Rules For O’Reilly and Republicans

Bill O’Reilly is smaller than Michelle Bachmann.

Here we have the Fox News star going after Congressman Michele Bachmann for her comments at the recent CPAC confab.  The video link is via none other than the Huffington Post. His complaint was that in an extemporaneous  commentary on a variety of subjects, focused mainly on the Benghazi coverup, Bachmann through in some ridicule at other aspects of the Obamanation, including the Obamas’ choice upkeep.

Bachmann quoted an expose on the Obama’s expensive  personal lifestyle, again not the focus of her speech.  One or two of the items she mentioned may not be the most egregious perk grabs at taxpayer expense but there are many that are that O’Reilly could not bring himself to acknowledge in context, thus giving her some credit . . . you know . . .  in pursuit of the whole fair and balanced thing.

O’Reilly is more guilty of what he accuses Bachmann of, playing small ball.  He does so by not only failing to acknowledge what he took issue with was not the main content of her speech, from a conservative standpoint he fails to see that the issue of excesses is emblematic of the rank hypocrisy of the Democratic “community organizer  . . . man of the people”  president.

Our Belle Michele was quickly revived when it was explained to her by the media that sequestration did not apply to her perks.

Indeed he defends Obama on the perks score with the statement that Obama is “entitled to protection, convenience and comfort as he runs the nation.”  As if the associated costs and the appropriateness of the level are out of bounds.  He justifies his objection with the statement that Bachmann “can’t back up her criticism, and actually trivializes a huge problem: irresponsible spending by the federal government.”

She does no such thing by bringing up matters ordinary people, not policy wonks, can relate to.  Providing a little fodder for activists to refer LIVs (low information voters) to is not inappropriate. Telling them about policies, geometric costs, burgeoning debt, etc. is fine but conservatives like Bachmann have been and heretofore the LIVs still do not doubt Obama’s sincerity in dealing with such matters.  They need to.  One way is to expose their ways.  The Obama’s are not objectively concerned with the effect of policy on present and future generations. Their appearances expose that to LIVs.

Making such points is right out of the Democrats playbook. They paint Republicans as rich and uncaring in order to advance their political agenda.  The prime devotee of their very  playbook, Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, is  Barack “the community organizer” Obama.

We have set forth below four of the thirteen “rules”  that Democrats employ in their rhetoric all of the time.  We ask, why does O’Reilly want to shield Obama?  Why do Republican leaders not aggressively, consistently raise these very sorts of issues.  Personalize, personalize, personalize. It is the Democrat stock in trade and it works.

• RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

• RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

• RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

• RULE 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Obama has a set of priorities that does not help or represent America’s desperate needs or values.

Reflect on just these four “rules” in relation to the Obamas’ known regal lifestyle at taxpayer expense and how other Presidents and First Ladies in our history approached the perquisites of office. Reflect on how Republicans are portrayed by Obama and the Democrat Party and why calling them out on their hypocrisy is legitimate. Republicans can and should use these “rules” to articulate truths.

O’Reilly made a specific objection to the accusation that Obama has a dog walker, denying it on Obama’s behalf.  Yet the very debunkers of the “dog walker” accusation O’Relly relies on essentially admit that the White House gardener is tasked to do so whenever, and that is in defense of their denial. So the Obama’s have a part time dog walker and that is supposed to undermine an offhand remark worthy of his eminence’s prime-time demurral?  Is “personal assistant” part of the good gardener’s job description or is it to keep the grounds of the people’s house in order?

That the gardener was ever expected to walk the dog on or off the clock would be fodder for a grievance by this ilk in the Obama Democrat world  of  righteous indignation. May we humbly suggest that the gardener has better things to do at tax payer expense and that the Obama’s should walk their own dog, or have the kids  run it around the back yard.  Who do they think they are?   R Mall

0

0