How many ways can you say something?

There’s so many ways that Democrats have upped their game which is causing their wins.  The Republicans and Conservatives have learned about some of these, but many they have not.  One of the biggest ways Democrats beat Republicans and Conservatives is how they construct their message

There was something that President Obama said early in his presidency that tipped me off to this tactic. I can’t remember the exact instance, but if memory serves me right, it was when the bulk of the country was against the bill that became the “Affordable Health Care Act”.  When President Obama was asked a question about either what he thought about the lack of support or what he thought went wrong, he admitted that the message wasn’t on point.  I remember hearing a few Conservative and Republican pundits think that he meant that his talks weren’t written well enough.  When I heard that, I thought that as well initially.  After thinking about it, the message meant the whole message, not just a bunch of talks and his comments, but the message that every Democrat Legislator, reporter, pundit, and blogger said. Its as if the Democrats very carefully structure and word their message so that it appeals to the most possible people.  In one way or another, the message is repeated not just by politicians, but by pundits and media in a seemingly coordinated effort.

This is evident in their constant changing of the terminology they use for what they are talking about if it’s not sticking.  A perfect example is this “Climate Change”.  Do you remember that the official term is “Anthropogenic Global Warming”?  Anthro as in anthropology, or the study of humans and their works.  Genic as in genesis, or the beginning of something.  Well, that’s a very unsexy and technical term that the many passionate voters wouldn’t understand let alone consistently pronounce or remember.  I would bet that if you surveyed these voters and asked them what “Anthropogenic Global Warming” was they wouldn’t be able to correctly answer.  However, they would understand “Global Warming”.  So, why not just get rid of “Anthropogenic” and just call it “Global Warming”?  That’s what the Democrats did.  But when there was legitimate evidence questioning the science and methods used to promote AGW they didn’t stop there, they went straight to “Climate Change”.  I mean, who would dare deny that the climate changes over the millennia?  Of course, anyone who disagrees with “Anthropogenic Global Warming” gets thrown into a group who denies “Climate Change”, regardless if that’s a logical fallacy.  This change is a changing of the message.

Most Conservatives and Republicans see that the Democrats do this.  Yet, we stick with the same tired language.  We’re against entitlements, yet we know that we need to provide support for those who are un/under employed to find a good job to be self sufficient.  But the message sounds like we think the poor are lazy.  We question the “consensus” of “Climate Change”, yet we love and support Conservation efforts.  But it’s easily changed to we want to make the air dirty and poison the water.  We don’t want to have an open immigration system and have a secure country, but we understand the desire that immigrants have to live the American Dream which needs rule of law.  Yet our message is easily contorted to sound like we are overly nationalistic and are xenophobic.  We don’t like it when police abuse their authority, but we support them because we know that they have to deal with some of the worst aspects of humanity.  Yet the message sounds like we want a police state, when in reality it’s the Democrats who want a police state. Conservatives understand that there is a whole picture, a context behind the clip, the struggle of the poor to make ends meet, yet we don’t know how to express our thoughts and desires in a way that helps those undecided voters understand what we are about and what we want.  Colloquial language changes, we should adapt our selves to these changes.

Here’s a good example of how changing your message works.  Watch the whole thing, it’s short…

Granted, the wording is a bit “bleeding heart”, but do you see how it makes the message different?  Instead of just saying “I’m blind”, saying something that others can relate to helps.  Avoiding words whose meanings and impacts have diminished over time and replacing them with more descriptive language would help.

The point is, we need to construct our message right, so that when the Democrat attack machine (major media, media apologists, political groups) try to construct an attack, their attacks sound more like they are attacking the very people they need to win elections.  This means the Black community, the Immigrant community, and those ever so important undecided voters.  These voters are important and ARE disillusioned with the Democrat party.  Not just because they are Black, or Hispanic, or Immigrant, but because with their support we gain the support of many more.

One word of caution.  We’ve caught the Democrats in lies as they spin their web of words.  I would say more lies than in any other period of time, there’s no need to list them here.  We must take care not to fall into this trap.  While the Democrats can get caught in multiple lies and still garner huge amounts of support (both in voters and in funds), a Republican or Conservative can not.  We must be careful in any messaging so that our message is true and honest.

I know I’m not the first conservative to talk about this.  This is something that I’ve noticed over the years.  We need to adapt to the changing cultural changes.  It doesn’t mean that we change our values that we hold dear.  It doesn’t mean that we have to give in to Progressive pressure in Congress or in the White House.  In fact, it could mean that we could win more and more.  We just have to wake up and look at how we are saying it, not necessarily what.  If we become good at it, we very well may be the ones who drive the change in language.

Also, I’m not an English major, or even a literary genus so please don’t take anything that I’ve written as a good example.  There’s folks out there with far better wordsmithing abilities than me.


Progressive Media takes a turn for the worse

We all know the season.  We need to find a replacement for President Obama and there’s no shortage of people who think they are capable, ready, and what this country needs.  With that there’s always the media who’s willing to try to persuade our viewpoints.  This provides for us a plethora of clips of media members asking some really stupid questions.  Gotcha questions.  One sided biased questions.  Even questions that might not even be questions but more of a editorial comment posed as a question.  We’ve already seen a few so far, but this has to be one of the worst so far.  Just sit back and get ready to get that creepy uncomfortable feeling down your back…

Yeah, um, apparently Cruz isn’t Cuban enough for Halperin and he wants the world to know.  Sorry, but that’s just a jerk thing to do Halperin.  You earned to Unfit for the Internet award!

Is he just being a contrarian or is there something to what he’s saying?

Gary Oldman was recently interviewed by Playboy and had some responses that will catch the ear of a few people.  Since its Playboy, I won’t be linking to their site but I am looking for an alternative link.  However, Independent Journal Review has sections of the interview available for reading without scantily clad women leering in the background.  Needless to say, some of his responses somewhat NSFW, or at least read at home away from kids.

Looks like he and I share similar feelings about “Political Correctness”:

“I just think political correctness is crap. That’s what I think about it. I think it’s like, take a f***ing joke. Get over it. … I don’t know about Mel. He got drunk and said a few things, but we’ve all said those things. We’re all f***ing hypocrites. That’s what I think about it.”

And the intellectual dishonesty when it comes to calling out racism:

“It’s our culture now, absolutely. At the Oscars, if you didn’t vote for 12 Years a Slave, you were a racist. You have to be very careful about what you say. I do have particular views and opinions that most of this town doesn’t share, but it’s not like I’m a fascist or a racist. There’s nothing like that in my history.”

Lot’s of people fee the same way as Gary when it comes the the hypocrisy of Liberal Media:

“Well, if I called Nancy Pelosi a c**t—and I’ll go one better, a f***ing useless c**t—I can’t really say that. But Bill Maher and Jon Stewart can, and nobody’s going to stop them from working because of it.”

One thing that is pointed out that has people hemming and hawing is the fact that despite his amazing body of work, he has only a single Academy Awards nomination.  Obviously with some of the things he’s said there will be a few roles he’ll not be invited to read for.  However, that doesn’t mean that we can’t support people like him.

And if you really need an answer the title of this post poses, yes, there is something to what he is saying.

Obama deflects yet once again.

President Obama really hasn’t been doing so well.  We’re watching Obamacare train wreck happen right before our eyes.  We know more is to come and nothing is being done.  He’s presided over some of the most egregious examples of political retribution in US History.  His lack of leadership can be directly tied to the increase of Muslim Extremest groups such as Al Qaeda in the middle east.  Yet he’s quick to comment and create division in issues where the Federal Government has no business.  There’s so many examples of these that Senator Rand Paul created a list.  It’s because of all of this that his approval ratings are generously low. Yet, to President Obama, it’s because he’s black.

In an article posted on the New Yorker’s web site he’s quoted as saying:

“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president”

I’m sure there are a very few who are shallow enough to base their disapproval on the President’s actions on his race.  Of course, as the President acknowledges, his generous approval numbers are also heavily padded by the fact that he is black:

“Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president”

So, all he’s done is attempt rather weakly to deflect why the American public thinks he’s done a horrible job.  Instead of being a true leader and taking ownership of his administrations failures, he uses the Democrats standby:  Create racial divisions by playing the race card where there’s no or very little impact of racism.  In fact, as we have seen, Mitt Romney had more of a challenge overcoming the fact that he is Mormon than Obama had with the fact that he’s Black.  We’ve seen this time and time again from Democrats.  It’s just unfortunate that we see it from the most powerful office in the nation.  This just makes him a sore winner.

There’s reason why people call Obama a disgrace to the office of the President of the United States, and this is a perfect example.

Obama and deceptive data

My previous post about President Obama being fast with gun control data reminded me of another occurance of his knack of being deceptive with data.  If you remember back when he was being critisized for his creative methods of blocking new drilling for oil he kept on quoting a statistic that “The United States holds only 2% of the planet’s proven oil reserves”.  This is something that he uses to suggest that the US just doesn’t have that much oil in the ground and drilling would be a waste of time and money.  That’s what he wants people to assume.  Because most people don’t know what “proven oil reserves” means it’s not a huge stretch for people to make that jump.

Well, the Institute for Energy Research put out an article about this deception (emphasis added).

According to President Obama, the United States contains only 2 percent of the planet’s proven oil reserves, Of course, he’s right — to a point. In classic fashion, he’s using a technicality to skirt the facts and keep the myth of energy scarcity alive. The reality is that the U.S. has enough recoverable oil for the next 200 years, despite only having 2 percent of the world’s current proven oil reserves.

And the technicality that he’s using?

Proven oil reserves are not all of our oil resources—not even close. In fact, proved reserves represent a tiny portion of our total oil resources. Proven (or proved) oil reserves are reserves that have already been discovered, typically through actual exploration or drilling, and which can be recovered economically.

Read the article for more details about what the proven oil reserves really means.  Ultimately, we’ve had only 2% pretty much all of the time.