Lazy J said:
However, I must admit I have never actually listened to Krok. So the guy might be a total idiot. But I must admit, I kinda agree with the whole Arizona immigration bill. We all know that illegal immigration is... well... illegal. So giving the police the right to check someone's immigration status shouldn't be a real shocker.
Regardless as to where one might stand on immigration or other issues, the important thing to keep in mind with Krok is that this guy is NOT someone you want to have as a representative for your side. Krok will
harm the credibility of your cause, not help it.
People such as Krok are utterly
worthless when it comes to actually persuading sane, serious and thoughtful people who might disagree to challenge their premises and give the other point of view consideration. Serious and thoughtful people are more likely to be
repulsed by Krok - and that feeling will shade their view of whatever viewpoint Krok is trying to wrap himself around.
The ONLY thing that people like Krok are good for is whipping up emotions among people who already share a certain viewpoint. And, unless he just happens to luck into the occasional issue where there is an existing groundswell of widespread outrage, for the most part, Krock's appeal is mostly to the
least sane, the
least thoughtful and the
most mindless sorts of people who share that viewpoint.
Krok is basically a right wing version of some of the freak show type protests that are more often seen on the Left. He is basically a right wing version of John Wiley Price. People may recall the constant mindless, emotionalistic protests by Price that accomplished little other than to destroy the man's credibility in the eyes of most of the public and to whip his hard core constituency into a red hot frenzy. The only difference is that Krok is someone who has been cynically brought in by Cumulus for no other purpose than whipping up attention to improve ratings.
Krok is little more than a McLendonesque publicity stunt - the difference being that McLendon's stunts were all in good fun. Krok is playing the court jester role and using as his props profoundly
serious ideas and issues, the eventual outcome of which will have a potentially significant long term impact on every one of us and on the long term direction of the country. It would be one thing if what he did was clearly put forth as political comedy. But it is not - he does it all with a straight face and possibly even with a juvenile sort of sincerity on his part.
The simple fact is that the sort of protests and rallies that are Krok's stock in trade are NOT a particularly effective means of promoting one's cause. The various Tea Parties over the past year have been a notable exception. But let's ask
why they are an exception. The Tea Parties have had an impact simply because, for the most part, the Right generally has NOT engage in frequent and widespread protests. They have had an impact because the people who attend are NOT the usual suspects of hard core activists and union members and other constituencies bussed in to swell the ranks. The public and the politicians took notice of the Tea Parties precisely because they consisted of large numbers of everyday people
who normally do not go to protests. The same was true for the anti-war protests of the 1960s. They had an impact and people took notice simply because, at the time, such protests were unprecedented and were NOT something that the public and the politicians were accustomed to seeing. And, more importantly, like the Tea Parties today, the anti-war protests tapped into a sentiment that was felt by far more people than just those who were already politically active.
Because the anti-war protests of the 1960s were so successful, protests have been a standard, cookie cutter template in the Left's playbook ever since on the premise that perhaps someday that success might be duplicated. But exactly what good have all the countless protests for various Left wing causes in the decades since the 1960s done for them in terms of persuading the general public? Precious little. Democratic gains in 1976, 1992, 2006 and 2008 had far more to do with public frustration over the sheer ineptitude and incompetence of Republicans than it did any sort of serious ideological shift.
About the only productive purpose that the protests have accomplished for the Left have been to serve as pep rallies to whip up and boost its existing hard core base. But the general public and the politicians usually pay little attention to them because they are already aware that this hard core base exists and have a pretty good idea where that base stands on the issues. Most such protests generally fall on deaf ears because they are something that the general public and the politicians pretty much
expect Left-wing activists to put on. If anything, such protests are more likely to
hurt their cause in terms of public perception as the extreme hard core political activist types drawn to them are NOT the sort that the general public considers to be particularly endearing.
It is really no different than how much you pay attention to the people in your own life. You undoubtedly know people who are constantly emotional, angry and expressing outrage over this or that. After a while, you just tune that person out - because, after all, they are ALWAYS upset. On the other had, you undoubtedly know others who you almost NEVER see angry or engaging in any emotional displays - so on those very rare occasions when you DO see that person irate or upset, you
definitely take notice.
The same will be true if the Tea Parties go down that same path. If they do little more than just have constant protests, at some point, the ordinary people who have been attending them will grow weary of the whole thing and all that will remain will be hard core activist types - whose numbers on the Right are far fewer than on the Left. If that happens nobody outside their base will pay any attention to either them or the point they are trying to make. They would simply become just so much background noise that everybody has come to expect.
That is why you should not want the Kroksturbator on your side on any issue that you consider to be important. First off, the guy comes across as a juvenile goofus - which alone helps undercut the credibility of anything that stammers out of his mouth. I guarantee you that he is right now on the prowl for some other issue or hot button to agitate over and which will help get additional mentions of his name and KLIF in the local news media. Then he is going to find another one. And another one. And another one - until KLIF finally gets rid of him after the local news media and listeners grow weary and stop paying attention.
Meanwhile, to the degree the man is able to make his existence known to the general public, the mere announcement of his presence and his silly little bullhorn at any sort of political event will instantly undercut the credibility of that event and turn it into a FREAK SHOW. Just as a Democratic politician wishing to persuade a mainstream, general audience would NOT particularly want ACT UP, Cindy Sheehan, Bill Ayres or a bunch of activists waving Che Guevara flags to show up in full force at a campaign rally, the Tea Parties and various others who find themselves to the Right of center on certain issues should NOT welcome court jesters such as Krok and his ilk for the exact same reason.
