Socialist US Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga) gets put on the spot. SMACKDOWN!!

[friedenmeister]

A sizable contingent of our kind was present this past saturday at the Cobb County GOP breakfast just outside the Atlanta city limits. Republican socialist Johnny Isakson was present and a citizen decided to ask him a question that would put him on the spot.

Isakson has voted for two banker bailouts, voted to confirm Sotomayor, and voted to confirm Eric Holder. He is also the one who keeps pushing the home buyer tax credit. He is a typical sociopath gone to washington and he thought nobody would mention his record if he came to a dog and pony show to drum up some campaign support.

Here is the video:

YouTube - US Senator Johnny Isakson Dodges Question

 

[GunnyFreedom]

More harm than good. The questioner clearly HAD the crowd, until he jumped into the "Marxism leninism" rhetoric. The questioner had an opportunity right there to turn the whole crowd AGAINST this scumbag, but just had to come out with inflammatory rhetoric and wound up solidifying their support for this guy.

If he had just stuck with everything up until the "marxist leninist" stuff and made it an objective question about the Senator's record, we would be two steps forward. Instead, the flame-war rhetoric at the end discredited all askers of such questions and pushed us 3 steps back.

My advice, if you are unable to ask critical and pointed questions like these without leaping into flame-war rhetoric, then let someone wiser than you do the asking. The question was great, but the stupis juvenile immature barb at the end did way more harm than good.

 

[Dieseler]

Yup, he had them all ears like an E. F. Hutton commercial then he blew it with the sucker punch. The sheeple ate him alive.
It's a good lesson though, thanks for posting it.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah, inside of party functions you can ask the hard-hitting questions, and if you strike a critical blow against the guy you come out way, way ahead. But in that kind of setting when you trot out the pundit rhetoric you lose no matter what you do.

I am dead serious when I say that guy HAD the crowd. It was just about to be "everybody in the room vs 1 scumbag Senator" but as soon as that flame came out of his mouth, it turned into "everybody in the room vs some guy trying to disrupt us."

I want to hilight this to be a lesson for everyone on the forums. This is exactly where the people in our movement often go wrong. We come out with a well reasoned impassioned argument, the crowd is hanging on our every word with rapt attention, and then at the very end we say something stupid like "....and that's the communist frakker who pushed the button to take down tower 2!"

Yeah, Ok, we get it. The dude is a Trotskyite neocon. DEMONSTRATE that to the crowd by contrasting his record with conservative values. getting all emotional like that with the barbs and the knifes in the back doesn't help.

Since this crackhead Senator is a politician and knows the game, " GUARANTEE you he was all "Oh heavens me, thank GOD!!!!" when this fellow came out with the Marxist barb, because he knew right then and there the fellow had destroyed his own argument in this crowd.

 

[Reason]

Should have just talked about how fcked up the fed is, mention how the average citizen knows nothing about it, then asked the congressman if he had the balls to take on the fed like RP has.

 

[nobody's_hero]

More harm than good. The questioner clearly HAD the crowd, until he jumped into the "Marxism leninism" rhetoric. The questioner had an opportunity right there to turn the whole crowd AGAINST this scumbag, but just had to come out with inflammatory rhetoric and wound up solidifying their support for this guy.

If he had just stuck with everything up until the "marxist leninist" stuff and made it an objective question about the Senator's record, we would be two steps forward. Instead, the flame-war rhetoric at the end discredited all askers of such questions and pushed us 3 steps back.

My advice, if you are unable to ask critical and pointed questions like these without leaping into flame-war rhetoric, then let someone wiser than you do the asking. The question was great, but the stupis juvenile immature barb at the end did way more harm than good.

Bull [self-censored]. These people in the GOP breakfast meeting (i.e. RINO circle-[self-censored]) are a bunch of old farts that have been supporting Isakson since he was voting for warrantless wiretaps in the U.S. House and unconstitutionally shifting war-making powers to the executive branch. The guy you all claim 'blew it' never "had" this crowd. The only way these folks are going to change their voting habits is when they kick the can. Isakson is up for re-election this year, and there are no republican primary contendors for his seat (Paul Broun was rumored to be seeking his seat, but, unless someone knows something I don't, it seems it was just that—rumors). What harm was done by this in the presence of this crowd? For an election where Isakson will be a shoo-in?

We talk about holding their feet to the fire. Then we get mad if their toes get burned.

Boo-hoo.

That ends my stupid juvenile immature barb rant.

But if you're interested in seeing Isakson replaced by Broun:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=122737623063&v=info

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Bull [self-censored]. These people in the GOP breakfast meeting (i.e. RINO circle-[self-censored]) are a bunch of old farts that have been supporting Isakson since he was voting for warrantless wiretaps in the U.S. House and unconstitutionally shifting war-making powers to the executive branch. The guy you all claim 'blew it' never "had" this crowd. The only way these folks are going to change their voting habits is when they kick the can. Isakson is up for re-election this year, and there are no republican primary contendors for his seat (Paul Broun was rumored to be seeking his seat, but, unless someone knows something I don't, it seems it was just that—rumors). What harm was done by this in the presence of this crowd? For an election where Isakson will be a shoo-in?

We talk about holding their feet to the fire. Then we get mad if their toes get burned.

Boo-hoo.

That ends my stupid juvenile immature barb rant.

But if you're interested in seeing Isakson replaced by Broun:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=122737623063&v=info

OK, so our ultimate goal is to alienate as many people as we can, and just hope that somehow turns popular sentiment in our favor???

The way to "win" the situation in the video above was to have the entire crowd present to want a real answer from the Senator, and upon hearing his equivocation to realize that he is not what they want in a representative, and thus vote him out in the election.

The questioner HAD that until he jumped into the petty flame-war bit.

Your insinuation is that the first section of the questioner's statement was not holding the Senator's feet to the fire, where clearly it WAS. Your insinuation is also that the last bit of his question was holding the Senator's feet to the fire, where clearly it actually relieved him of the pressure.

This is one of the reasons we are not twice as far along as we should be by now.

The people of our movement are more able than almost any citizen to form rational impassioned arguments that people want to hear. Then we have this juvenile impulse to add in a "Fk you you NWO jackass neocon!" at the end which just kills all the good work before that point by driving the crowd OUT of our hand.

I know because I apply these principles every day, and I am building a strong movement within the NCGOP that is increasingly rejecting RINO Neocons, and increasingly demanding Constitutionalists and Conservatives.

The gentleman in the video was laying accurate fire, and annihilating his target, until at the very end of his rant, he dropped a grenade at his own feet. You might think killing your own argument before you finish withering the enemy is a good strategy, but you would be wrong.

One of the reasons that Ron Paul has gotten as far as he has, is because HE would have endorsed the first part of this gentleman's question, but rejected the flame-war barb at the end.