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.
August 3, 2012