America’s fork in the road: the Tea Party vs. the Occupy Movement

December 1, 2011

Here’s a good video from Encounter Books and narrated by Bill Whittle on the choice the US faces in 2012 between two populist movements: the largely classical-liberal Tea Party and the progressive-and-further-Left Occupy movement (1). The video provides a clear and succinct summary of the deep philosophical differences between the two groups, and I think you’ll find the five or so minutes it takes to watch is time well-spent:

Every four years it seems people call the approaching election “the most important in our history,” and I admit I’ve become somewhat jaded to those claims. But there’s no doubting that the sequence of elections beginning in 2008 and perhaps climaxing in 2012 is very significant. In a process that began in 1980 with Reagan’s election and that continues to this day, the two parties are developing genuine (2) and serious ideological differences, as illustrated in the video.

It may not be the “most important election in our history,” but the choice is real and the repercussions will last for a long time.

Footnotes:
(1) Although I kind of hesitate to call Occupy “genuinely populist,” given the heavy backing from Big Labor.
(2) And, in the interests of authenticity, may I suggest the Democrat Party stop holding their Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners? You’ve gone so far down the Social-Democratic road that Presidents Jefferson and Jackson would run screaming in horror. (Well, Jackson might draw a sword, instead…)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


New Tone Watch: fellow Americans are sons of you-know-whats. UPDATED: Palin answers Hoffa

September 6, 2011

I have this vague memory of a time long ago —last January, in fact– when the President of the United States spoke at a memorial for the victims of the Tucson massacre and called for a calming of heated rhetoric and for a “new tone” in our political debates.

Silly me. That was then, this is now.

This last Labor Day, President Obama spoke in Detroit to an audience of union workers. Leading up to his speech, Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., (1) spoke to the crowd and gave us an example of that new tone in action:

Um… yeah. In case you missed that due to all the marbles in this thug’s mouth, here’s the key moment via RCP:

“We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war,” Jimmy Hoffa said to a heavily union crowd.

“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong,” Hoffa added.

(Emphasis added.)

About the only thing missing were the brown shirts and steel helmets. (And yes, I deliberately “went there.”)

Not to worry, though. Right after Hoffa’s speech, the President called him out and gave him exactly what-for:

That’s telling him! (What, you were expecting him to criticize a union boss?)

Let’s go back to that awful day in Tucson when Representative Giffords and several other people were gunned down by a delusional nut. Almost immediately, the baying hounds of the Democratic Party, their media allies, and the Left blogosphere jumped all over Sarah Palin for her supposedly violent rhetoric and an obscure campaign graphic for the 2010 election that used crosshairs to symbolize Democrats targeted for defeat. Though hunting and military imagery has been common in American politics for centuries, these sanctimonious yahoos acted as if Palin had herself whispered in the shooter’s ear, giving him orders. Hence Obama’s “above it all” call for a new tone.

Now, imagine if Sarah Palin, in Iowa and New Hampshire for rallies this weekend, had said what Hoffa said, calling fellow citizens SOBs and talking of war. How would the Democrats react? Or what would be the reaction in the media (2) if she or any Republican or conservative leader had said how proud she was of someone who cursed their political opponents and used indisputably violent rhetoric?

You and I both know they be all over this like ants at a picnic. (3)

Now, I’m not saying Hoffa was encouraging actual violence or that unions themselves are violent (Maybe. Kinda.) or that Obama ever would endorse violence (Well…), but, you see… To call it “rank, cynical hypocrisy” would be to state the obvious.

Meet the new tone, same as the old tone.

Footnotes:
(1) “Hoffa.” “Teamsters.” Now those are words any politician should want associated with his name. Yeesh. Well, maybe in Chicago…
(2) In case you’re wondering, most of the mainstream media have been silent on this story.
(3) For what it’s worth, so would most of the Right. But I doubt we’d have to, since our side doesn’t ally with legbreakers.

UPDATE: via Michelle Malkin, no wonder Jimmy Hoffa likes President Obama so much. “You scratch my back, and I’ll bust some heads for you.”

UPDATE 2: Sarah Palin answered Hoffa on her Facebook page today. No cursing, no calls to violence, just some honest  talk going over  the heads of the union bosses and straight to the membership. The key paragraphs:

To see where this leads, look at what’s happening to the working class in our industrialized cities. These cities are going to hell in a hand basket thanks to corruption, crony capitalism, and the union bosses’ greed. The union bosses derive their power from your union dues and their promise to deliver your votes to whichever politician they’re in bed with. They get their power from you, and yet their actions ultimately hurt you. They’re chasing American industry offshore by making outrageous, economically illogical demands that they know will never work. And now that they’ve chased jobs out of union states, they’re trying to chase them out of right-to-work states like South Carolina, so eventually the jobs will leave America altogether. But these union bosses will still figure out a way to keep their gig, and so will their politically aligned corporate friends. As long as these big corporations have a good crony capitalist in the White House, they can rely on DC to bail them out until the whole system goes bankrupt, which, I am afraid, is not very far off. When big government, big business, and big union bosses collude together, they get government to maximize their own interests against those of the rest of the country.

So, now these union bosses are desperately trying to cast the grassroots Tea Party Movement as being “against the workingman.” How outrageously wrong this unapologetic Jim Hoffa is, for the people’s movement is the real movement for working class men and women. It’s rooted in real solidarity, and not special interests and corporate kickbacks. It represents the needed reform that will empower workers and job creators. We stand with the little guy against the corruption and influence peddling of those who collude to grease the wheels of government power.

This collusion is at the heart of Obama’s economic vision for America. In practice it is socialism for the very rich and the very poor, but a brutal form of capitalism for the rest of us. It is socialism for the very poor who are reduced to a degrading perpetual dependence on a near-bankrupt centralized government to provide their every need, while at the same time robbing them of that which brings fulfillment and success – the life-affirming pride that comes from taking responsibility for your own destiny and building a better life through self-initiative and work ethic. And Obama’s vision is socialism via crony capitalism for the very rich who continue to get bailouts, debt-ridden “stimulus” funds, and special favors that allow them to waive off or help draft the burdensome regulations that act as a boot on the neck to small business owners who don’t have the same friends in high places. And where does this collusion leave working class Americans and the small business owners who create 70% of the jobs in this country? Out in the cold. It’s you and your children who are left paying for the cronyism of Obama and our permanent political class in DC.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The right logo for Election 2012

June 12, 2011

One of the authors at the Chicago Boyz blog recently attended a local Democratic meeting (1) and noticed there were already an abundance of “Obama 2012” signs and bumper stickers. That made him think our side needed a reply, so he asked the audience for help.

This is the latest result:

(Click the image for a larger, clearer version.)

I like it and I hope they get it made into stickers and window cards; I’ll put one up.

Earlier versions here.

via Moe Lane

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Footnote:
(1) How did he accomplish that? Must’ve been the Groucho nose and glasses…


To be Black and a Tea Partier…

April 17, 2011

Makes one doubleplusungood, apparently:

It seems these exemplars of Our Betters on the Left (all bow) didn’t get the memo about the new, more civil tone their leaders demanded of us all* in the wake of the Giffords shooting. I’m sure they’re sorry and won’t ever let it happen again.†

via Legal Insurrection

LINKS: My blog-buddy ST has further examples of New Tone Patriotism in action.

*Actually, no they didn’t. Those sanctimonious hypocrites such as Pelosi, Dean, and Matthews really only demanded conservatives shut up. Because that’s the only argument they have left.

†And if you believe that one…


Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) shows again she is a bigoted dimwit

April 14, 2011

And this time she has company, in the form of two liberal (I assume) radio hosts who join her in mocking people who identify with the Tea Party, and Southerners in general. I’ll let them speak for themselves:

Moe Lane absolutely destroys Sanchez on the factual errors she commits in this interview, such as where most of the new representatives come from, but I want to point out something else: Note the cavalier contempt for conservatives’ concern over the constitutionality of Congress’ actions*. Instead of her showing respect for others’ respect for the document they and she are sworn to defend, Sanchez (and her interlocutors) mock them — and their funny names and accents.

Stupid red necks. Why can’t all y’all be like Loretta and just go along to get along and stop fussin’ yourselves over a silly old piece of parchment?

On the other hand, Loretta fits in perfectly fine with her caucus, the leader of which thinks elections really shouldn’t matter.

This isn’t the first time Congresswoman Sanchez (D-Race Card) has shown herself to be more than willing to play on race and ethnicity to gain an edge: when Arizona passed SB 1070, its bill to enforce federal immigration law that the Fed refused to enforce, Sanchez equated supporters of the bill with White supremacists. (Be sure to see the comments for a full discussion.) And during the 2010 election campaign, Sanchez, a member of the enlightened Democratic Party, went on Spanish-language channel Univision to tell her Hispanic viewers that the Vietnamese community in the district were trying to “steal our seat.” Sadly, she won.

Abraham Lincoln once famously said:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

I’d suggest to the congresswoman that she take Mr. Lincoln’s words to heart, but she passed the point of no return long ago and the secret is out.

PS: Sanchez is a louse, too. She tried to get Representative Gabrielle Giffords kicked off a committee while Giffords was lying in a hospital fighting for her life after being shot in the head.

PPS: And let’s not forget she likely cheated her way into the House, too, on the strength of illegal votes in her 1996 election.

PPPS: Must be a family thing; her sister, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D-No Free Speech), sponsored legislation to restrict free speech on the Internet.

*Absolutely accidental alliteration. I swear.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


That sound you hear is NPR’s funding being flushed

March 8, 2011

During the 2008 campaign, it came out that then-Senator Obama held the average American in a sort of patronizing contempt:

And it’s not surprising then [small-town Americans] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Now we have an example (as if we really needed it) of just how widespread this bigotry is among our progressive elites. Conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe (he of the ACORN exposés) has captured two National Public Radio executives trashing conservatives and Tea Party members, and not at all demurring at antisemitic statements, in order to impress what they thought were two donors from a Muslim Brotherhood front group that wants to spread sharia law. Watch and be enlightened:

And this is only part one. I can’t what to see what part two brings.

From the Daily Caller article:

“The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian – I wouldn’t even call it Christian. It’s this weird evangelical kind of move,” declared [Ron] Schiller, the head of NPR’s nonprofit foundation, who last week announced his departure for the Aspen Institute.

In a new video released Tuesday morning by conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe, Schiller and Betsy Liley, NPR’s director of institutional giving, are seen meeting with two men who, unbeknownst to the NPR executives, are posing as members of a Muslim Brotherhood front group. The men, who identified themselves as Ibrahim Kasaam and Amir Malik from the fictitious Muslim Education Action Center (MEAC) Trust, met with Schiller and Liley at Café Milano, a well-known Georgetown restaurant, and explained their desire to give up to $5 million to NPR because, “the Zionist coverage is quite substantial elsewhere.”

On the tapes, Schiller wastes little time before attacking conservatives. The Republican Party, Schiller says, has been “hijacked by this group.” The man posing as Malik finishes the sentence by adding, “the radical, racist, Islamaphobic, Tea Party people.” Schiller agrees and intensifies the criticism, saying that the Tea Party people aren’t “just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.”

Schiller goes on to describe liberals as more intelligent and informed than conservatives. “In my personal opinion, liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives,” he said.

If you’re done gagging, you might want to read the rest.

It’s rather disquieting (to say the least) that media executives would be so anxious to solicit funds from self-proclaimed religious fascists whose stated goal is the destruction of the very system of constitutional liberty that makes a free press possible — while taking the money of taxpayers who would rightly object to seeing those same liberties replaced by sharia law.

But then, I’m just an uneducated, unfair, and unbalanced rube.

Ed Morrissey has some good analysis of this, including the suggestion that we help Schiller discover whether NPR will, as he believes, do better without federal funding. After this, I think a lot of congressmen and senators will be even more willing to assist.

One last thought: After listening to the bile spewed by Schiller and Liley, they have the nerve to call us bigots? Maybe someone should hand them a mirror — and then tell them to pass it along to all their “more educated” friends.

RELATED: If you want a good laugh, check out this article on NPR chief Vivian Schiller* at Big Government.

When asked “Do you believe there is an imbalance at NPR in terms of liberals and conservatives in the newsroom? If the answer is ‘yes’ what do you propose to do about it?”

Schiller responded by saying they get a “tremendous amount of criticism for being too conservative as well” and wishes those people could be in their editorial meetings so they could see what goes on. She then states NPR’s journalism reflects “no particular bias.”

After, she says there’s no question it’s a “perception issue” that some believe NPR is liberal in nature.

Now, I wonder why folks would get that perception? Follow the link for video.

*No relation to Ron Schiller that I know of.

UPDATE: Roger L. Simon calls this The Protocols of the Elders of NPR.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Steny Hoyer, family psychologist

January 6, 2011

I’m getting so confused. You see, I thought I and others like me opposed ObamaCare and other liberal-fascist Democratic programs because we believe strongly in limited government that operates within the bounds of the Constitution and that those same programs were actually harmful to the nation. In other words, we were acting in good faith and on principle.

Silly me.

Since the (Social) Democratic Party was given free reign with the election of President Obama, we’ve been variously told that we’re Nazi sympathizers, racists, and an angry mob that makes a fetish of the Constitution.

Now we know the root causes of our irrational rage. It’s not our fault — we’re victims!

According to Steny Hoyer (D-MD), former House Majority Leader and apparently a specialist in Family Psychology, our opposition to all the wonderful things the Democrats have done for us is rooted in our dysfunctional families:

There are a whole lot of people in the Tea Party that I see in these polls who don’t want any compromise. My presumption is they have unhappy families. All of you have been in families: single-parent, two-parents, whatever. Multiple parent and a stepfather. The fact is life is about trying to reach accommodation with one another so we can move forward. That is certainly what democracy is about. So if we are going to move forward compromise is necessary.

Representative Hoyer said that two days ago. Contrast his arrogance with the humility shown by John Boehner as he was sworn in yesterday as Speaker. Isn’t it usually the loser who’s humble and the winner who crows?

Hoyer’s “diagnosis” is yet another example of the stunning arrogance and patronizing contempt for their fellow citizens that permeates the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which is to say the majority of what’s left of their caucus on the Hill. It is the attitude of an arrogant oligarchy that cannot come to terms with having some of their power taken away and facing the prospect of losing the rest of it in two years. They’re like an employee fired for incompetence who refuses to own up to the truth and instead whines that his boss was out to get him.

Steny, I think you’re the one who needs the psychologist. Not us.

RELATED: I wonder if Hoyer has read Max Blumenthal’s book? They sure think along the same lines…

via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Castro: Tea Party means fascism for America

November 18, 2010

Call it a contrary endorsement: if this bloody-handed dictator is against the Tea Party movement, it must be a good thing:

Speaking to a group of students visiting Havana, former Cuban leader Fidel Castro accused the Tea Party of leading the United States towards “fascism.”

In his comments, Castro chided the United States as a “ruined nation” and derided the Tea Party as “extreme right.”

Forgetting for a moment that fascism is a product of the Left and is the opposite of everything the Tea Party stands for, I just have this sneaking feeling that, given their choice, many Cubans would prefer a Tea rather than a Communist Party, right about now.

(via Mark Hemingway)


Oh, no! The extremists are coming!!

October 22, 2010

In this latest Klavan on the Culture, Andrew Klavan explains to us how our mainstream media (which is really left wing) is trying to warn of the danger posed by extremist Tea-Partiers and Republicans (who are really mainstream) and encourage us to vote for moderate, centrist Democrats (who are really extremists), while…

Oh, never mind. I’ll let Andrew explain it. Besides, he’s much funnier than I. 

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


She’s running, all right. You betcha.

September 22, 2010

A friend posted a link about this on Twitter the other day, asking if this was Sarah Palin’s first ad of the 2012 campaign:

In all honesty, I’d call it her second. Regardless of the official count, I take this as a big, flashing neon sign that she is going to run for President in 2012. You don’t make videos like this while intending to support Romney or Huckabee. This is yet another slick, well-produced video that keeps the candidate front and center, but makes the viewer the subject.  (Unlike, say, the campaign videos of certain Lightworkers we can think of.) SarahPac is getting very, very good at this.

All I can say is, if Sarah Palin is the nominee in 2012, stock up on pizza and popcorn (and moose chili). The battle is going to be epic.


In search of: People of Color

September 13, 2010

If you listen to the mainstream media narrative, the Tea Party movement is a Whites-only affair, the second coming of the angry white man, and a thinly disguised Klan revival. To find out the truth behind this, Bob Parks went on the scene at the Tea Party rally in Washington D.C. Here’s what he found:

Weird. I thought sure he’d find some.

via Big Journalism

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


But don’t they know the Tea Party is RAAAACIST?

August 5, 2010

A hostile media finds itself befuddled by Black Conservatives:

They must be Uncle Toms; it’s the only explanation. It couldn’t be that they’ve allied with conservatives out of genuine shared belief.

Nah. Thank Heaven the press is there to give us the straight facts without any editorializing.

(via Big Journalism)


Breitbart nukes the NAACP – updated

July 19, 2010

Really, after the way Andrew Breitbart and his allies exposed ACORN, you’d think other elements of the progressive political-media complex would be wary of drawing his ire; the man is a political alley-fighter who takes no prisoners. But, no, the NAACP just wouldn’t learn, so they waved a red race card in his face by slandering the Tea Party movements with the accusation last week that they harbor racists and the implication that they are, at heart, a racist movement.

Bad idea. Just before the NAACP vote, Breitbart fired a warning shot:

“Let me say something a tad newsworthy to the president of the NAACP. You can go to  hell. You are manufacturing this in a summer in which the economy is the number one issue effecting blacks and whites in this country. This country can ill-afford the schism of race to be exploited the way you are based on the false premise of the tea party being racist. I have tapes…tape of racism and it’s an NAACP dinner. You want to play with fire? I have evidence of racism and it’s coming from the NAACP. This is absolutely manufactured for political gain…

But the NAACP issued their resolution, anyway.

Now Breitbart has posted two of the videos at his Big Government site. You can follow the link to view them and read more background, but I want to quote one portion:

This is why the Democratic Party is scared. This is why the NAACP is scared. This is why black conservatives, previously marginalized as “Uncle Toms” by these progressive bullies, and shamefully, the NAACP, are coming out of the woodwork to join and, in many cases, lead the Tea Party movement.

The emerging Tea Party nation understands that the media has focused on the manufactured racial schism while intentionally ignoring the schism between free market thinkers and government expansionists, that the latter of which is brazen in its desire to transform America into a European-model welfare state with a healthy dose of socialism.

It’s unfortunate that the NAACP’s recent resolution and false accusations have forced us to show you video 1 when video 2 is the bigger problem. That’s not to say video 1 is not a problem, but this country can ill afford, in this time of economic peril, to waste our time poking and prodding at the racial hornet’s nest that was supposed to have been removed with this post-racial presidency. But now President Obama and the modern-day Democrat party reveal they are anything but post-racial.

And I suspect these aren’t the only videos he has.

It’s sad to see how a storied civil-rights organization with a genuinely admirable past has allowed itself to become nothing more than the race-card playing attack dog of a single political party, particularly as that party has such a dirty history regarding African-Americans.

It will be interesting to see if the NAACP or its allies try to slander Breitbart himself with accusations of racism. Let’s just say I don’t think he’s out of ammunition and I would not advise the NAACP to test him on this.

RELATED: Many African-American conservatives have posted to Big Government to denounce the NAACP and its Tea Party resolution. The latest is Lieutenant Colonel Allen West, a candidate for the Republican nomination to Congress in Florida’s 22nd district. He minces no words, calling the NAACP the “useful idiots of liberal racism.”

Ouch!  Feeling beat up

LINKS: My esteemed co-blogger was thinking along the same lines. (In fact, we both posted at her place on the same topic at the same time, so I withdrew my post there. In case you’re wondering where the cross-post went…)

UPDATE: I’ll say this, Breitbart gets results. Less than 24 hours after he broke the story, the Department of Agriculture official featured in the videos, Shirley Sherrod, has resigned. The NAACP has issued a statement condemning her bigotry. Color me cynical, but I suspect it was issued as defensive cover after being criticized over their Tea Party resolution, rather than from any sincere disavowal of Sherrod’s statements.

UPDATE II: Looks like the shoe is on the other foot, as a viewing of the full video shows Ms. Sherrod’s statement to be anything but racist. It’s no doubt a major black eye for Breitbart, who looks to have been snookered by an edited tape in his eagerness to smack the NAACP. I’m sure he’ll do the right thing and apologize to Ms. Sherrod, as I do for whatever small part I played with this post. (Now, will the Obama Administration give her her job back?) Meanwhile, I stand by my comments about the state of the NAACP, its Tea Party resolution, and its role acting as an attack dog for the Democratic Party. You can view the full video with further comments courtesy of my esteemed co-blogger.


Black conservatives on the “racist Tea Party” smears

May 7, 2010

A bookend for this post: In the video below, Black conservatives take on the progressive smear that the populist Tea Party movement is a cover for racists:


Is the Tea Party movement racist?

May 7, 2010

Reason.TV lets both sides speak for themselves; you decide who the foaming-at-the-mouth bigots are:


Riot police called out to crush dangerous right-wing extremists!

April 28, 2010

It was horrible. Our savior, President Obama Lightworker, was visiting Quincy, Illinois, to reinforce that feeling of hope and change among the desperate people of western Illinois, when he was confronted by a vicious mob of racist, hate-filled Tea Partiers! Quincy authorities did what they had to do to protect the President from a mortal threat, sending the riot squad to contain hordes of savage little old ladies who…. Wait a minute…

Little old ladies?

Yeah, they look plenty violent to me. Nailbiting

Jim Hoft has the story and more pictures.

Methinks the Quincy PD beclowned itself.  Clown

LINKS: And Allahpundit has glorious video.


There’s also the violence card

April 26, 2010

In an earlier post, I wondered if the race card was the only card left in the (Social) Democrats’ deck. The answer is “no,” as Jack Kelly reminds us in a column at Real Clear Politics. They also can and do play the “angry, violent mob” card, accusing conservative protesters of near-sedition and having a potential for terrorism:

It is a despicable smear to attempt to link critics of the tax, spending and regulatory policies of the Obama administration to [Oklahoma City bomber Timothy] McVeigh. Imagine how Mr. Clinton and Mr. Klein would howl if it were asserted that those who protested the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were responsible for the shooting at Fort Hood last November which left 13 dead.

No prominent conservative has asserted that, of course. But it’s a meme among the eminences of the left that the tea party movement is comprised of “angry” knuckle-dragging bigots one Rush Limbaugh broadcast away from insurrection and murder. All this despite the fact the only violence reported at tea party rallies has come when left wingers assaulted protesters.

Kelly then recounts two incidents of left-wing violence from among the several that have happened over the past year. But, one wonders, why do the progressive-statists feel the need to smear the opposition as barely contained rioters? Kelly offers one potential answer:

What really terrifies Democrats is not just the number or size of tea party rallies, but that they are occurring at all. For more than a century, the protest demonstration has been almost exclusively a left-wing thing. Conservatives just don’t demonstrate. The tea party indicates a level of street activism on the right unprecedented in our history.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Dec. 16 indicated the tea party was more popular than either Democrats or Republicans. Respondents approved of the tea party, 41 percent to 23 percent. More disapproved of both the Republican Party (28-43) and the Democratic Party (35-45) than approved of them.

So the tea party must be smeared, lest it gain even more adherents.

I think he’s on to something, but it’s not just fear of the other side developing its own mass movement. As I wrote yesterday, the progressives realize they cannot win the argument based on policy ideas or empirical results, most of the nation rejects what they offer and hates what they’ve done. So all they have left is to try to distract moderates and independents by painting Tea Partiers and other activists concerned by what’s going on in Washington as racists on the edge of violence. For all the Left accused then-President Bush of distracting people from the real issues by playing to their fears, they themselves are doing it in spades.

Yet more and more people are on to the game they’re playing, and each time they lay down the “race” or “violence” cards, their power to intimidate shrinks just a bit more.


Is the race card the only card in their deck?

April 25, 2010

In the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Salena Zito looks at the increasing frequency with which the Left plays the race card -accusing opponents of racism, denying that they could have any legitimate grievance- and sees it losing its force as it becomes overplayed:

Racism isn’t what it used to be. Back in the day, it was horrible in-your-face humiliation hurled for reasons that included fear, insecurity, hate or an utter lack of decency.

Today, the word “racism” is used so flippantly in politics that its true heinous intent often is diluted.

Race has taken political center-stage once more with generalizations that all people who participate in tea party events are racists because they oppose President Barack Obama’s policies.

Racism also often is cited by Washington insiders as the reason for the downward trajectory of Obama’s public approval.

Yet racism has nothing to do with Obama’s falling numbers — or, for that matter, those of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who also is black.

Both men were given the benefit of the doubt when elected to their positions. Only now, after having an opportunity to witness their behavior and performance, have people decided they don’t approve of the jobs Obama and Steele are doing.

Racists never would have given either man an opportunity to begin with. Americans’ dissatisfaction with both men and their performance has more to do with these individuals than with their skin color.

The real story for both Obama and Steele is the same as that for many high-profile (and usually white) politicians. They began with high expectations and then their approval ratings fell over time, as people got to know them.

Zito then compares the rise, fall, and rise-again of Howard Dean and sees him receiving the same treatment, even though he’s White. She rightly points out that both Obama and Steele might also have benefited by a race card being played in their favor. And she notes the boomerang effect of playing it against average Americans, many of whom are becoming politically active in the Tea Party movement, who are feeling ever more condescended to and even insulted for opposing Obama on grounds of policy and performance.

The increasing use of the race card reveals two things: first, that it’s the Left that obsesses over race and the need to see everyone as part of groups, rather than as individuals concerned with principles. As Shelby Steele points out in White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era, racism on the Right was largely burned out when it became socially unacceptable to be racist during the civil rights era. The liberal Left, on the other hand, adopted a form of racial group-think to absolve itself of “White guilt,” atonement for which requires one to explain everything in terms of race and racism.

Second, and perhaps more immediate, the progressive-statists know instinctively that the American people largely reject their preferred policies. Barack Obama ran as a post-partisan, above-all-politics moderate, and the electorate, tired of years of snarling partisanship under Clinton and Bush, hired him to put all that to rest. Then he dropped the mask and, in conjunction with the progressives who dominate the Democratic Party in Congress, has governed as a hyper-partisan Leftist. I’m convinced that, had the public in 2008 known the truth about what Obama and his allies intended if they came to power, then the Democratic ticket wouldn’t have garnered 30% of the vote. (That Obama got away with this is largely the tale of a media that abdicated its responsibilities shamelessly in order to promote Obama, but that’s another story.)

Faced with the reality of a growing rejection, the Left more and more has dealt the race card to smear and intimidate citizens exercising their rights as citizens. But the plain fact is that the opposition that’s arisen is in response to policy and incompetence, and the opponents largely don’t give a damn about anyone’s skin color.

The race card may be the only card left in the progressive’s deck, but it’s hardly a trump anymore.


Quote of the day

April 20, 2010

Roger Kimball on Humor vs. Contempt: Obama and the Question of Character.

Nowadays you find tea partiers accused of racism, violence, and disloyalty, never mind that the left-liberal establishment can point to no examples of these torts. The thing to grasp is that those making the accusations do not feel called upon to offer examples. The guilt of the tea-partiers transcends anything so pedestrian as actual behavior. Tea partiers are like “class enemies” under Stalin: guilty by definition.


Bill Clinton’s rhetorical dishonesty

April 19, 2010

Jennifer Rubin on the former President’s “concerns” about the dangerous rhetoric coming from those radical tea-partiers:

There is a single reason why Clinton, Obama, and the mainstream media are in a tizzy about the Tea Party protests. As Bill Kristol said:

  • It’s an attempt to demonize and discredit the movement and not engage it on its ideas. … I think this notion that — the left pretends to think the Tea Parties are a problem for the Republicans. The fact is the left is terrified of the Tea Parties.President Obama knows they have done a huge amount of damage to his attempt to transform America in a left-wing direction. And therefore, they don’t want to debate the issues. They want to demonize them.

You don’t see the liberal attack machine getting this bent out of shape over nothing. As Bill remarked, “The Obama administration has given rise to a more powerful conservatism than has existed for 20 years, since Ronald Reagan in this country.” And it’s not the GOP Beltway crowd that has done this — it’s ordinary citizens. I don’t think Bill was exaggerating when he said: “The Republican establishment is the threat to the future of the Republican Party and conservatism. The Tea Party is the best thing that’s happened for conservatives.” (You need look no further than the Florida Senate race, where the insiders picked the hapless Charlie Crist, and the Tea Party amateurs identified Marco Rubio as a rising star.) And so the liberals attack and make ludicrous connections to murders like Timothy McVeigh or concoct racist allegations that do not stand up to scrutiny.

It’s the same as with their attacks on Sarah Palin: you can tell whom the progressive statists really fear by the targets they pick and the vitriol they throw.