Oh, by the way…
…many of you will be pleased to know I’ve changed my mind somewhat on the “Obama doesn’t love America” flap.
I still think it’s not the way to go for Republican candidates, as I said in my previous posts and comments. But I have come to support Giuliani’s move, and I think he should continue in that vein. He’s neither a candidate nor office-holder, so he can serve as a gadfly, stirring up “interesting” questions like that and sparking “interesting” discussions. Not a bad idea, especially if the tactic is limited to people like Giuliani, who doesn’t hold office, and who is someone a lot of Americans still hold in some affection because of his role in responding to 9/11 (Newt Gingrich wouldn’t be quite as effective because he lacks that latter quality of being held in affection, but as a non-office-holder he could certainly do it, too).
One of the reasons I was wary about the approach was because I knew the press would pile on the actual candidates, and try to hoist them by Giuliani’s petard. But I’ve been encouraged by the reaction of Scott Walker, for example, who has refused to bite. As long as the candidates say the equivalent of “Giuliani can speak for himself,” and even better, “Hey, why don’t you ask Hillary what she thinks of Obama for calling President Bush unpatriotic?”, then my concerns about this whole approach are allayed.
Audace! Audace! Audace!
Of course once is not enough, nor is Giuliani alone, enough. Too few and you have nothing more than a covey of cranks. There must be Greek chorus to, in turn, comment on Ophilia whenever he brings up any platitude – bilateralism, civility, dialogue, equality, fairness, down to whatever. Nothing in the way of oracles — ambiguous, obscure, mealy-mouthed. It must be true, it must be unequivocal, it must be bold, it must be… bold! – oh hell, never mind. For a moment there I’d imagined… Democrats. Forgot Republicans are neutered upon Party identification.
Of course, that assumes they want to win.
The issue to examine is: graft.
Reagan, Walkers and now Giuliani show that it is possible to effectively bark back.
Question is, why the Republican establishment doesn’t.
Who, Whom?
Ace today pointed out one good thing from criticizing Obama. The people in the middle who just don’t care are likely to get just as upset with the fawning adulation of Obama as they are with some of the more “exciting” criticism. So if Republicans can deliver seemingly mild-mannered criticism of Obama that triggers mouth-frothing defense of him, it’s a win for Republicans.
junior,
Given the many other failures of Obama that are now too big to ignore, I think you’re right that some in the middle may start to wake up.
BTW, my answer to the love and religion questions are that Obama loves himself and his religion is Obamism.
Good strategy to keep sticking a thumb in the Democrat eyes by telling the TRUTH about Obama and the Left. And YES, use Giulliani and men like him. Drive the Press bat Shyte crazy by turning it back on them like Walker and Rubio just did. But I would direct their questions BACK to Un Rev Wright who is Obama’s Soiritual Mentor as to his Christianity and Bill Ayers, his Political Mentor (since Frank Davis,the commie is dead). Really set them weeping and gnashing teeth while reminding America about his real roots.
Cool, Neo. Just don’t turn into a RWNJ, okay.
John Sununu is very good at this sort of thing.
Rumsfeld too, but he’s got Bush and Iraq on the bottom of his shoe.
McCain over the years has at times been very outspoken. The MSM applauded him when it was something that made Republicans look bad, but when it was the other way around, they said he was just a crazy old coot.
Playing this game is very, very difficult when the deck is stacked against us.
I would rephrase it. Obama has shown that he holds large swaths of the American population in contempt. Such as “rural folk” who “cling to guns and religion.” Such as talking about “punishing your enemies,” who happen to be US citizens. Time and again Obama has shown that he considers Republicans to be greater enemies than ISIS or the like.
Does Obama love Americans? If they do not agree with his political views- definitely not.
And yes, it is very amusing to recall that Obama said it was “unpatriotic” to run deficits. Hoist, meet petard.
The Socratic method works best. Seriously and not with sarcasm, ask them why they hold their positions. Politely question any weak points, etc. Bearing in mind that most have been effectively brainwashed (the young, I mean) and aren’t entirely to blame for their nutty ideas.
Sitting here watching O’Reilly, and he just had Alan Colmes and a right of center radio host on discussing Obama’s ‘love life’.
O’Reilly demonstrated his usual cluelessness by noting that Guilani mentioned “Frank Lloyd…whatever..” referring to Obama’s communist, pedophile ‘uncle’ Frank Marshall Davis.
Holmes head almost exploded and the subject was quickly changed.
It is an interesting exercise to look at photographs of Frank Marshall Davis, Barack Obama senior and the great man himself and then try to determine who is the real daddy.
You can do that here.
http://mrconservative.com/2013/06/19732-yahoo-news-posts-obamas-country-of-birth-is-kenya-by-accident/
“One of the reasons I was wary about the approach was because I knew the press would pile on the actual candidates, and try to hoist them by Giuliani’s petard. But I’ve been encouraged by the reaction of Scott Walker, for example, who has refused to bite. As long as the candidates say the equivalent of “Giuliani can speak for himself,” neo
Giuliani’s petard? Since when is agreement with the truth, a petard upon one might be hoisted? The only means by which that might occur is if Obama, the democrats and the MSM successfully paint Giuliani as having been mistaken. But we have a multitude of repeated behaviors by Obama that demonstrate Giuliani’s characterization of Obama to be accurate. It is the timidity of prominent elected Republicans that allows the press to get away with their covering up for Obama.
How many LIVs remember this* or even saw it? Or remember that Obama spent 22 years with Rev Wright as his spiritual adviser? His vote three times in the Illinois legislature to allow infanticide to continue in botched abortions? His comment about Americans who ‘cling to their guns and bibles’? That he never misses an opportunity to criticize America?
Public agreement with Giuliani certainly will lead the press to attack and that is the perfect opportunity for a real “teaching moment”… but only when the questioned official has the simple honesty to agree with the truth. That’s how you get to the rhetorical questions we all favor.
Walker’s avoidance was a clever tactic but in the long run its a poor strategy for winning the war. It’s fine to pick your battles but if you’re unwilling to defend the truth, then you’ve already lost because even if you manage to ‘win’ the war, you won’t be people worthy of having won it.
McClellans don’t win wars, Grants do. “I like this man, he fights” A. Lincoln
* It isn’t just our custom, it’s federal law:
36 U.S. Code § 301 – National anthem
(a) Designation.– The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.– During a rendition of the national anthem–
(1) when the flag is displayed–
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
Fact is obama loves himself … end of story.
Since when is agreement with the truth, a petard upon one might be hoisted?
1917? 1930? etc…
Yes, I hope other Republicans follow Walker’s lead and do the same.
Apparently WashPost’s Dana Milbank has been foaming over Walker’s refusal to take the bait, and a recent column includes this gem that gives the game away:
“This is not a matter of conjecture. The correct answer is yes: Obama is Christian, and he frequently speaks about it in public…”
Got that?
There’s only one answer allowed to a question about a candidate’s belief on something in this case, Walker’s belief that Obama professed faith is legitimate.
The GOP needs to push back HARD on this tactic employed by the MSM. No more gotcha questions will be taken serious. Each one should perfect their own version of “That’s a clown question, bro.”
Artflgr, Geoffrey Britain:
On the use of the word “petard”—
I thought it was obvious from the way I used “petard” that I was explaining that’s what the press thought: “I knew the press would pile on the actual candidates, and try to hoist them by Giuliani’s petard.” In other words, that’s the viewpoint of the press, who believed that Giuliani’s statement had been a grave error, and that they therefore had Walker in a bind and that his answer (or non-answer) would get him tangled up in Giuliani’s mess. That was the press’s point of view, and their motivation for asking the question.
I guess what frightens me about your initial reaction, is that it implied that you instinctively didn’t trust the Republican candidates to not let the press trip them up, and your lack of trust is well-founded. I feel the same way.
It seems you only changed your mind when Walker showed the unexpected ability to not get roped into making himself look bad by refusing to play the game by the media’s rules.
This is not a criticism of you Neo, your instincts are spot-on, but of the reflexively low opinion of Republican candidates that conservatives have. While I am cautiously optimistic about Walker, I am also a hair’s breadth from complete despair of the Republicans actually doing anything meaningful to correct the direction of this country.
It sickens me that the Republicans can’t come up with someone that has experience, brains, fire in the belly, a modicum of charisma, strong principles and the skill not to say insanely stupid things. We can get two, maybe three of those, but a candidate needs all 5 and more to win.