NoMoreBlatherDotCom's blog

Per the Politico [1]:

Shocker poll from Kos/Research2000 today... A whopping 58 percent of Republicans either think Barack Obama wasn't born in the US (28 percent) or aren't sure (30 percent). A mere 42 percent think he was... When do we start a serious dialog about the Birther movement being a proxy for racism that is unacceptable to articulate in more direct terms?

Suggested moron responses from the GOP, GOP consultants, libertarian leaders, and major bloggers:

1. Double down on distancing themselves from the "birthers".

2. Just keep repeating to the MSM that they aren't racists.

3. Compliment the Politico on their great reporting.

4. Temporary, unfocused outrage.

5. Just ignore it, it'll go away.

Meanwhile, the non-moron response is discussed here, and as a tangible example did you know that Ben Smith lies and misleads?

[1] politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/

58_of_GOP_not_suredont_beleive_Obama_born_in_US.html

From this:

Despite his apparent disagreement with her on a range of issues, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is emerging as one of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s biggest supporters.

Perhaps because it’s clear she’ll be confirmed and he wants to convince Americans there’s a “softer,” more inclusive side to the Republican party, Graham just tried to convince GOP witness Linda Chavez, chair of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, that Sotomayor really isn’t all that bad.

“When I look at her I see some things that bug the hell out of me, but I also see some things that really impresses me,” he said, after Chavez testified against Sotomayor’s confirmation...

There's even more bad at the link, and it would be great if others could list all the bad in that one short article. For instance, should GOP "inclusivity" include those who joined not just one but two far-left racial power groups that support illegal activity?

One of the best ways to oppose Obama is to push back effectively against lies and smears from his media supporters and the like. I could go into details if anyone wants, but those who try usually do it in an ineffective way. And, others can't even help themselves.

For instance, two bloggers at the Center for American Progress' blog appear to be lying or misleading about an Sotomayor ad: link, link. Because CAP is linked to the Obama admin and has also been the source for a large number of Obama-supporting stories (including smears), it would be nice to minimize their impact by showing others that they occasionally lie. Stories coming from those known to be liars will have much less of an impact than those coming from credible sources. (I can add more about that point if necessary).

While I've spent some of my time pointing out examples of how ThinkProgress is lying, I don't have a time-folding machine and, unfortunately, I can't do everything myself. If I could do everything myself then things would be different.

But, since I can't, I sought out help by asking others to simply watch the video in question (link) and provide a transcript. It's only like 30 seconds so you'd think someone would have done it. Yet, those at Althouse (link), Ace.mu.nu (link), and Freerepublic (link) couldn't even do that. Now, certainly, no one has any responsibility to actually do that. But, if supposed Obama opponents can't even help out with something so simple, isn't that an indication of a deeper, more Darwinistic problem?

UPDATE: Here's my post on Ian Millhiser's TP post. The first three paragraphs are something that anyone else could have done but for some reason chose not to for unknown reasons.

[UPDATE: The below is obviously too much to ask for those who've already capitulated. However, let's bargain: will even those who want to lose try to help get a concession of some kind out of her? For instance, it would not be impossible to get her to renounce the NCLR. And, that would help blunt the impact they have in general and might prevent her from doing what they want should she be confirmed. Deal?]

If many of Sonia Sotomayor's online opponents concentrated on opposing her in effective ways, she might not be confirmed. At the very least, that opposition would deal a blow to the Obama administration and the MSM. If her approval ratings drop low enough - or some new information on her is discovered - she might be forced to withdraw. At the very least, fighting her nomination in the correct way can be used to push back against the Obama administration and groups linked to it.

Here's how to do it:

 1. Find someone to put together one comprehensive, accessible, fully-sourced list of the reasons to oppose her. The audience should be the general public, not just lawyers. All the legal arguments against her need to be there, but that needs to be put into footnotes. The main portion should concentrate on "wise Latina", an accessible summary of Ricci, her involvement with the two far-left racial power groups, and so on. And, it would be a huge mistake for that list to only be of interest to conservatives. It should point out why anyone who's not far-left should oppose her. Sending around a link from the Heritage Foundation or similar will probably be rejected by many; it needs to be from a non-partisan group. And, it needs to be organized in such a fashion that it's not rejected immediately by many: unnecessary details need to be put into footnotes. And, obviously, it needs to be completely truthful, and arguments others might raise with the article need to be taken into account and rolled into the article.

2. A key part of the opposition to her should be her membership in the National Council of La Raza, a group that gave an award to someone who'd proposed genocide years earlier. See my completely fact-based coverage of that and their many other issues at that link. Note that it's very important to tell only the truth about that group: confusing them with other groups with similar names or misleading about what they support actually serves their interests.

3. Another key part of the opposition to her should be the fact that she was on the board of the PRLDEF. Someone with a wide audience needs to organize a coordinated group effort to do research into her past activities with that group. Most of that research will have to be done in person at offline archives at colleges and the like in NYC.

4. You need to send links about her to all your friends, and urge them to send them on to their friends. Post about her to forums, mailing lists, and the like. Everyone should be encouraged to contact as many national politicians as possible stating their opposition to her confirmation. Until such time as the comprehensive summary is available, you'll need to send a series of links.

5. Those who have websites should attempt to discredit her supporters who lie or mislead about her. Actually trying to discredit MSM reporters and the like is a very powerful tool, but it's one that many don't use or do so in a largely ineffective way. For how to do that effectively, see this. Two recent articles that could be discussed are this and this. You need to show those who might otherwise believe them why they're wrong. If you don't have a website, that can also be done by leaving comments on news and blog entries presenting a fact-based argument why the reporter or blogger is wrong. Concentrate on discrediting the reporter or blogger and try to avoid getting into useless arguments with other commenters, especially those who are sockpuppets. And, posting the 100th comment about this situation in an online echo chamber is a waste of everyone's time. Consider spending that time on something actually effective.

6. Being realistic is a good thing, and not everyone is in a position where they can go to the wall in their opposition to her. However, some people who are in a position to oppose her are instead sounding like Tokyo Rose. Let them know you'll be holding them accountable for what she does on the court. In some cases, call them out publicly by name. If someone buys into the NCLR's spin that all Hispanics think alike, point out to them how they're wrong. That isn't difficult to do, it's just that few people try to do it.

If her online opponents put some work into this using the points above, she might not be confirmed. Please send the link to this post to others and urge them to get involved.

"To go forward, GOP must snap out of its Sarah Palin spell" (link) is the latest from GOP consultant Mike Murphy. You don't have to be a Palin supporter to realize that he's attempting to put a smiley face on the gross incompetence of the campaign he worked for.

For instance, he says that independents ran away from Palin a few weeks after her selection. What he fails to note is that the smears of her began within a week after she'd been selected, and the McCain campaign - aside from some posturing against the NYT - had little or no response. Of course, the bloggers weren't any better, either failing to push back against those smears or doing it in an ineffective way.

In fact, my posts about smears against Sarah Palin might have had more of an impact against those lies than the McCain campaign and bloggers combined. And, great as I think I am, that's not such a good thing.

I've just updated my extensive summary and coverage of the tea party movement where I list several reasons why their movement should be ignored. Their ideology is highly flawed, their events make no political sense, and their methods are ineffective. Not only that, but their Beltway supporters also support something that will make the things the "partiers" complain about worse and they're mostly ignoring things that should have a higher priority.

If anyone disagrees, let me know.

Youtube is soliciting videos that will be asked of Obama at tomorrow's townhall: link. As described here, these type of contests are shams. Youtube is very Obama-friendly and they aren't about to ask Obama anything that would make him look bad.

However, if enough people watch this video I just submitted to the contest, it might send at least something of a message:

First, the dumb and ineffective way to stop Cap and Trade ("CAT") is the tea party way: standing outside a meeting hall chanting like the ACORN Kindergarten League (link). That's the way promoted by Glenn Reynolds and Redstate.

This post is about the smart and effective way to achieve your goal.

If you oppose CAT, then presumably you have valid arguments against it, right? Otherwise, why do you oppose it?

Also, presumably, you think your opponents' arguments are wrong in various ways.

If you're able to show that they're wrong, and you're able to do that in a major, highly-publicized fashion, then won't that go a long way towards blocking CAT?

So, how do you do that? The MSM isn't going to do it, and Pelosi isn't going to return your email. Discussing this issue in echo chambers on the net is going to have an impact, in that it might encourage people to contact their leaders and it might encourage some people to send out emails that will inform others about this issue. But, that's not going to take on the other side.

However, there is something you can do that will be very effective.

Here's what you do:

1. Take your valid arguments and compare them to what opposition leaders say, looking for conflicts, contradictions, things they aren't mentioning, things they're lying about, and so on.

2. Fashion the preceding into questions for the opposition ("you said X, but evidence shows Y is true"; "you said X but you forgot to mention Y and Z", etc.)

3. Go to public appearances by those leaders and ask them those questions to their face on video.

4. Upload the video of them being "p0wned" to Youtube, and promote it.

If even just a few people did that, it would have a major impact on the debate. If Pelosi gets "p0wned" over the issue - in a valid, logical and thus difficult to counter way - and hundreds of thousands see it on Youtube and millions see it on cable TV, that's going to have an impact on the issue.

And, you don't have to do all of this yourself. You can form into groups, with people choosing roles depending on what they're best on. Policy experts can come up with the questions, someone familiar with both the issue and with asking questions can go to the meeting, someone else can videotape it, and so on.

It's also vitally important to know how to ask questions in an effective way. If you just rant or ask an open-ended question, you might end up helping the opposition. Organizing such groups is left up to you.

Helen Krieble is an heiress to the Loctite fortune; whether she's a billionaire or just a multi-millionaire isn't known. She also runs a horse farm and, after having trouble finding workers, she came up with her own immigration plan a few years ago. Now, she's renewing her push with the "Red Card Temporary Workers Solution", a guest workers scheme that would allow an unlimited number of foreign citizens to take part. As discussed at the last link, it's absurd and divorced from reality. It probably doesn't have much of a chance of getting anywhere, but just how bad an idea it is provides a glimpse into the "profits at any price" mindset.

Tea partiers might also want to note that she pals around with Dick Armey, one of the puppetmasters of the tea party movement. I'm going to guess that most tea partiers don't know that some of their string-pullers support something that not only increases spending but that gives even more power to the far-left.

The Center for American Progress should be one of the main targets of Obama opponents for a few reasons: they're funded by Soros, they provide the administration with ideas and people, and they're incredibly dumb and thus easy to discredit.

For an example of the last, see this recent post at their "Wonk Room" blog. Considering its name, you might expect a dry, intellectually honest discussion of important matters. Now, go read that post.

In an attempt to try to get people to actually do something effective, I posted this request that people go there and leave comments showing the site's readers how the post was wrong. It's obviously wrong in many ways, so that shouldn't be that difficult.

Yet, checking a couple hours later there are zero (0) comments on the blog post. One would think that simply choosing one part of that blog post and discussing how it's wrong would be easier than waving a loopy sign on a street corner just like ACORN does, but I guess that's wrong.

If anyone wants to do something effective, please try to explain what I'm getting at to others. Obviously I'm not getting through.

UPDATE: Initially, I thought I should add a note on this post pointing out that I spend an incredible amount of time each day posting adversarial comments on websites. For instance, my current file containing comments I've left since November stands at 1.64 megabytes. Previous files at 1.58 and 2.30 megabytes. This search brings up 770 hits. This, 199 hits. (Both no doubt include duplicate pages, etc.)

I didn't mention that because I figured no one would be stupid enough to play a tu quoque game. Obviously, I didn't count on NextRightNando.