DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on December 13, 2011, 04:58:09 PM
-
GOP Creating Fuel for Obama
Casey Stengel, a baseball legend who played on five teams and managed four, said: "It's easy to get good players. Getting them to play together, that's the hard part."
What's true in sports is definitely true in politics -- even more so.
Many say that 'tis the season for GOP rivalry, but when does inference turn to infighting? When does public debate abandon solidarity? And when does friendly bantering turn into friendly fire that is fuel for our foes?
I know that we are in a GOP presidential race. I understand the tactics to win a regular election, but this is no typical run for the presidency. There is a progressive insurrection under way, and at the heart of progressives' political warfare is the lack of conservative consensus.
GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House, told an audience in Iowa last week, "President Obama is legitimately and authentically a Saul Alinsky radical." I completely agree, and so do most people who truly understand Obama's origins and political philosophies. Even The New York Times, back in August 2009, wrote, "Saul Alinsky (was a) Chicago activist and writer whose street-smart tactics influenced generations of community organizers, most famously the current president."
Alinsky's bible for community organizers is "Rules for Radicals," the principles of which can be viewed in almost every action of the left, including the present White House. For example, in the chapter on "power tactics," the fourth tactic is: "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules." Whereas conservatives regard congruity as commendable, Alinsky considers it an opportunity for raising disdain among the public and infighting among enemies, because no one can perfectly live up to his or her own message.
This is where Alinsky's fifth rule follows and applies: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." And the best missile in that arsenal is the friendly fire (ridicule) caused within the enemies' own camps.
The goal is "conflict among themselves" -- what Alinsky calls "power cannibalism," "a road from which there is no turning back" because it "permits only temporary truces." Indeed, according to Alinsky, they will suffer a form of selfish implosion while attempting to appear selfless as "individual units attempt to exploit the general threat for their own special benefit."
Alinsky concludes, "Here is the vulnerable belly of the status quo."
Tragically, by their infighting, the GOP candidates are playing right into Obama and Alinsky's hands. The fact is that while the majority of GOP candidates think they merely are competing for the prize of the nomination, they are running exact plays from Alinsky's playbook, often pitted by the mainstream media and the White House, who are playing them like pawns, with their questions, accusations and innuendoes.
Consider how the Alinsky scorecard has read just recently.
According to The Associated Press, last week, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's camp "announced a $3.1 million TV ad campaign in Iowa beginning (Dec. 9) that includes the new commercial assailing Gingrich on a host of fronts."
On the other hand, look at what Gingrich said at a Nov. 28 town hall meeting in Charleston, S.C.: "I do approach this whole campaign, I think, differently from everybody else. We have a number of friends who are also running. We have no opponents except Barack Obama. I think that's very important. I think (Abraham) Lincoln was very wise, as was captured in a book called 'Team of Rivals.' ... Literally everybody who was his opponent ended up in the Cabinet because he needed all of them in order to be able to put together the political power during the crisis that we faced. I would say the same thing. I don't know of a single person currently running who wouldn't be a very effective member of an administrative team and who doesn't have real talent and, in some way ... a unique strength. So I don't have any opponents on the Republican side."
Now, you tell me, which type of leadership is going to win us back the White House, one that rallies the country or one that divides the house?
The Republican presidential candidates are not the only ones being duped to Alinsky's schemes; many of the conservative media and much of the public are, too. While we slander our own presidential candidates within the borders of our First Amendment rights, we inadvertently abandon the strategy to win the White House.
Every conservative I know agrees that any GOP candidate would bring better leadership than that which we currently have in the White House. I firmly believe that our candidates' positive attributes outweigh any of their negatives.
With about three weeks until the Iowa caucuses, it's high time that we quit allowing the left and even our own preferences and prejudice to polarize us any further. It's time we lay down our egos and our innate bent and fight to unify for our republic's sake. It's time we elevate our own preferred candidate without trashing the others. It's time we turn the tables and beat the progressives at their own game by overturning their own rules -- Alinsky's "rules"!
If we are going to win the war for the White House, it's going to be solely in our ability to rally together and keep our scopes on the current occupant of the White House, not by aiming at one another.
So let's flood the media and blogosphere with discussion about the strengths each candidate possesses.
Let's keep the focus on real solutions to get this country back on track.
Let's live out the acronym TEAM and show progressives and the world that "together everyone achieves more," namely winning back the White House and Senate and maintaining a majority in the House of Representatives, which would save our republic.
United we stand; divided we most certainly will fall. (http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2011/12/13/gop_creating_fuel_for_obama/page/full/)
-
So let's flood the media and blogosphere with discussion about the strengths each candidate possesses.
===========================================================
They appear to have few strengths. Newt could defeat himself single handedly, and in fact, has managed to do so in the past.
None of these people is any sort of real leader. Huntsman could be a leader of the country, perhaps, but he won't get a chance because no Republicans will follow him.
So far, the nominating process has been a Three Stooges act: make that seven stooges.
-
None of these people is any sort of real leader. Huntsman could be a leader of the country, perhaps, but he won't get a chance because no Republicans will follow him.
If no one follows him he isn't a leader. His problem is he is tainted by his work for Obama.
-
I fail to see why Huntsman should be rejected for a much-needed and important job well done. China is important, and Huntsman understands it better than any of the others. He also knows more about world politics, and does not utter dumb sh!t like Gingrich, calling the Palestinians an "Invented People". Americans, Australians, Canadians and many others are no less "invented" and the Israelis are then a :"re invented people".
Gingrich is not so stupid as to believe this, I imagine, but inflammatory crap like that is surely not needed.
The Republican Party has essentially turned into something like zombies.
It is unfortunate that Huntsman's skills are unappreciated. It is unfortunate that all the rest of the candidates are such jerks.
-
I'd be more than glad to take a look at Huntsman if he decides to challenge Obama in a Dem Primary.
But the guy can't seem to get more than 1-2% support from the vast rainbow of Republican thought unless he has his daddy take out PAC ads on his behalf like he is doing in NH.
Did you know the Huntsman family made their money by inventing the styrofoam clamshell?
And that eyebrow thing he does.... whats up with that?
-
I did not know about the clamshell thing. Huntsman is a good speaker, knows a lot about the world, and is vastly superior to any of the clowns in the GOP, none of whom can or should beat Obama.
I have no idea what you mean by the "eyebrow thing", but I cannot imagine how anything eyebrow-related could disqualify a person from being president or causing me to vote for or against them.
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/931573bd.jpg)
-
Find a Black guy.
Maybe pay him money.
Print up a little sign in Ebonics.
Pass him off as typical of all Black guys.
Feel smug like the race-baiter you are.
-
Says the respresentative of all black guys
-
I guess the guy would be an uncle tom, being black and all. Is a black man hoping that Obama is a one termer being a traitor to one's race or is it more nuanced than that?
-
I see no nuance here at all.
I see only some stupid contrived ratbag rightwing propaganda.
-
Feel smug like the race-baiter you are.
Says the resident racist! ::)
-
Peewee Herman logic. You are the one that posted this swill.
-
While you're the one trying to denigrate and demean the man, based on his color. So, what's the definition of a racist, again??
-
Peewee Herman logic. You are the one that posted this swill.
And you are the one that started talking in racist terms.
It's clear you use your own racism to assume:
#1. The black man cant think on his own, he must agree with XO or he is paid off or a stooge
#2. There is no way a black can want Obama gone.
#3. Blacks must support Obama due to skin color or something is wrong
all of your above assumptions are deeply racist
it's funny to watch leftist who think they are on the high horse
shown that they are indeed the racist
always assuming the worst about blacks
always assuming blacks need their hand holding
-
And we're supposed to believe that you picked that picture at random? That you didn't post it because it showed a black man opposing this black president? BS. You're the one who injected race into the thread, CU4.
BSB
-
No one's claiming Cu4 didn't inject race. It was Xo however that injected Racism. You do understand the difference, I would hope
-
By purposely posting a picture of a black man CU4 is saying that that makes it different. He is saying, even blacks are opposing Obama now. That automatically puts blacks into a different category. It says blacks are "other", different. It says, see, even those other, different, people over there, who should be backing Obama, are now opposed to Obama. CU4 is the one implying that they aren't supposd to think out of the box, but, hey, isn't that amazing, they are.
BSB
-
Nice to know what you think he's saying. What I'm saying is there's a difference between injecting race vs injecting racism. The former can be contributive to discussion, the latter, in no way, outside of highlighting the person(s) injecting the racist rhetoric
And FYI, Cu4's the one demonstrating how one CAN think out of the box, and not be relegated to having to function in group think format, or else be designated a traitor to their race
-
And we're supposed to believe that you picked that picture at random?
Uh no...did I say that?
Please show me where I said I chose the picture "at random"?
Wrong assumption by BSb #1
That you didn't post it because it showed a black man opposing this black president? BS.
Uh no....Did I say that?
Wrong assumption by BSb #2
You're the one who injected race into the thread, CU4. BSB
I injected race, but not racism.
Hello Earth To BSb there is a difference.
-
By purposely posting a picture of a black man CU4 is saying that that makes it different.
Because it does make it different!
Hello Earth to BSb? Anybody home?
He is saying, even blacks are opposing Obama now.
And it's a fact they are less excited about Obozo now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-ratings-among-blacks-falls/2011/09/21/gIQAqzJdlK_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-ratings-among-blacks-falls/2011/09/21/gIQAqzJdlK_story.html)
That automatically puts blacks into a different category. It says blacks are "other", different. It says, see, even those other, different, people over there, who should be backing Obama, are now opposed to Obama.
Ha Ha....so is CBS News, NBC News, ABC NEWS, CNN all guilty of this fantasy crime of yours
for talking about "blacks as different" when they talk about "blacks as a voting block"
or "blacks" as a group?
CU4 is the one implying that they aren't supposd to think out of the box
Exactly 100% the opposite!
I am showing that some of them DO THINK OUT OF THE BOX.
And of course I am also showing that as soon as one does
the Left comes racing in with racist assumptions that basically
says "this cant be true" "they must be paid off" "how dare they think outta the box".
-
Posting this stupid picture is NOT "thinking out of the box" It is just posting a stupid photo. It is obviously posed and then disseminated across the ratbag rightwing blogosphere and of no real consequence whatever, like finfding a Texan who hates chili or a Japanese who hates sushi, or more specifically, finding someone to pose with a sign stating this and apssing it off as in some way meaningful.
I am unimpressed.
-
I am unimpressed.
Oh, the irony
-
Nothing you say has ever stuck me as anything but obfuscation and idiocy, sirs.
-
As I said, oh the irony. Especially coming from a "Professor"