Replies

I think there is a lot of good points here. This is perhaps how you begin to reach those “minds full of mush” (as Rush calls them).

It is an extremely delicate balancing act though. As far as my listening tastes with talk radio, I really get turned off by what I call the “Beck circus act”. I feel like I’m tuned into a constant comedy routine between him and Pat(??) and someone else. If I want comedy, I’ll tune into the Blue Collar Comedy channel. I don’t mind a decent balance of comedy or as Rush says “demonstrate the absurd with absurdity” or something like that. But you have to get serious and drive the point home without sounding like it’s the end of the world and laughing about it.

I know I’m starting to ramble but on the flip side, I also get extremely bored with the droning on of some of the talk show hosts that seem to do the same “spiel” day in and day out without any breaks. I like variety.

I like to say if someone stole my Ipod and listed to it, they would think I am crazy. I have some “high powered jazz”, rock, oldies, comedy, “spoof songs”, and country. I leave my Ipod on “shuffle” with all these coming at me randomly. I think that’s why I get bored with some of these talk shows that don’t mix it up.

A collection of stratagems that, I think, on aggregate are quite viable and attuned to the current political and social environment. It is about capturing an audience, and most of the people trying to represent Conservatism either are unable to communicate well (as in, deliver a cogent coherent message), or are otherwise to engaged in preaching to the choir (espousing the beauty and logic of conservative ideals to people who are already conservative, and thus having no impact in spreading the message). For example, Rush is a nice chap, but his audience really is the choir! On the other hand, the Left is quite clever in using all media under their control to propagate their view points ...e.g. (nearly) every sitcom, talk show, movie, music, ad, social media, etc is overtly and covertly advocating liberal perspectives to the extent that quite a number of conservative precepts have been made to appear stupid/obsolete/anathema.

The sad thing though is this. Your points will NEVER get accepted by the GOP. The one advantage Liberals have over Conservatives (be they RINOs or actual Conservatives) is that in their bid to 'accept' everything, and in the process inundating themselves with useless and stupid ideas, every now and then they stumble across something worthy of note. Eg the use of social media and tv programming by the Obama administration during the election campaign, and the sophistication of their GOTV program (especially compared to the totally useless analogue the Romney campaign tried to use). The Obama version was honestly spectacular, proving minute-by-minute updates. Thus, Liberals are more likely to look at new ways of doing things. Conservatives? Not as much ...by the time a new approach is adopted it is quite likely to be obsolete. This is not even about new ideas but even thought patterns. Look for instance how during the Republican Primaries the candidates were doing Obama's job for him ...smearing each other with mud and muck. Or how Conservatives refused to agree on one Conservative candidate to support, leading to Romney clinching the nomination. This will also be the case in 2016 ...you will most probably see some conservatives reject someone who could beat the GOP-elite, as well as win the general election, simply because he doesn't believe the world was created 6,000 years ago and men walked with dinosaurs. That alone is worth not supporting him. Think that is impossible? Check my posts of a couple days ago where I responded to some FReeper who was talking about the curses of Noah on Ham and Shem and how 'races shouldn't mix.' I'm sure his post is still there ...and yet we are trying to get non-White voters to consider the Republican party even though some of us think anyone non-White is 'cursed.'

The more I think about it the more I realize that the GOP needs to go back to it's conservative roots, AND to nominate someone who IS a great communicator (not just preaching to the choir ...Rush exists for that ...but able to effectively espouse conservative precepts to non-conservatives), and someone who is able to control the message (for McCain and Romney the media crafted the narrative, which was obviously negative ...we need someone who will control the narrative). Nominating a conservative who is able to communicate within the base and outside the base, and who doesn't let the MSM define his/her narrative, is NOT impossible to do ...but I doubt it will be accepted. You'll probably see a repeat of 2008 and 2012.