Allen G., who doesn't have a blog but probably should, wrote:

Actually, I like that idea of a speaking circuit [of sending conservatives out to speak on college campuses]. And specifically of bloggers and "minor players." Further, you need a group that is not directly linked to any of the Conservative players.

Then, it's not "The College Republicans Hosting [Whomever]," rather it's "The Open Ideas Society* Hosting [Whomever]."

This is a hobbyhorse of mine. The left never brands itself as the Left or Liberal, does it? No, they brand themselves for everyone.

We need to start doing that. For example, we shouldn't have an organization named "League of Conservative Women." (There is no such league; this is a for-instance.) We should have a "League of Women," period. Not just for "conservative women." But for all women.

We tend to brand ourselves -- and worse yet, we've internalized this to the point where we think of ourselves this way -- as "the conservative alternative."

We need start branding ourselves as, and thinking of ourselves as, the Universal Default.

This is how leftists do it and they're quite effective at it. On every cable TV show we see a debate between an "expert" and a "conservative." The "expert" is actually liberal but he insists on not being branded as such, so he becomes just "the expert."

Just in terms of the introductions, who's winning that debate? The expert (nonpolitical and learned to such an extent as to be an "expert") or the conservative (a guy coming on TV to sell you on an ideology, who, gee whiz, isn't even an expert in the subject matter)?

Every decision point is a possible failure point. Every step in a seduction or a sale (pardon this analogy) which requires a yes or no response is a possible failure point in the process.

Right up front, right from Jump Street, we give the world its first yes/no decision/failure point by identifying as conservative (or permitting the media to so brand us). Right way, there's a potential failure point, because we're asking first "Do you like conservative ideas or don't you?" Some say yes, but others say No, and thus the sale/seduction fails at the "Can I talk with you a moment?" phase.

The liberal cruises right on by that point because he hasn't asked for a decision. He didn't introduce himself as a "Liberal" trying to make a sale or get you into bed. He's just an Expert giving you some Expert Opinion, you know.

How can you say no to that? Golly jeepers, usually you'd have to pay $200 per hour for that sort of thing, and this guy's giving it to you gratis!!!

Now, the "Expert" can fail later but he can't fail over the first decision point because he's avoided the decision point entirely.

On the other hand, we can fail before we even say a word.

I continue to think that Arnold Schwarzenegger -- whatever else you think of him -- gave one of the most persuasive speeches I've ever heard at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Notice he never asks a question here (well, he puts it in the "If you believe..." form, but that's essentially a question) that almost anyone could say "No" to. It's instead a series of questions which 90% of the public would say "Yes" to. He rhetorically avoids all the Decision/Failure points.

Posted by: Ace at 12:56 PM | Comments (398)
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.

Noah C. Rothman, who identifies as a conservative (I think), writes:

Conservatives should suppress the instinct to dismiss Chris Hayes, the new host of MSNBCÂ’s 8 p.m. programming slot soon to be vacated by Ed Schultz. Yes, HayesÂ’ addition to MSNBCÂ’s prime time lineup, serving as the lead-in to the left-leaning cable networkÂ’s flagship program, The Rachel Maddow Show, signals the network will continue to represent a brand of liberalism well to the left of the American center. It is also a continuation of another trend that should trouble conservatives: MSNBC branded itself both as a sophisticated and academic debate forum in the weekends and they are moving that format to prime time. WhatÂ’s more, both Hayes and Maddow know how to make an argument that eschews force of personality and rests on data.

...

Of course, some of MSNBCÂ’s most progressive hosts are often guilty of indulging in confirmation bias. Those programs, primarily but not exclusively relegated to the networkÂ’s dayside, choose not to make a case and instead berate and mock those who disagree with their unsupported assertions. Contempt and scorn in lieu of an argument is rarely a feature, though, of Maddow or HayesÂ’ programs. They know how to make valid case for a policy prescription that is buttressed by data. Night after night, they will be arming their audience with indisputable facts designed to advance liberalism.

He then says something to the effect of "We need to emulate this."

Now I completely think he's wrong to claim Maddow doesn't indulge in contempt and scorn. I do actually tune into her -- rarely -- and what I see is nothing but contempt and scorn and smug laughing and stories pulled from Kos and some conspiracy theories, too.

But he is right in a certain way. I think he and I (and probably you) could agree -- even if we disagree on whether or not Rachel Maddow presents a "substantive," "erudite," "intellectual" show -- that she presents at least a simulacrum of these things, something that her viewers, all nine of them, mistake for these things.

I disagree strongly that she's much different than Ed what's his name, the fat red one, in what she actually says, but she does offer the tone, the surface affect, of the intellectual.

And this is important because, as I always say, one of the biggest appeals of liberalism is towards those who self-identify as intellectuals but are in fact not terribly intelligent; believing in liberalism grants them a sense of being among the Intellectual Elite which they otherwise wouldn't have.

But whether that's dumb or not (and let's confirm: It's dumb), it is nonetheless an important aspect of human behavior. Most humans are aspirational -- they set an idea in their head of the Ideal and adopt the attitudes and beliefs they see people who approach that Ideal adopting. Conservatives are less so, but I think most of us have that too.

I could even claim that Conservatives are contentious and contrarian partly because of the Ideal we have in mind that a Man or Woman Who Stands on His or Her Own Feet rejects the swell of the mob's advance and in fact swims strenuously against it. That might be taking a point too far into sophistry but whatever.

But, while I reject this daft notion that Rachel Maddow is some kind of intellectual lodestar, I do accept that people believe she is one, and they find that attractive.

And my point here is that conservative media doesn't offer enough of this sort of thing for the sort of person who clutches at the Ideal of the Intellectual Elite. Now, we actually have a lot of that, but not enough, and further most of that we have in print. Print is certainly the better medium for actual intellectual discussion-- TV is just moving pictures and fun, fun, fun! -- but it is television, not the book or magazine, which is the chief technology of propagation of ideas and straight-up propaganda in the world.

It's a matter of psychographics, understanding what people value and conning them convincing them by use of the things they value.

It does us no particular amount of good, as a political matter, to simply mock those with the psychographic profile of "Fancies himself and intellectual and responds strongly to faux shows of intellectualism he sees on his Idiot Box." It's fun to do, of course, but end of the day, we cannot change people. At best, we can change votes. Changing the core personality type of a person is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do; I would imagine most psychiatrists would confess it's all but impossible, even given a motivated, self-selecting cadre of people who want to change their cores and are willing to spend two hours and $600 per week attempting it. (I know the noun-verb agreement there is wrong but writing it the "correct" way reads weird.)

But you can change their voting patterns. People do that all the time.

This is not some kind of call to turn the conservative movement into a self-identifying faux-intellectual movement. Furthest thing from my mind. Just as you cannot talk someone out of faux-intellectualism (or even real intellectualism), you cannot talk someone into it, either. The rule about changing people's core applies here as well.

But the point is that if, say, 30% of the public (or whatever, I'm making up numbers, and 30% always seems like a safe guess) responds to this sort of Ideal of Pop Intellectualism, shouldn't we have more of this, just to attract this cadre?

That doesn't mean we change the whole movement for 30% of the population. It would, however, suggest we have some of this going on so that the people who are attracted to this type of thing can be attracted to the conservative version of this kind of thing.

Fox right now doesn't have much this. Oh, it has smart people, I'll give you that. But I'm not talking about smart. I'm talking about a play for the particular psychographic profile that is attracted to shows of intellectualism.

Much of Fox's programming is keyed to attract those animated by Moral Values. Which I would not change, in the main. I'm talking more about a dumping-ground weekend show for these purposes. (Which apparently MSNBC did with Chris Hayes, until they decided he'd become popular enough to replace the populist shouter Ed Redfat in primetime.)

RedEye is sort of like this, and, if not exactly faux-intellectual, it's certainly designed to attract a different psychography than, say, O'Reilly, or Huckabee; the Bret Baier show is designed to be the classy, gold-plated sort of thing that attracts those interested in classy, gold-plated sorts of things.

Nevertheless, there isn't much of it. Most shows make a similar pitch to a similar psychography.

But what about the persuadable near-conservative who likes drinking Starbucks coffee and easy-listening classical music like Vivaldi and reading through the New York Times Book Review, not because he likes the NYT's politics, but just because he likes books? And feels better about himself when he at least keeps up on current books through reading capsule reviews?

That's not an insignificant slice of the American pie. And the conservative movement is not giving that particular psychograhic much of a Come Hither look.

Another way to make this argument is to begin with the assumption -- which I think is 95% true -- that everyone votes on Values. The values of the self-conceived Intellectual Elite are also high on their own values, as they define "values." That's why they're so damnably smug. And if everyone votes on values, then we need to put out the word that all values, including whatever values the fake intellectual televised Kos diarist Rachel Maddow embodies, also lead to conservativism.

Otherwise we're just conceding this profile of voter to the liberal, without any kind of fight.

Posted by: Ace at 11:42 AM | Comments (504)
Post contains 1343 words, total size 8 kb.

Game on. Both speeches were, predictably amazing. These men are busy staking out their claims. Sen. Rubio presented a more uplifting message about conservatism and the American dream. Actually, now that I think about it he did about the same thing in his RNC speech.

Whereas Rubio focused on what conservatism was about, Sen. Paul used the bulk of his speech to emphasize what conservatism was not about: big-spending, drone-killing, high-taxing, nanny-statism. This was red meat for a starving crowd and the attendees loved it.

Both speeches are tucked below the fold, courtesy again of the Right Scoop. more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:50 AM | Comments (121)
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

Politics, politics, politics. Leftism, leftism, leftism.

Pope Francis seems liberal on social justice but sadly traditional on sexuality and contraception

Gateway Pundit writes that the pope has been linked to an Anti-Marxist organization. It's called "The Catholic Church."

No but really it's called Comunione e Liberazione.

#RealReporters NYT, Boston Globe, and WaPo All Rush to Promote Pope's Twitter Feed... except it's a parody feed.

Well you can hardly blame them. It's not like every single newsworthy event produces a dozen parody feeds

Erin Burnett Is a Sad Panda Too: Their favorite tactic -- actually, everyone's favorite tactic in politics -- is to claim "If you adopt my politics, you'll become more popular, Serious You Guys."

Erin Burnett to the Pope: Serious You Guys, you need to be liberal.

Posted by: Ace at 10:27 AM | Comments (382)
Post contains 146 words, total size 2 kb.

The Senate Judiciary Committee sent an "assault weapons" ban and an expanded background check bills to the full Senate today. But first, Ted Cruz reminded Diane Feinstein that we have a Constitution and that you can't apply the standard that she does to say the First or Fourth Amendments.

She was not amused.

“I'm not a sixth grader,” she told the freshman Tea Party favorite. “I'm not a lawyer, but after 20 years I've been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it … it's fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I've been here for a long time. I've passed on a number of bills. I've studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”

Finally Feinstein admitted that her approach wouldn't apply to books. Democrats seem to think the Second Amendment is special or something and not in the good way.

Cruz isn't playing nice. Not only did he piss off Feinstein but also Durbin and Leahy. It's great to see a conservative not let liberals get away with their sloppy thinking. Call 'em out and make them defend their idiocy.

Via Irwin Rosen the video is below the fold. Watch and enjoy. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 09:15 AM | Comments (497)
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

Former Rep. Allen West got a warm welcome during the morning session here at CPAC.

Full video of his speech is over at The Right Scoop.

Probably not the last time we'll be seeing him.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:16 AM | Comments (539)
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

• Ed Schultz's Show Jettisoned To Saturday
  
• Obama: "I Actually Want To Govern, At Least For A Couple Of Years
  
• Michael Bloomberg Supporting Lindsay Graham
  
• Olbermann Settles Lawsuit With Current TV
  
• Insurers Warn Of Obamacare Induced Sticker Shock
  
• Jay Carney Does Not Liked Being Asked About Obama's Golf Outings
  
• Chris Matthews, Religious Scholar
  
• The Conclave's Canny Choice
  
• Apparently Moochelle's Best Trait Is Her Punctiality
  
• White House Tour Move Backfires On Obama
  
• Qatar Cuts Egypt's Aid
  
• Law Schools Finally Wake Up To Reality
  
• Greek Unemployment Rate Up 26%
  
• Ryan Says Obamacare Will Collapse Under Its Own Weight
  
• America Giving Mexico Gas For A Change
  
• It Appears The Norks Have Mobile ICBM That Can Hit The US
  
• Infographic: What Killed People In The 20th Century
  
• China Officially Names Xi Jinping As President
  

Follow me on twitter

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:33 AM | Comments (333)
Post contains 141 words, total size 3 kb.

Happy Thursday.

Big news in the Aaron Swartz case. The defense says that one of the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence.

Updates from the smartphone wars: reports of BlackBerry's demise appear to have been premature, Samsung is still riding high on the Galaxy line, and Apple is chugging along. My Galaxy S II is great, but I'm liking the rumors I'm hearing about next month's Galaxy S IV.

WaPo takes a swing at the White House for "bureaucratic hostage-taking" with its sequester hysteria.

I will be at CPAC today and for the next few days. Look for instant commentary at my twitter feed and I'll probably have some longer pieces for the main page here. CPAC's schedule and list of speakers looks about how you would expect. The HQ was nominated for Blog of the Year; the other nominees are Campaign Spot, Twitchy, The Other McCain, Legal Insurrection, and Hot Air, so we're in good company.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:52 AM | Comments (358)
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

I bet you didn't see this one coming...

...Internet users are 21 times more likely to become infected by visiting a legitimate online shopping site than by visiting a site used for illegal file-sharing, according to Cisco's latest annual security report...

...when criminals successfully attack an ad network, their malware becomes syndicated and sent to all the places those ads go — from Target and ToysRUs.com to eBay and Amazon...

...Ad networks that target niche interests, or simply have fewer scruples, are less attractive to cybercriminals. That makes sites that host illegal movie and TV streams and pirated software perhaps safer than a site that sells legitimate DVDs...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 11:02 PM | Comments (44)
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

So You Think You Know Your Juvenescent Literature You Taint-suckers

Can you name all of these books without cheating? Well can ya punk?

I knew you couden't. Another epic fail for you.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:25 PM | Comments (553)
Post contains 1583 words, total size 17 kb.