DEMOCRATIC DISARRAY

The democrat party seems to be hitting the skids.  They are in deep denial over their prospects in November.  They have plans to run on the passage of Obamacare - a program that is becoming more and more unpopular as time goes by.  Their other option is to have their candidates run against George W. Bush.  Again.  But, then, what else have they got?  Stimulus?  Oil spill?  Foreign relations?  Yeah... better stick with Bush. 

There has been a great deal of turmoil on the campaign trail, too.  They have been unsuccessful in the primaries in more ways than one. The biggest puzzle is Senate candidate Alvin Greene.  The question shouldn't be how did Alvin Greene get the nomination, the question should be how bad was his primary opponent that Greene managed to win without running any campaign whatsoever?  His opponent spent lots of money on a high profile campaign complete with web site and the full backing of the DNC.  Even with all of that, Greene won with 59% of the vote.  And I thought Republican candidates were bad.

Now they have another headache in Texas with their new 22nd congressional district primary winner, Kesha Rogers.  She is a LaRouchie - a follower of Lyndon LaRouche.  These are the decidedly left-wing nutballs that are on the fringes of the Tea Parties, carrying those Obama as Hitler posters.  In fact (and this is my favorite part of the story),  there is photographic evidence that Ms. Rogers supports that meme.  Why is this my favorite part?  Because this will finally debunk the left's narrative that it is right-wing Tea Partyers that are carrying those darned Obama as Hitler posters.  Unless, of course, they manage to sell the theory that she, too, is a GOP plant. 

So how bizarre is this win?  Well, if it's any indication, Ms. Rogers is looking to impeach Mr. Obama if she wins in November.  That's right, the democrat nominee for Texas' 22nd CD wants to impeach Obama.  Although, considering it is Texas, she might just win on that platform....Crazy?  Or crazy like a fox?

It seems that the moderate faction is beginning to rebel against the liberal/progressive leadership who have taken over the party in recent years.  In the meantime, the radical far-left faction is rebelling against the administration for not getting radical enough. 

It's amazing that this was a group that, just two short years ago, managed to unite not just the entire democrat spectrum but many independents and even a good amount of conservatives under their banner.  Not even two years later, everyone is at everyone else's throats, and it seems that the only thing they all have in common anymore is how quickly they are trying to distance themselves from each other.

Considering their gleeful pronouncements that the 2008 election signified the demise of the conservative movement in this country, the irony is rich and deep.  Or perhaps the term 'karma' would be more apt.

THIS EXPLAINS A LOT

A new survey has come out today and boy, is it interesting.   The Wall Street Journal is running a story by Daniel Klein about a Zogby International survey on economics and politics.  For all those people who say liberal/progressives are clueless about the economy, guess what?

You're absolutely right.

Mr. Klein describes the survey:

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.

By flatly unenlightened, he means a definitive wrong answer.  If the respondent answered 'not sure', it was not considered a wrong answer.  The five answer choices are:  Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Somewhat Disagree, Strongly Disagree, and Not Sure.

The respondents were asked 8 questions:

"Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).

 
The political/ideological breakdown was as follows: Very Conservative, Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, Liberal/Progressive, and Libertarian. 
 
Eight questions, five possible answers for each.  The results are compelling (emphasis mine):
 

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

 
Of eight questions, progressives got, on average, five and a half wrong.  The big question is, on the remaining two and a half possibly right answers, how many of them were counted as correct but were actually answered "Not Sure"?   Mr. Klein does not say, but considering how poorly the liberal/progressives are doing steering our economy right now, it's tempting to think the other two and a half answers were not so much answered correctly as answered "Not Sure".
 
Kinda puts our current economic crisis and the failure of our liberal/progressive government's attempts to fix it into perspective, doesn't it? 

THE ISSUE'S NOT THE ISSUE

Chris Horner, author of "Power Grab" was on Hannity tonight.  In his interview, he used, over and over, the phrase "The issue's not the issue".  This is the mainstay liberal/progressive tactic to a T, and he deserves a hearty thank you for tagging it as such.  It's quick, concise, easy to remember and right on the mark.  A perfect foil for the coming campaign clashes. 

In his book, he discusses the Obama administration's green agenda.  On the face, the green agenda is hard to fight - after all, it's all about "saving the planet", and what kind of heartless, selfish person would you be if you wouldn't want to do that? 

But if you dig deeper, as Mr. Horner did, you will find that it has, in reality, very little to do with saving the planet - that angle is used merely as a means to an end.  For all the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds that it will suck up and the unprecidented control over American citizens, there is little or no measurable good for the environment that will come of it.  As Horner says, it's all about power and control.  The green agenda is a perfect illustration of his quote, "the issue's not the issue".  It is being sold as good for us, but in reality it is not.  The issue isn't saving the earth, the issue is grasping more power into the ever-expanding federal government.

This phrase, "the issue's not the issue" is something that needs to be remembered and repeated so that all will know it, because within that phrase is the key to fighting back.  Understanding your opponent's tactics is the first step in defeating them.

The issue not being the issue concept applies to every piece of legislation that has passed this Congress so far.  The stimulus was not about helping the country get back on it's feet.  That is just the bill of goods we were sold.  That bill was all about consolidation of power.  It was a big, wet, sloppy kiss to all of the special interests who helped put the democrats in power.  That expensive thank you also acts as a promise of thank yous to come if the democrats stay in power, thus ensuring their legacy.

The health care bill was not about lowering costs, as was sold to us.  It was about redistribution of wealth and control over the most important part of your life - your health.  If they hold the key to your good health, you're more inclined to vote to keep them happy and in power, and redistribution buys a whole sector of voters.

Cap and trade isn't about the environment, it's about seizing wealth and controlling the energy sector.  Period.

The coming election isn't about a referendum on the distinctly leftward tilt towards european socialism that we are currently pursuing - it's apparently about George W. Bush.  I haven't quite figured out how yet, but give me time.   Suggestions are appreciated.

The democrat's talking points these days are not just a reflection of their desperation, they are also a roadmap for the coming elections.  But then, faced with polls like these and these and these, it's no wonder there is a distinct whiff of desperation in the air.  It seems that their entire strategy for the 2010 election is "the issue's not the issue" (and blame Bush, of course).

The liberals are geniuses at directing a conversation.  This is what they will attempt to do over the next few months.  Instead of addressing the issues that are paramount to a majority of Americans, they will redirect the conversation to either other issues altogether or changing the issue to suit their needs.  Thus the green agenda is not about power and control, it's about saving the planet somehow.  Instead of being accused, they are going to attempt to be the accuser.  When they are accused of grasping for power, they will accuse you of hating the planet.  Health care doesn't lower costs translates to "you hate people and don't want them to have insurance".  Concerns that there is a lot of taxation coming down the pike becomes "you're one of those fringe militia people, aren't you?"

It's a brilliant strategy, really.  When you have no answers, start asking the questions. 

The problem is that we have been subjected to this tactic for years now.  You might say the country was battle weary, but that would only confirm you are a tea party member extremist out to slaughter some random government official(s).  The secret is, though, that Alinsky was right.  In Rule #7 he said that "a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag".  The rising opposition in the polls shows that the "issue's not the issue" tactic has become a drag.  It's time to start calling them out on it.

The tea partyers know the issues, often better than their representatives, and they are equally as tenacious in their pursuit of an answer as the liberals are in their attempts to avoid the discussion.  It promises to be an interesting summer campaign.  The big question will be whether the issue is debated, or the issue that isn't the issue. 

It's time to take control of the debate and demand real answers to the real issues.

THE LOCKSTEP TANGO Updated

Our Unifier-in-Chief is giving us the warm fuzzies again. Mr. 'There are no Red States, no Blue States, only the United States' is socking it to the republicans again.

This is the guy who the libs keep saying is so bipartisan. *cough, cough* bullhockey *cough, cough*

I personally find his comment funny.

"“Democrats are an opinionated bunch. You know, the other side, they just kinda sometimes do what they’re told. Democrats, y’all thinkin’ for yourselves.”"

Thinking for themselves? Really? These are the same 'sheeple' who are in lockstep on their message. They are the people who parrot whatever the White House tells them to say without question, blindly defending the asinine decisions coming out of Washington.

Huh. Okaaayyy....

Meanwhile, conservatives are openly rebelling against RINOS and liberals in conservative clothing. Wasn't it this administration that was just saying a few months ago that the GOP was in disarray? But now, suddenly, we have a hive mentality. Hey, isn't that a liberal concept? From American Thinker:

"Because the opponents of the hive mentality of mass media have a thousand different opinions and beliefs, mass media finds its opposition incomprehensible and unconquerable. The idea that ten million free Americans could have almost as many viewpoints simply does not occur to people manufactured from childhood with a single viewpoint presented in cartoons, classrooms, college campuses, comedies, and corporate bureaucracies.
The nihilism which passes for thought and belief in the world of leftism relentlessly imposes itself within these bureaucracies of sameness and communal sentiment. The same sheep of sixties radicalism, who listened to the same music, sported the same Marxist murderers on their t-shirts, and who protested the same eternal faults in free societies now have become the big babies governing our big institutions. These eternal infants cannot crush what they cannot understand. "

But the President seems to think conservatives are in lockstep. Am I the only one who feels like we are living in the Bizzarro world?

If it wasn't so offensive, it would be hilarious.

LIBERAL MEDIA SHENANIGANS

I have a few things from NewsBusters I wanted to share with you. The first is from an MSNBC interview with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). He is a self proclaimed Socialist, and spends a lot of time attacking FoxNews and calling for more liberal voices:

""I'll tell you what else we need to do," Sanders said. "We need to understand that it is very, very hard for the president or anybody else to take on not just the Republican Party, that's the easy part - to take on all of right-wing talk radio, which covers 90 percent of talk show hosts, a whole Fox network which is nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party and the Democrats got to think long term. Why is there not a progressive television network? Why aren't we supporting good and effective personalities on radio as well and building up a network there so that we can that kind of political consciousness-raising that the Republicans, in fact, are doing so well right now.""

Where to begin?

Okay, first of all, FoxNews and conservative radio are doing well because their content appeals to viewers/listeners. That's the formula for success that the liberals apparently just can't seem to grasp. Pretty simple, and yet, they just don't get it.

They desperately want this to be a far-left country, but it isn't. FoxNews, aside from some conservatively biased prime-time hosts (as CNN and MSNBC have liberally biased primetime hosts) really is fair and balanced. The liberals will fight you to the death on that notion, but there have been independent studies that prove that fact. They try very hard to give both sides of the debate, and the viewer can take from it what they want. They trust that the viewer knows their own mind, something the liberal channels don't - they are of the mindset that information must be spun and then spoon-fed in order for the idiots out there in T.V. land to understand it. Talk down to your audience and you tend to lose them.

Secondly, there IS a liberal talk radio network - AirAmerica.

It has had major issues both financially and with lack of listeners. It went bankrupt back in 2006, but, like (Al) Frankenstein's Monster, it just won't seem to die, even though most people think it has. Why does it have such issues when, according to people like Sen. Sanders, the American public is craving lefty radio? Well, mostly because it sucks. I can't imagine why, what with shining stars such as Janeane Garofalo, Randi Rhodes and Al Franken...oh, okay, I just proved my point.

Anyhoo....As for a 'Progressive television network', isn't that MSNBC? Or maybe NBC, the National Barack Channel - all Barack, all the time, all positive spin? What about CNN? I suppose he means channels people actually watch, which would rule out all three. Thus his dislike of FoxNews, because people really do actually watch it, and in record numbers, no less.

In the same vein, there is this little gem:

"Matt Cover at the Media Research Center's News Division, CNSNews.com, has a piece out today entitled "FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Wants Private Broadcasters to Pay a Sum Equal to Their Total Operating Costs to Fund Public Broadcasting."
This is insane. The "Chief Diversity Officer" in question, Mark Lloyd, is calling for the gross operating budget for every private radio station each year to be the fee (tax) they pay for their broadcast license for the year, with the monies going to the always liberal public stations. With whom they then must compete for listeners. "

Since they can't seem to make successful stations on their own, they are going to try to rape and pillage successful (read: conservative) radio stations.

By hook or by crook, huh?