Rush Limbaugh is always interesting and sometimes his lessons are a little lengthy. However, he gave a valuable, shorter one on his show today. He said not to take liberals literally. Citing the example of their constant claims that “the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes”, he said that liberals like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Ted Kennedy deflected criticism away from themselves and made themselves immune to that criticism by joining in the chorus saying “Yeah. That’s right. The rich don’t pay their fair share”. Limbaugh went on to say that it’s not about the money however, but rather about the class warfare and social division. He said that the Democrat Party wouldn’t last very long without division in the nation along one line or another. Social turmoil and hatred is their vehicle. We know that they’ve divided us racially, financially and sexually. They’ve made some progress with religious divisions too – atheists vs. everyone else vs. Evangelicals. Rush went on with other examples, making note of how they’re trying to get Romney to release his tax returns so they can cobble up some sort of irregularity out of those. Again, their point however, isn’t the returns. Their point is “See! You couldn’t get away with this! He’s different than you are! He thinks he’s special!” and so on. More “divide and conquer”stuff.
What I took away from this was the pointlessness of debating these people head on. There’s no point. So how do we win? We do what people like them hate the most: we ignore them as they ignore us with their lies to their fantasyland audience. We do not debate them.
When a person like Obama is set on telling lies, no matter how obvious the lie, he knows that his intended audience is going to believe it. The Liberal is in another universe, where emotion rules and evidence counts for nothing. Only intentions and appearances are important. That’s the audience that Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the rest of that sorry bunch are talking to. Knowing that, does it make any sense to engage them as if they were serious? I submit not. Instead, conduct the campaign as if they were not there.
How do you conduct the campaign as if there was no adversary during the debate? Easy. First, realize that the televised debate is a liberal tool to advance the liberal candidate. Secondly, a key element of strategy is to be unpredictable. So don't give them predictability. During the debates, state whatever message you wish to get out to your audience, no matter the question. Don’t worry about the media or the rest of the Liberal audience. You don’t need their votes. Oh, you might address some of the content of the question, but we know in advance that it will be a liberal who be asking it, so we know in advance that it will be calculated to make you look bad or won’t have anything to do with anything our people care about. So, basically ignore the question and make your policy points with the time allotted to you. Also, ignore the opponent standing next to you. Don’t look at him after you shake hands and do any more with him except as called for by protocol. Address none of his charges and accusations unless to reveal the true nature of their request and to shed light on why they would make the charge. Example: Obama – “My opponent has steadfastly refused to produce his tax returns…” Romney – (Laughing) What, so you can make out something to be wrong with them? Forget it! If there had been anything wrong with them, the IRS would have taken care of it. How come you’ve never presented the nation with a budget?” Always make a joke or point out the absurdity of his accusation, laughing, and then point to one of his failures, putting him on the defensive. If he comes back to it, ignoring him, simply say "Can we move on to something more constructive?"
Of course, during the debate the opponent will note that you’re not really answering any of the liberal inquisitor’s questions. When he points this out, don’t address it. Simply continue with what you’re doing. At the end of the debate, making a closing statement, tell all the viewers where they can go on the internet and read, point by point, all your policy intentions and your presidential platform. Always be mindful that the majority is yours. Don’t let your opponent think that he’s got a chance and if you agree with him on a thing, do not say so. Simply re-enunciate the same thing as if you didn’t hear a word Obama said. If you can get him unhinged, he’ll hang himself. Can a man like Obama stand being ignored? I don’t think so.
The rest of the time, on the road, on TV, refuse to answer hostile questions from reporters and point out their hostility. Give them the same treatment your staffer Gorka gave the press in Europe, only use better words. He can get away with that; you can’t. When they embody a false premise in a question, don’t answer except to point out that the premise is false. If they accuse you of being hostile, don’t rebut them other than to say that “I think the viewers in your audience know who’s hostile in this meeting”, and walk away. Remember, you’re not going to reach the ones who are in fantasyland, and that’s mostly who will be listening to those hostile reporters anyway. Just focus on the few who are on your side who happen to be watching. They’ll admire you for walking away.
The situation is ridiculous on the surface of it: a president who is very likely not a natural born US citizen who has taken the nation apart in a little less than four years, all along kicking the constitution he swore to protect, lying as if he was a common drunk or a junkie in the police station. Opposite him, stands an upright, solid citizen of demonstrated integrity and achievement. Asking the questions will be Liberal partisans of dubious brain and even more dubious integrity. Don’t treat that junkie as anything other than that liar in the police station, except, again, as required by protocol. Make your statements, laugh a lot (at all of them) and leave, knowing that your audience, most of the America which doesn’t live in fantasyland, is laughing with you.
Jeff Dover
August 3, 2012
Comment
Comment by Kate Bowe on August 5, 2012 at 7:00pm Thanks Jeff.
You're so right. "Makes you wonder about who's running the GOP" Do you think that if the Democrats were having primary debates that the conservatives would be asking the questions? I just hope that Romney will shine. He needs to follow your advice.
Comment by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on August 5, 2012 at 1:00pm Obama is everything that America DOES NOT WANT AND/OR NEED.
Comment by Jeff Dover on August 5, 2012 at 12:13pm In addition to what I wrote below, in a GOP primary debate, only GOP people should frame the questions for the debate and only GOP should moderate. What does a member of the liberal press add to our discussion? There should not be one liberal anywhere near that panel. In the general election debates, when the candidates from the parties have been chosen and everyone is voting, okay, use the liberals, but only on a 50-50 basis.
Comment by Jeff Dover on August 5, 2012 at 12:07pm Hi Kate,
How do I think Romney did? Based on the little that I saw, I thought he did okay. I did see very little, however, as the format was utterly disgusting and an insult to intelligent people.
Why did our GOP leadership permit and set up "debates" with liberals forming the questions and deciding what issues would be discussed? I can see a 50-50 make-up of conservative/liberal moderators during debates for the general election, if one must have such a show, but for a primary where only (in theory) Republicans will be voting?
The whole thing in the primary debates was a setup to make the most liberal appear to be the best. In the general election, the whole setup is to make the Democrat appear to be the winner and look the best.
The "debates", as they are currently set up, are a complete sham.
If that doesn't make you wonder about who's running the GOP, I don't know what else to say...
Comment by Billy Bowlegs on August 4, 2012 at 9:58pm Sorry Kate,
Obama does not have an arrogant smile.
It is a s*** eating grinn as we say down on the farm.
He could care less about anyone but himself.
As far as superior, maybe to a garden snake.
Comment by Kate Bowe on August 4, 2012 at 9:43pm Jeff, most everybody is on board with the mainstream Democrat thought. Only the constitutional conservative tea-party folks know what is going on.
I have to ask you, how do you think Romney did in the Republican debates? I think he tried to stay away from controversy, look like a gentleman, and tried to remain cool and not flustered. He was dealing with some top conservatives, however, and it showed his lack of knowledge on conservative issues. The debate with Obama is a different ball game. Do you think his debating skills will work to his advantage against the liberal?
Don't forget, Obama has that arrogant smile that says, "I am so superior to you."
Comment by Jeff Dover on August 4, 2012 at 9:53am The AZ GOP recently hosted, for $175/plate "An Evening of Strategy with Dick Morris"!
He's a Democrat!!! No wonder he would choose Rubio (who the Establishment and Fox continue to portray as a "conservative")
That's why we need a new party. The GOP -- at least in AZ -- is either delusional or on board with mainstream Democrat thought.
Comment by Billy Bowlegs on August 4, 2012 at 9:42am Good Idea - a coach that knows the business. Dick Morris sometimes sounds rational. Yesterday though, he said pick RUBIO. Another RINO with his head up the posterior perportion of his anatomy. So he would be an ill coach.
My only suggestion is that every time Obozo ask Romney to show something, Romney responds with show me your eligibility other than that damned false BC.
Have copies of Arpio's analysis by Cold Possie in his hand to wave.
Comment by Thomas Angle on August 4, 2012 at 7:28am Here is an easy way to explain it. See chart below. Anyone in the first one pay no income tax and most in the second one (if have a couple of children) do not pay either. But the real nice thing about this is the 15% to 25% increase. Once $70,000 you loose $7,000 dollars from you income. So you have to make $77,000 just to catch up.
| Tax Bracket | Married Filing Jointly | Single |
|---|---|---|
| 10% Bracket | $0 – $17,400 | $0 – $8,700 |
| 15% Bracket | $17,400 – $70,700 | $8,700 – $35,350 |
| 25% Bracket | $70,700 – $142,700 | $35,350 – $85,650 |
| 28% Bracket | $142,700 – $217,450 | $85,650 – $178,650 |
| 33% Bracket | $217,450 – $388,350 | $178,650 – $388,350 |
| 35% Bracket | Over $388,350 | Over $388,350 |
Comment by Donald Mack Flippin on August 4, 2012 at 6:40am Excellent points. In regards to ignoring the fool, Solomon said the
same thing, but he added a warning to the advice:
Proverbs 26:4-5 : Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou
also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to
his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
In other words ___ you can't win when you debate a fool. All you can
really do is show him for what he is. If you answer him, you become as
much a fool as he is ___ so, you ignore him. If you ignore him, he, in his
conceited foolishness, will think that he has proved himself to be a wise
man.
THAT'S OUR PRESIDENT!!!
Romney should just remember (as you stated, Jeff): the only ones Obama
is going to impress will be the useful idiots who aren't going to understand
what he is saying, anyway ___ and the baby Marxists who will hang on his
every word without regard to what he has said, is saying, or is about to say.
And those, the useful idiots and the baby Marxists, are a lost cause from
the get-go. God is the only one that can reach them, and, occasionally, He
will open the eyes of one of them ___ one here, one there ___ all according
to His own will, and all in His own time.
Semper Fi!
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!
Join Tea Party Nation