Democrats’ “Look it’s Elvis!” strategy not playing on Main Street?

April 14, 2014
"Don't get distracted"

“Don’t get distracted”

The Democrats would really rather you talk about anything other than Obamacare, which has become a huge millstone around the neck of their political fortunes (1). To distract you from this anti-constitutional monstrosity and rally their base voters, they’re desperately deploying the weapons that have served them so well in the past, such as the Race Card.

Another weapon is the “War on Women,” the accusation that, in short, Republicans and conservatives want women barefoot, pregnant, and underpaid, shouting that women only earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. (2) There’s no denying that the “Sexism Card” was effective in the 2012 election, but how is it working for them, now?

If a Pittsburgh waitress is any indicator, not so good:

She gave a dramatic eye-roll in reaction to all of the fuss that Democrats and the president attempted to create over equal pay for women last week.

A Democrat herself, she said she has carved out a decent, comfortable life for her family over the years as a waitress at a local restaurant.

“I am in many ways my own boss,” she explained. “It is up to me to get the order right, treat people well, and use my personal skills to increase my wages.”

And she is “sick and tired of my party treating me like a victim. This is not 1970, and it’s insulting.”

Her last remark is telling. Progressives have long dreamed of instituting nationalized health care in the US, but the ACA’s passage was controversial (to say the least), the bill has never been popular, and it’s rollout to date has been a train wreck. Now faced with an electoral shellacking potentially worse than 2010’s, they’ve gone back to their happy place in the 1960s and whipped out the magic fetishes that have always saved them before: cries of racism, sexism, and class warfare.

Only, as the astute waitress observed, what worked 40-50 years ago doesn’t necessarily work now. American society has made enormous progress on issues of unfair treatment based on gender or race, and only an ideologue or a charlatan –or a desperate pol (or, in this case, all three)– would claim otherwise.

Remember what Lincoln said?

“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”

The Democrats have been able to fool enough of the people, but, at some point, people get tired of being taken for fools. They notice how dog-eared those cards in the Democrats’ deck have become from being played so often and they’re not impressed anymore. In fact, as our waitress noted, they’re insulted. And insulted people take their business (and votes) elsewhere.

More from the article:

Barack Obama has divided this country since the beginning of his presidency. He has not been transformative; instead, he has indulged one special-interest group after another — women in this case, but also blacks, young people, the lesbian-gay-transgender community and Hispanics in earlier instances.

He has governed by sliced-and-diced division, fear, secrecy and resentment, all accented with toothless executive orders used as political weapons.

This is definitely not the transparent and compassionate administration that he promised.

Maybe this is what happens when you over-promise, or maybe this is who Barack Obama is.

Or the answer is “C,” both. Obama and the Democrats clearly over-promised to win over a public tired by war and frightened by an economic crisis, but it is also who Obama is: a political “slice-and-dicer.” Remember that Obama got his start and his education in retail politics as a community organizer, a profession invented by Saul Alinsky. The whole point of community organizing is not to unite or build bridges, but to divide communities into “us and them” and then organize your faction to achieve your goal by setting them against the other guys. Thus no one should be surprised that Obama has operated this way over the course of his presidency.

It’s who he is and all he knows.

PS: The article’s author, Salena Zito, is a great reporter who looks at politics from a “Main St.” perspective, the point of view of the people the Beltway often forgets exist. You should add her to your reading list.

RELATED: John Fund on the race card as a losing game.

Footnotes:
(1) And deservedly so.
(2) And even though even the White House admitted that was wrong.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

Andrew Klavan tackles one of the great mysteries of our age

July 2, 2011

Today’s Klavan on the Culture deals with something that has puzzled the Wise for nearly a century: just why do African Americans vote for Democrats in such huge numbers??

Ya got me. Maybe Andrew can explain it.

RELATED: An excellent book on the Democratic Party and race.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


“No! I was never a Democrat! I deny you, Obama!!”

August 25, 2010

Quote of the day:

In less than two years we’ve gone from the idea that Republicans may never be a force in national elections again to Democrats turning on their leadership in order to save their own seats.

Devil


11 reasons to vote for Democrats next November

July 4, 2010

Heh. Good one.

Keep these in mind when you go to vote. (Should have had twelve for that even dozen, though. )

via Moe Lane


Is Harry Reid a louse or just stupid?

December 8, 2009

I suppose both could be true, given the pettiness and ignorance needed to describe opponents of nationalized medicine as the equivalent of those who opposed civil rights or defended slavery:

Reid Compares Opponents of Health Care Reform to Supporters of Slavery

Reid argued that Republicans are using the same stalling tactics employed in the pre-Civil War era.

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.'”

He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.

“When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

That seemed to be a reference to Thurmond’s famous 1957 filibuster — the late senator switched parties several years later.

And if you need to see it to believe it, here’s the video:

Harry needs more than a few lessons in History. For  starters, when Thurmond filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act, he was a Democrat. The act itself was proposed by President Eisenhower, a Republican.

But, let’s not stop there. The Democrats have a long and dirty history with civil rights that’s largely been swept under the carpet. Prior to the Civil War, it was the Democrats who defended the institution of slavery and pushed for its expansion. They were so closely tied to slavery that they had effectively married the issue and become almost a Southern regional party. After the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan and other White supremacist groups that attacked Black and other Republican citizens and office-holders was founded by Democrats and, after Reconstruction ended, functioned as the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party to enforce an apartheid regime in the Jim Crow South.

And that’s not all. Democrats fought against all federal anti-lynching legislation for 90 years until 1964. It was a Democratic “progressive” President, Woodrow Wilson, who introduced segregation to the Federal government.  FDR’s New Deal labor policies sent Black unemployment skyrocketing. And it was a Democratic senator, the honorable Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Oh, and he had been a recruiter for the Klan, too.

This is nowhere near the whole story of the Democrats, slavery, and race relations. Bruce Bartlett’s Wrong on Race is a well-written, heavily documented summary. I recommend it for a good eye-opening.

Really, though, Reid’s odious dismissals of legitimate political opposition are only the latest in a long line of attempts by Democrat leaders in recent years to defeat their opponents through smears and waving the bloody shirt, not through the strength of their policy arguments. The late Senator Kennedy infamously slandered Judge Robert Bork from the floor of the Senate upon learning of Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Judge Clarence Thomas was accused of being a base sexual harasser during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings. Senators Kennedy and Durbin compared American troops to Nazis and followers of Saddam Hussein during the abu Ghraib scandal, way out of proportion to what really happened. And this last summer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi compared American citizens exercising their legitimate rights to protest ObamaCare to Nazis.

And now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Republicans (and some fence-sitting Democrats?) who are representing their constituents -exercising legitimate opposition to nationalized health care and making use of all the parliamentary tools available to senators- are comparable to defenders of slavery and the oppression of women.

It just goes to show how bankrupt their arguments are. They can’t win on the merits of cost, economics, or politics – the facts are all against them, as are a majority of the American people. So, instead they hurl rhetorical bombs and hope that cows moderates and conservatives into submission.

How pathetic.

Regarding the question in the subject line, I still haven’t decided if it’s either-or or both, but it looks like Nevadans have realized they’re being represented by a schmuck: polls have the Majority Leader well behind both likely Republican opponents.

Good. Maybe they’ll finally rid the Senate of that smell.

LINKS: More from Legal Insurrection, Hot Air, and Big Government.

UPDATEReid doubles-down on his stupidity. (via Matt Lewis)


In other words, they were lying

December 1, 2009

Byron York looks at the Democratic discomfort over President Obama’s (grudging) decision to sent 30-34,000 more troops to Afghanistan and comes to a conclusion: when they all said during the campaign that the war in Afghanistan was the good war they could support, they lied:

Other top Democrats adopted the get-tough approach, at least when it came time to campaign.  In September 2006, as she was leading the effort that would result in Democrats taking over the House and her becoming speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi said George W. Bush “took his eye off the ball” in Afghanistan. “We had a presence over there the past few years, but not to the extent that we needed to get the job done,” Pelosi said. The phrase “took his eye off the ball” became a Democratic mantra about the supposed neglect of Afghanistan — a situation that would be remedied by electing ready-to-fight Democrats.

But now, with Democrats in charge of the entire U.S. government and George Bush nowhere to be found, Pelosi and others in her party are suddenly very, very worried about U.S. escalation in Afghanistan.  “There is serious unrest in our caucus,” the speaker said recently.  There is so much unrest that Democrats who show little concern about the tripling of already-large budget deficits say they’re worried about the rising cost of the war.

It is in that atmosphere that Obama makes his West Point speech.  He had to make certain promises to get elected.  Unlike some of his supporters, he has to remember those promises now that he is in office.  So he is sending more troops.  But he still can’t tell the truth about so many Democratic pledges to support the war in Afghanistan: They didn’t mean it.

And then they wonder why so many people don’t take the Democrats seriously when it comes to national security.


Brief candle?

October 6, 2009

When the electorate gave control of Congress to the Democrats in 2006 and then the White House in 2008, everyone from the most elite talking head on TV to the local bus driver had their reasons: dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq; Republican corruption; a sense (among their base) that the Republicans had forgotten why they were elected; and even just not liking Dubya much anymore. Whatever the truth, the fact is that the voters were tired of the Rs and wanted to give the car keys to the Ds.

The Democrats seem to have interpreted this as a fundamental shift of the electorate away from free-market capitalism toward a desire for much greater involvement by the state in the economy and everyday lives, a willingness to accept European-style social democracy. Thus the push for a state takeover of large sectors of the economy (two major auto companies, health care), massive Keynesian stimulus spending funded by public debt and (likely) massive taxation, corporatist-style interweaving of government, big business, and labor, and extensive regulatory control over anything that might have to do with the environment (cap and trade).

They likely guessed wrong.

Byron York reports on a Gallup survey that shows Americans by a large margin want government to promote traditional values over “no values:”

Gallup’s question was simple: “Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?” In the new poll, taken in the first days of September, 53 percent of respondents say they want the government to promote traditional values, while 42 percent say they do not want the government to favor any particular set of values. Five percent do not have an opinion.
The results are a significant change from recent years. For most of the last two decades, a majority of people have been in favor of the government promoting traditional values. But that number began to decline in 2005, and the number of people who believe the government should not favor any particular set of values began to rise. Last September, when Gallup asked the same question, the public was split down the middle on the issue, 48 percent to 48 percent. Now, opinion has rather abruptly gone back to the old position, and there’s an 11-point gap between the two, in favor of traditional values.

Gallup’s question was simple: “Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?” In the new poll, taken in the first days of September, 53 percent of respondents say they want the government to promote traditional values, while 42 percent say they do not want the government to favor any particular set of values. Five percent do not have an opinion.

The results are a significant change from recent years. For most of the last two decades, a majority of people have been in favor of the government promoting traditional values. But that number began to decline in 2005, and the number of people who believe the government should not favor any particular set of values began to rise. Last September, when Gallup asked the same question, the public was split down the middle on the issue, 48 percent to 48 percent. Now, opinion has rather abruptly gone back to the old position, and there’s an 11-point gap between the two, in favor of traditional values.

The question the survey doesn’t answer, of course, is what are those “traditional values.” According to Gallup, however, the pattern of responses “…suggest(s) that respondents understand traditional values to be those generally favored by the Republican party.”

That’s one more indicator that the Democrats are heading for a very bad fall in the 2010 elections, because the survey shows a huge shift among self-described independents and moderates:

But it is the turnaround among independents — Gallup also found similar numbers among people who called themselves moderates — that put a screeching halt to the shift that had been taking place in the last few years. “Americans’ views of the proper government role in promoting traditional values had moved in a more liberal direction since 2005, to the point that last year, as many said the government should not promote traditional values as said it should,” Gallup writes. “If that trend had continued, 2009 would have marked the first time Gallup found more Americans preferring that the government refrain from actively promoting traditional values. Instead, Americans’ attitudes reverted to a more conservative point of view on the matter. Now, Americans favor the government’s promoting traditional values by an 11-point margin, similar to the double-digit margins favoring that view through much of the prior two decades.”

To me, this shows that the Democrats badly misread their mandate from 2006 and, especially, 2008. Recall the situation in late August, 2008,  before the financial crack up and panic of September: McCain had come out of the Republican convention with what looked like a solid 3-5% lead, based on the popularity of his selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate and the Obama campaign’s summer ego-trip that turned many voters off. Then came the financial crisis, and the American public did what it often does in such times: it voted the current bums out of office, replacing them with the other bums and giving the new crowd one mission – make us prosperous again. It was not a mandate to subvert individual liberty and remake society into a European social democracy.

Hence the shifting numbers as voters realize they aren’t getting what they voted for. (In fact, they’re getting everything but, including a “stimulus” program that’s been a huge, debt-accumulating failure.) And thus, too, we see the Democrats’ unseemly haste to ram through all these bills before they can be read and analyzed (or even written) before the public puts on the brakes. They know they misunderstood their mandate and that their time is very limited; they need their long-cherished program passed soon, so that the inertia will be against undoing it.

If this poll is correct, their fears seem justified. By November, 2010, this progressive moment could well turn out to have the lifespan of a candle left out in a hurricane.