I've already published a piece about how to probe for, find and expose the weak spots of the typical internet left-wing blogger; you know, the Bush-Lied-People-Died crowd. Find a subject near and dear to you, The War, Global Warming, God, Honesty, Ethics, you name it they're out there railing and lying about it.
       Want to know why? Because they were sicc'ed on the issue by that damned Invisible Hand we don't seem to have on our side anymore. They know very little about anything, allowing Wikipedia and speedy Google searches to make up for what they don't have in any substantive facts or knowledge. They also know, from experience, that they can seize the internet highway with little more than rat-a-tat-tat small arms fire, for their opposites don't seem to be inclined to want to meet them in open battle. There are many reasons for this phenomenon; laziness, cowardice and squeamishness just to list a few. It is conservatives that have turned this rabble into an army.
        But my little group has had enormous success fighting them, for we know that we hold better cards than they do...a better grasp of facts, a better grounding in philosophical truths (Evil always bows to Good when confronted thus) and a superior ability to analyze and think on our feet. They cannot think, they can only regurgitate, reciting what some other idiot wrote in another blog they just Googled.
        All we've been waiting for is for more soldiers to step forward so we can take on this mob in a more organized fashion......snore....snore....snore...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

        Meanwhile, Vassar Bushmills and I have been working for some weeks trying to find strategies and tactics that will allow still others to probe the public weaknesses of the Left, especially its political spokesmen. (Going after academic dilettantes is another matter, but even there, we've found some weak links, some doublespeak, if you will, that makes them vulnerable to certain thrusts and parries.)
       Because we have no public dais of our own, nor can afford to allow that to happen, we have to risk placing this analysis out in the public domain, on the theory it really doesn't matter what the Left knows we know about them, for there is nothing they can do to beat us in an open fight, since, again, we have all the high cards. Their only chance is that no one will venture forth to fight them, which, for the most part has been the case.
      You already know the natural disadvantages both national talk radio and conservative elected politicians have. The talk radio format generally is not conducive to anything much longer than a thirty-second to one minute exchange. Why join an argument that can only go until the next hard break? Besides, none of the major talk show hosts (Limbaugh is the worst by far) seem never to have read Socrates getting poor Thrasymachus to hang himself with his own arguments. 1) That takes awhile. 2) Thrasymachus does more talking than Socrates. Not much vanity in that.
      Right-minded politicians face a similar dilemma in that if they do say something clever, it's like a tree falling in the forest. No one is there to report it. We disgaree with this "policy" (I would stick my head in the oven tomorrow if I thought this sort of timidity actually reflected the true nature of most Republican elected officials) of ignoring the name they had just been called by the Democrat sitting right next to them in the NBC studio, "corrupt, crooked, evil", you name it, but without so much as a "so's yer ol' lady", instead moving onto the number-crunching merits of the issue.
     If that is a GOP policy, it needs to be looked at more closely, for apparently this sort of junk-yard scrapping works with the voters, causing some to vote for the scrappers, while causing many more, I think, to stay home out of embarrassment that their guard dogs can be whipped by yappy Pomeranians. If anything in the world should unnerve those of us professing to be true conservatives, the inheritors of the pioneer spirit that felled forests, crossed a continent and tamed it, built cities and the greatest system of freedom the earth has ever seen...is that some microbe from Nevada can out-duke us in the back alley.
     I'm not sure why Senate and House rules will allow a member to call the opposite party crooks, thieves, even fascists, but not allow the other side to call them liars for saying it. But that seems to be the way it is.
     Republicans always complain that they can never get any attention. The media will only cover a charge or accusation by a Republican if it carries the hint of name-calling in which the Democrat will always get in the last word. Vassar Bushmills reported to me once that Moses Sands had that problem fixed a long time ago, only no one will use it. His Rule: Let your first salvo also be the best. When Reid tells a tale out of school...can any member of Congress recall a day, even one single day, that a public lie hasn't issued forth from some member of the Democrat Party?...all any Republican has to say is "What Senator Reid said was factually untrue. When a person says something like that it is because he is 1) misinformed, 2) lying or 3) incompetent. Now, I'm just a poor old county judge from Kentucky, so I can't know Sen Reid's mind, heart or access to facts, so I will have to leave it up to you (the press) to figure out which one of those things apply."
     Senate rules violated? I don't think so. Press coverage? You bet. Effective retort by Reid? Impossible...for remember, most Congressmen will move mountains to prevent being portrayed as stupid. The lying charge will stick as the better alternative. All Reid can do is bale water. Moreover, once stung, he is less apt to be caught out in the boat with a paddle. Even senators hate having their mouths washed out with soap.

     We think there are all sorts of strategies that can be adopted once politicians understand the Game.
     No matter what the issue, or venue, Leftist politicians, instinctively understanding the weakness of their positions (i.e, they know they are lying and are therefore rarely misinformed or stupid) immediately move out to seize the high ground (the highway) of the argument, then hold it by the filibuster. No one seems to know how to break that filibuster, and in truth, it is difficult at the national level, for one, national television can be very bad for a politician who gets smeared (caught in a lie or "stupidity"), for on television, the whole body language of defeat is easy for all to see. They are always playing to the crowd, their constituencies...the voters back home, their contributors, their political allies. Their station depends on how well they yammer in public. So on Fox News they play the game very hard....and so far, better than the GOP.
     We have to pick out fights where we can, and I think the weakest link and place best available for counter-punching dishonest politicians is local talk radio. Here, it seems congressmen and senators are more willing to go into hostile radio environments (most talk shows are conservative with biased audiences), usually outside their states or districts, and from a phone, so there is no negative visual feedback is they misspeak. It's a win-win, or so they think.
     What we have learned is that the filibuster-style of argument/debate is what identifies a Democrat politician as an up-and-comer. (Clearly, this is not the case with the GOP.) But while employing a rat-a-tat filibuster in front of Chris Wallace, or even an O'Reilly or Hannity, on local talk radio, knowing the local guy will try to match them, rat-for-tat, they can still filibuster while still remaining calm and composed, and relatively quiet. Let the local host raise the decibel level. This, by the way, is one of their fastest routes to senior leadership in the Democrat Party, both state and local...the ability to quickly seize then hold the high ground, all the while sounding like an Episcopalian parson reprimanding a twelve-year old. Saying lines well is far more valuable to the Democrat Party that any abilities in things such as governing.
     In that vein, Mr Bushmills sent me a cassette of a "debate" of sorts he took from the radio, between a local radio talk show host and a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus over the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout. I have a library of other tapes, but usually only 30 seconds or less, sound bytes, mostly from television interviews, going back years. This is the longest debate I've been able to retrieve so have put it to good use.
        (I've omitted the names of both the host and Congressman, for this will sound like a criticism of the host, but it is intended to be a guide.) The host confronted the congressmen with facts (he had done his homework) and the congressman deflected with pat, well-rehearsed answers having had, in all likelihood, these same questions put before him several times. (In fact, they practice this I've found out.) The more he deflected in a calm easy voice, the more the host's voice rose. The congressman knew what was coming and the host didn't disappoint.
         In a venue where style matters more than facts, especially in front of an audience that is already on the side of the host, and in a venue where not one voter lives, the dishonest congressman mopped up the floor with his honest inquisitor....in my opinion.
         So, how to turn all this around?

         The whole purpose is stop the liar in his tracks. Take him off script. More than anything else, make him think on his feet. Make him think about things he hadn't prepped himself for. Remember the rule stated above, if you are a conservative, you have the facts, philosophy, and skills of analysis generally in you favor. Move him off-script and over to issues of honesty, or stupidity, or competence, or the premises underlying his statist positions. For instance, the CBC was probably involved criminally in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that's what they prep themselves to prevent being exposed. But the statism and paternalism underlying the legislation involved, that provide the basis for criminal conspiracy, is generally not a territory they expect to be examined. Remember: white liberals believe black-Americans cannot make it without a helping hand. But the CBC believes black Americans must not make it without a middle man. Their constituents don't get jack unless they get their cut. See how easy it is to turn that on a black congressman? In those waters he starts to flounder.
         I really like the Moses Sands 3-point example (above) for it immediately makes the congressman self-conscious, of being naked, so to speak. This creates a hesitancy that even shows up on radio...pauses, stammers, little quivers in the voice. We've even "seen" this on-line after we'd nailed one of the dailyCuss bloggers. It doesn't require more than five-ten seconds to stop a lying congressman in his tracks, take him off the highway, then follow up with other questions that lead him back onto the highway under conditions more suitable to the host. Take away his initiative and his confidence.
        Granted, I have the benefit of hindsight in this debate with the congressman from CBC, but I believe there is less "art" in defeating these rubes than simple logic and a little insight and confidence in a game plan that tells you where you want to go that is someplace other than where they think you want to go. To coin a phrase, move outside the box.
        In the end, politicians will avoid this talk show host's show like the flu, but as with gunslingers, there will be plenty of dead bodies in the street before the exodus begins. There will a lot of fast-talking politician wanting to get a reputation, before they realize the risks far outweigh the benefits. And, since most politicians will only engage in these debates out-of-district, it is important to our cause, if not your own, to share recordings of a politician's failings withe local media in his home district. That's the prize for us, letting him go home to hear the debate on local radio over and over again.
        What fun...while the Congress allows the fun to last.
  
        To talk show hosts and conservatives generally, you can never beat these guys single-handed. But you can set a trend. Some of you will be better than others of you. But you have be in the Game for the right reasons. We've seen way too many "conservative" talk show hosts who enjoy putting little guys down, which, we believe is the central ailment of conservatism today. Sure career matters, but these are tactics and skills that need to be shared. Let the cream rise to the top as the group rises, not as it falls into oblivion. This could become a movement that can undermine much of what the Left hopes to do, especially in local and regional venues...where the counter-revolution has to begin, and there the next generation of leadership has to come from.
         Bernard Chumm