Comments

Does the right get the word out effectively? — 41 Comments

1. I am a bit concerned about the recent attacks by Trump on people he should want on his team. Kayleigh McEnany did a terrific job as Press Spokesperson when he was President. She is now on Fox, not the most helpful networks for Trump, and he is now attacking her for reporting true poll results. Why ? I think he has sounded over the top on DeSantis a few times. I know some of you think I am a “Trump-cult member” but I still worry that he has lost a lot of his attraction with his angry outbursts. He did some things like this in 2016 but then he was an unknown entity in politics. Now he has a record to be proud of. Talk about that, please.

2. I respectfully suggest that Stan is incorrect. Conservatives talk a lot, on TV and radio and in print; they think-tank the heck out of the left. But nothing comes of all their talk. Until they turn all their talk into meaningful action, nothing will change. Political, or “Movement,” Conservatism — Conservatism with a capital “C” — has conserved almost nothing. In politics and in the culture the left always wins: it wins and it keeps winning. “Movement” Conservatism always always loses; it loses and it keeps losing. It keeps getting wrongfooted by the left. The left takes action, and it does so effectively, relentlessly. The left isn’t afraid to take action. Conservatives are bullied and cowed by the left into inaction.

3. Mike K:

   I just wrote a post about the McEnany attack. See this.

4. well since 2017, weve noted how they minimized or outright banned many conservative voices, to make sure there was no recurrence of maga or tea party,
   but often the political class was fine with the proscription, if hamilton 68 didn’t exist they would find another way,

   too many people went along with the jenner self delusion, that was the vanguard of the transgender push, even rush who had been the herald for the past 30 years, was worn down, part was the cancer, but the large part was everything he had warned against was moving at great speed, and every caution was ignored,

5. It is a well-documented fact that some 90% of “journalists”, i.e. the MSM, are Democrats (or worse-leaning Leftists), so the MSM is effectively closed off to us right-wingers. The MSM parses its “truths” to their readers and viewers, who are sufficiently uninformed they don’t get it. Always remember Limbaugh’s LIV–Low Information Voters.
   I don’t get what Irish Otter is talking about, until his bottom line. The big problem is the Right does not ever lock elbows and march in a phalanx, as the Left reflexively does.

6. we look at how many data points are common currency that are not true in any way, about police interactions with minorities about environmental abnormalities and our part in them, of course the Russian hoax which seems to the praxis for this stupid looting party being done against our real and necessary defense,

7. Since the great majority of the most powerful and the most influential Americans (mostly credentialed morons and mis-educated pseudo-intellectuals), holding important positions in journalism, law, academia, politics, finance (and, increasingly in the corporate world as well) consider the “trusted sources” forming their perception of reality to be Pravda-on-the-Hudson and Pravda-on-the-Potomac, CNN and MSNBC, The Atlantic and The New Yorker, arguments from the opposing side (no matter how firmly based in facts and evidence, reason and logic) have little chance of victory.

8. Trump is a great communicator and a refreshing change from the usual politician, but the message he gets out to people who aren’t his supporters isn’t one that makes them want to vote for him. Lately, he’s even had trouble holding onto people who have voted for him and would like to do so again.

   The Democrats have been able to put together a coalition by bringing together people who want things from government. To their coalition Democrats can add people who hate Trump and think he’s a threat to “Our Democracy” and “The Soul of America,” and that gives the Democrats a win. Even disastrous mismanagement of the economy and foreign policy hasn’t cost the Democrats too many votes.

   Republicans have been harder to hold together. They pull in too many different directions and aren’t going to be brought together with promises of government money and power. You don’t get the kind of passion that the Democrat rank and file has, because Republicans mostly just want government to leave them alone, and if they get a respite from the increase in taxes and government power they are contented with that.

   I thought Trump was a unifier. In effect, he was saying, the country was in trouble and we had to get together to fix things. The old elites had failed, but it wasn’t too late to undo the damage. Half the country or more didn’t agree, and the old elites weren’t willing to be sidelined. So much for unity in support of the national interest.

   After three years of Biden, I’ve gotten sick of Joe’s “unifier” BS and all the lies. I’m not the only one, but apparently many people still have an appetite for Joe’s shtick. Put the same nonsense in Gavin Newsom’s mouth and they’ll gladly fall for it again.

9. There’s a lot of leftist censorship which tamps down on conservatives. Just today I got an email from City Journal, saying that an “open source” 501c3 called Document Cloud is throwing them out because of Christopher Rufo’s research on child sex-change work at Texas Children’s Hospital.

10. Anyone who regularly reads blogs is going to think that the Right doesn’t get its message out, because blogs mostly cover what’s in the media.

    But the Left isn’t content to message. The Left acts. The Right comes up with excuses for why its nominal allies shouldn’t be expected to act…

11. There’s another level; non-conservatives talk to each other and to anybody at all, more or less, about what they’ve heard.
    So there’s a multiplier effect for the left’s stuff which does not apply to the right.

    For example, we’ll have some guests later this week the female half of which has never graduated from “mean tweets”. I’ll listen but keep my mouth shut for propriety’s sake. Be no use talking to hear about actual reality anyway. Otherwise, they’re a delightful couple.

12. so in 20 years, the gop had unified government, and what did they do with it, they gave tax cuts which apparently were not appreciated that much, they spent like drunk sailors, prosecuted a series of expeditions poorly

13. miguel cervantes:

    The GOP has had “unified” government few times, and those times have involved razor-thin majorities easily controlled by a few RINOs.

    I’ve written several posts about this but am in a hurry and don’t have time to find them now.

14. just looking at the big picture, they are often unwilling or unable to do much constructive, whereas the dems get away with saying and doing the most destructive things,

15. The right is great in reaching the right leaning audience, but terrible in breaking through to the mainstream. I have no solution. When the MSM doesn’t even cover the BudLight collapse, what can you do?

16. Getting the word out?
    I’d say that’s a problem when the Corrupt Media is almost totally against you.
    Still, people who are paying attention just might notice the discrepancy between what “Biden” says/claims/promises/describes/touts and what’s actually happening around them.
    (And even those who aren’t paying all that much attention are noticing…since it’s hard not to see at this point what’s truly going on.)

    That they might notice and then put two and two together is a huge danger to the current regime.

    Which is PRECISELY WHY “Biden” and the Corrupt Media must demonize their opposition, lie about them, slander them, attack them, bring them to trial on scurrilous but lurid, attention-grabbing charges.
    IOW, this is PRECISELY WHY “Biden” and the Corrupt Media MUST DESTROY their opposition.
    Because “Biden” has NOTHING else to offer except destruction.
    And such attempts at destruction are “SIMPLY” part of the grand COVERUP that “he” must constantly choreograph.
    It becomes a vicious cycle such that the manifold crises engineered by “Biden” are likewise part of that grand COVERUP strategy.

    Anyway—what was I going to say? Oh yeah—Lee Smith is, once again, on a roll.
    https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC

17. It is indeed a huge handicap when virtually the entire MSM is against you; not something to be minimized.

    This is of course most blatantly with covid coverage. If I listened to them Trump messed up and Biden did a great job. However when I looked at the raw numbers, which are easily available, I saw a different story. Trump’s and Biden’s numbers were close but it looked to me that Trump’s numbers were actually a little better. (When it came to deaths and cases.) This is of course made worse by the fact Biden’s term had access to a vaccine and Trump didn’t. I read an ArsTechnica article just in the last couple of weeks and from that I could see the comments were pretty much everybody swallowed the media narrative hook line and sinker. That’s what the republicans are up against.

18. NO, next question.

19. physicsguy (5:45 pm) said, in conclusion: “When the MSM doesn’t even cover the BudLight collapse, what can you do?”

    Within the past hour, I was privileged [sputter] to witness exactly this.

    This person is what I will honestly term a liberal — not a leftie, but, let us say, what was once a mainstream liberal (who favored Amy Klobuchar in 2020) — and is someone who peruses the New York Times to get a glimpse of what’s going on in the world.

    Anyway, I mentioned in some genuinely innocent context The Bud Light boycott, and this person had actually not heard of such a thing.

    (Probably had never heard about what’s in the Twitter files, either. Yeeesh.)

    “SMH”, as the new newspeak declares.

20. Re physicsguy and M R J. What the Right fails to do is INSTITUTIONALIZE their control of power.

    If this were achieved, then Leftists would feel demoralised, intimidated, and overmatched, too.

21. Movement Conservatism has failed. It has failed in its mission to conserve. I no longer identify myself as being a part of Movement Conservatism. I am conservative but not a Conservative. What should I call myself? What should I say I am a part of? Maybe I should identify as an orthodox constitutionalist. I don’t know, I’m just a ragged pair of claws scuttling across the floor of silent seas.

22. Increasingly I find myself unable to complete reading articles and such by conservative pundits and writers. More and more what they write comes across to me as “blah blah blah.” My mind fogs up, my eyes glaze over. E.g., I’m almost done with Victor Davis Hanson. He’s usually right but so what. Blah blah blah.

    I’m still down with Chesterton, however. A ray of light, a beacon of hope, that one. Still and always.

23. @IrishOtter49:I’m still down with Chesterton, however. A ray of light, a beacon of hope, that one.

    I am certain that nothing which looms large for you, or did for him, is any part of his concerns now: he’s on to higher and better things.

    Important to remember that this is a fallen world, occupied and ruled by the Enemy, and our kingdom is not here. Nothing the Enemy does can take it from us, either.

24. orthodox constitutionalist, is as apt as any descriptor,

25. we see whole cities even states hollowed out, ground to ruin, apparently with the consent of the people, (yes cook and maricopa are not the be and and end all) but effectively they check the sane parts of the state,

26. Conservatives have failed abysmally. The left/progs have had at least from 1968, and probably earlier to construct the information bubble for the average voter. The average voter will only hear approved viewpoints, approved science, approved opinions. And they will obey. Because there is no counterbalancing view. As an information warfare campaign the left’s has probably been the most successful in world history.

27. Neo, thank you for your post.

    In a sense, all the replies point out the failure of the GOP and conservatives tas any kind of organized movement to institutionalize a response to the MSM dishonesty.

    Why isn’t there a well-publicized website where bloggers, talk show hosts and ordinary citizens interested in both (or all) sides of the story can go? One that is referenced in campaign ads on tv and radio, printed on all literature, listed by bloggers, talked about in campaign speeches and GOP events.

    The Democrats and news media lie. Where does the GOP expect people to go to get the truth? Where do the conservative donors expect them to go?

    Why continue throwing vast amounts of cash at worthless campaign ads when a tiny fraction would/could actually inform people of reality in a way they can defend their ideas with family and friends? Why wait til a campaign every two or four years to counter the relentless 365 lying? By then it is way too late.

    My point is that there isn’t a plan. There isn’t a project. We know there’s an interest. Look at the following Tucker Carlson has.

28. It’s because out representatives are in on the the take
    It couldn’t be more obvious, too many on the right have assisted in efforts to destroy Trump.

29. TJ (6:45 pm) said: “Re physicsguy and M J R. What the Right fails to do is INSTITUTIONALIZE their control of power.”

    TJ, I’m interested in your idea. I’d be interested if you might expound on it.

    From where I sit, the hard left got there first, commenced their Gramscian march through the institutions, while we good guys didn’t take them sufficiently seriously; consequently, we good guys were very slow to react, and here we are.

    If we institutionalize — if I understand your intent — what we then get is two bitterly competing leagues of institutionalized entities. I don’t know how the good guys’ faction gets to overwhelm the other guys’ faction, especially given their huge head start and almost hegemonous control of our existing institutions.

    Combine that with the LIV [low information voter*] phenomenon and the human tendency towards stubborn inertness, and we have ourselves a major problem.

    * ignoring for now, the fact that who counts the votes appears to be more significant than who [is alive and is a legal citizen] in fact votes

30. “…fails to…INSTITUTIONALIZE their control of power…”

    Um, er, folks, NOT institutionalizing control is PRECISELY HOW IT’S SUPPOSED TO WORK IN AMERICA.
    As planned and hammered out—painstakingly—by the Founding Fathers.
    And as expounded and defended by the Constitution.

    That the Democrats have actively subverted, perverted, twisted, warped, polluted and TRANSFORMED this precious feature—and REVOLUTIONARY SYSTEM—of government, OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, careening on their elaborately concocted, multi-level scheme to effect its utter destruction would seem to have ALSO utterly blinded us to this—ironically—in our attempt to protect it.
    Which is why the Democratic Party’s RUSH to destroy the country is, for them, entirely WIN-WIN.

    YEs, government, OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE; Which is, in fact, what the DEMOCRATS intend to have perish from this earth.
    And they intend to do the perishing…sorry, make that TRANSFORMING.

    Conservatives will have to be smarter; and more loyal to the principles on which the country was founded, survived and flourished…
    …but this is precisely the crux of the problem, isn’t it?

31. Speaking of “getting the message out”, here’s a masterfully comprehensive article on the obstacles that the Democrats and their co-conspirators have cleverly, and diabolically, erected:
    “Combating The Censorship Industrial Complex”—
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/combating-censorship-industrial-complex

    No, it’s not entirely new; but it’s necessary to understand the nature of the conflict.
    And the enemy.

32. The QUINTESSENTIAL “Biden” nominee (along with slippery Sam Brinton):
    “A corrupt ‘progressive reformer’ goes down in flames”—
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/a-corrupt-progressive-reformer-goes-down-in-flames
    H/T Powerline blog
    Opening grafs (RTWT):
    ‘…Back in 2021, President Joe Biden fought hard to win Senate confirmation for Rachael Rollins to become the U.S. attorney in Massachusetts. Rollins was the district attorney of Suffolk County, which includes Boston, and she had become notorious by pledging not to prosecute many crimes. Early in her term, she published the “Rollins Memo” that listed 15 crimes in which the “default is to decline prosecuting”….
    ‘ Here is the list: 1) Trespassing, 2) shoplifting, 3) larceny under $250, 4) disorderly conduct, 5) disturbing the peace, 6) receiving stolen property, 7) minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspended or revoked license, 8) breaking and entering into vacant property, 9) wanton or malicious destruction of property, 10) threats excluding domestic violence, 11) minors in possession of alcohol, 12) drug possession, 13) drug possession with intent to distribute, 14) resisting arrest when the only charge is resisting arrest, and 15) resisting arrest if other charges are on the list of nonprosecutable offenses.
    ‘ It was a recipe for urban disorder, all done in the name of criminal justice reform and addressing “structural racism” in the criminal justice system. But supporters, and many in the media, praised the “historic” nature of Rollins’s arrival as district attorney. She was, the stories noted, the first black woman to serve in the job. Coming in, she promised to “move now to make sure that overwhelmingly black and brown men aren’t disproportionately impacted by the criminal legal system.” The no-prosecute crime list was part of that effort.
    ‘ Rollins’s definition of justice seemed more in line with liberal politics than with justice….
    ‘ The results were predictable. “In 2020, the first full year in which her policies were in force, Boston’s violent crime rate surged, drug overdoses in Suffolk County rose, and murders skyrocketed by 38%,” wrote Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who led GOP opposition to Rollins’s nomination in the Senate.

    IOW just another “Biden”/Soros DA encouraging crime—SURPRISE!—in her community. (But have you hear much about ‘er? Or has she effectively been shoved under the rug….?)

33. Getting the word out (cont.)

    We saw what “LEGALITY” looks like under “Biden”.
    Introducing:
    FAIRNESS, “Biden”-style…
    ” ‘Fastest girl in Connecticut’ Chelsea Mitchell suing state after losing to trans athletes “—
    https://nypost.com/2023/05/31/runner-chelsea-mitchell-who-lost-to-trans-athletes-this-is-about-fairness/

    JUSTICE, “Biden”-style…
    (Hmmm. Gal Luft surfaces… This should be, um, rather interesting…)
    ” ‘Missing’ Biden family corruption probe witness Gal Luft speaks out, living as fugitive in undisclosed location”—
    https://nypost.com/2023/05/31/missing-biden-family-corruption-probe-witness-gal-luft-speaks-out-living-as-fugitive-in-undisclosed-location/

    Rinse, wash and repeat…all the way to the elections…

34. Getting the word out (cont.), continued…
    ‘Bernie Sanders rejects debt ceiling deal, says Manchin’s pipeline ‘disastrous’ for planet;
    ‘ “Climate change is, by far, the most existential threat facing our country…” said Sanders.’—
    https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/bernie-sanders-rejects-debt-ceiling-deal-says-manchins-pipeline-disastrous

    Gentlepeople, start yer [electric] engines….
    And DELUSIONALS of the world…UNITE!

35. This comment is pretty far down on the list so I don’t expect it to be read by many. However, I would like to add another perspective to this conversation about talking and speech-making. The sound of the human voice matters, is it tenor, baritone, or soprano? Is it rapid-fire speech that confuses the listener, or is the speech pattern so slow that the listener’s mind starts to wander? I believe that in some cases these qualities or characteristics that we do not speak about are important. For example, DeSantis sounds weak and uncertain. The newest Kennedy has a serious voice problem which makes it hard for me to listen to him for very long. Trump’s voice is a perfect leadership pitch and speech-making style–just saying

36. Anne:

    I hear nothing weak or uncertain in DeSantis’ voice. Kennedy, on the other hand, does have a bona fide voice defect. Trump’s voice reminds me of home – New York, that is – but it’s certainly far from “perfect” to many many people.

    None of them are what you’d call Churchillian. But then, few are.

37. Anne (1:09 pm), I got to the “far down” part of the list, and here I am, crediting your point about “the sound of the human voice”. Let’s add physical appearance and demeanor.

38. Neo: I thought it would be good to bring an awareness of this quality–or lack of–to the discussion. You are correct that a voice will affect everyone differently, but we should be aware of the many possibilities: like, don’t like, comfort, threatening, weak, etc. It has an impact whether we like it or not.

    MJR–you are right to add personal appearance and demeanor. All these things add up toward a voter’s decision to vote yea or nay.

39. Anne, and add in the role or perception of command of the topic: using notes or a teleprompter, or not, etc. Initially Obama looking left and looking right seems to convey that command, but once you realize he is simply reading from teleprompters on each side, that impact declines. But he did have some really talented speech writers, if you could believe what he said.

    Plus some of us with hearing issues will hear a speech slightly differently from others with normal hearing.

    And it may be warmer weather, or more casual events, but I seem to see more speakers avoiding a tie, although the suit coat/jacket still seems required to convey “suitedness” or seriousness. And sometimes even that is not used. Jim Jordan can make his case without it.

40. R2L
    Some or many suits had, some still have, padding in the shoulders to emphasize the shoulders, giving at least a subliminal impression of strength and dominance.
    When you think about it, as clothing, no padding is needed. It’s there for some other reason.
    Victorian, Edwardian, Regency fashions for the wealthier men emphasized the shoulders to an extent we don’t see today.

41. No.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>