The article touches on but a few of the many issues (with more everyday) beginning to tarnish Obama's image and cult status as more and more Americans start to question and doubt.
... doubts. ... competency of the White House. ...doubts about Obama himself. ... eloquence is wearing thin ... his actions are often disconnected from his words ... lack of administrative experience ... promises and policies contradict each other ... evidence of hypocrisy ... speech about earmark reform just after he quietly signed ... bill that had about 9,000 earmarks in it. ...denounced Bush's ...signing statements, then issued one himself.
... increasingly don't like his policies. ...vast spending hikes and plans for more ... [82%] worried about the deficit and 69% worried about the rapid growth of government ... expect their own taxes will go up as a result, despite the President's promises to the contrary.
... appalling tax problems ... fumbling presentations ...still the market waits for his answer to the banks' toxic assets. ... didn't know of Freeman's intemperate criticism of Israel and his praise of China's massacre at Tiananmen Square, or that it didn't care. ...doubts about the motives [of Pelosi and Reid] ...
Still we aren't seeing any real directed, managed, and coordinated effort by Republicans or Conservatives to highlight and use these and other negative issues and views to erode Obama's popularity and create a negative (or at least a less positive) opinion of his motives and actions, and of him personally. Negative "attacks" work!
... before you consciously know it, the message [from negative ads] takes hold of your brain. You may not want it to, but it works just about instantly. ... [negative] ad's effects on the brain "are actually shocking," says UCLA psychiatry professor Dr. Marco Iacoboni. ... viewers lost empathy for their own candidate once he was attacked.
... after people had seen a flurry of negative ads ... empathy for their own candidates just disappeared, indicating they no longer identified so much with their candidate. The more you are bombarded by ads, the more you are going to be affected ...
Don't think of ads only in the traditional sense. Think of it more as a "campaign" including increased emails, blogging, letters to editors, calls to talk shows, talk shows themselves, off-hand remarks at local stores and restaurants, comments to friends, etc.
Republicans must be more particular, careful, and "civil" in their anti-Obama campaign, but those Conservative individuals and groups not associated with the GOP can and must open up and let 'em have it!
Until people begin to see Obama for the slick talking socialist he really is, his image begins to tarnish, and he is knocked off his pedestal, we can't stop his agenda.
It's up to Conservatives to unite and make that happen!
AAR
.jpg)
RS,
ReplyDeleteI agree, but we need to do any and everything we can to help it along! And not just against Obama, but against any vulnerable members of Congress, particularly those who ran and were elected as conservatives or moderates, but who support the Democrat's liberal agenda, either by directly voting for it or by contributing to the numbers which gives them their majority.
I know I keep repeating, but repetition is essential, and it isn't happening on the Right. We don't want people going to the polls still undecided or susceptible to having their views and choice changed by Obama's slick talking and snake oil, aided by hundreds of billions of dollars in highly effective campaign ads. We want voters going to the election with their minds made up to vote against Obama, his socialist agenda, his out-of-control spending, and against anyone who supported him or his ideas -- no matter what -- just as they did with Bush. To accomplish that requires action now and continually right up to the election.
Obama's world may very well fall down around him through his and the Democrat's own actions and failures, but we must do all we can to amplify and magnify that failure and the negative feelings toward the Left.
I know, that's not being nice and playing fair, but neither is Obama's agenda and socialist world he and the Liberals want to create.
AAR
It's my sense the Republican Party is in such disarray it's not functioning as a unit. Assuming BO continues on the path he has chosen he will surely implode. It may take awhile because the MSM will hang on as long as they can, but surely he will be a one-term guy with his current approach. I do believe his election was more a vote against McCain (and in a way against Bush although he wasn't in it. The left hates Bush still.).
ReplyDeleteThe conservative side needs someone, or a group of like similar minded LEADERS to point out our beliefs and ideas (J. you are right on the money with that approach), married up with what we as a party will do different (a positive spin, just as J. suggests). Until we have that core of leaders for focus, we are not going to make headway. We need to give people a reason to vote for our side. I haven't seen that since Regan.
Constantly using our talking heads (Hannity, O'Reilly) to demean the other side in the arrogant way they do will not benefit our cause. Like Rush or not (Julie - mostly not) he's about the only thing holding conservatives together at the moment. In that sense he is a leader, not elected or official, but in that sense he speaks for the conservative side because he's the only one out there able to constantly bring folks together and hold them there. If only we had a political person that could do the same.
In the end Hannity is going to hurt us with his constant vilifying and arrogant approach. Media folks that have a good message on our side seem to end up heading off in a direction counter to what is needed. O'Reilly's approach is, "it's all about me." Basicly he's a jerk and comes off that way. I listen to Laura (on a Mexican station from TJ - how ironic is that), but since her conversion to the Catholic Church she's on a right to life mission to the exclusion of other important topics. I'm a right to life person too, but I'm also not a one issue person. Her movement in that direction has been most pronounced. When O'Reilly, Hannity, Laura and the others constantly harp, well, it may be true, but after awhile it gets old. They've each made a lot of money doing it their way, but as J. and AAR said, people are getting tired of the negativity and arguing. In the end that approach will not serve us to our best interest.
There are others that do what they do too, some do well, and others, well, not so much. That leaves the spokesman as Rush, like him or not.
I notice Newt has been consistent and level headed. I like his approach and when he runs again (he will), the dark side will be all over him like white on rice, particularly screwing around on his first wife before the divorce. They will stoop to whatever level is required to hammer him. Mitt is squeaky clean, speaks French (went there on his mission), is good looking, speaks and carries himself well, but his past flip flops will come back to haunt him. His MA state health care program also will come back at him. Huck is excellent, but seems like he's an outsider and I don't believe he'll get the weight of core old-school Republicans behind him. They must be together on this. But before we can really have an effective program to defeat the BO and the MSM, we've got to identify a core of leaders to carry the party. Negative ads only go so far and we are soon to find out with our media types (and I'm thinking Hannity here) that approach is only good for so much. I know I'm tired of it.
J.J.
Check out Hugh Hewitt. I love this guy. He is smart, he is funny, he is articulate, he is nice but tough, and he is a little odd. (He loves the Browns and once had a whole show on the best movies ever made about Ohio.) Remember the Elian Gonzales story? Hugh had on his show the people who, in the Reagan Administration, actually wrote the immigration and sanctuary laws which should have covered the kid, and had a couple of hours which were not just opinion but reasoned fact.
ReplyDeleteI agree about Hannity, and think he is becoming a negative. Beck is at least nice, though so passionate he can come across as a kook. It is possible to hold abortion as a major topic, without making it the only topic. As the president holds so little actual power regarding the subject, aside from the kind of recent rulings by Emperor Obama and the S Court appointments, it seems that the topic could be ratcheted down a notch, remain a major concern but not be the only focus, and still achieve the same goal.
As far as I am concerned, getting rid of Roe and letting states make their own rules will accomplish what the activists want. I spent time at CPAC with the woman who pushed the ND initiative through, and it can be done, if the Court will stay out of the way. But constantly talking about it turns off a lot of people, even those who agree, because it is so obsessive.
J
J,
ReplyDeleteHugh has been a favorite of mine since Life & Times; a cable talk show he did with Patt Morrison primarily involved with California politics. He teaches at Chapman University School of Law where my older brother attended; Chapman was once described then as a small Christian collage (for Christians under 5’ 8”) and was most famous for World Campus Afloat; Chapman now boasts an ABA accredited law school that offers a center-right philosophy.
HH is a solid conservative voice and is convinced, as am I that the way forward is with the Republican Party. He ruminates on the self-destructive nature of the California conservatives’ all-or-nothing pattern of shoving fiscal conservatives under the bus because they were not socially conservative enough for us (we?) hard core wing-ers. He points to the disaffection on the right on the National level that gave us George Wallace and Ross Perot and on a California scale, Arnold. Pointing out that only the far left crazies of the Democratic Party would split their own electoral power to make a Quixotic point. We conservatives would rather make a point then actually govern, and liberals happily allow us this function every election. As a practical matter, the Republican Party should, and once did embrace all three types of political conservatives that straightens rather than dilutes the voice of the Party.
I believe that Cantor, Pence, Ryan, well as others within the Party hierarchy will offer us a voice should we decide to join. The proviso is that we stop trying to throw the ones not completely in sync with our views under the bus; Rush is more entertainer than political mouthpiece, but look at the personalities that do agree with him; from Thomas to Will to Gingrich, Rush is recognized as a powerful voice for the conservative movement. Too often we are made to feel guilty by the left of the people and causes with which we agree to some extent. Guilty, then we end up agreeing with the opposition and abandoning those who speak at least in part for our principles.
I don’t have to agree with Rush in part or in whole to recognize that debate within the movement is healthy provided the left isn’t the ones framing that debate. We should embrace anyone with a voice that reaches that many citizens, and engage that debate to help clarify our message. Working within the Party to affect positive change more assuredly presumes success than working without either political party. Third party politics is the formula for political wilderness.
Just my two cents.
Count d’Haricots