Insane Conservative Posse (ICP)
Thomas Eddlemm reported in the NewAmerican on Monday that President Bush admitted to weighing his options on whether or not to use military personnel on American soil to apprehend what were believed to be terror suspects while they were in New York.? Mr. Eddlemm utilizes a number of talking points raised in the initial article written by New York Times’ reporters Mark Mazzetti and David Johnston.? Posse Comitatus is described thusly:
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Mr. Eddlemm seems to be insinuating that the Bush Administration violated law by merely entertaining the notion.? Which, obviously, is not so.? I can only imagine the amount of time I myself would be serving, or anyonefor that matter, if we were guilty merely because we thought about committing a crime.? Furthermore, who is to say that the President would have even been committing a crime had he done this, or who is to say that using operators inside the United States has not already been done period (read Eric Haney’s interviews).?
There are two troubling aspects with this article.? Number one, there are self-described Conservatives who seem to be tirelessly pursuing an agenda that parallels that of our liberal friends on the left.? Secondly, someone at New America is using The New York Timesas a foundation for their thought.? How far before some conservatives are quoting Sy Hersh as a respectable citizen-journalist??
-rj
I hope you’re happy…
I hope you?re happy. The populists who write letters and e-mails to these AIG workers threatening to kill them, to cause harm to their families, etc. This populism transcends mere ideological labels, and I will address that matter a little later. I wanted to elucidate for you all an article in the New York Times Opinion section entitled Dear A.I.G., I Quit! In the letter, we hear the cries from a gentleman who did nothing but work to get where he got, only to have his character and integrity viciously attacked by the media, by faux Conservative populists, and by the members of Congress that allowed for the bonuses in Federal legislation. This is a man, an American, a human being with a family. Such situations remind me of the scene in HBO?s John Adams series when they demonstrate the atrocity of tar-and-feathering. When John Adams asks of his cousin if this is justified, is it justified to ruin the lives of people and trounce the rule of law (grounded in either civil institution or provided by Providence, do unto others??) because they are being guided by their unbounded passions.
I ask that everyone read the words of this man, and actually attempt to understand both sides of this situation before continuing down the road with pitchforks and torches in hand. I am not condoning the bonuses for all of the individuals involved, but I would be much more satisfied knowing that I knew the true ramifications of the populist rhetoric were I to perpetuate it on any medium I could.
There is a dangerous faction taking hold of our dear philosophy. They do not extol a true strength in numbers, but they are the most bombastic wing. The people who forward Alex Jones e-mails, the people who update their Facebook statuses with constant hatred and vitriol: CONSTANT! How did we feel when people were disrespectful to President Bush? We dismissed the liberals who made their nefarious comments about President Bush?s administration as overzealous and classless. Now we are acting just as those we held contempt for years earlier. I do not agree with anything about President Obama, but I will address him as such and grant him the proper title of which my country men bestowed upon his being. He is our President, get over it. Don?t like his policies, don?t like his past, don?t like him; but act with candid class nonetheless. We are not going to advance our cause if we allow these intellectually incompetent buffoons speak for Conservatism as a whole. Theirs is a philosophy that borders anarchy.
I want to go back to the Facebook statuses. These have now become billboards for the extraordinary. People posts hundreds of statuses forwarding the most random and sometimes obtrusive indictments. If you want to believe in FEMA camps, if you want to believe in the New World Order and the Illuminati (who were very much libertarians of their day), then go ahead. But people are posting these YouTube clips as sole testimony of unadulterated fact! Animosity runs rampant and ?conservatives? are forwarding and continuing these messages of distrust and hate.
In the end, I just want people to calm down for a second. I agree with the Tea Parties, I work where I see first hand what is going on with the economy, and day after day I have to try and ameliorate situations where people face their worst fears: losing a home, a job, their health. Acting like rabid dogs sicking the mail-man because he symbolizes the government is not going to advance our cause. We have to take a deep breath and articulate our philosophy, because it is the best one. We have to win over moderates not by becoming more moderate as Mr. Frum advocates, but by relating to the moderates by showing we understand how government works, we understand the problems people face, and we know how to run a better and more efficient government. How is someone supposed to trust a ?Conservative? Huey Long, who babbles from his pulpit about hating the government, that they can run the government better? I want to be reactionary as well, but sometimes when we start to get out of hand, we need to sit, count to seven, grab a handful of Jelly Bellys and just think.
-rj
Conservatives Just Don’t “Get It”
You’ve heard this right? Conservatives just don’t “get it” when it comes to technology, social networking, and Internet marketing.
Really?
I’m so sick of hearing this. What secret technology recipe do Dems and liberals hold in this medium? What have they done that is so damn special? Everywhere I turn I’m being fed this line about how liberals have cornered the market on online politics. Why? Because the Obama campaign used Twitter, Facebook, and put a donate button on their campaign website? Please…
MoveOn.org is certainly a big player in some areas of webspace, and they have no equal in the conservative cybersphere…yet. TheVanguard.org argues that they will be the conservative answer to Moveon. This is a promise we have heard before, so I will remain cautiously optimistic. But while we are on the subject, what is it that MoveOn has on it’s website that is so mind blowingly special?
I circled it for you in case you are a conservative/libertarian that just doesn’t “get it”:
The MoveOn page is filled with rhetoric and articles. As an aside if you look closely you will pick out blatant misleading numbers all on one page. Their email sign up claims 4 million members. The article under “Success Stories” claims 5 million members in the title. While just under the title the actual story print claims 4.2 million members. I wish my boss paid me an extra 80% on every 20% of the dollar I made. But I digress.
The big FTW that liberals all other the Internet sipping their techno-lattes are getting all worked up about is how many email addresses MoveOn has collected via what boils down to a newsletter sign up box, a donate button, and a graphic icon link to their Facebook and YouTube fan sites. That’s it folks. That’s what the big liberal Net geniuses are walking around heads in the clouds over. High-five guys! You conquered the Internetz!
What is the actual gain from this? MoveOn had close to $60 million in donations in 2004, and unless usual donors took their money straight to Obama, it’s safe to assume that the number was close to that in 2008.
While not in direct competition, The Heritage Foundation had a similar endowment in 2008 and also holds a similar size contact list. Being that Heritage is a think tank, and not a social club, many of their priorities are different. But there endowment certainly allows them to compete in the same spaces that a group like MoveOn is battling for ground in.
But what are the real numbers here? Why can’t conservatives compete in the webspace like they do in talk radio in meatspace? Why don’t we get it? What aren’t we getting?
WHAT WE DON’T GET IS THAT WE HAVE BOUGHT INTO A LIE THAT WE “DON’T GET IT”.
… in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
?Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X
Look at the numbers:
MoveOn is winning the Facebook war. That’s pure Paris Hilton “hot” right there. You guys can trade pictures and make cute references to the Messiah’s newest portrait in your status bar. But Facebook isn’t the only application in webspace. Liberals claim to be controlling everything. But the numbers don’t add up. The DNC less than half the subscribers or channel views than the much webspace belabored RNC on YouTube. And the RNC easily rivals MoveOn in YouTube channel subscribers, falling behind by only 500 subscribers, but actually having 65,000 more views of channel content. And Twitter, the Internet rage that is constantly talked about by liberals like they invented it is completely dominated by conservative and libertarian organizations! In fact MoveOn and the DNC don’t even have representation on Twitter. And let’s not even discuss individual members of Congress’ Twitter or Facebook adherence. They all have them. No one has an advantage.
So why are liberals and media outlets always saying that conservatives “get it”? Because of Obama.
The Obama campaign’s technology effort which receives ravenous attention didn’t invent these applications or even use them any differently than anyone else in the conservative movement, with the exception of my.barackobama.com which allowed individuals to organize local events online. Ultimately a brilliant strategy. But It is no secret that Obama implemented an 18 month online social networking strategy, while John McCain simply pushed hard at the end, running what amounted to be a 72 hour “get out the vote” train wreck. The reality of what happened last year was that Obama’s team produced an in depth Internet strategy from the very beginning. The Internet was not just a webpage used to promote his candidacy and explain his policies. It was used to connect like minded individuals through various ranges of social networking.
This isn’t something new to conservatives and libertarians.
It was new to John McCain’s campaign staff and John McCain. And by the time McCain got on board with a decent Internet strategy, that ship had sailed, and Obama’s web presence was rolling down a mountain like a Mac truck with no brakes. When liberal pundits are issuing their insults toward the other sides comprehension and use of Internet applications, they are thinking of the Obama campaign specifically, and not the broad strokes. What Obama did with technology and did early was a great move. But the uses of tech in his campaign was not some secret cauldron of witch brew which only liberals had the necessary skills to use. Conservatives have been using the same tools for years. And when we saw them being used by Obama and used successfully, we were sitting around all thinking, “This stuff should be obvious, we are all using it, why isn’t McCain.” Conservatives have it right. They’ve “got it”. In fact if you want a closer look at how well they get it, look to efforts like CEI’s openmarket.org, bureaucrash.com, globalwarming.org, or the Heritage Foundation’s stopspendingourfuture.org, 33-minutes.com or their joint venture ReadTheStimulus.org. Or try RedCountry.com, RedState.com, TopConservativesOnTwitter.com (#tcot), atr.org (Americans for Tax Reform), netrightnation.com; these go on forever.
The RNC’s loss of Cyrus Krohn is a tough blow. But you can’t build an empire with one hammer. And furthermore, the duties of the RNC specifically does not necessarily need to be creating and implementing new widgets and whatzits. It needs to be making sure that the next candidate is. If the RNC was behind at some point then let’s be clear, the RNC is not the conservative movement.
Realistically, there is also more to the story. While conservative get technology and use it effectively, the last campaign was riddled with problems. Mixed messages and feelings over the Bush policy, the party being sporadic with their message, and many conservatives feeling like they were being left behind and no strong voice to represent their political ideology. At the same time, Democrats were very united. Not by Twitter or Facebook, but by a common theme, ‘Paint McCain as another Bush — No more Bush!”
For conservatives to rebound, and additionally re-capture the votes of moderates and libertarians they don’t need to just use technology well. Getting a lot of followers on Facebook or Twitter will not win an election. Conservatives need a unified voice, a return to traditional conservative values, and a common theme.
Which they have found, in Obama.
-nick
?I have heard there are troubles of more than one kind. Some come from ahead and some come from behind. But I’ve bought a big bat. I’m all ready you see. Now my troubles are going to have troubles with me!?
