Lead, Follow or Get the Fuck Out of the Way

Apparently the criticisms of sites like Hot Air for posting endless Eeyore posts about how we’re all doomed and we might as well not bother posts every single time the New York Pravda or somebody like them publishes a D+20 poll stating that Reichsführer Obama is going to win in a landslide (much like Jimmy Carter won in a similarly confidently predicted landslide back in 1980) have gotten under their skins. Good.

Because Eeyorepundit then goes on to defend his relentless cries of doom in a manner that is, to us quite frankly hilarious.

He goes on at length about how “the people needs honesty” and “nobody who regularly reads this site is likely to be swayed by a fake poll anyway”, both of which are quite good points, we’re not going to take an Imperial dump on either. Except for the minor point that anybody just accidentally browsing by Hot Air aren’t exactly likely to be encouraged by their endless doom predictions either, but they are most likely a small demographic, so we won’t dwell on that other than to point out that whereas they might not be doing much damage there, they sure aren’t helping either.

What they utterly ignore is that sites like Hot Air, for reasons that quite escape us, have become places that sites entirely opposed to personal liberty like to quote because they are “mainstream” conservative sites now. In other words, if the normally too busy to earn a living and avoid getting behind on the mortgage demographic check out the Internets in the few minutes they have to spare from dealing with their lives’ real and immediate issues, they’ll immediately be hit with a shit storm of leftist fascist sites quoting allegedly conservative sites saying that it’s all over.

Try to Google any controversy currently in the public mind. Limit it to “news” even, and you’ll have to go to page three of your search results, if you’re lucky, to even find a conservative site quoted. Now imagine that said result leads you to a page that states that the conservative side fucked up again, and this presupposes that you didn’t just go with the first hit on the list, which would give you Keith Olbermann’s view. Just how encouraged to vote against Ogabe would that make you? If even the people on his own side can’t quite get themselves to cheer him on, then why the fuck, exactly, would you consider switching sides?

Sites like Hot Air hurt the cause. Not because they are malicious, but because they’re ignorant of the rules of the game. They think that all people are as fair minded and rational as they are, and they are woefully wrong. They try to be fair, but they’re not. Americans are not idiots. They don’t trust the New York Times any further than they can throw them at this point. If you don’t believe us, look at their circulation numbers. They look like a fucking bungee jump minus the rubber cord.

So if the Pravda on the Hudson states that Obam-bam is going to win in a landslide, they’re not going to buy it. They know it’s a lie before they’ve even gotten past the lede.

But if you then have “mainstream conservative” sites like Hot Air expressing doubts about the outcome well then, Katie bar the door, they’re going to believe it.

Did you ever follow a leader who doubted that his cause would win?

If even the people on your own side doubt you…

We know how this game is played because we lived through it. We were thoroughly trained in it and, we might add, it works admirably as long as your enemies insist on being utter well-meaning idiots.

Sites like Hot Air do not know what the fuck they’re doing. We agree with their principles, they’re both honorable and true, but they’re not helping since we’re not fighting an honorable enemy.

You can’t beat your enemy unless you read his book and throw his rules right the fuck back at him.

Thatisall.

8 comments

  1. 1
    watchyerlane growls and barks:

    Sorry man, I don’t buy the whole “and they too were honorable men” defense for these guys. To me, they are RINO’s, pure and simple. It was sites like these that whined and gnashed their teeth during the primaries about the “electability” of Willard and now all of a sudden they think it’s over before the first debate.
    No!! Fuck that!!! You guys at Hot Air helped provide us with the Mittster and you damn well better stand fast through this fight. You do not get the privilege of trying to sound like the smartest guy in the room and then jumping ship after the fight gets tough.
    No, they need to fight with us in the manner a 21st century political war is waged. If not then we need to see a “This Space For Rent” sign when ever you log on to their website.
    I have never been one to buy into the whole “most important election of our lifetime” bullshit but for the first time since I started following elections in 1980 (I was 15) I feel this election more than any other since 1860 will define the direction and possible destruction of our nation. We don’t need clueless tools like Hot Air providing aid and comfort to our enemy no matter how “well meaning”.

  2. 2
    dcs2244 growls and barks:

    Misha, I’m of two minds concerning AP and Captain Ed. While some of their more “rinoesque” posts are frustrating, I think they serve as a brake on the tendency toward overconfidence by some conservatives. A reality check, if you will; we know that the usual media suspects are in the bag for President Schicklegruber, and that their activities will sway the weak minded among us (a subculture growing exponentially due to the public school system). It is helpful to keep that in mind; expect the worst and you’ll never be disapointed.

    On the other hand, there were some very unreasonable expectations about McCain’s performance, right to the bitter end, at Hotair.

  3. 3
    LC Draco growls and barks:

    I take every “poll” with a grain of salt. (Remember, you can make statistics say anything!)

    We have a saying in my profession…You can plan all you want, you can gather all the intelligence you think you need (which is never enough!), but once the battle/contact is made, you must remember the enemy has a vote. History is ripe with examples of contests, battles, elections, etc. in which the ‘underdog’ kicked the living shit out of the ‘bigger, badder’ favorite.

    One of the problems in this election, as in many others, is that the voting base(s) are being hit with information operations and do not even know they are being inundated with a plethora of ‘misinformation’.
    LC Draco recently posted..Exercise Jackal Stone 2012 leaders, participants honor fallen SF comradeMy Profile

  4. 4
  5. 5
    Fa Cube Itches growls and barks:

    Aren’t the only polls that matter the ones from Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and the other toss-up states? There are certainly hordes of people out there who are committed to voting against Obama, but that, in and of itself, doesn’t mean much. He could fail to get single vote in Texas, but Texas only has a fixed amount of Electoral College votes. He could win California by a single vote, and he gets all of those Electoral votes.

    Without realistically knowing how the swing states are going to vote, everything is speculation. Romney could very easily slaughter Obama in terms of votes received, but still end up losing the election badly.

  6. 6
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    Benghazi attack followed deep cuts in State Department security budget
    By Shaun Waterman

    hursday, September 27, 2012

    A man looks at documents at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, after an attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2012. The graffiti reads, “no God but God,” “God is great,” and “Muhammad is the Prophet.” The American ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed when a mob of protesters and gunmen overwhelmed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, setting fire to it in outrage over a film that ridicules Islam’s Prophet i)
    investigators looking for lessons from the fatal terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might want to start on Capitol Hill, where Congress slashed spending on diplomatic security and U.S. embassy construction over the past two years.

    Since 2010, Congress cut $296 million from the State Department’s spending request for embassy security and construction, with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts, according to an analysis by a former appropriations committee staffer.

    Rep. Michael Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, made clear Wednesday that congressional staff will be looking into the attack, in addition to a probe by the State Department’s inspector general and another State Department investigation required by federal law.

    The cuts to the embassy construction, security and maintenance budget was almost 10 percent of the entire appropriation for that account over those two years, said Scott Lilly, now a scholar at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

    “Anytime we cut that account back, we are putting people’s lives at risk, people who are serving the country” in dangerous places abroad, said Mr. Lilly.

    The cuts mean that “a lot of places you’d intended to secure better, you don’t reach” this year, he added.

    He said he did not know whether the cuts had impacted security at the Benghazi consulate that was stormed on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by heavily armed Islamic extremists, who burned down the building and killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

    The State Department did not respond to requests for comment.

    The cuts were the latest in a series of squeezes on State Department spending. Congress has appropriated less money for the department than requested in every year since Fiscal 2007, according to budget figures.

    “During both the latter years of the Bush presidency and throughout the Obama presidency, the administration has recommended boosting spending on foreign aid and [State Department] foreign operations, including security, and Congress has always cut it back,” said Philip J. Crowley, a former State Department spokesman.

    “There is simply not a constituency on the Hill to increase spending on diplomacy and development. Resources do matter.” said Mr. Crowley, now a fellow at the George Washington University Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.

    “Getting the budget request cut is pretty standard for the State Department,” added James Dobbins, a former career diplomat who was a special envoy to a series of global troubled spots under former President Bill Clinton and former President George W. Bush.

    But he noted that the State Department has gotten “billions and billions over the years” to rebuild, move and fortify missions around the world since two 1983 suicide truck bomb attacks on U.S. facilities in Beirut.

    Following those attacks, a special commission was established by the secretary of state to examine security measures at U.S. embassies. The Inman commission report in 1985 recommended standards for diplomatic facilities like narrower windows, blast-proof walls and “setback” — a distance between the public street and the buildings sufficient to protect the occupants from truck bombs.

    “The architecture it required was fortress-like,” according to former State Department counter-terrorism coordinator Michael B. Kraft.

    Read more: Benghazi attack followed deep cuts in State Department security budget – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/27/benghazi-attack-followed-deep-cuts-in-state-depart/#ixzz27iXu7pR5
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

  7. 7
    Cougar1978 growls and barks:

    I want the RINOs to please, please, please, step infront of our oncoming tank treads. See how well it worked for that misguided Dumbass Rachel Corrie-Squishie…… Person versus tank/bulldozer. Even Mike Rowe would wince in pain at the stupidity and the fact physics will win!

  8. 8
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    Today, Special Operations Speaks, a PAC formed by ex-Special Ops officers from four branches of the military, released a cartoon mocking President Obama for spiking the football on the Osama Bin Laden kill. The cartoon depicts Obama as a schoolchild, president of the student council; he has nothing but scorn for a group of students training for military service. Then he spots a girl being shot at by a group of thugs. He promptly orders the other students to do something about it, and after they do, he takes full credit – and actively spikes a football.

    The analogy is clear: Obama gave the correct order on Bin Laden, but for him to take credit repeatedly for the Bin Laden kill is absurd. No doubt the folks at Special Operations Speaks speak for many current members of the military in their frustration with a Commander in Chief who seems far more willing to take credit for their actions than he is to support them more generally.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mZdj_9_flpA#!