Comments Posted By Michael Devereaux
Displaying 1 To 3 Of 3 Comments
WHAT MIDDLE AMERICA THINKS OF THE ELECTION
Rick, your last two posts - if you read between the lines - say it all.
I'm usually comfortable with 'Middle America making the choice for President' based on their gut level responses, with very little actual time spent THINKING about the issues.
However, my sister is a classic Middle America voter. She aadmits she knows next to nothing about Obama. However, she can list about twenty things she knows about Palin - some of them wrong. This is due to the influence of what the media is reporting.
And that's my problem. The gut-level instinct is no such thing. It is shaped by the media in the same manner the beach is shaped by an endless series of small, unnoticed waves washing against the shore. It's a background 24/7 endless beat.
If Obama wins, the important indicator to me will be six months to a year into his Administration with a Democrat majority across Congress. If the American people end up in general thinking "Who in the hell IS this guy? He sure isn't the guy I thought I was voting for!", then my concern will have been proven to be justified. If the general American public indicate they've gotten who they thought they were voting for, then you'll be right.
Comment Posted By Michael Devereaux On 2.11.2008 @ 09:00
WHO ARE YOU CALLING A MODERATE?
Rick says,
>> So, I would say to my knuckledragging friends; you can take your litmus tests, your conservative measuring stick to determine the “purity” of my conservatism, your crazy conspiracy theories, your anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-elitist bullsh*t and stick it up your ass.>>Rick, how is this - which is interspersed throughout your blog post, by the way - ANY different from what they are doing to you? The pot calleth the kettle black, methinks.
So when you say, "the war is on", well, you're a part of the circular firing squad, I think.
Many of us who object to the "so-called conservatives" abandoning McCain because of the Palin pick do so because their defense of their decision NEVER contains an explanation that can be called conservative. It never does. Most of these switchers haven't offered a genuine, passionate defense of conservative principles in years, as well. Why don't I have the right to think that they're simply looking out for their own self-interests, in maintaining a seat with what I call "the washington d.c. cocktail party"? (a metaphor to make a point!) Why can't I criticize them for abandoning principle and abandoning us?
Comment Posted By Michael Devereaux On 28.10.2008 @ 10:50
IF ELECTED, OBAMA WILL BE MY PRESIDENT
Rick, you have agreed with Bald Ninja, who said:
If Obama is our next president then I will give him the respect he deserves as the holder of that office. It doesn’t mean that I won’t criticize him when he does something I don’t agree with, it doesn’t mean I won’t point out his mistakes. I will be calm and reasoned and there will be no hint of anger or desperation or derangement in my arguments or conclusions.
I agree with all of this except for one very large thing: The idea that we must be "calm and reasoned". I want to be sure I know what this means.
I have been sorely disappointed at our Republican media representatives in the mainstream media. I haven't heard a passionate defense of conservative values from them for years. By "passionate" I do not mean a Bob-Dornan-like hissing rant; I do not mean grim anger. I mean a tone and style of defense/apologia that shows that the speaker CARES.
The kind of defense that will make your average American sit up and take notice. "That was interesting." Without the passion, it's just so much blah blah blah blah.
Assume we face what you've described: A far-left Democrat President and far-left control of Congress. They will have been elected (assuming minimal fraud) by a majority of our fellow Americans. We need to lay the groundwork for a return of real conservatism. This can only be done by getting out there with a passionate defense of conservatism. We need to be smart.
We can predict everything that will be happening in the next four years. We can get the word out. We can focus on video messaging. (Our leadership needs to focus on video messaging - these Bush letters to Congress and McCain letters to Congress and to the Federal Reserve just don't cut it in this day and age. Video, video, video, please. Plan and strategize and execute. We can get our message out, despite the best efforts of the mainstream media, if we focus on it.
The Democrats will not have truth on their side. They'll continue the smokescreen and the blaming of Republicans even as their policies begin to cause harm and then accelerate the harm. They will offer no quarter and they will be merciless. We'll have truth on our side, and as long as we've argued and prepared the groundwork and gotten our message out, it will resonate. Perhaps not by 2010, but definitely by 2012.
"Calm and reasoned" may get lost in the noise of the Democrat blame machine. You've GOT to be passionate to show that you care. Else you'll be likely to be dismissed. (By the way, Rick, your posts *are* already passionate in exactly the right tone! I'm more worried about those who think that a calm monotone laying out facts - devoid of passion or care - will work. It won't.)
There is a time for "calm and reason" and then there is a time to burn down the barn.
Hope people will be able to tell the difference here if Obama is elected. So many of the commenters here are equating the simple, declarative notion that if Obama is elected and certified president that we should recognize him as such with the horrifying charge that anything he would do as president, I would simply roll over and play dead.
Long time readers of this site know there will be nothing to worry about on that score. Savaging liberals (when they deserve it) is one of our favorite pastimes here at the House. You people don't seriously think I'd give that up if Obama was elected, do you?
ed.
Comment Posted By Michael Devereaux On 14.10.2008 @ 09:51
