As Redstate readers know, I am a shameless supporter of Ted Cruz for president.
But one of the few things of value in the Trump candidacy are the lessons of always going on offense and using psychology advantageously to tap into the anger of voters against the system.
I fear Trump will come out with more bomb throwing to the right of the 2 best options we have with his better salesmanship to gain more polling traction.
Rubio and Cruz blew it on their answers in terms of tactical shrewdness in a “no win” response situation.
The media, as usual, applies a double standard on all their pet causes and biases.
Simply stated, they always approach our leaders and especially candidates in elections years, particularly presidential ones, to “take a side against the extremist elements of the right” etc. and this policy is almost NEVER applied in reverse.
You will not hear the MSM approach HRC or even Bernie over Black Lives Matter disruptions. If any group perceived as being in line with left wing views does anything controversial or aggressive in defiance of “the system” they portray their *cause* as being worth listening to, etc.
They sympathize at least on SOME level with them and try to make lemonade from lemons, which is nearly always the best option when in such a situation, as damage control may be necessary but messaging ALWAYS IS.
A number of people believe, rightly or wrongly, that governmental overreach is on display in this case, and they want acknowledgement in the optics, not clinical responses in proper grievance management.
They argue that the Bureau of Land Management has waged a campaign against the Hammonds and assorted ranchers for years, arbitrarily revoking grazing permits and blocking off access to portions of their properties. They cite ownership of those ranches predating the creation of the BLM. They cite the takeover and increasingly larger stakes in more and more states of federally owned lands as squeezing the little guy out of their own backyard, regulating their livelihoods to the breaking point. They feel *nobody* is listening to them.
Both Cruz and Rubio showed tone deafness to these concerns. Let’s hope Trump does not see an opening here.
More and more frustration mounts when we do not demand the press to play fair and apply standards equally.
If Black Lives Matter or another group they like disrupts society unlawfully, they will still stress the anger and frustration/concerns of the protesters, not their theoretical obligation to abide by totally peaceful tactics while they work to change the laws in an honest fashion.
In fact, the left is one of the first suspects to suggest that if something like abortion is outlawed, that women will continue to have them AND that they will help them off table to obtain them, no matter what the law says. They never agree to play nice.
The point is the left never (correctly, in terms of tactics) accepts a defensive position without strings in ANY argument. They always claim the moral high ground, no matter what the issue or the details. They understand how propaganda works.
That’s not advice to us, disaffected ranchers or our candidates to urge civil unrest, but it’s never good to hand the left favors.
The goal here is to divide and conquer, pitting elements of the conservative base who are tired of heavy handed government influences in all walks of life in general, who may even oppose the tactics of the rancher factions against our own candidates.
The media is NOT your friend Ted. The media is NOT your friend, Marco!
This fishing expedition, and let’s be frank and call it that since it ALWAYS is with them, is designed to get the ball rolling in making even the most conservative candidates to “condemn the radical elements of your party” and to make conservatives who have issues GENERALLY with the government, who feel they abuse their discretion, own too much land, etc. who are NOT necessarily calling (at least not yet) for armed rebellion to feel let down by their side in terms of standing up for their concerns.
The left wants to make this into something they can use to argue for massive gun control.
They will not shed tears if things get ugly. In fact, Montel Williams is already showing the “other side” no mercy, would he do that on a pet left cause like BLM if they openly defied the authorities. Naturally the media will never ask HRC to apologize for his comments!
More importantly, they understand the importance of demoralizing conservatives and pitting them against each other.
Cruz and Rubio both gave sanitized, no red meat bone throwing answers on “the rule of law”, etc. Picking apart their answers, Cruz really bungled the opportunity to TURN THE QUESTION AROUND.
They should have both refused to overly “attack” the ranchers, because there is NO UPSIDE there.
Opinions on avoiding civil unrest, fighting the good fight more conventionally, etc. are irrelevant.
The chance if forced to answer a leftist media hack is to ALWAYS reverse the premise and go on offense, even in a case like this.
No, especially in a case like this!
They both should have said “we will talk about this when YOU GUYS call out ***HRC*** for sympathizing with the radical elements of your party” or some such thing involving OWS or BLM and any questionable demonstrations or disruptions THEY have been involved in. You do not respond in a no-win set-up with an answer that yields no upside. You attack back, hard.
You never play defense and spout an answer that will allow the media to frame the issue their way.
It does not matter if you generally agree with their answers on principle, this is about tactics!
Once you cede the parameters of the argument, everything is lost from there.
What Trump has shown, is that attacking back works. It works a lot better than being nice.
When HRC claims he’s sexist, conducting a war on women, etc. he goes after HER and threatens to expose her protection of Bill over the bimbo eruptions, which is hardly pro-feminist or woman. She is the most anti-woman person, not me, etc.
That’s the right idea in spirit, though as I’ve said, Trump is so crude he’s the wrong mouthpiece for this as he alienates so much in the process that he negates his savvy in framing the terms.
But Trump can school Marco and Ted here, since it’s clear they need to go back to class in terms of how to play their hands…