5 Ways Bush Helped Elect Obama

[show_avatar email=mbuel76@gmail.com align=right user_link=website show_postcount=true]

1) Bush’s support of the minimum wage increase.

The minimum wage is a socialist policy.  Any time the Government tries to exert force over the market The vast majority of business leaders start at the bottom.

(which is made up of individuals), it’s exerting tyranny over the people.  Minimum wage controls, do not help disperse poverty, or increase the labor force.  They decrease the labor force, increase poverty, and decrease future business leadership.

Higher minimum wages lead directly to the rise in unemployment. (Fox Business News, source of image)

I have much more to say about the minimum wage, and why it’s unnecessary and will do so in a future blog post.  Briefly, it doesn’t fix poverty, it displaces labor, it creates grey and black markets for labor. Since the Republicans supported the minimum wage increase then, why don’t they know?  Do they hate the poor, like the left proclaims?

 

Henry J. Kaiser Foundation

 

2) Bush’s policies of Medicare Part D and Various Federal aid programs, that Democrats complain about, but refuse to repeal.
Throughout the 2006 to 2010 election cycle the Democrats complained 1). This includes the Iraq War and Medicare Part D.  Medicare Part D, for all intents and purposes is another 800 pound gorilla of debt.  Like Obamacare, if not cut it will bankrupt America. The Bush administration over eight years added 33% to the national debt (by 2012).

 

The Democrats don’t really want to cut it, they just use it as a wedge issue, to blame Republicans for massive spending. As far as African aid goes, it would be better spent from the private sector.  Most government aid, to every country is wasted money.  It’s also the reason those countries don’t spend the free money very well.
As well meaning as all of these programs are, they become more and more unsustainable as we go forward.  It doesn’t matter which party passes well meaning laws, if we run out of money, we run out of money.

 

Associated Press

3) Bush’s Democracy projects, to try and change the world.

We won the war in Iraq against Saddham Hussein.  After 8 long years, Obama finished the policies (badly, which I’ll get to.) declaring that the mission has been accomplished.

But what is the result of that accomplishment?  Thousands of lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring savages “democracy”.  As if Democracy is a sacred goal?  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  You know what the majority in Iraq wants?

Tyranny of the Caliphate.

news.vice.com

Not Bush’s fault you say?  Certainly not completely, Obama left Iraq a vacuum of power.  However, the people of Iraq, by a majority are okay with the Islamic Caliphate of ISIS taking control of Iraq.  If Saddham Hussein was still in control of Iraq, there would be no ISIS.

The people have spoken.  Democracy is a dangerous ideal, our founders despised direct democracies. (That’s why we’re a Republic) This is again an issue of empathy versus money. We simply can’t free every country from their brutal dictator, and like Iraq, many of these people will just choose another brutal dictator.

associated press
Conservatives criticize Obama’s stimulus, but not Bush’s?  You wonder why the American’s don’t see the Republicans as an alternative to the Democrats?
The stimulus delayed the recovery in 2003. Greenspan blamed the war, it was Keynesianism that delayed the recovery.  The recovery kicked in to high gear, in late 2004 after the stimulus spending died down. It didn’t work for FDR, why would it work now (or then for Bush)?How can we consistently be against Obama’s stimulus, if Bush’s was okay?

 

michellemalkin.com

5) The attack on the freedom to fail (TARP, GM Bailouts, etc)

Michelle Malkin and Reason both, had great write ups on how Bush completely abandoned the free market principles that made this country great to “save” the free market system.  In fact, he set in place policies and government expansion that allowed Obama and his cronies.  The Financial Regulations put in place by Barney Frank, and his equally idiotic compatriot Chris Dodd.  The two buffoons who didn’t see a problem with Fannie and Freddie, wrote 2500 pages of regulations for the banking industry.

It’s not talked about much, however the Dodd-Frank financial bill is the Obamacare of the financial world.

Clarion Ledger – Marshall Ramsey

It happened, because Bush started the path allowing the Federal Governmetn to control private banking through TARP.  The goal?  Fix a problem caused by Democrats, Government and Obama.

While this may seem very negative of former President Bush, it’s brutally honest.  If I had a choice, I’d still vote for Bush over Gore or Kerry in 2004.  Just look at the colossal joke that John Kerry is in our State Department.  Reflection of past mistakes is necessary if we expect to improve.  Bush like Hoover, was a “pre-socializer”.  Hoover tried to expand Government
to help those suffering from the recession.  He even started the New Deal.  In my opinion, part of being a Constitutional Conservative or Libertarian is being a student of history, and seeing where policies fail, and where they are repeated.  Obama similar to FDR tried massive spending to save the economy. By his own graph, we’d be better off today without the stimulus.  That doesn’t even take into account that Obama’s BLS has changed the way the U6 is reported.  Labor Force Participation hasn’t been at 62.8% since Jimmy Carter.

Remember though, all of the acceptance for Obama’s policies came from Bush doing it first.  As childish as it is to point your finger at the other guy, and spout, “HE STARTED IT!”, Bush truly did start it.  Ultimately, that’s why Romney was a bad choice for competing for that seat.

Romney passed the predecessor to Obamacare.  Ryan accepted stimulus spending for Wisconsin.  If the Republican party doesn’t differentiate itself from the Democrat party, why would anyone vote for them?

Don’t Go Out On The Front Lines Without Training

We’ve talked before about the utility of comparing the Progressive-Conservative struggle to a War. I use that comparison all the time, not because I’m a violent bloodthirsty killer, but because most folks have a basic understanding of the most basic of components and concepts, also, I don’t “do” sports, so…war it is.

There are a LOT of ways to participate in the war effort. The sexiest way, the one most people think of first, is to be part of the group of guys with the guns. The front line warriors. They get the medals, they get the parades. (When is the last time you saw a ceremony honoring outstanding achievement in logistics?) I’m not a front line warrior myself, but I have a deep appreciation for those who are.

I see a lot of my fellow conservatives wanting to be front line warriors. But they neglect the most important part – BOOT CAMP.First_US_Army_Rehabilitation_Centre-_Recuperation_and_Training_at_8th_Convalescent_Hospital,_Stoneleigh_Park,_Kenilworth,_Warwickshire,_UK,_1943_D16598[1]

They have the passion to win. They have the knowledge of conservative policy and philosophy. They have the fire in the belly, a computer, and accounts on G+, Twitter, and Facebook. They are OUT THERE.

And..without training, they are ineffective at best, most likely wasting their own time, and harming the overall movement at worst. Don’t do that. You don’t WANT to do that. Just realize you need Boot Camp, you need a Drill Sergeant, you need role models to watch and learn from.

Ladies and gentlemen, Kurt Schlichter is that guy. I alluded to it earlier today, in this post, when I showed you a couple of his tweets.

At the time I hadn’t even read his article in Townhall. (Yeah, I denounce myself). But wow, seriously…he is absolutely up front about it in today’s article. It’s not just me thinking of him as the instructor, he’s outright admitting it. So…he’s offering you the chance to learn from him. Take him up on it. Become a better soldier.

Here’s a snippet of the training he provides in just one article:

But if you do choose to argue with a liberal, understand that your purpose should never be to change the liberal’s mind. You’re not going to change the liberal’s mind. Instead, if you choose to argue with a liberal, you should do it for one of two reasons – to either win over people who have not yet made up their minds, or to support people who already have begun to understand the truth.

There are two basic tactics to choose from when responding to a liberal pseudo-argument, defense and counterattack. Without getting too detailed and infantry-nerdy on you, think of defense as simply preventing a loss. You’re holding your ground. The counterattack, however, lashes out to seize the initiative and defeat your enemy.

When you counterattack, you ignore the proposition offered by the liberal and refuse to respond on the liberal’s preferred terms. In fact, you don’t even need to address the same subject the liberal is talking about. Your goal is not to undercut the liberal’s assertion. You’re going to counterattack to undercut the liberal himself.

Subscribe to Townhall via RSS, or whatever way you ca make sure you get all of his work. It requires thought, effort, and practice. Usually the liberal is just emoting, it’s what they do. If you take the time to learn the art of counterattack, you will be able to accomplish your goal – because you’ll be the only one actually thinking in the exchange. And ALWAYS keep track of your goal and your audience. You’ll never be finished learning and practicing. You’ll never be good enough at it. If you think you are…stop using social media for a few days, read Kurt’s articles, read his tweets, read tweets from random folks who imagine themselves to be warriors, and figure out how you can be better.

It’s a war, I want you to win. I want us to win. You have to work at it. Find yourself some examples like Kurt.

Here’s an example of Kurt firing back, just today:

The tweet from the Progressive:

The response from Kurt:

That’s how it’s done folks, counterattack, you’ll find examples like that throughout Kurt’s twitter timeline. He’s also written a bunch of books I’m sure he’d like for you to buy and read. Kurt’s Books on Amazon

It Was Mom

Conservatives are losing in the arena of media and culture. If we are going to turn this country around we must make headway in the culture. This Sunday is Mother’s Day and I think that we should promote our own positive messages about mothers and motherhood.

Conservatives are losing in the arena of media and culture. If we are going to turn this country around we must make headway in the culture.

This week a YouTube video showing a young woman getting an abortion and explaining how happy this event was for her went viral. I am not going to share a link to this video because I don’t want to give this disturbing lack of respect for human life any more hits then it already has. This young woman mentioned how great she felt to be able to create life and how great it was to be able to take that life.

This Sunday is Mother’s Day and I think that we should counter this disgusting message with our own positive messages about mothers and motherhood. A good mother can truly change the world. The foundation of any civilized society is the family and if the family is the foundation the role of Mother would be the cornerstone. A good mother is the primary source from which her children gain knowledge. She teaches then to read, write, count, add, subtract, multiply, right, wrong, sharing, service, selflessnes, manners and countless other things.

I challenge you to think about what your mother has meant to you or what mothers mean to society and share this video with your personalized thoughts and the hashtags #itwasmom and #MothersDay. Lets share the message of all the good that mothers can accomplish and let the world know that motherhood can be a great force for good in the world.

It Was Never ABOUT Bundy, He Wasn’t A Hero

Open_Range_Sign_Interstate_10_Frontage_Road_Arizona_2014His fall doesn’t surprise me, and it doesn’t change what was important to ME about this case

We have a STAR culture, and every issue ends up being about a face and a person who is defined as either a hero or a zero. For many people who didn’t take the time to figure out what they were getting emotional about, it became about Cliven Bundy.

Support HIM, stand with HIM. Listen to HIM, etc.

He had daily press conferences, and feed the star-making system. The inevitable happened, and he said things that are indefensible. The press will now go into a new phase of tearing him down, and using that to delegitimize the folks who defended him.

There will now be a rush by politicians to distance themselves from the man, and they will also foolishly distance themselves from the situation because they lack the desire or ability to differentiate the two.

Bundy’s comments on race provide breaking point for Paul, Heller
And probably most other Cliven Bundy supporters as well, assuming that the New York Times report of his Saturday press conference is accurate.

He was, and is, unworthy of adulation. He’s just a guy, was always on the wrong side of the law, was unprepared for the spotlight, and has, expectedly, been taken down by the self-exposure of his own beliefs.

Cliven Bundy Just Ruined His CauseAfter Bundy’s overtly racist remarks, let’s see how far politicians run away from him.
Cliven Bundy stood by the Virgin River up the road from the armed checkpoint at the driveway of his ranch, signing autographs and posing for pictures. For 55 minutes, Mr. Bundy held forth to a clutch of supporters about his views on the troubled state of America — the overreaching federal government, the harassment of Western ranchers, the societal upheaval caused by abortion, even musing about whether slavery was so bad.

This particular land use situation will continue on, and be resolved in the courts, where it should always have remained.

The Feds over-reacted, HUGELY. Their bullying tactics were stopped by the rapid ability and desire of Americans to face down the thugs who would steal and kill his cattle over this dispute. The alarm was raied, the call was answered, and the feds backed down.

THAT was the point. THAT was the victory.

We do not continue to stand alongside Cliven Bundy, because it’s not about him. We continue to stand prepared to defend all others against over-reactions of the federal government, to get them to the point of resolving things civilly, and without Federal snipers, drones, and tanks used against American citizens.

The moment the Federal Jackboots retreated, THIS issue was done for me.

That Cliven Bundy still thinks it’s about him, that the press is still star-obsessed, that the effort to tarnish this man succeeded, is entirely predictable.

The left will now say that “we” have proven ourselve to be racists and supporters of racists. The apolitical folks will agree. The “true warriors” on the right will spend time defending this MAN, because they believe that they have to in order to defend their support for his defense.

We do not have to defend this MAN, I never did, it was never avout Cliven Bundy. It was, and is, about Federal Government abuse of power.

The Modern Liberal Inquisition

The only Inquistion I approve of is one involving Mel Brooks.
The only Inquistion I approve of is one involving Mel Brooks.

History repeats itself.

It is a curious phrase, that certainly contains some truth, but is often misused.  However, sometimes, you cannot deny the practical reality of this simple statement.

The Spanish Inquisition started around the 12th century, in a goal to purge the Catholic Church of heretics.  It persisted in its quest of eliminating all types of supposed secularists, proven or not, well into the end of the Middle Ages, ultimately mutating in form to eliminate all forms of enemies of the Church, from accused sorcerers and witches, to simply our garden variety Jew or Muslim.

We have seen modern equivalents of the Inquisition, in many shapes and sizes.  Some are religious, others are secular, all are political. We have seen this pattern repeat across the globe, as one group or another tries to vanquish the threat of evil from our midst.

I wonder if we are beginning to see something similar in modern liberalism today.

The curious case of Brenden Eich comes to front pages today.  Eich is a successful IT entrepreneur.  Best known for creating Javascript and being critical in the formation of Mozilla (the company that created the popular Firefox browser and Thunderbird email client), he was recently elevated to the role of C.E.O. of Mozilla.

Little did he know he was passing through the doors of hell into a progressive firestorm.

Why did this happen? because of a relatively innocuous $1,000 donation to group pushing for California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 measure that sought to prevent same-sex unions from being recognized as civil marriages.

Yes.  The firestorm was regarding a small donation made six years ago.

Progressives, as they are wont to do, were outraged, and instantly began a campaign to oust Eich.  They formed protests and websites to unite the forces of good against the evil that is Brenden Eich.  Heretics must be vanquished, after all.

Make note of the fact that not a single employee of Mozilla or anywhere else had ever complained of Eich’s behavior. No one, either during his time a COO or in his current role of CEO, ever stated he behaved in anything but the utmost professional manner.  Homosexual colleagues had nothing but good things to say about the man.

Of course, facts are irrelevant to the progressive mob.  He had to go, in order to purify the souls of society.

Eich decided that enough was enough, and the silliness needed to come to an end, so he resigned from his post on Thursday.  I doubt that this is much of a burden for Eich, who is likely quite wealthy.  But Reihan Salam notes that even at this late date, if Eich had recanted his position, he probably could have held on to the job. Eich refused; and for that, I think he should be heralded for holding to his beliefs, which is so rare these days. Salam notes:

Agree with him or disagree with him, Brendan Eich was willing to pay a price for his beliefs. In the grand scheme of things, the price certainly wasn’t as high as that facing, say, Galileo. But would you do the same thing?

Famed editorialist Andrew Sullivan chimed in as well:

He did not understand that in order to be a CEO of a company, you have to renounce your heresy! There is only one permissible opinion at Mozilla, and all dissidents must be purged! Yep, that’s left-liberal tolerance in a nut-shell. No, he wasn’t a victim of government censorship or intimidation. He was a victim of the free market in which people can choose to express their opinions by boycotts, free speech and the like. He still has his full First Amendment rights. But what we’re talking about is the obvious and ugly intolerance of parts of the gay movement, who have reacted to years of being subjected to social obloquy by returning the favor.

As for the progressive inquisitors, they gleefully proclaimed success at the purging of this heretic, with little understanding of the gross hypocrisy and overall intolerance of their crusade.  Their church is now cleaner and purer for the victory; what else matters?  Sullivan again:

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

It is funny how many liberals, in discussions I have had in the past day or so, are bigoted enough to presume they know my position on gay marriage. Time and again, because I defend the free thoughts of another American, I am presumed to share in his beliefs.  Liberals have now reached the certainty that their way is the pure, unadulterated truth of life, and that any other path is sinful and must be purged, at all costs.

Sound familiar?

The ever-growing intolerance of liberals in America is disconcerting.   That their voices now has such force as to cause the firing of a CEO of a major company is disturbing to say the least.  Apparently American Progressives are ignorant of the true meaning of tolerance, acceptance, religious liberty, and most important, the concept of freedom of speech. Those are all secondary values to the modern progressive movement, secondary to their faith-based cause of ‘moral purity’.  Nothing ever goes out of style, so dig around your closet and pull out your Brown shirts, America.

What most Americans, like myself, actually believe is in freedom for all, equal access and opportunity, but also the fundamental belief of freedom of thought and speech as well as the freedom to be free of oppression. These are essential tenets critical to the American ideal.

Let us stipulate that conservatives in the past have not been free from this kind of behavior.  Neither have past liberals.  This cycle of stupidity continues endlessly.  However, it is stunning to watch a community that honestly fought for tolerance and acceptance for the past several decades becoming so clearly intolerant and unaccepting.

What the majority of us who believe in freedom of thought and speech do from this point on is open to debate. I think most of us feel inherently that something is amiss when a CEO is fired not for an inappropriate action while on the job, but a personal political line of thought he followed six years prior.  The ability to punish someone not for actions but for thoughts is the definition of a type of inquisition; a fascist tendency where all must conform, at serious cost, or be accused of heresy. Sadly, that is apparently where the progressive cause in liberal America exists today.

Great Products HAVE to Have Great Packaging

An excellent product with terrible packaging will lose in the marketplace to a mediocre (or bad) product with great packaging. It is of no use to complain about this fact, or even to protest that the excellent product is better.

If you’ve got terrible packaging, you won’t get new customers, you’ll lose current customers, and you’ll go out of business. You all know these things to be true, you see it when you go to the store, you see it in your own lives. This is absolutely the case with the Conservative movement.

Our product is terrific, demonstrably so. Our packaging, our marketing, our messaging – all pretty well shy of mediocre.

I recently saw a terrific visual example. An attempt at an image+text message, to get people to come to a rally. I don’t know who made it, I’m nut sure what the event is, that’s not the point. The point is that there is a MUCH better way to communicate the message. They’re trying to publicize an event and drive particpation.

This is the original:

before

I posted the image to a private group, asking the other members to provide their input as to what specific elements of the poster were off-target. A smattering of the answers:

  • Too much text
  • Excessive punctuation
  • Colonial outfits communicate crazy to the general voting populace
  • Too much bold, angry, shouting imagery – makes one think the event will just be a bunch of shouting angry people – that’s not enticing
  • American Spring calls to mind the Arab Spring which was a colossal failure resulting in death, destruction, and dictatorships
  • Too many logos, extraneous information, just too busy
  • Where do I get more information? No idea.
  • All white people
  • Hyperbole – a million people? most-important?
  • “force a tyrant out” – reinforces stereotype of violent dangerous Tea Party

Then, one of our members, Lynn Seborn posted an alternative:

after

Lynn’s guidelines in making the alternative:

  • Reframe negatives to positives
  • Move emphasis from looking to the past to looking our future
  • Simplify
  • Emphasize self sacrifice for others
  • Ask question to provoke response
  • Provide a place for viewers to go for more info

All of this transpired in less than an hour, on a workday, with ideas tossed in by 11 people, and the alternative was put together on a smartphone in 10 minutes.

My goal in posting these two images is not to advertise for or criticize any event, individual, or group but to show that we can do better, and it’s actually just as easy to market and publiicize well as it is to do it poorly.

We just have to change our perspective, focus on what the audience wants, what will persuade them, what will appeal to them.

So, what do you think of this transformation? Is this the kind of change in thinking that we can get behind? Is there some unacceptable compromise involved in trying to modify our messaging to appeal to people on a different level?

I think that for a quick illustration of a before and after, this little exercise was quite helpful. We need to do this sort of thing more often. The orignal image was a terrific learning tool for us – it got my little group talking about these things, and it was nice to see how quickly we really got into the idea.

We do have great ideas for how to sell the conservative product, we just need to share those ideas with each other, and implement them.

2014-03-18_2

 

Conservatives should be more like Liberals and Progressives

Did THAT headline get your attention? I hope so, There are actually quite a few ways we conservatives should be more like the liberals and progressives. Why? They are successful. How? Lots of ways, actually, today’s post will be about evangelism.

Liberals are successful. As you know, all too well, they control the culture, they control the media, they successfully claim the moral high ground. They win elections, and even when they lose elections, they stil advance their cause. They move forward without mercy when in the majority and extract significant concessions when they are in the minority. That’s success no matter how you look at it.

We must decide to be like these successful liberal / progressive folks.

Calm down.

I know, you’ve heard it a lot:

We need to be more like them, so we need to elect moderate (i.e.: liberal) politicians, adopt moderate (i.e.: liberal) policies, change our platform, and everybody get in line behind the Moderate Establishment.”

Um no. That’s the kind of lazy, shallow, toughtless response and “plan” we get from lazy, shallow, thoughtless people (like our media, a lot of our politicans, and a lot of the political class).

I’m not lazy, I’m not shallow, and I’m not afraid to think. I’m going to assume the same from you.

I don’t want to become a successful liberal. I want to become a successful conservative. So I want to adopt and adapt the successful techniques of the liberals and use them to further my own philosophy of conservatism.

First I have to figure out why they are successful.

They’re successful because they give out free stuff, so we have to give out free stuff! Otherwise we’ll stay the losers we always have been.

Typcial answer, you’ve exerted little effort, little introspection, and very little thought to come up with it. That’s a REACTION not an analysis.

  • If you’re on the “we have to do the same” bandwagon, I’m sure you’ll be a successful political consultant or lobbyist, and you’ll be very wealthy, and the conservative movement will not advance one bit. You are totally self-motivated, you care not for the nation as a whole or your fellow man. Stop reading this now, go away. I wish you well, but see no need for you to be part of my world.
  • If you are on the “we’ll stay the losers we are” bandwagon, I’m asking you to give it a little more thought, analyze things a bit differently, and see if maybe there’s some hope. If I can change your perspective a bit, perhaps we can all work together to make things better. Please hang in there with me.

They’re successful because they are the Evangelicals, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Mormons of the political world.

What? Hmmm. This seems right. They’re always working to gain converts, to preach the good news. They are confident that their belief system is correct, it is the best for everyone, and the path to political salvation for all. By trying to convert you, they are trying to help you. They want you to be saved. What does an Evangelical-type DO that is different from other religious folk?

  • They will postpone their careers and spend a few years on mission.
  • They will form mega-churches with massive outreach communities
  • They will go into the neighborhoods of the poor to try to reach large numbers
  • They will speak the good news to anyone who will listen, and a lot who won’t.
  • Their every phrase is tinged with their belief system – they wish you a blessed day rather than just a good day.

There is a certain percentage of any population who simply want to be evangelical outreach missionary type people. Some do it with their churches, others do it with their politics. there’s also a certain amount of everyone’s day/week/year that we are willing and able to spend evangelizing about our passion.

Conservatives  tend to do their evangelizing and mission work for God and their Church. Liberals tend to do their evangelizing about politics..

Thus, there is a certain number of “default” people and a certain amount of “default” time from others that the liberals can count on, and DO count on, to perform the necessary work. To do the activism. You see it, I know you do. The activism and outreach of the liberal side of the aisle absolutely kicks the butt of the conservative side.

The people with evangelizing tendencies who are conservative, devote their efforts to evangelizing for their church. The people with evangelizing tendencies who are liberal, devote their efforts to evangelizing for their political causes. There’s a massive labor imbalance, massive. Liberals simply have more man-hours devoted to activism.

That’s the imablance. It’s simply an effect of human nature. I don’t expect it to change, and I certainly wouldn’t want people to stop evangelizing for their church.

No, think about this differently, and more deeply.

Accept that we will never match their political outreach, it’s simply not who we are. Our mission-oriented evangelizers (activists) are working for their churches (temples, synagogues, etc).

Understand that the basic comparison, using Christianity, is that Democrats are the evangelicals with the massive churches and the TV stations and the incredible growth. Republicans are the Episcopalians – we go to church on Easter and Christmas (we vote regularly) but the rest of the time we’re busy working and raising our families and stuff. Most of our friends have no idea what we think of God, or if we go to church at all,

Membership in the Episcopal church is declining, rapidly and badly. The influence of the Episcopal Church on Chritendom is waning. The evangelicals have all the juice right now. (Also the Cathloics are resurgent, and many Episcopalians talk about converting to Catholicism, but that’s not part of the point of this post, though it’s kind of related)

As regards our political lives, we can’t keep being like the Episcopalians, we have to be more like the Evangelicals.

  • You know Evangelicals, you know THAT they are evangelical. They have tried to get you to go to their church.
  • Evangelicals wish you a blessed day, not just a good day.
  • Evangelicals are confident, they know they have the right answers, and they want to share them with you.
  • They want to you to JOIN THEM.

Why can’t we do that with our political beliefs? The other side certainly does.

You know what else the successful churches do?

  • They spend very little time talking about the other faiths
  • They don’t focus on how bad the other faiths are
  • They spend ZERO time talking about how bad the other churches are
  • Their message is one of joy, success, happiness, togetherness, friendship, and love
  • They spend their time explaining why someone should join them

So…you have very little time to add “political activism” to your schedule. Make better use of the time you DO allocate.

Be a conservative evangelist. Focus on how great conservatism is, and talk about how great conservatism is, and carry the happy conservative warrior message everywhere you go. Everyone should know that you are a loving, happy person and that your conservative philosophy (not just politics, your life philosophy) is part of what makes you such a loving happy person. Everyone should know that you would be happy to help them to become a loving happy conservative as well.

So, though we may have fewer hours, nationally, dedicated to conservative activism, and that might not change drastically, we can, and must, be more effective with the hours that we do spend. You can’t change anyone else, change yourself. Are your own political activism hours spend like an evangelical? Could you perhaps retune your focus and be a bit more like the evangelicals?

Food for thought. Do with it what you will.

Old Media is Losing its Influence, What Can You Do To Help

Old Media – ABC, CBS, NBC, Reuters, UPI, NY Times – is  losing its influence, and that makes me happy. Let us turn that observation into a CALL TO ACTION – become a Broadcaster. [Hint: you already are one]

Ed Pluck shared a post in the Consevative Union referencing this article in the Federalist about how the Right is fiinding its way around the Leftists in Old Media. In that article at the Federalist, Mark Tapscott provides a couple of recent examples of terrific investigative reporting by right-leaning journalists, displacing the (non)work done by the lefties in old media.

Mark’s premise is an important one for we conservatives to understand. Liberal media is conquered NOT by changing them in any way. It is done by diluting their influence, providing better alternatives, rendering them irrelevant. We are largely successful in doing so, and have been greatly aided by the internet.

This contemporary transformation parallels momentous changes in what was once America’s dominant news source, the liberal mainstream media. That dominance is diluted now, thanks to newsroom insularity and market entry and business model changes sparked mainly by the Internet.

The break with Old Media started in the rise of Talk Radio, continued with the explosion of blogging. The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 lowered the barrier to entry for conservative talk radio – and we got Rush. Then the internet lowered the barrier to entry for publishing. We can compete, and are doing so, and the success of conservative websites speaks to the success of the free market.

We got great conservative opinion sites first, and now, we’re getting the conservative news sites. We’ve solved a problem not by changing the other guy, but by figuring a way around it.

Hurrah, and SO WHAT?

The internet and smartphones have lowered to barriers to entry for news gathering, reporting, and publishing. But what about broadcasting? Getting the news to the eyeballs of those who need the information? Gosh darn it, the networks are still just too strong – one episode of network nightly news is seen by millions, we just can’t compete.

WRONG.

In the old days, the “broadcasting” of news to millions of people so as to inform and shape opinions was done by CBS, NBC and ABC. The formula was one person to millions of people. And there were about 20 people broadcasting.

Now the job of broadcasting is done by your friends, acquaintances, and the people you follow on social media. It’s done by YOU. You are a broadcaster. Did you realize that? It’s just different math.

Instead of ONE (or a few) outlets choosing the stories and sharing with millions each, we have millions of outlets choosing the stories and sharing with tens, hundreds, or…I suppose thousands each.

But truly it’s not that – I may have thousands of followers, but a story I share is really only going to reach maybe a hundred or so. Because regardless the numbers on the social media, humans are human and our ACTUAL sphere of real INFLUENCE is only ever a couple hundred in any meaningful way. And really only a couple dozen on a regular basis. But that’s ok, that’s enough.

Once I recognize that I am a broadcaster, my actions change a bit.

I take a bit more care with what I share, because I’m doing so with a different purpose. It’s not just to make friends or shoot the bull around the water cooler. I’m asking others to give up some of their time to read and think about what I shared with them. They deserve a bit more consideration from me than just “Wow! Thoughts?” I can excerpt a paragraph or two, I can add a sentence or two of my own impressions.

Most folks won’t click the link and read the article. If all I share IS the link, that they won’t click, I have just spammed them. If all I did was add some silly comment or snarky hashtag that doesn’t add meaning, I’ve spammed them with a colorful envelope. Maybe it makes me feel good about myself because I’m sharing and “doing something” but I could do better.

Most folks don’t devote much of their day to news of the world. If they are following you on social media – you have an opportunity to BE part of that time, but you have to respect them and use your power responsibly. That means be aware of what you are.

You’re a broadcaster – realize it, take advantage of it. BE PART OF THE SOLUTION to the Liberal Dominance of Old Media and the minimal amount of time that people have to devote to news of the world.

Now….get out there and CHANGE THE WORLD!

Losing to Win

I am stuck, as I think most conservatives are. I know I want a limited federal government, states’ rights, etc… I know without any shadow of a doubt that I do not want a Democrat in office or having majority control of the House/Senate. I have seen how this will inevitably lead to the erosion of my rights under the guise of “social justice.”

For the longest time I would self-describe as a Republican. I am not so sure this is true anymore. I would say that I identify with the Tea Party more than anything at this point in my life.

As a Conservative I feel that it is of paramount importance for us to retake the Senate and maintain the House. There are some “safe bets” out there that would be the logical choice to win. Unfortunately these “safe bets” are just establishment Republicans. I know that term is over-used, but it fits. What else could they be called? It is almost as though we have completely given up in our fight for conservative principles. Our past was full of fights that we have not won, and now the mantra seems to be “leave that fight alone.” Just comply, do not resist. If we allow ourselves to be in this position mentally, we have lost. We have lost our principles in favor of winning the fight, however in winning the fight we have lost the battle. The more we vote in unprincipled people, the closer we get to a government full of Republicrats. It is a slippery slope indeed, giving up ones principles. We give a little, and it is hard at first. Then we give a little more, all the while saying, “if we can just win the next fight, we can start to go back to principles.” The bad news is, once we finally get to a place where we have the ability to go back and stand on principles, we don’t have any principles left. We have already proven to everyone that might have taken us seriously that we no longer have the values they found attractive in us.

I see people saying or posting things such as “we don’t have a valid plan,” or “our plan is to do nothing,” or other statements along these lines. Perhaps that is the correct thing to do here. Maybe, just maybe, if we stuck to our principals we wouldn’t have a plan. It is time we dug our heels in and, to quote an acquaintance, “let it burn”[1]. Having no plan will not erode more of our rights, take more of our property, and more importantly diminish our principles.  We certainly would not be trying to take people’s property to give to others to support “no plan.” When do we get so fed up (no pun intended) with the federal government being status quo that we say ENOUGH! I will no longer stand for partially principled or half-baked ideas. When do we stand up and say no more spending, if we do not have the revenue to support it then it must be tabled until we do. When do we realize that sometimes doing nothing IS a better option?

I am so very tired of losing to win. It is not a game I want to play any longer. I leave you with one of my favorite quotes because I think it says it all:

“I would tell him to shrug.”

Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand

A personal thank you to the State Moderators of The Conservative Union for helping.

A special thank you to +Laura T for grammar checks and suggestions

And a special thank you to +Ed Pluck for “helping me with the math”.


[1] Quote from Pradheep Shanker (Pradheep was not directly consulted on this)

Slow Roll

I haven’t posted here recently. It’s not that I don’t enjoy it, or that I don’t have anything to say, or that I’ve lost passion…I’ve just been busy. Life, work, parenthood…these things require attention (if you’re doing them right).

Many conservatives are the same way. It’s not that we’re not out there, we’re just…well, busy. We have a lot going on. That’s why you don’t see us doing Occupy style rallies that last for weeks or months. Unlike those people, we have to go to work, get our kids to school, feed the animals, etc. Conservative rallies usually last a day or a weekend, tops. Then we’re back to the grind, off to pay the taxes that fund the parts of the federal budget that aren’t paid for with borrowed Chinese money.

I’m still pretty active on Google+ and on the Conservative Union Community, but those are short, quick posts. Long form posts seems to be more difficult lately.

Of course, this year is an election year. This is the time when advocacy and discussion and social media and all those things are critical.

But where will I find the time? you may ask. How can I be effective?

Don’t give up. Every little bit we can do this year will be useful. If you’re hesitant to get involved politically because you already feel overwhelmed, just relax. You can do more than you think. Keep an eye on the news; check in at the CU Community; talk to your friends; IM your remote friends; email people; write your representatives; donate to a campaign… There’s plenty of “little” things we can all do to work towards the goal of electing real conservative candidates.

Most importantly, vote in November. Midterm elections don’t get the same kind of turnout that presidential elections do.

We conservatives have an opportunity this year to unsettle the establishment on both sides of the aisle. Don’t sell yourself short; get out there and make some magic happen.