have given him a berth, reminds me
what a ‘hive of scum and villainy’ they often are.
Exposing corruption is also not a black or white thing. Unfortunately, every color spectrum is has it’s healthy dose of it.
Dana (4eca6e) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:58 pmAbramoff?! really?! I bet bigmedialiar could not name the Dems he was connected to.
JD (318f81) — 4/18/2011 @ 5:59 pmSo seeing as Holder has decided DADT, is not worthy of legal defense, now that Boehner has decided to
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/18/2011 @ 6:15 pmprovide counsel with former Solicitor General Clement, Think REgress thinks that is the greater
sin,
If PJM is right, it seems Holder doesn’t even think victims of terrorism are worthy of much defense, Narciso.
Does this administration seriously hope for reelection? Sometimes I think they’ve given up hope of that.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/18/2011 @ 6:18 pmAccusing people of racism is such a tired tactic that the true evil of racism has been reduced to a check box on the talking points memo.
Racism is insidious and deserves to be fought tooth and nail. Aimless accusations of racism are the ramblings of people with mothers wondering where they went wrong and why that grown man in the basement doesn’t find a nice girl and leave already.
Ag80 (acb12c) — 4/18/2011 @ 6:26 pmIt does seem so, the other notion is they don’t care
about the opposition
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/18/pjm-revelations-on-holder-terrorism-prosecutions-spur-rep-peter-king-to-demand-answers/#comments
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/18/2011 @ 6:27 pmRacism is insidious and deserves to be fought tooth and nail. Aimless accusations of racism are the ramblings of people with mothers wondering where they went wrong and why that grown man in the basement doesn’t find a nice girl and leave already.
Wonderful. Beautiful. Bravo.
Oh, BTW kmart and bigmedium, Yelverton, and the rest of you trolls – Ag80 was talking about you.
JD (318f81) — 4/18/2011 @ 6:29 pmaccept that you will
ColonelHaiku (cc1656) — 4/18/2011 @ 6:36 pmbe called racist for pointing
out naked Barack
I agree that allegations of racism are often without substance, mostly because we lack a consensus view of what constitute racism. Dustin, for example, operates under the wingnutty illusion that simply criticizing a black person is racist. That’s absurd, of course, but by no means the extent of confusion across the political spectrum, left, right and center. Is it racist to say black people are better athletes? Racist for cab drivers to avoid picking up black people? In one way yes, in another way, no. Before you can meaningfully discuss racism, you have to painstakingly define your terms.
Big Median (2f532a) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:04 pmI try to do this by pointing out that Breitbart, Limbaugh and most conservative ideotainers appeal to the political, economic and cultural interests of white males. It’s only natural that they would then attract audiences that are predominantly white and male. Same goes for the Tea Party.
This doesn’t make them racist — far from it. But it does clearly place them outside the benefit of doubts and saddles them with some burden of proof.
By contrast, organizations that represent and promote the interests of ethnic and religious minorities — as defined by the minorities themselves — earn the benefit of doubt. The burden of proof, by and large, would be on people who accuse them of racism. And the question of whether minority representatives are anti-white is far less relevant, given the historically dominant position of the white males in American society.
All of this is of course obvious to most Americans, but denial of it is one of the habits that prevents wingnuts from getting their ideas across to mainstream America.
Big Median, your bizarre “logic” that your fact free assertions shift burdens of proof is just further evidence that “wingnutty” is projection on your part.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:11 pmWhat?
No, the examples I cited were actually racist. When you tell a black conservative that he probably abandoned his kids, or is on the Koch plantation, or is a house negro, that’s racist rather than mere criticism. When you tell a black man that his views are supposed to be democrat because he’s black, that is extremely racist.
When Big Median insists that Breitbart’s POV is not for blacks, that’s also racist.
This isn’t complicated. Race doesn’t matter. If you make it matter, you’re being at least somewhat racist. If you make it matter as much as Big Median, you’re probably a democrat.
Pathetic. So the blacks who like Palin don’t get to define anything. The blacks who like Obama define the interests of minorities.
Why are there organizations that represent the interests of hyphenated, separated, Americans? How does that work? Why aren’t we all over this racial division the democrats have promoted for centuries?
Also, having been through just about every liberal hellhole in America, you’re wrong on the facts even if we pretend there is such a thing as competing race interests. Liberals ruin the lives of blacks, and promote a culture of dependency and victimhood for sheer agitation and political power.
Big Median, is this the best you can do to show Breitbart is racist? Award a ‘benefit of the doubt’ to Al Sharpton (that is the specific example you dismissed, after all), while asserting that because Breitbart doesn’t agree, he’s opposed to minority interests?
That’s quite disgusting.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:22 pmI try to do this by pointing out that Breitbart, Limbaugh and most conservative ideotainers appeal to the political, economic and cultural interests of white males.
I’ll leave aside the cultural. What are the political and economic interests of white males?
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:29 pmThis doesn’t make them racist — far from it. But it does clearly place them outside the benefit of doubts and saddles them with some burden of proof.
Absolute unadulteratd bullshlt.
JD (318f81) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:30 pmI tell you what, if I admit that I racist let me ask you a question. Do you have any idea what $14 trillion means. Really.
The reason I ask is because that is a number you and I can’t understand.
So, when we talk about which political party is bad or racist or trying to kill old people or supports the unions or believe that unicorns are real, we come back to one thing: $14 trillion.
It doesn’t matter whether you love the old folk or the brown babies or your Aunt Martha.
The simple fact is this: you, the brown babies, the old folk and Aunt Martha are screwed unless this problem is addressed.
Personally, I want all of those people to live full and productive lives. I want them to be happy and successful.
All of the arguments, all of the insults and who can score the the most points on a message board do not matter.
$14 trillion matters.
Ag80 (6134b7) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:33 pmNine out of ten black people vote for Democrats and I’d guess the margin is widening, not contracting. More than six in 10 Latinos vote Democrat and I’m sure that margin is widening.
Big Median (2f532a) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:34 pmDo you not see this as a problem for conservatives? What are Breitbart and Limbaugh and Fox doing about this problem? The response of people like Dustin is simply to deny it and call the other side racist, for good measure. I wouldn’t blame more sensible conservatives for being frustrated with that approach…
But remember, bigliar is not calling y a racist, he is merely pointing out in his disingenuous douchey passive-aggressive way that you are evil white people of pallor intent on excluding and oppression people of color, by catering your message to the political and economic themes that appeal to people of pallor. But he is not calling you racist. Just putting the burden of proof on you to prove that you are not.
JD (318f81) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:35 pmBig Median, if Breitbart is in it to champion white male victimhood only, then how do you explain Lucious Abrams, and other minorities who fully support his efforts?
Dana (4eca6e) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:36 pmI say that not because I know Breitbart is a racist but because I know that he has positioned himself as a champion of white male victimhood and has consistently attacked established black political interests. That’s why the burden of proof is logically on Breitbart to show he isn’t racist.
What has “positioned himself as a champion of white male victimhood” consisted of exactly? What does that mean?
What exactly are “established black political interests” and how has he “consistently attacked” them?
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:36 pmI think we should all turn to big liar for advise as to how to craft our political beliefs to best appeal to his finely tuned ears that hear the racisms. We really should listen to a douchey liar that makes stuff up when taking a position.
Why is it that every last one of these leftist trolls sings from the exact same hymnal?
JD (318f81) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:38 pmNotice the memes that big liar came armed with. Repetition is this ones stock in trade.
JD (318f81) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:40 pmThis doesn’t make them racist — far from it. But it does clearly place them outside the benefit of doubts and saddles them with some burden of proof.
You do realize don’t you that you can’t prove a negative? It’s like if I said you’re a child molester and demanded you prove otherwise. Saying someone has to prove they’re not a racist is the same as calling them a racist, which is what you’re doing without admitting you’re doing it.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:42 pmNo, my response was to say there is no ‘black’ politics or ‘white’ politics, but rather policies have merit or lack of it based on other factors. I don’t think we need to analyze corruption through the lens of what race the target is.
You are quite racist to suggest there is a proper black POV. You don’t get to award race hustlers benefit of the doubt. They have to be able to withstand scrutiny.
The fact is that you’ve convicted Breitbart based on nothing but the fact he’s conservative, and you’ve defined that as non-black. You’ve loaded the deck even more egregiously to defend the hustlers. You can’t be racist if blacks vote for you 90%? Why not? Because Big Median makes the rules?
I get it… Big median knows he lost the argument, but wants to personally attack me in hopes that this deteriorates into a huge mess that he can then point to and laugh at. I don’t take you seriously enough for that, Big Median. I just note you’re employing this alinksy ;their own rules’ crap in a very clumsy manner. I think you’ve fooled precisely zero people.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:43 pmUnfortunately, it’s not just black political, economic and cultural interests conservatives oppose. They are aligned against the interests of virtually all major ethnic and religious minorities.
Big Median (2f532a) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:52 pmThe open hostility toward ordinary Muslims (and the insistence on blurring the distinction between radicals and moderates), for example, merely adds to the burden of proof. The opposition to immigration and to speaking Spanish add still more. The disdain for multiculturalism and diversity, whatever legitimate grounds the derision may have, nonetheless piles on the burden of evidence. The open support for promoting Christianity and the definition of America as a Christian nation in public schools and on the government dime is yet another example.
Any of these, taken on their own, don’t necessarily create much burden of evidence. But when you add them all up, when on issue after issue after issue, conservatives side with the white male Christian establishment, you have to be a real moron not to get why people think you are motivated by suspicion and/or antipathy toward non-whites and non-Christians.
As for me, the motives aren’t all that important. Racist or not, many or most conservatives oppose the economic and political interests ethnic minorities define for themselves by consensus.
Now it is just making shlt up. Oops. Including the now in the prior sentence is incorrect, as it might give the impression that big liar was not just making shlt up previously. Which it was. And will continue to do. It is what it does. It is an assertion monkey.
JD (318f81) — 4/18/2011 @ 7:59 pmBig Median,
How do you explain LTC Allen West, Herman Cain, Thomas Sowell, or as previously mentioned, Lucious Abrams?
Dana (4eca6e) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:00 pmBig Median – Why not just drop the condescending racial BS and have a discussion about Obama like you would any other failed and dishonest politician? I think the answer is that you are incapable of being honest or discussing ideas on their merits. Instead, you judge people first by the color of their skin, sexual preference, religion or lack thereof, or ethnicity. Team D and progressives are the side of panderers and pimps to get votes and cater their policies accordingly. Most conservatives do not focus on skin color, gender, etc., first the way you have in this discussion. You have lost your own argument.
Well done.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:01 pmThose are Uncle Toms, Dana. House negroes. Race traitors.
JD (318f81) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:02 pmDustin, you’re dead wrong. I’m not dictating what black political interests should be. I’m merely describing what groups like the NAACP, the Urban League, the Black Caucus and so on have defined those interests as. There’s nothing wrong with arguing that these groups are counterproductive for the people they represent, but to do so, you have to first acknowledge that they represent black people and that you oppose them. You also need some evidence, of course, and the fact that one or another individual member of the ethnic group opposes them doesn’t even come close.
Big Median (2f532a) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:03 pm“The open hostility toward ordinary Muslims (and the insistence on blurring the distinction between radicals and moderates), for example, merely adds to the burden of proof.”
Big Median – Examples would help your case. Your imaginings do not.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:03 pm“Big Median – Examples would help your case. Your imaginings do not.”
It’s part of the burden of proof thing you keep bringing up.
We have not seen much from you in that regard.
Speaking of which, where is that long list of persecuted liberals you promised yesterday?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:05 pmHe must be talking about those communists that are persecuted in North Korea by the South Korean wingnuts.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:08 pmBM: It sounds like you are accusing all white conservatives of being racist against everyone/everything that isn’t white conservative.
Seems to me you are being racist against white conservatives. You sure you have your talking points right tonight? Perhaps you should read them over again.
PatAZ (d09837) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:08 pmThe opposition to immigration and to speaking Spanish add still more.
There is no opposition to immigration, for the most part. There’s opposition to illegal immigration. I believe polls show most blacks oppose illegal immigration and I don’t think there’s any significant difference between males and females on the issue. Of course by your standard moonbat circular reasoning process, since we know that it’s white males that are the racists as you learned in some lunatic political science course, females and blacks opposing illegal immigration doesn’t prove that opposing illegal immigration isn’t an attribute of being a white male. It just proves that they’re under the control of the racist white males or something.
There’s also no opposition to speaking Spanish that I know of. Maybe you mean bilingual ballots or something like that, which is not the same thing as opposing speaking Spanish.
But when you add them all up, when on issue after issue after issue, conservatives side with the white male Christian establishment, you have to be a real moron not to get why people think you are motivated by suspicion and/or antipathy toward non-whites and non-Christians.
The fact is “the white male Christian establishment” does not exists as an actual entity of any kind. It’s an abstract concept moonbats invented and is taught in your typical university White Males are Oppressors 101 course, which I’m sure you got an A in.
In other words moonbats DEFINE “the white male Christian establishment” as being conservatives, so of course “conservatives side with the white male Christian establishment”, since they’re the same thing based on what you mean by the term. You also define “the white male Christian establishment” as racist. So all you’re doing is playing with words based on this invented concept.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:09 pm“Now it is just making shlt up.”
JD – Agreed. I take dumps that look better than his comment #68. You can’t fix stoopid.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:09 pmJust wanted to respond to what BM said about 60 comments ago.
First off, a variety of POVs is not required for a documentary. That’s a rule you made up.
That being said, I conducted as many interviews with people who defended Pigford as people opposed to it. Period. So you’re wrong.
Lee Stranahan (708cc3) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:10 pm‘Jumbo Shrimp’ gets very tedious, now as to Lee’s larger point, Sarah has staked a very firm public profile of what she would do, if given the chance, not just on energy, and defense, but economic policy; like it or not, she was the only one who endorsed Ryan’s Roadmap at the outset, everyone else went splunge,
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:12 pmI think we can all agree that, for example, Al Sharpton has made a career trading on black victimhood. It would be silly of me to suggest that the mere presence of white supporters in any way disproves that. How do Dana and others here convince themselves that the mere existence of black supporters disproves that Breitbart and his ilk trade on white victimhood?
Big Median (2f532a) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:12 pmDid you ever stop to think that what you hate actually helps the people you want to assist?
I have seen this so many times before. For whatever reason, you have some guy who sits around and decides that white Christians are the problem.
It’s the same argument that says rape victims deserved it for wearing short skirts.
Trying to argue with an anti-christian is useless because their whole argument is how Christians failed them without understanding the teachings of Christ.
Regardless of the theological debate, most conservatives are focused on the fiscal fate of our nation.
BM can spout about what he wants.
It’s old and insulting and deserves nothing more than contempt.
Ag80 (6134b7) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:13 pmBig Median: When Breitbart advocates for the minority group known as “white males”, that’s racism.
When lefties advocate for other minority groups such as blacks and latinos, that’s not racism.
This is a troll badly in need of sunshine.
kishnevi (46fd97) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:19 pmBig median, I posted video proof of racism. There’s no dispute to it. You dismissed that, and went on this rant about Breitbart’s lack of support for what you are taking it upon yourself to determine to be black policies. That is a hysterical degree of unfairness. You forgive racism, show racism, and accuse racism where it didn’t exist.
In the off chance you’re ready to have a real discussion, you need to admit that your assumptions are radical and unproven before we can move on. You can’t build your argument on such major, nasty, and (to say the least) unproven premises. My noting real racism was a ploy to show that you are not honest about racism (and it worked).
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:20 pmLee, I look forward to seeing the documentary. If it’s fair and balanced, I’m sure it will win a wide audience.
Big Median (2f532a) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:22 pm“White Males are Oppressors 101 course”
Gerald A – I think it’s called White Privilege 101 these days and it’s a big money maker on the seminar circuit.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:25 pmkishnevi’s point is also excellent. While I see absolutely no evidence Breitbart is biased in favor of whites, I guess it takes someone with a longer view of this argument to note that this kind of activism would be no different than activism we see from Big Median. He promotes this notion of other ‘ethnic’ groups making political moves for the benefit of their group… why can’t whites?
The truth is, white’s shouldn’t for the same reason black’s shouldn’t. It’s racist and therefore irrational. I posted a link to Ed Shultz and Al Sharpton freaking out about how some policies aren’t black favoring. … Big Median is saying this is OK, so long as you aren’t doing so for this one race.
Big median, the reason you are so confused about racism is that you are a racist.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:26 pmWhat about Micheal Moore’s documentaries? Do they need to be fair and balanced? What about Al Gores? What about any political documentary? Why do they have to provide the democrat POV, when democrat propaganda doesn’t?
Why can’t the ‘fair and balanced’ come from Big Median making his own points right here, or making his own documentary?
As I said earlier, Big Median isn’t serious. He just thinks this is a clever way to make Breitbart live by impossible rules.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:29 pmBig media is a liar. Period. Objectively. It is a race baiting class warfare nozzle of douche.
JD (318f81) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:31 pm68.Unfortunately, it’s not just black political, economic and cultural interests conservatives oppose. They are aligned against the interests of virtually all major ethnic and religious minorities.
Ho hum.
The fact that 9 of 10 Blacks vote for Dems is not a problem primarily for Conservatives, nor for Blacks themselves, but for the Nation. Please explain in objective fact how the life of the “average Black person” is better off after 50 years of Democrat authored Great Society and Affirmitive Action policies.
As is often the case, you are happily embracing half-truths. It is true that conservatives are not pro-Black, pro-Hispanic, pro-Women, pro-Muslim, pro-Buddhist, pro-Bahai, pro-short people, pro-tall people, pro-overweight people, pro-skinny people, and pro-anybody who is not white male and pro-anybody that is not pro-white male.
But it is not true that conservatives are against the welfare of those groups.
You can either support a system interested in the welfare for all equally, or for a system that advocates special treatment for some groups over others. To the questionable “credit” of people like you, BM, you have succeeded in deceiving enough groups of people that you are “for them” whether there is any evidence that you’ve been of any benefit to them at all. Obama isn’t interested primarily in the welfare of anybody, he’s primarily interested in not letting anybody do well (except of course for himself and his friends, who are special). If he was interested in the welfare of anybody he would want to do what makes for economic growth and for increased tax revenues for government function, but he said right out loud that some should pay a higher tax burden than they do now “because it is fair” even if those policies resulted in decrease tax revenue.
So, if any group thinks the Dems and Obama are “for them”, they are mistaken. If you want policies based on envy and revenge, go your way. If you want policies based on opportunity and the desire for everyone to prosper, follow Herman Cain or Thomas Sowell.
Good grief, Charlie Brown.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:32 pmWell said, MD. It’s just classic liberalism. We think all people are the same before the law and government. I want no special treatment according to any hyphen-american factor. This is not opposition to anyone’s interests. Just fairness.
But I still liked Kishnevi’s point that Big Median is contradicting himself to support racism in politics except for pro white politics. Unless he thinks whites are categorically less deserving of equality. Either way, JD’s right that this is just dumb race baiting nonsense.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:36 pmUnless he thinks whites are categorically less deserving of equality
That’s exactly what they think, unless one wants to argue that Holder’s DOJ is partial to groups with the word “Panther” in their names. Maybe someone should form the “White Panthers” and see if they get equal treatment as the “Black Panthers.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/18/2011 @ 8:41 pmJust a note, Lee. I try to set a higher tone and don’t always succeed. That’s why I do not presume to wander into your field. If you want conservatives to respect you, “Donald Effing Trump” just does not fly. That’s regardless of his qualities as a potential POTUS, which are the singularly least appropriate for a Tea Party/Conservative candidate. He is still “Donald Trump” just like Obama is still Obama rather Obamanation, Obumbles, or other less polite terms.
I respect your growing up and realizing what the people on HuffPo were like and about. But you’ve still not washed your hands of their rhetorical flourishes.
Just sayin’. And I’m NOT saying I am perfect.
{^_^}
JD (bcdcf2) — 4/19/2011 @ 3:12 amI think we can all agree that, for example, Al Sharpton has made a career trading on black victimhood. It would be silly of me to suggest that the mere presence of white supporters in any way disproves that. How do Dana and others here convince themselves that the mere existence of black supporters disproves that Breitbart and his ilk trade on white victimhood?
Equating apples and oranges. Sharpton’s statements are explicitly race oriented. So of course having white supporters doesn’t disprove the race oriented nature of his rhetoric. He says what he says.
With respect to Breitbart, you are imputing something to him without logically demonstrating that his content is about “white victimhood”.
Having black supporters doesn’t disprove that he “trades on white victimhood”, so on that limited point you’re right. However no one needs to disprove it mooonbat. The burden of proof is on you to prove it. You create a presumption that he’s racist and then someone’s supposed to disprove it. As I said, you can’t prove a negative. So by focusing on what does or doesn’t disprove your unsupported claim you are intentionally putting him or those who deny your smear in an impossible position.
Your argument, as near as I can tell, is that we’re supposed to assume that he must be racist because his political views are different from that of most blacks. It’s straight out of the politically correct garbage that’s taught at most universities these days.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 4/19/2011 @ 7:11 amLee wrote, “The Republican’s biggest problem going into the 2012 elections is that there’s nobody presenting a clear, forward looking vision of the future…”
That’s right, and Obama is well on his way to a second term because our side is divided against itself. Visionary TEA Party candidates for high office are unacceptable to the GOP establishment. The recent budget deal is illustrative, the Republican Party sold out to Obama rather than allow Conservative leaders to drive the agenda.
The GOP establishment would rather be subservient to Democrats if they can remain in control of the Party’s institutions.
That’s why there’s no clear forward looking vision coming from the GOP. The Republican Party establishment is at war against their own rebellious children.
ropelight (ca7c9a) — 4/19/2011 @ 9:56 am“As the article points out, O’Keefe and Hannah Giles took down ACORN in a few months. That was something the right has been trying to do for decades”
ACORN hadn’t even been around for “decades”, so how on earth was “the Right” trying to take them down that long?
libarbarian (90bd00) — 4/19/2011 @ 2:25 pmTe left like too call nazis ultra-right even though they were-ultra left. they had crony captialist leftys in germany support them under the guise of consevratism.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/19/2011 @ 2:28 pmconservatism*
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/19/2011 @ 2:34 pm1970, long enough,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now
narciso (79ddc3) — 4/19/2011 @ 2:39 pmTogether with every little thing that seems to be developing inside this particular subject matter, your perspectives are actually rather stimulating. Nevertheless, I beg your pardon, but I can not give credence to your entire plan, all be it stimulating none the less. It would seem to everyone that your commentary are generally not entirely rationalized and in fact you are yourself not really completely certain of your assertion. In any case I did enjoy reading it.
Darmowe Gry Online (4c379f) — 4/24/2011 @ 1:22 am