First time visitor? Learn more.

The Mechanics Of Winning Back The Culture: Part Three

by Flyovercountry ( 85 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2016, Politics at November 25th, 2012 - 9:00 am

This entire part of my thesis deals with the media, its bias, and more specifically, how we should handle that bias. Long story short folks, it won’t disappear, it won’t change, it won’t get any better, reporters and television talking heads won’t suddenly grow ethical integrity, they won’t suddenly evolve initiative that would cause them to dig just a little deeper to find actual facts or to not just look for things to support their prewritten memes, and most importantly, they won’t all of a sudden start honestly reporting the facts without their leftist filter being used to amplify those stories that help the Socialist cause while muting those stories that put crimps into their endgame plan. There is good news though, and that is that there is a way to use all of that to our advantage, and the blue print for that methodology was written by someone from withing their own fold.

Since they won’t go away, get any better, or suddenly turn to our side, I suggest we develop a strategy to deal with them in a way that is actually helpful to our side. When in college, during my senior year, I took a political science class to round out my 15 hour requirement in nonsense. For that class, I was required to read a book about the reporters who covered the 1972 primaries, and subsequently general election campaigns. The book was written by Timothy Crouse, and entitled, “The Boys On The Bus.”

In 1972, rolling Stone Magazine had a popular reporter named Hunter S. Thompson, who was the living embodiment of irresponsible behavior. Having your business model depend on a person who was completely undependable proved a nightmare for the editors at Rolling Stone. When deadlines for Thompson articles came and went unfulfilled, forcing issues to be published without his promised work, most often due to Thompson being placed in jail for one ridiculous piece of foolishness or another, the editors decided that they had had enough. The problem of course was that Thompson was by far the only reason Rolling Stone had the readership that they enjoyed at the time. An underground magazine which wrote primarily about rock bands, they were constantly on the verge of bankruptcy until they began running articles written by the one man that was driving them nuts. Their answer was Timothy Crouse. His job was to follow Hunter S. Thompson around the country, or where ever in the world he would end up, stay in the background, and then take care of the legal issues that might prevent Thompson from fulfilling his responsibilities. In other words, Crouse was hired to bond Thompson out of jail, retain legal counsel, bribe police officials and politicians if necessary, bring him back to coherency from his drug addled hazes, and just generally keep Rolling Stone’s only money making machine in operation. Due to Thompson’s nature, Crouse’s duties mostly consumed the hours that occurred after dark. With the time that a majority of the human race chooses to be awake mostly free, Crouse studied the press and their interactions with the politicians who they were covering, and then wrote a book about those very interactions. Since my philosophy has always been to learn, even from those with whom I’ve disagreed, I kept that book in the back of my mind for quite some time, 27 years now to be exact.

What Crouse noticed in particular was the way in which George McGovern handled the press, the way in which Richard Nixon handled the press, those differences between the two, and the results in coverage that could be measured as a direct result of their operations. It is important to note also that the press was overwhelmingly in McGovern’s court so to speak, and it is no secret that Richard Nixon was universally despised by the media, even before he actually ran for President in 1968, before his, “they won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore,” comment from 1962, and before his 1960 defeat to John Kennedy. So the question is, how did this universally despised man, the one every reporter was against, manage to get the lion’s share of positive coverage in 1972, while the media darling, the one with the best slogans, manage to get himself skewered on a daily basis in 1972? Clearly, it can be accomplished, and knowing how to accomplish this will help immensely in 2016.

What Nixon had figured out, is the nature of reporters, and how to manipulate their behavior. He also learned the most important lesson of all, do not treat them as friends, and do not treat them as equals. He didn’t hang out with them, he didn’t have meals with them, he didn’t even bother saying hello to them unless cameras were rolling. He also refrained from saying anything negative to the press. His people were restrained as well. So, how’d he do it?

He handled the press in a very small, subtle, and simultaneously substantive measure. On the campaign trail for instance, each campaign had two jumbo jets on which to fly around from stop to stop. There was, (and is today as well,) the candidate’s plane, which holds the candidate, some of his staff, and select members of the media. Then, there is something called the, “Zoo plane.” Its passenger list includes tech staff, lower echelon members of the media, and lower level campaign volunteers. (By lower echelon members of the media, I mean people who write for smaller papers, reporters from smaller market networks or television stations. The term is not meant to impugn the ability of those fine people, but to note the usual delineation for who rides where.) Media types generally like being on the candidate’s plane. The food is better, it is more comfortable, it is quieter, the passengers are better behaved, and there is the chance that something might be said that you would get to report on that a passenger on the Zoo plane might miss out on. When Nixon got bad press from a particular reporter, they found themselves bumped off of the candidate’s plane and vanquished to the Zoo plane, until such time as a sufficient number of positive pieces were written. At the same time, someone from the Zoo Plane would be promoted to ride on the candidate’s plane, permanently taking the slot of a person who felt himself more worthy. Nothing was said, just a switch in the seating arrangements was made, and more importantly, all that was necessary to get the point across. It didn’t take long before word got out amongst the press members either.

One passage in Crouse’s book stands out to illustrate how they did it. Richard Nixon had held a series of campaign events which were invitation only, as a means of keeping the kooks out who were intent on disrupting campaign events by screaming slogans in the middle his speeches, or to start picketing both inside or outside of the venue. Does this sound familiar? One reporter in particular, David Broder of the Washington Post, began describing Nixon’s campaign events as invitation only. He did this until Ron Ziegler, Nixon’s Press Secretary, gave him what was described as an ominous pat on the back one day and said, “you’re really hung up on this invitation only thing, aren’t you David.” Broder found himself on the Zoo Plane, and was actually described in Crouse’s book as a conservative reporter by the time the 1972 campaign ended.

Candidates can not control what questions are asked of them by reporters at press conferences, but they can control who they call upon to ask those questions. Richard Nixon understood this in 1972, and used it as a means to reward better press and to punish bad press. Being called upon to ask a question is a big deal to reporters where image is as much a part of their livelihood as much as their ability to turn a phrase. Yes, they can all get together up front and collaborate on what is going to be asked if anyone is called upon, but Nixon understood that given the choice, each member of this confederacy of lazy fools wanted to be that person above all else. David Broder was never called upon to ask a question again by Richard Nixon, although he did manage to get himself back from Zoo Plane Siberia, at least according to Crouse.

Nixon recognized the laziness, and simultaneous ambitious nature of reporters in general. He recognized their pack mentality, and found a means of divide and conquer that would place them on their heels. He understood that they were not his friends, but would take any display of sucking up as a sign of weakness. He limited his list of people who got exclusive interviews to those who had made it a habit to write glowing positive things about him, and by the end of his campaign, that list had indeed grown longer, despite what was being written or not written concerning Watergate at the time. In fact, only two reporters in the nation were willing to touch that subject at all, and neither was on the campaign trail. What Richard Nixon understood, and unfortunately failed to teach anyone else from our side, is that the press should never be spoken to at all, unless he controlled as much of the situation as could be controlled. Ground rules were established for interviews, what would be discussed, what was out of bounds, what could be reported about what the ground rules were, and a very definite system to punish those who failed to obey the rules was established.

This may seem petty, but then again, there is no constitutional guarantee that a candidate must invite the enemy into his camp and allow his candidacy to be destroyed, lied about, diminished, or even weakened. What Katie Couric did to Sarah Palin, and what Charlie Gibson did to Sarah Palin were damaging to the McCain Candidacy as well as to the reputation of Governor Palin. In each of these instances, she was pushed into a situation where no other campaign in history would have been so foolish as to have placed their VP choice. John McCain actually thought the press loved him for who he was, and not just as the Republican that they could point to as a thorn in the side of any conservative train of thought. He was unfortunately mistaken in that foolish belief. Two weeks after the New York Times endorsed McCain for the Republican Nomination, they began to savage him as a doddering old moron who’s political ambitions forced him to choose someone as gratuitously stupid as Sarah Palin. John McCain refused to believe that he was suddenly hated by the same media as had written about him glowingly for so long, and thus he sent Governor Palin into two exclusive interviews that should never have happened. I can still remember Charlie Gibson staring down his nose through those carefully placed fake glasses while he lectured Governor Palin on the finer points of the, “Bush Doctrine,” (and getting it wrong by the way,) accusing Palin, (who actually got the answer correct,) of not being up to the daunting task of foreign policy so vitally important for Vice Presidential duties.

Open note to anyone who wins the 2016 Republican nomination: Give your press secretary the assignment of reading, “The Boys On The Bus,” so that they may learn the finer art of manipulating lazy ambitious pack creatures, otherwise known as the main stream media.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

85 Responses to “The Mechanics Of Winning Back The Culture: Part Three”
( jump to bottom )

  1. Bumr50
    1 | November 25, 2012 9:04 am

    This is really awesome, FOC.


  2. 2 | November 25, 2012 9:38 am

    I think Ron Ziegler may have been the best Press Secretary ever; even while disliking Nixon, I always liked him.


  3. 3 | November 25, 2012 9:40 am

    That lap dog should have been ejaculating on The SCOAMF’s trouser leg!


  4. 4 | November 25, 2012 9:52 am

    Good article. It is important to always keep in mind that the Media are the Enemy.


  5. Bumr50
  6. 6 | November 25, 2012 10:04 am

    Great installment of one of the best series I’ve seen on this site.

    The dog leg-humping is an apt metaphor; dogs don’t hump your leg out of affection, it’s out of self-gratification. It makes them feel good. So it is with the press, they’re not necessarily in love with Obama per se, it’s a form of emotional masturbation. Supporting Obama, in their minds, justifies their worldview, regardless of what he actually does. Obama isn’t the message, he’s the medium and, as Marshall McLuhan wrote 50 years ago, “The medium IS the message”.


  7. 7 | November 25, 2012 10:35 am

    Very well said. Our candidates in 2014 & 2016 need to take this advice.


  8. waldensianspirit
    8 | November 25, 2012 10:37 am

    Culture?
    Ugandan president repents of personal, national sins


  9. buzzsawmonkey
    10 | November 25, 2012 10:51 am

    Assuming there is a presidential election in 2016, the non-Democrat should not agree to any “debate” that is moderated by a leftist. It is long past time that the right refused to play on the enemy’s playing field by the enemy’s rules.


  10. waldensianspirit
    11 | November 25, 2012 10:56 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Doesn’t matter what the Repub candidate does in 2016. What matters is many people rising up and stopping Obama in his spending of unborn American’s money to buy votes and pleasing his constituents this coming year. Loud voices immediately


  11. waldensianspirit
    12 | November 25, 2012 10:57 am

    What we must do is clean up our own lives and then loudly pour out righteous anger


  12. buzzsawmonkey
    13 | November 25, 2012 11:02 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    Doesn’t matter what the Repub candidate does in 2016. What matters is many people rising up and stopping Obama in his spending of unborn American’s money to buy votes and pleasing his constituents this coming year. Loud voices immediately

    I discussed the 2016 campaign because the thread post discusses dealing with the press in that context; one of the biggest mistakes the Romney campaign made (among many) was to agree to put the Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates up in chains in four slave auctions run by pre-Civil War slave auctioneers masquerading as journalists.

    I agree with you that the people have to do something in the here and now, but what and how is something I’ve not yet figured out.


  13. huckfunn
    14 | November 25, 2012 11:05 am

    There is a site on Drudge entitled “Alexa” which tracks and categorizes the most visited websites. Take a look at the “Hot Topics” if you want a snapshot of our “culture”.


  14. 15 | November 25, 2012 11:08 am

    @ Macker:
    i am beginning to believe that you might have a bit of an obsession.


  15. 16 | November 25, 2012 11:10 am

    huckfunn wrote:

    There is a site on Drudge entitled “Alexa” which tracts and categorizes the most visited websites. Take a look at the “Hot Topics” if you want a snapshot of our “culture”.

    pathetic. we are so doomed.


  16. 17 | November 25, 2012 11:18 am

    as usual flyovercountry, an excellent and thought-provoking article. in fact, the thought it provoked in my mind was that the right was up in arms when the obama campaign and later the administration did exactly what you describe Nixon did. I was probably among those saying it wasn’t fair. if so, i may have been right about it not being fair but i was most certainly wrong to be in an uproar over it. Life isn’t fair -- never has been, never will be. You are absolutely right in describing what the Republicans (McCain and Romney and their staffs) did in the elections. I’ve thought for some time that the socalled establishment republican party isn’t as hell bent on saving the country as perhaps you and i and many here. If they were, then why do they continue to delude themselves, ala McCain and what his campaign allowed to be done to Palin, into thinking the MSM won’t eviscerate them? Why do they not take a page from history and implement the sorts of things described here?


  17. huckfunn
    18 | November 25, 2012 11:20 am

    @ Kirly:
    Do you notice that in just about every TV or radio add they almost always include the phrase “absolutely free”? The people have totally bought into the “free stuff” mentality and that’s why we have Walmart riots on Black Friday and a president named Barack Hussein Obama.


  18. buzzsawmonkey
    19 | November 25, 2012 11:20 am

    Kirly wrote:

    Why do they not take a page from history

    They’ve got to read it and know it before they can take a page from it.


  19. RIX
    20 | November 25, 2012 11:24 am

    Senator Durbin said this morning that this is piling
    on Susan Rice. It’s time to stop picking on her.
    My senators name is Richard, but he’ll always
    be a Dick to me.
    Oh & good morning.


  20. huckfunn
    21 | November 25, 2012 11:26 am

    Kirly wrote:

    @ Macker:
    i am beginning to believe that you might have a bit of an obsession.

    I have no doubt. I’m tired of it already.


  21. The Osprey
    22 | November 25, 2012 11:34 am

    Excellent post, FOC, I am going to have to read that book.

    I think one of the reasons Nixon’s model for handling the press has not been followed by his Republican successors is that Nixon himself has become such a pariah, even among Republicans, that anything to do with him is considered suspect.

    Nixon had his flaws, to be sure, but he was brilliant in some ways. Consider what he was going on during his administration -- Vietnam, which the DEMOCRATS had started, the “peace” movement and all their Marxist hangers on and domestic Marxist terrorist movements like the Weathermen, Black Panthers and so on. There truly was a fear the country was falling apart. Yet he managed to co-opt a lot of the left’s demands -- ending the draft for example, took the wind out of the peace movement’s sails and pretty much ended the mass demonstrations.


  22. 23 | November 25, 2012 11:35 am

    huckfunn wrote:

    @ Kirly:
    Do you notice that in just about every TV or radio add they almost always include the phrase “absolutely free”? The people have totally bought into the “free stuff” mentality and that’s why we have Walmart riots on Black Friday and a president named Barack Hussein Obama.

    yes! it’s amazing. and it’s not just unintelligent people either. otherwise intelligent people that i know fall for this nonsense. it’s bizarre. a sign of the times, imo. a sign of the doomage to come.

    it’s funny, i gave 3 of my siblings a copy of atlas shrugged several years ago. for years when they say something lamenting the situation of our society i always include in my reaction, “have you read that book i gave you? seriously, read the book and you’ll see where this will likely go”. finally, my brother said he was halfway through it and 1 of my sisters said she started it. what’s weird about the sisters is that they read tons but for at least one of them it’s all crap like romance novels.


  23. huckfunn
    24 | November 25, 2012 11:35 am

    RIX wrote:

    Senator Durbin said this morning that this is piling
    on Susan Rice. It’s time to stop picking on her.

    More obfuscation from Dick the Turban. Everyone knows that her talking points came straight from Obama. He (Obama) said as much himself. The point that Turban is trying to dodge is that by lying to the American people she has disqualified herself from being SOS.


  24. 25 | November 25, 2012 11:36 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Kirly wrote:

    Why do they not take a page from history

    They’ve got to read it and know it before they can take a page from it.

    true. why are they so willfully ingorant?


  25. The Osprey
    26 | November 25, 2012 11:36 am

    huckfunn wrote:

    There is a site on Drudge entitled “Alexa” which tracks and categorizes the most visited websites

    I don’t see a certain corpulent Culver City blogger’s site in that top ten… LOL.


  26. RIX
    27 | November 25, 2012 11:40 am

    @ huckfunn:

    More obfuscation from Dick the Turban. Everyone knows that her talking points came straight from Obama. He (Obama) said as much himself. The point that Turban is trying to dodge is that by lying to the American people she has disqualified herself from being SOS.

    When things get inconvenient for Dems like Durbin,
    they always want to move on.
    Everything with Bush was something that they wanted to
    investigate eg Abu Grahib etc.
    But this? No let’s just move on.


  27. buzzsawmonkey
    28 | November 25, 2012 11:45 am

    RIX wrote:

    But this? No let’s just move on.

    Dot’s why dey have dat move on dot org.


  28. RIX
    29 | November 25, 2012 11:47 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    But this? No let’s just move on.

    Dot’s why dey have dat move on dot org.

    Four dead Americans, conflicting stories & a massive
    coverup. I don’t see how you just move on.


  29. buzzsawmonkey
    30 | November 25, 2012 11:52 am

    RIX wrote:

    Four dead Americans, conflicting stories & a massive
    coverup. I don’t see how you just move on.

    Hey, that Obama—he’s just so hip and groovy! And isn’t his wife gracious, a wonderful dresser, and concerned about America’s kids! We got a free Obamaphone™, and healthcare’s gonna be free! Keep Obama in Prezdent!


  30. 31 | November 25, 2012 11:56 am

    @ The Osprey:

    Back in my retail life, I had a DM, who after discussing with me at length his reasoning behind assigning me to a store managed by Bozo the Clown, so that I might be able to help keep him from being fired, that I should learn to do those things he did right, and to ignore learning those things he did wrong.

    Even Barack Obama has a talent, apart from those obvious and glaring character and philosophical flaws. After all, he has won two Presidential campaigns, despite having a resume so thin he could not have gotten himself hired anywhere in the private sector.

    Yes, Nixon had his faults, and he was a crook, but the fact remains that in two Presidential elections, he had the press writing really favorable stuff about him, and he did so despite their absolute hatred of the man. He knew the technology behind manipulation of this pack of wild assholes, and he employed that technology.


  31. 32 | November 25, 2012 11:58 am

    RIX wrote:

    Four dead Americans, conflicting stories & a massive
    coverup. I don’t see how you just move on.

    I saw someone make a comment on ace the other day which made me think about the timing of the stand down orders. as i understand it, the first stand down order came before the two contractors (the former SEALs) took off for the annex, right? and if that is the case, then weren’t there still 40 people at the annex? and doesn’t the story go that the actions of the 2 former SEALs saved all those people? so, the stand down orders actually abandoned and condemned forty people to the tender mercies of the islamic terrorists, right?


  32. 33 | November 25, 2012 12:20 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    An’ don’ ax them no questions!


  33. RIX
    34 | November 25, 2012 12:46 pm

    @ Kirly:
    That’s how I see it.
    This whole thing doesn’t fit the Barack Hussein Rambo persona,
    who “killed” Osama
    This was extreme misfeasance or maybe even malfeasance.
    They need this story to go away.


  34. 35 | November 25, 2012 1:04 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Good article. It is important to always keep in mind that the Media are the Enemy.

    The Media controls the country. The Democratic Party is an arm of the media. I once thought it was the other way around. But it’s obvious we live in a media dictatorship. They set the agenda and the politicians follow.


  35. 36 | November 25, 2012 1:06 pm

    @ RIX:

    The American people don’t care about Benghazi. That’s the truth and there’s no point dwelling on it. There’s no magic bullet to take down Obama. The media runs things and they make sure Americans don’t care.


  36. 37 | November 25, 2012 1:09 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    The Democratic Party

    words mean things so i highly recommend that we stop refering to that party as Democratic since they are nothing of the sort. They are the Democrat party. there’s a difference.


  37. Mars
    38 | November 25, 2012 1:14 pm

    Here’s a great example of subtle evil. Just read a comic book, a european import. The book takes place in about 1901. Just to make it clear Tamany Hall IS mentioned, but just as an aside with no explanation or expansion. Yet every single Democrat is portrayed as a heroic crusader and every Republican is an evil, greedy, power hungry villain.

    This book is targeted at teens and young adults.


  38. 39 | November 25, 2012 1:15 pm

    @ Kirly:

    How about The Marxist-Democrat Party?


  39. 40 | November 25, 2012 1:16 pm

    @ Mars:

    Doesn’t shock me.


  40. Mars
    41 | November 25, 2012 1:36 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Iron Fist wrote:
    Good article. It is important to always keep in mind that the Media are the Enemy.

    The Media controls the country. The Democratic Party is an arm of the media. I once thought it was the other way around. But it’s obvious we live in a media dictatorship. They set the agenda and the politicians follow.

    Close. The agenda is actually set by the international marxists. The SEIU and WWP being the two main ones, the press then runs with it and the liberal pols fall in line in order to continue their power and control.


  41. 42 | November 25, 2012 1:38 pm

    Mars wrote:

    Here’s a great example of subtle evil. Just read a comic book, a european import. The book takes place in about 1901. Just to make it clear Tamany Hall IS mentioned, but just as an aside with no explanation or expansion. Yet every single Democrat is portrayed as a heroic crusader and every Republican is an evil, greedy, power hungry villain.

    This book is targeted at teens and young adults.

    Those who read it likely fancy themselves as history buffs as assuredly as those who watch “The Daily Show” and MSNBC fancy themselves as well informed.


  42. Mars
    43 | November 25, 2012 1:45 pm

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/forensic-profiler-obama-confessing-election-fraud/
    I know WND is basically our version of the National Enquirer, but this is kind of interesting (at least to me due to the profiling/psych connection). I know quite a bit about Hodges, he’s no John Douglas, but he is a really smart individual.

    I’d really like to stress this section since our side keeps trying to brush it aside.

    A brief summary reveals precincts in Ohio and Pennsylvania reported greater than 100 percent of registered voters turned out to vote. In 100 precincts in Ohio Obama got 99 percent of the votes. Pennsylvania illegally removed GOP poll inspectors from voting locations. Computer irregularities in Pennsylvania (and elsewhere) reverted to a default Obama vote no matter who the voter selected.”

    He continued, “Florida prevented absentee ballots from being observed by neutral observers. Military ballots were systematically denied active-duty servicemen and women around the world.”


  43. Mars
    44 | November 25, 2012 1:46 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    Mars wrote:
    Here’s a great example of subtle evil. Just read a comic book, a european import. The book takes place in about 1901. Just to make it clear Tamany Hall IS mentioned, but just as an aside with no explanation or expansion. Yet every single Democrat is portrayed as a heroic crusader and every Republican is an evil, greedy, power hungry villain.
    This book is targeted at teens and young adults.

    Those who read it likely fancy themselves as history buffs as assuredly as those who watch “The Daily Show” and MSNBC fancy themselves as well informed.

    Heh, since it’s a supernatural thriller it wouldn’t surprise me.

    I’ve read a lot of euro imports like this and there is a large amount of this kind of manipulation of facts and history. I don’t know if the euros are trying to confuse and convert over here, or if they have already twisted history into an unrecognizable pretzel.


  44. buzzsawmonkey
    45 | November 25, 2012 1:59 pm

    New Buzz Ballad: ‘Fess Up, Little Susie.

    Comments, as always, invited.


  45. Mars
    46 | November 25, 2012 2:03 pm

    http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2012/11/25/psalm_666_the_state_is_my_shepherd_i_shall_not_want

    A Psalm of Obama

    (To be sung by children, K-12, every morning of their seven-day school week.)*

    The State is my shepherd,

    I shall not want.

    It makes me lie down in federally owned pastures.

    It leads me beside quiet waters in banned fishing areas.

    It restores my soul through its control.

    It guides me in the path of dependency for its namesake.

    Even though our nation plunges into the valley of the shadow of debt,

    I will fear no evil,

    For Barack will be with me.

    The Affordable Care Act and food stamps,

    They comfort me.

    You prepare a table of Michelle Obama approved foods before me in the presence of my Conservative and Libertarian enemies.

    You anoint my head with hemp oil;

    My government regulated 16-ounce cup overflows.

    Surely mediocrity and an entitlement mentality will follow me

    All the days of my life,

    And I will dwell in a low-rent HUD home forever and ever.

    Amen.

    *Special Note: For union workers teaching their subjects this psalm in government schools, it is to be regarded as a psalm of exquisite beauty. The main subject is the watchful care that the Government extends over its dependents and the consequent faux assurance that you must make them feel that the State will supply all their needs. The leading thought—the essential idea—is to get gullible Americans to fully believe that Big Government will provide for them and that they will never be left to want. Make certain the dumb bastards get that message, okay?


  46. 47 | November 25, 2012 2:05 pm

    @ Mars:

    I wouldn’t go so far as to say the election was stolen, but if it was, I wouldn’t be exactly shocked. You’d only have to steal a highly limited number of precincts in a handful of states.


  47. Mars
    48 | November 25, 2012 2:07 pm

    Just found out today that FLOTUS sits on the board of a major food company. Plus guess who that company’s biggest customer is? Walmart. So once again libs attack the hand that feeds them. (Just like Hillary having sat on the board of Walmart while attacking them.)

    Isn’t it a conflict of interest for FLOTUS to be involved in a food supplier while trying to establish rules on what people can and cannot eat? She wouldn’t manipulate things to help herself and her friends profit would she? /


  48. heysoos
    49 | November 25, 2012 2:08 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    @ Mars:
    I wouldn’t go so far as to say the election was stolen, but if it was, I wouldn’t be exactly shocked. You’d only have to steal a highly limited number of precincts in a handful of states.

    I’d bet every cent I’m worth the election was stolen…and it will be next time as well….the entire system is set up, from the chads to the 110% turnouts…nobody seems to care much


  49. Mars
    50 | November 25, 2012 2:08 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    @ Mars:
    I wouldn’t go so far as to say the election was stolen, but if it was, I wouldn’t be exactly shocked. You’d only have to steal a highly limited number of precincts in a handful of states.

    Some districts have reported 114% turnout and read somewhere that I can’t find right now, that one reported 140%.


  50. yenta-fada
    51 | November 25, 2012 2:18 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Kirly wrote:

    Why do they not take a page from history

    They’ve got to read it and know it before they can take a page from it.

    A repost cartoon:

    http://www.jsmineset.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/clip_image00232.jpg


  51. yenta-fada
    52 | November 25, 2012 2:21 pm

    @Flyovercountry

    GREAT post with brilliant example of how things work.


  52. Bumr50
    53 | November 25, 2012 2:21 pm

    Put some mustard on it, Charlie!


  53. yenta-fada
    54 | November 25, 2012 2:23 pm

    Mars wrote:

    Just found out today that FLOTUS sits on the board of a major food company. Plus guess who that company’s biggest customer is? Walmart. So once again libs attack the hand that feeds them. (Just like Hillary having sat on the board of Walmart while attacking them.)

    Isn’t it a conflict of interest for FLOTUS to be involved in a food supplier while trying to establish rules on what people can and cannot eat? She wouldn’t manipulate things to help herself and her friends profit would she? /

    Her exact M.O. as per Chicago connections.


  54. yenta-fada
    55 | November 25, 2012 2:34 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Assuming there is a presidential election in 2016, the non-Democrat should not agree to any “debate” that is moderated by a leftist. It is long past time that the right refused to play on the enemy’s playing field by the enemy’s rules.

    That typifies the ‘begging bowl’ from the right, doesn’t it? Looks like there’s only one party that governs the nation.


  55. yenta-fada
    56 | November 25, 2012 2:38 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    I used to think I was getting more information by watching “Meet the Press”. However, we only had one TV and “Pinky and the Brain” was on at the same time, so we watched the better cartoon show. /


  56. yenta-fada
    57 | November 25, 2012 2:38 pm

    I can’t decide if I’m killing the thread or keeping it alive. hmmmmm.
    Where’s Lily?


  57. yenta-fada
    58 | November 25, 2012 2:50 pm

    As I was reading the article, it seemed like Nixon was treating the Press much like the upper class Edwardian Brits dealt with the ‘servant class’. *talking to myself*


  58. Mars
    59 | November 25, 2012 2:55 pm

    yenta-fada wrote:

    As I was reading the article, it seemed like Nixon was treating the Press much like the upper class Edwardian Brits dealt with the ‘servant class’. *talking to myself*

    I was thinking rats and skinner boxes myself.


  59. yenta-fada
    60 | November 25, 2012 3:00 pm

    h/t Michelle’s mirror. Protesters, the Media view:

    http://lh3.ggpht.com/-sejKixEg_28/ULJFxMCguII/AAAAAAAAtfw/KrkpaYmU3WQ/s1600-h/mediaguide_to_protesters%25255B3%25255D.jpg


  60. yenta-fada
    61 | November 25, 2012 3:02 pm

    Mars wrote:

    yenta-fada wrote:

    As I was reading the article, it seemed like Nixon was treating the Press much like the upper class Edwardian Brits dealt with the ‘servant class’. *talking to myself*

    I was thinking rats and skinner boxes myself.

    The original rat, operant conditioning guy, Skinner tried to raise his kids on rat-lab principles and skrewed them up bigtime. Despite certain similarities, people are not rats.


  61. 62 | November 25, 2012 3:07 pm

    @ yenta-fada:

    And all of it legal. Certain members of the press feel entitled to be on the Candidate’s plane, eating the good food, when in reality, there is not guarantee of such. Who decides that a reporter from the Wheeling News Register or the Lorain County Beacon Journal is less qualified to ask a question during a news conference? They love these luxuries, and being treated as though they are elite more than actual proficiency at their trade. Was Nixon’s treatment of the press petty? Maybe it was, but no more petty than the people who could be controlled in that fashion. The truth of the matter is that our side would be simply happy with accurate and balanced coverage, not even positive. Sucking up to them does not work. Treating them respectfully does not work, being petty and treating them like dogs does. That’s the answer.


  62. yenta-fada
    63 | November 25, 2012 3:17 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    Technological evolution has greatly surpassed human/psychological evolution. (and that’s not a religious reference)


  63. yenta-fada
    65 | November 25, 2012 3:25 pm

    Post about “Black Swan” author and why he hates journalists:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/nov/24/nassim-taleb-antifragile-finance-interview

    I do wish this topic and post by flyovercountry had more participation. People are probably in winding down mode and getting ready for work.


  64. Mars
    66 | November 25, 2012 3:27 pm

    yenta-fada wrote:

    Mars wrote:

    yenta-fada wrote:
    As I was reading the article, it seemed like Nixon was treating the Press much like the upper class Edwardian Brits dealt with the ‘servant class’. *talking to myself*
    I was thinking rats and skinner boxes myself.

    The original rat, operant conditioning guy, Skinner tried to raise his kids on rat-lab principles and skrewed them up bigtime. Despite certain similarities, people are not rats.

    Except where dems are concerned. Read the article, the press drones are totally reward based. Of course there’s a bit of the chickenhouse involved too, Nixon screwed with their “pecking order” and they would do anything in order to get back to their perceived position.


  65. Mars
    67 | November 25, 2012 3:29 pm

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    @ yenta-fada:
    And all of it legal. Certain members of the press feel entitled to be on the Candidate’s plane, eating the good food, when in reality, there is not guarantee of such. Who decides that a reporter from the Wheeling News Register or the Lorain County Beacon Journal is less qualified to ask a question during a news conference? They love these luxuries, and being treated as though they are elite more than actual proficiency at their trade. Was Nixon’s treatment of the press petty? Maybe it was, but no more petty than the people who could be controlled in that fashion. The truth of the matter is that our side would be simply happy with accurate and balanced coverage, not even positive. Sucking up to them does not work. Treating them respectfully does not work, being petty and treating them like dogs does. That’s the answer.

    And no one is more petty than the press unless you’re talking about a dem president.


  66. Mars
    68 | November 25, 2012 3:39 pm

    Following this time-honored tradition of “demand it and it will appear,” Congress empowered the EPA to require oil companies to buy cellulosic ethanol and blend it with the gasoline they sell to you and me. This was a bipartisan travesty; the bill was passed by Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats and signed by George W. Bush.

    In theory. In the real world, nobody knows how to actually make the stuff affordably! It ought to be possible to do and someday we’ll likely figure it out, but it simply can’t be done today. The amount of cellulosic ethanol produced in the United States, according to the EPA’s own website, is a grand total of 0.

    Yet the law demands that oil companies obtain and re-sell this entirely nonexistent and imaginary product on pain of a hefty fine. As the Wall Street Journal reports,

    Because there was no cellulosic fuel available, oil companies have had to purchase “waiver credits”—for failing to comply with a mandate to buy a product that doesn’t exist. In 2010 and this year, the EPA has forced oil companies to pay about $10 million for these credits. Since these costs are eventually passed on to consumers, the biofuels mandate is an invisible tax paid at the gas pump. [emphasis added]

    http://www.scragged.com/articles/do-the-impossible-or-get-fined-by-the-epa


  67. darkwords
    69 | November 25, 2012 3:48 pm

    @ 49 heysoos: I habit a part of town full of Obama supporters. Low income transients. They don’t vote. None of them vote. Zero of them vote. Even if the fraud was minimal it is worth it to the GoP to knock that chip of the lefts shoulder that there is no fraud. Else they will get hit harder with it next election cycle.


  68. darkwords
    70 | November 25, 2012 3:53 pm

    @ 65 yenta-fada:
    Sounds like a good guy.

    First, though, he has to have his photo taken. He claims it’s the first time he’s allowed it in three years, and has allotted just 10 minutes for it, though in the end it’s more like five. “The last guy I had was a fucking dick. He wanted to be artsy fartsy,” he tells the photographer, Mike McGregor. “You’re OK.”


  69. Da_Beerfreak
    71 | November 25, 2012 4:00 pm

    yenta-fada wrote:

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Assuming there is a presidential election in 2016, the non-Democrat should not agree to any “debate” that is moderated by a leftist. It is long past time that the right refused to play on the enemy’s playing field by the enemy’s rules.

    That typifies the ‘begging bowl’ from the right, doesn’t it? Looks like there’s only one party that governs the nation.

    Thanks to the RINOs we are fast becoming a Country with two parties in name only. :evil:


  70. The Osprey
    72 | November 25, 2012 4:01 pm

    @ Mars:

    We drove down from my dad’s place in NC to my uncle’s place in Georgia for Thanksgiving dinner and I saw all these gas stations in SC and NE Georgia called “SPINX” that were advertising Ethanol free premium gas with huge banners.


  71. 73 | November 25, 2012 4:05 pm

    @ The Osprey:

    Ethanol-free gas you say! Did any of those banners tell The SCOAMF and/or the Demo☭rats what to go do with themselves?


  72. darkwords
    74 | November 25, 2012 4:12 pm

    The Press is the enemy. The enemy is the press. Divide and conquer. Good advice for Rubio/Mitt in 016


  73. 75 | November 25, 2012 4:13 pm

    New Thread.


  74. 76 | November 25, 2012 4:15 pm

    New Thread.


  75. 77 | November 25, 2012 5:45 pm

    The left knows this, look how they treat FOX. The GOP is spineless and clueless.

    Uncle Duke was my favorite Doonesbury character. I quit following the comic in the 80′s but loved the old stuff dating back to the Vietnam war. Duke was supposedly based on Hunter Thompson. Bill Murry portrayed him in a film IIRC but I never saw it. Has anyone here? Was it any good? Is Thompson still alive?


  76. Bumr50
    78 | November 25, 2012 5:55 pm

    Rancher wrote:

    Bill Murry portrayed him in a film IIRC but I never saw it. Has anyone here? Was it any good? Is Thompson still alive?

    The film was ‘Where The Buffalo Roam.’

    It was pretty good, not stellar IMHO.


  77. Bumr50
    79 | November 25, 2012 5:56 pm

    @ Rancher:

    Oh, and Thompson is dead.


  78. The Osprey
    80 | November 25, 2012 6:04 pm

    Macker wrote:

    @ The Osprey:

    Ethanol-free gas you say! Did any of those banners tell The SCOAMF and/or the Demo☭rats what to go do with themselves?

    I think that was implied!


  79. The Osprey
    81 | November 25, 2012 6:13 pm

    @ Rancher:

    He committed suicide in 2004.

    Johnny Depp portrayed him in the film “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”.

    The classic “Bat Country” scene:


  80. buzzsawmonkey
    82 | November 25, 2012 6:25 pm

    Hunter Thompson was a world-class asshole.

    His “journalism technique” consisted of getting as fucked up as possible on as many controlled substances as possible and plunging into a situation where he made as big a jerk of himself as possible. In the drug-addled culture of the late ’60s to early ’70s, when drug use was of itself considered a cool and “revolutionary” act, this was enough to endear him to a large chunk of the drug-addled or drug-addled wannabees.

    He had a small, well-worn stock of abusive terms that he would fling at the objects of his swinish behavior—the forerunner, if you will, of the morons who reflexively respond “racist!” “sexist!” “homophobe!” and “hate speech!” to anything which challenges their bovine world view.

    I do not know of one single insight he produced.


  81. 83 | November 25, 2012 7:40 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Hunter Thompson was a world-class asshole.

    Sounds like he did pretty good for himself despite, or because of that.


  82. 84 | November 25, 2012 7:51 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    One of his books was the basis for, “Easy Rider,” with Jack Nicholoson and Peter Fonda, but outside of that yes, Rolling Stone’s hiring of a keeper for him should have been a huge red flag.


  83. 85 | November 25, 2012 8:25 pm

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    One of his books was the basis for, “Easy Rider,”

    Man that was a F*****d up movie, I didn’t find anything to like.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David