Skip to content

July 21, 2011


Rogue Chats Campaign Strategy With Andrew Breitbart

by RogueOperator

I had the good fortune of picking the brain of the late conservative rabble-rouser extraordinaire Andrew Breitbart on The Dennis Miller Show regarding campaign strategy for the upcoming election season. Specifically, I wanted to know how to target “moderates,” also known as the millions of Americans who have hit the snooze bar and may or may not wake up in time to throw President Obama out of office. The overriding concern is whether or not conservatives can go after the left as hard as it goes after them without being painted as “extremist” and thus turning off moderates.  The alternative is a jujitsu maneuver, whereby you let the leftists look like the extremists they are.

On the advice of Breitbart (audio), I have tried to show how the Socratic Method can be used to pivot the conversation onto moderates and place them in the awkward position of having to defend and codify their views, or else appear the fool.

Download the full show of Andrew Breitbart’s guest hosting for Dennis Miller here.

The best article on using the Socratic Method against the left I have ever read can be found on the satirical anti-communist website The People’s Cube.

But if you don’t want to strain a brain cell arguing with a mush-minded moderate, one easy way to expose hypocrisy is to point out what Obama has done while in office, and ask the simple question “What if George W. Bush Did This?”

  • If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
  • If George Bush had slipped up on the campaign trail and claimed that there were 57 states instead of 50, would you have thought he would be the president with the highest IQ in history, as one pundit claimed?
  • What if George W. Bush had flown his favorite pizza chef to Crawford from St. Louis?
  • If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
  • If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
  • If George W. Bush had given the British Prime Minister a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVD’s, when the British PM had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
  • If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
  • If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
  • If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
  • If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
  • If George W. Bush had misspelled the word ‘advice’ would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and ‘potato’ as proof of what a dunce he is?
  • If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
  • If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they really felt and understood what happened on 9-11?
  • If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
  • If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
  • If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
  • If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
  • If George W. Bush lauded one of the most corrupt political groups in the U.S., Acorn, one that he worked for and tried to funnel billions of dollars to, would you have doubted his integrity?
  • If George W. Bush had tried to set up more than three dozen “czars” (unconfirmed officials accountable directly to him), would you not have thought this a terrible executive overreach?
  • If George W. Bush had wanted to control over one-seventh of the U.S. economy, would you have supported him?
  • If George W. Bush ran on a platform of pulling the troops out of Iraq immediately, and then seven months later there had been very little draw-down?
  • And after that, he then called for many more troops to be sent to Afghanistan, a war with no end in sight?
  • Then what if he would have declared yet another war, without Congressional approval, in Libya?

So, tell me, what is it about Obama that makes him so different than Bush or any other lying politician? What problem has Obama actually solved while in office? And where exactly is the hope and change?

6 Comments Post a comment
  1. Jul 21 2011

    Food for thought, Rogue…but Socrates was convicted of corrupting the youth of Athens, and–at least according to Wiki–“when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggests a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life..” kind of like the stipend our Congress critters award themselves today for their stalwart service. IMHO, more of ’em should voluntarily drink the conium…

    • Jul 21 2011

      So are you saying maybe I should carry some hemlock on me?

      • Jul 21 2011

        Ha..only if you plan on offering it to some Democrats. I wouldn’t keep any on you, though. With the mess Obama’s making of things, you might be tempted to sip it yourself.

  2. m082844
    Jul 21 2011

    “The overriding concern is whether or not conservatives can go after the left as hard as it goes after them without being painted as “extremist” and thus turning off moderates.”

    These losers (leftists) have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, which is why they act as they do – like loudmouthed hooligans. They are evil, in the sense that they choose not to support a philosophy which enables men to support their own life, and instead, support a philosophy that cause men to be chained to one another – those who choose to support their life with those who don’t.

    Their political philosophy is empty, irrational, and impotent – and they know it. They absolutely have nothing to lose. They don’t lose substance for not making any arguments in support of their philosophy — it’s already empty. They don’t lose anything for being irrational — they already are. They don’t lose capability for their apparent ineptitude — they are already impotent.

    We, however, do have something to lose. Our political philosophy is rooted in reality (and therefore full of practical principles), it’s rational, and it’s capable of sustaining a happy, fulfilling lifestyle for all individuals who freely participate.

    Their only hope is to paint our philosophy as evil, which leaves people with only one alternative – them. The only means for them to succeed at this is to gain legitimacy. They gain legitimacy when we don’t highlight them as empty, irrational, and impotent (and therefore dangerous); they also gain legitimacy when we highlight them as such yet we sanction their irrational arguments (or lack thereof) as something worth debating.

    When they drag us down into their irrational arguments, by our sanctioning them as someone worth debating, we lose legitimacy. The reason for this is because we give the appearance that our rational position might have a viable (rational?) opponent – them. They are then free to act like loudmouthed hooligans in an attempt to defame us, because they have nothing to lose in that regard, and if they succeed at their aims, then they have everything to gain – namely the legal ability to implement their political philosophy and chain men together in one big house of horrors.

  3. adriftnomore
    Mar 1 2012

    Bam! Nailed it. Great post.


Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. US Presidential profiles in violations of justice. (Part 10 – former President G.W. Bush) « We dream of things that never were and say: "Why not?"

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

%d bloggers like this: