The newest episode of "America's Evil Genius" has hit the internet, and we have a bombshell today...Newt Gingrich has dropped out of the 2012 Presidential race!!!
...of course, Newt doesn't exactly *know* that he's dropped out yet...
In this episode, I analyze Newt's withdrawal from the race (a withdrawal that's obvious to everyone but Newt himself at this point). I also declare Gingrich's political career to be dead, and give it a fitting (not to mention heart-felt and tear-jerking) eulogy. This one will bring a tear to a glass eye...
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
AEG#10: Birth Certificates, Press Conferences, & Helicopters, Oh my!
Say what you will about Donald Trump, he accomplished what millions of Americans have tried unsuccessfully to do for the last two years...he got Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate.
Well, a birth certificate, anyhow...
However, this ongoing TV drama--entertaining as it may have been--has done nothing to convince me that Donald Trump would be a fitting President in 2012. I still believe that the best way to beat Obama is focus on his record and his decisions--every major decision Obama has made has effectively pissed off the majority of the American People...so why would a dog and pony show focusing on Obama's birth certificate or college records--which could potentially be legit--be a preferable strategy to focusing on his record--a record for which there is no defense?
You'd have to ask Donald Trump...I sure as Hell can't think of a good reason for what he's doing.
But, regardless of what I think, what you think, or what anybody else thinks, Trump is going to go as far with this as he wants to go. Likewise, the media--who are just licking their chops any time they can report on birth certificates, suspected racism, and class warfare instead of reporting on the Tea Party's calls for fiscal responsibility and less government--will be right there to feed off of Trump's questions about Obama's legitimacy. So since this environment is going to be there anyway, is there any possible way that those of us Conservatives who wish to focus exclusively on the issues (mainly because that's what's right for the country, but partially because it will be the easiest way to beat Obama) can somehow benefit from this ongoing media circus?
Perhaps there is...and I discuss this possibility in episode #10 of "America's Evil Genius"
Well, a birth certificate, anyhow...
However, this ongoing TV drama--entertaining as it may have been--has done nothing to convince me that Donald Trump would be a fitting President in 2012. I still believe that the best way to beat Obama is focus on his record and his decisions--every major decision Obama has made has effectively pissed off the majority of the American People...so why would a dog and pony show focusing on Obama's birth certificate or college records--which could potentially be legit--be a preferable strategy to focusing on his record--a record for which there is no defense?
You'd have to ask Donald Trump...I sure as Hell can't think of a good reason for what he's doing.
But, regardless of what I think, what you think, or what anybody else thinks, Trump is going to go as far with this as he wants to go. Likewise, the media--who are just licking their chops any time they can report on birth certificates, suspected racism, and class warfare instead of reporting on the Tea Party's calls for fiscal responsibility and less government--will be right there to feed off of Trump's questions about Obama's legitimacy. So since this environment is going to be there anyway, is there any possible way that those of us Conservatives who wish to focus exclusively on the issues (mainly because that's what's right for the country, but partially because it will be the easiest way to beat Obama) can somehow benefit from this ongoing media circus?
Perhaps there is...and I discuss this possibility in episode #10 of "America's Evil Genius"
Thursday, April 7, 2011
AEG #7: Is Obama Beatable in 2012
You've probably heard them over the last year and a half just as I have...those people who insist that Barack Obama--as a sitting President--will have a huge advantage going into the 2012 election and that if the GOP has any hope of unseating him, they must find the ultimate "perfect" candidate, or else Obama wins 2012 in a cake walk. But is this really the case? Do the same traditional "advantages" that most incumbents have when running for re-election apply to Obama? Is the political environment in the 2010's unchanged enough that simply being an incumbent--and little else--would be enough to virtually guarantee re-election?
I think not. And in the most recent edition of "America's Evil Genius", I make the case for why Barack Obama has a huge mountain to climb in order to win in 2012--regardless of who is running against him. Both Part 1 and Part 2 of this conversation are below:
I think not. And in the most recent edition of "America's Evil Genius", I make the case for why Barack Obama has a huge mountain to climb in order to win in 2012--regardless of who is running against him. Both Part 1 and Part 2 of this conversation are below:
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Diversity in Conservatism Part Deux: Why don't affluent African-Americans flock to Conservatism?
Writer's block is something that many great authors and thinkers--such as myself--are forced to deal with from time to time. Once the mid-term elections came and went, a certain calm--ok, maybe not "calm" but "chance to step back and at least take a breath"--seemed to descend over those of us in the realm of Conservative Commentary. The passionate energy and fervor with which we wrote over the last two years seemed to subside, at least on a temporary basis. I can tell you that, at least speaking for myself, I've actually had a hard time trying to find something to write about for the last couple of weeks.
But then the grind starts again, the calm of the mid-term election goes by the wayside, the victory parties and back-slapping start to level off, and the post-mortems finish up. And those of us in the Conservative blogosphere turn our attention to the day-to-day news, and we start to see things worth writing and talking about again. The TSA starts enforcing airline security measures which seem to have been devised by Larry Flynt. Barack Obama refuses to admit that his policies were the reason for the ass-kicking taken by the Democrats in the mid-terms. An internal battle within the GOP between the traditional powers (read: "RINO's") and the Modern Conservative/Tea Partiers is threatening to break loose. I've gone from having nothing seemingly worthy of a post for the last couple of weeks to having multiple things that I'm chomping at the bit to discuss. Where to start? Where to start?
Well, before pontificating on any of these current issues, I want to re-visit a topic from August and speak in more detail about one key aspect of that topic. Back in August, I wrote a piece on who should be "blamed" for the lack of diversity in the Tea Party movement. While I would encourage anybody who has not done so to read the ariticle, the Cliffs Notes version of it are that Tea Partiers and Conservatives are not to blame for the lack of "diversity" at Tea Party events, as we've done our dead level best to get the message of Conservatism out to all Americans. Instead, if anybody is to blame for the lack of "diversity", it is those members of the minority community who have heard our message, and continue to reject it. Specifically, the blame should be pointed to those Minority-Americans (is that even a real "Hyphanated-American" term?) who would rather accept the silent slavery of "group politics" and "social justice" advocated by the left than to accept the freedom and individual oppurtunity that Capitalism--as advocated by the Right--affords.
But what I want to do in this piece is to go beyond the basic question of "Why aren't minorities supporting Conservatism", and break the discussion down even further. Specifically, why aren't affluent African-Americans flocking to the Conservative movement?
This question was raised in a discussion with a Conservative friend a couple of weeks ago--and the more we discussed the question, the more difficulty we had in coming up with a compelling answer. I mean, let's face it, Conservatism is about the individual being allowed to reap the rewards of his own effort and hard work. So, with that in mind, it is somewhat understandable that those among the poor and middle classes who refuse to take responsibility for their own position in life (whatever ethnic persuasion they might be) would have a difficult time converting to Conservatism. For people of that mindset, Conservatism is a tough sell, and I acknowledge that. But what about those--of any ethnic group--who have worked hard and have been succesful (or are on their way to doing so)--why wouldn't they identify with Conservatism?
There are plenty of African-Americans who are business owners or executives, who are affluent, and have worked incredibly hard to place themselves in the upper classes of society--a place that these individuals have earned their place in. Yet, a large percentage of affluent African-Americans share much of the same poltical slant that poorer African-Americans have. And I find this rather curious--there is, by virtually any measure--a significant difference in poltics between wealthy whites and poorer whites (and also between older whites vs. younger whites). Why do we not see a similar difference within the African-American community?
While a significant amount of this phenomena involves the "generational politics" that I disucssed back in August, and certainly, the false chages of racism that the Left has consistantly lobbed at the Right over the last 50 years (and that the media have accepted on face value) plays a significant role as well. However, I think there is an additional explanation as well...an explanation that really isn't discussed much. There is something peculiar to African-American culture that we see in few other cultures, and certainly not in--for lack of a better term--"white culture". (Brief aside: Please note that I'm talking about CULTURE--that is, the particular characteristics voluntarily adopted by a particular group of people--and I'm NOT talking about race or ethnic makeup. A typical "Liberal Mind Trick" is to talk about those terms interchangeably...but there is a clear difference between the two. Questioning the characteristics of a particular >culture is completely acceptable and is not an act of racism, despite what the Left will tell you).
As my friend and I discussed the question, we arrived at the conclusion that the major difference seems to be that in the culture adopted by many African-Americans, there is an unhealthy expectation of community that doesn't seem to be nearly as present in some other cultures. In other words, when a member of the African-American community becomes succesful or affluent, there seems to be an expectation that the succesful person is to "share" that success with others in the community who have not had such success. This viewpoint is expressed in African-American writings, entertainment, and music (Take this line from the iconic Public Enemy song "Shut 'Em Down": "I like Nike's but wait a minute/the neighborhood supports so put some money in it"). Contrast that to the cultural viewpoint shared by many Whites (and particularly Conservatives)--while many affluent Whites or Conservatives donate freely and generously to charity, the culture they subscribe to does not make the assumption that those who are affluent have any particular responsibility to support or prop up others who have not "made it".
To put it another way, it is not uncommon to hear of affluent African-Americans who feel they have some sort of duty or expectation to invest some of that wealth back into poor, urban areas--and to not do so is to be accused of "forgetting where you came from" or in some way becoming "disconnected" with the rest of the community or culture. In a way, affluent African-Americans are held hostage by the expectations of others within their culture. On the other hand, when Whites become affluent, that same burden of cultural expectations doesn't seem to be there. In a manner of comparison, while many African-Americans feel the need to give money to help crackheads in the ghetto, very few affluent Whites feel the burden of being expected to give money to help methheads in rural areas. The burden and expectation simply isn't there among many affluent Whites, as the culture they subscribe to emphasizes the achievement and responsibility of the individual over that of the larger group. The culture subscribed to by many African-Americans seems to emphasize the opposite mentality.
This is not to say that affluent people of any race or culture refrain from donating to charitible causes or using their wealth to help others--instead it is to say that some cultures place a higher expectation on their members to do so than other cultures do. If more African-Americans who currently subscribe to the dominant culture within their community would begin to question--and eventually disregard--the unhealthy emphasis on "community" within that culture, then many more African-Americans would begin to see the light of Conservatism. But as long as affluent African-Americans continue to handcuff themselves with the burdens of "community", then it will continue to be quite difficult for them to accept Conservatism as a political philosphy.
On the other hand, when succesful African-Americans realize that they have been taken advantage of by the leeches within their community who would prefer to take from their wealth without contributing to it (and that they have been taken advantage of by the American Left who has perpetuated this cultural hoax within the African-American community for decades), when they begin to look at themselves and their familes as individuals as opposed to a part of a larger "community", then they will begin to flock to Conservatism. It won't happen overnight--significant change in cultural values (or even rejection of them) does not happen quickly--but when it does, I believe affluent people (and people who are on their way to becoming affluent) of all races and ethnicities will find that they have a suitable political home within the Conservative movement.
But then the grind starts again, the calm of the mid-term election goes by the wayside, the victory parties and back-slapping start to level off, and the post-mortems finish up. And those of us in the Conservative blogosphere turn our attention to the day-to-day news, and we start to see things worth writing and talking about again. The TSA starts enforcing airline security measures which seem to have been devised by Larry Flynt. Barack Obama refuses to admit that his policies were the reason for the ass-kicking taken by the Democrats in the mid-terms. An internal battle within the GOP between the traditional powers (read: "RINO's") and the Modern Conservative/Tea Partiers is threatening to break loose. I've gone from having nothing seemingly worthy of a post for the last couple of weeks to having multiple things that I'm chomping at the bit to discuss. Where to start? Where to start?
Well, before pontificating on any of these current issues, I want to re-visit a topic from August and speak in more detail about one key aspect of that topic. Back in August, I wrote a piece on who should be "blamed" for the lack of diversity in the Tea Party movement. While I would encourage anybody who has not done so to read the ariticle, the Cliffs Notes version of it are that Tea Partiers and Conservatives are not to blame for the lack of "diversity" at Tea Party events, as we've done our dead level best to get the message of Conservatism out to all Americans. Instead, if anybody is to blame for the lack of "diversity", it is those members of the minority community who have heard our message, and continue to reject it. Specifically, the blame should be pointed to those Minority-Americans (is that even a real "Hyphanated-American" term?) who would rather accept the silent slavery of "group politics" and "social justice" advocated by the left than to accept the freedom and individual oppurtunity that Capitalism--as advocated by the Right--affords.
But what I want to do in this piece is to go beyond the basic question of "Why aren't minorities supporting Conservatism", and break the discussion down even further. Specifically, why aren't affluent African-Americans flocking to the Conservative movement?
This question was raised in a discussion with a Conservative friend a couple of weeks ago--and the more we discussed the question, the more difficulty we had in coming up with a compelling answer. I mean, let's face it, Conservatism is about the individual being allowed to reap the rewards of his own effort and hard work. So, with that in mind, it is somewhat understandable that those among the poor and middle classes who refuse to take responsibility for their own position in life (whatever ethnic persuasion they might be) would have a difficult time converting to Conservatism. For people of that mindset, Conservatism is a tough sell, and I acknowledge that. But what about those--of any ethnic group--who have worked hard and have been succesful (or are on their way to doing so)--why wouldn't they identify with Conservatism?
There are plenty of African-Americans who are business owners or executives, who are affluent, and have worked incredibly hard to place themselves in the upper classes of society--a place that these individuals have earned their place in. Yet, a large percentage of affluent African-Americans share much of the same poltical slant that poorer African-Americans have. And I find this rather curious--there is, by virtually any measure--a significant difference in poltics between wealthy whites and poorer whites (and also between older whites vs. younger whites). Why do we not see a similar difference within the African-American community?
While a significant amount of this phenomena involves the "generational politics" that I disucssed back in August, and certainly, the false chages of racism that the Left has consistantly lobbed at the Right over the last 50 years (and that the media have accepted on face value) plays a significant role as well. However, I think there is an additional explanation as well...an explanation that really isn't discussed much. There is something peculiar to African-American culture that we see in few other cultures, and certainly not in--for lack of a better term--"white culture". (Brief aside: Please note that I'm talking about CULTURE--that is, the particular characteristics voluntarily adopted by a particular group of people--and I'm NOT talking about race or ethnic makeup. A typical "Liberal Mind Trick" is to talk about those terms interchangeably...but there is a clear difference between the two. Questioning the characteristics of a particular >culture is completely acceptable and is not an act of racism, despite what the Left will tell you).
As my friend and I discussed the question, we arrived at the conclusion that the major difference seems to be that in the culture adopted by many African-Americans, there is an unhealthy expectation of community that doesn't seem to be nearly as present in some other cultures. In other words, when a member of the African-American community becomes succesful or affluent, there seems to be an expectation that the succesful person is to "share" that success with others in the community who have not had such success. This viewpoint is expressed in African-American writings, entertainment, and music (Take this line from the iconic Public Enemy song "Shut 'Em Down": "I like Nike's but wait a minute/the neighborhood supports so put some money in it"). Contrast that to the cultural viewpoint shared by many Whites (and particularly Conservatives)--while many affluent Whites or Conservatives donate freely and generously to charity, the culture they subscribe to does not make the assumption that those who are affluent have any particular responsibility to support or prop up others who have not "made it".
To put it another way, it is not uncommon to hear of affluent African-Americans who feel they have some sort of duty or expectation to invest some of that wealth back into poor, urban areas--and to not do so is to be accused of "forgetting where you came from" or in some way becoming "disconnected" with the rest of the community or culture. In a way, affluent African-Americans are held hostage by the expectations of others within their culture. On the other hand, when Whites become affluent, that same burden of cultural expectations doesn't seem to be there. In a manner of comparison, while many African-Americans feel the need to give money to help crackheads in the ghetto, very few affluent Whites feel the burden of being expected to give money to help methheads in rural areas. The burden and expectation simply isn't there among many affluent Whites, as the culture they subscribe to emphasizes the achievement and responsibility of the individual over that of the larger group. The culture subscribed to by many African-Americans seems to emphasize the opposite mentality.
This is not to say that affluent people of any race or culture refrain from donating to charitible causes or using their wealth to help others--instead it is to say that some cultures place a higher expectation on their members to do so than other cultures do. If more African-Americans who currently subscribe to the dominant culture within their community would begin to question--and eventually disregard--the unhealthy emphasis on "community" within that culture, then many more African-Americans would begin to see the light of Conservatism. But as long as affluent African-Americans continue to handcuff themselves with the burdens of "community", then it will continue to be quite difficult for them to accept Conservatism as a political philosphy.
On the other hand, when succesful African-Americans realize that they have been taken advantage of by the leeches within their community who would prefer to take from their wealth without contributing to it (and that they have been taken advantage of by the American Left who has perpetuated this cultural hoax within the African-American community for decades), when they begin to look at themselves and their familes as individuals as opposed to a part of a larger "community", then they will begin to flock to Conservatism. It won't happen overnight--significant change in cultural values (or even rejection of them) does not happen quickly--but when it does, I believe affluent people (and people who are on their way to becoming affluent) of all races and ethnicities will find that they have a suitable political home within the Conservative movement.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
An open letter to the soon-to-be-elected Republican members of Congress
Dear Freshman GOP Congressional Class of 2011:
As I pen this letter to you, we are less than 48 hours away from one of the most watershed mid-term elections of our nation's history--during which all of you will be swept into office. At the risk of doing so prematurely, allow me to express my heartfelt congratulations to you on your election, and my deepest appreciation for stepping to the poltical forefront during one of the most challenging times in American History. You are taking office at a truly challenging and volitile time in our nation--and your willingness to step forward and serve at such a critical time in our nation speaks quite highly of your character.
As you are no doubt aware, you are stepping into an veritable hornets nest in Washington DC. You will be dealing with a President, a news media, and a very loud minority of the American people who will be working against you, and who will stop at nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to destroy your poltical career. By measure of what you stand for right now, you represent a threat to them--not only to their individual careers, but to their flawed worldview and institutions. You represent a dagger in the heart of everything they believe, everything they stand for, and everything that they regard (incorrectly) to be truthful about this world...and as such, they will attempt to destroy you just as they are attempting to destroy this great nation.
In the past, when previous generations of first-term Republicans have found themselves in your shoes, many of them have capitulated and fallen prey to the "Inside the beltway" culture of Washington. They have forgotten their constituents, and have instead worked for the approval of the Washington Insiders, the Intelligensia, and the Media. They're willpower, in many cases, has been worn down by the seductive lure of "establishing themselves" into the Washington culture. In short, many of them have moved away from the values and beliefs that they had prior to being elected.
I know that you do not wish for the same to happen to you, and neither do we--the Conservative American Majority who elected you. We want you to excel where those who came before you failed. You no doubt recognize the shortcomings of your predecessors, as do we who elected you. With that in mind, here are some areas for you to focus on that might help in keeping touch with your Conservative roots, and with what is really important in America:
Focus Area #1--Stop the Bleeding: Your primary job on your first day of duty is to oppose anything and everything--both in word and in deed--that is a part of the dangerous Obama agenda. You are unlikely to have a Veto-proof majority, but even so, make Obama use that veto. Make certain that any Liberal agenda items that slip through can only be attributed to the Democratic party. Force them to go on the record for what little they might "accomplish". Do not get lulled into "cooperating" with them on anything-to do so will put your name on a bill or on a program that you do not wish to be associated with. Stay unified in Conservatism--do not allow those on the side of Evil to divide you with promises or pork or favoritism. They will say anything and do anything to destroy us..do not believe one solitary word that any Democrat says--and that includes the President. They do not have the interests of the American People at heart, and they certainly do not have your best interests at heart--regardless of what they might tell you at a cocktail party or in a back room of the Capitol.
Focus Area #2--Publicly stand for Conservatism at every opportunity: Do not sway your public comments based on what some polls say, or what the media is reporting that the American People supposedly think. Do not try to open up a "big tent"--instead realize that the better alternative is a "small tent" that is very crowded. Do not worry about coming up with the "safe" answer to a reporter's question--instead, give the CORRECT answer. The Liberal Media does not have the unchallenged monopoly on communication in this country that they used to--so even if they try to castigate you for saying something "controversial" (read: "something that does not coincide with a Liberal worldview"), WE WILL HAVE YOUR BACK! We got you elected once, we'll get you elected again, so long as you stay with your Conservative princeples.
Focus Area #3--Think "Long-Term" instead of "Short-Term": At the risk of sounding disheartening, many of the things that we in the Conservative movement want are unlikely to be accomplished during one election cycle. For example, we want Obamacare repealed--but even the most enthusiastic Conservative understands that this cannot happen with a Democratic President in office unless we have a solid, veto-proof majority. So while actually accomplishing this is likely far off, it won't be accomplished during this term. Nevertheless, keep your eyes on the prize and consistently advocate the many long-term goals of Conservatism. This is not about winning elections and staying in power--it is instead about reclaiming our nation and our culture from those who have perverted it over the last half of the 20th Century. Such a reclaimation cannot take place overnight...it will instead be a "life's work" for all of us. Do not allow the daunting nature of this worthwhile task to take your eyes off the ball. Understand that you are making a difference that will be felt 40 or 50 years from now, even if it might not be readily apparent today.
Focus Area #4--Realize that the Grass Roots Conservatives (the "Tea Party" etc.) now run the GOP, not the traditional party "leadership": For 20 years, much of the problem with the GOP has been the established leadership who have been more concerned with winning elections, being invited to Washington social functions, and getting the plum spot on the Sunday Morning panel shows than they have been with getting America back on the right track. Make no mistake, this "leadership" had very little to do with the 2010 Congressional gains--it was the grassroots Conservatives...people like the "Tea Partiers" and the younger Conservatives who are just now taking a day-to-day interest in politics...who swept you into office. As a result, this marks (rather profoundly) a generational shift in the GOP. We who elected you are Conservatives first, Republicans second. We are much more concerned with repairing our nation than we are abount winning an election, or having some artifcial majority of (R)'s vs. (D)'s in Congress. We are not under the control of the GOP leadership, instead we act on our own, and you have now seen the power that we possess. The GOP leadership might talk a good game, but never forget, you work for US...not for them. If you stay true to our expectations and principles--if you keep Conservatism first--then you will have our unquestioned loyalty. But be warned--if you turn on us, if you sell us out for the lure of "bi-partisanship" and "cooperation"--we'll drop you quicker than Britney Spears drops her panties. We WILL continue to be involved in the primary process, and we will not hesitate to destroy you in your next primary if you turn your back on Conservatism. Don't force us to do this.
Good luck to you, and Godspeed--a nation depends on you to implement what we the voters have instructed you to do.
Sincerly,
The American People
As I pen this letter to you, we are less than 48 hours away from one of the most watershed mid-term elections of our nation's history--during which all of you will be swept into office. At the risk of doing so prematurely, allow me to express my heartfelt congratulations to you on your election, and my deepest appreciation for stepping to the poltical forefront during one of the most challenging times in American History. You are taking office at a truly challenging and volitile time in our nation--and your willingness to step forward and serve at such a critical time in our nation speaks quite highly of your character.
As you are no doubt aware, you are stepping into an veritable hornets nest in Washington DC. You will be dealing with a President, a news media, and a very loud minority of the American people who will be working against you, and who will stop at nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to destroy your poltical career. By measure of what you stand for right now, you represent a threat to them--not only to their individual careers, but to their flawed worldview and institutions. You represent a dagger in the heart of everything they believe, everything they stand for, and everything that they regard (incorrectly) to be truthful about this world...and as such, they will attempt to destroy you just as they are attempting to destroy this great nation.
In the past, when previous generations of first-term Republicans have found themselves in your shoes, many of them have capitulated and fallen prey to the "Inside the beltway" culture of Washington. They have forgotten their constituents, and have instead worked for the approval of the Washington Insiders, the Intelligensia, and the Media. They're willpower, in many cases, has been worn down by the seductive lure of "establishing themselves" into the Washington culture. In short, many of them have moved away from the values and beliefs that they had prior to being elected.
I know that you do not wish for the same to happen to you, and neither do we--the Conservative American Majority who elected you. We want you to excel where those who came before you failed. You no doubt recognize the shortcomings of your predecessors, as do we who elected you. With that in mind, here are some areas for you to focus on that might help in keeping touch with your Conservative roots, and with what is really important in America:
Focus Area #1--Stop the Bleeding: Your primary job on your first day of duty is to oppose anything and everything--both in word and in deed--that is a part of the dangerous Obama agenda. You are unlikely to have a Veto-proof majority, but even so, make Obama use that veto. Make certain that any Liberal agenda items that slip through can only be attributed to the Democratic party. Force them to go on the record for what little they might "accomplish". Do not get lulled into "cooperating" with them on anything-to do so will put your name on a bill or on a program that you do not wish to be associated with. Stay unified in Conservatism--do not allow those on the side of Evil to divide you with promises or pork or favoritism. They will say anything and do anything to destroy us..do not believe one solitary word that any Democrat says--and that includes the President. They do not have the interests of the American People at heart, and they certainly do not have your best interests at heart--regardless of what they might tell you at a cocktail party or in a back room of the Capitol.
Focus Area #2--Publicly stand for Conservatism at every opportunity: Do not sway your public comments based on what some polls say, or what the media is reporting that the American People supposedly think. Do not try to open up a "big tent"--instead realize that the better alternative is a "small tent" that is very crowded. Do not worry about coming up with the "safe" answer to a reporter's question--instead, give the CORRECT answer. The Liberal Media does not have the unchallenged monopoly on communication in this country that they used to--so even if they try to castigate you for saying something "controversial" (read: "something that does not coincide with a Liberal worldview"), WE WILL HAVE YOUR BACK! We got you elected once, we'll get you elected again, so long as you stay with your Conservative princeples.
Focus Area #3--Think "Long-Term" instead of "Short-Term": At the risk of sounding disheartening, many of the things that we in the Conservative movement want are unlikely to be accomplished during one election cycle. For example, we want Obamacare repealed--but even the most enthusiastic Conservative understands that this cannot happen with a Democratic President in office unless we have a solid, veto-proof majority. So while actually accomplishing this is likely far off, it won't be accomplished during this term. Nevertheless, keep your eyes on the prize and consistently advocate the many long-term goals of Conservatism. This is not about winning elections and staying in power--it is instead about reclaiming our nation and our culture from those who have perverted it over the last half of the 20th Century. Such a reclaimation cannot take place overnight...it will instead be a "life's work" for all of us. Do not allow the daunting nature of this worthwhile task to take your eyes off the ball. Understand that you are making a difference that will be felt 40 or 50 years from now, even if it might not be readily apparent today.
Focus Area #4--Realize that the Grass Roots Conservatives (the "Tea Party" etc.) now run the GOP, not the traditional party "leadership": For 20 years, much of the problem with the GOP has been the established leadership who have been more concerned with winning elections, being invited to Washington social functions, and getting the plum spot on the Sunday Morning panel shows than they have been with getting America back on the right track. Make no mistake, this "leadership" had very little to do with the 2010 Congressional gains--it was the grassroots Conservatives...people like the "Tea Partiers" and the younger Conservatives who are just now taking a day-to-day interest in politics...who swept you into office. As a result, this marks (rather profoundly) a generational shift in the GOP. We who elected you are Conservatives first, Republicans second. We are much more concerned with repairing our nation than we are abount winning an election, or having some artifcial majority of (R)'s vs. (D)'s in Congress. We are not under the control of the GOP leadership, instead we act on our own, and you have now seen the power that we possess. The GOP leadership might talk a good game, but never forget, you work for US...not for them. If you stay true to our expectations and principles--if you keep Conservatism first--then you will have our unquestioned loyalty. But be warned--if you turn on us, if you sell us out for the lure of "bi-partisanship" and "cooperation"--we'll drop you quicker than Britney Spears drops her panties. We WILL continue to be involved in the primary process, and we will not hesitate to destroy you in your next primary if you turn your back on Conservatism. Don't force us to do this.
Good luck to you, and Godspeed--a nation depends on you to implement what we the voters have instructed you to do.
Sincerly,
The American People
Monday, October 11, 2010
The Rebellion of the Responsible--How the "$75 Tennessee Housfire" points to a changing attitude regarding "Safety Net" government
First, before we get into the topic at hand in this post, a bit of housecleaning: As you may be aware, I'm a bit new to this "blogging" thing--so I'm learning what I'm doing as I go. As you likely are aware, comments on this blog are moderated by yours truly (only for the reason that I don't want this to turn into the typical AOL comments section filled with nothing of consequence). Tonight, when I logged in, I noticed a comment waiting for moderation that I had somehow missed for nearly a month. This is my fault, as I didn't notice the comment waiting for moderation, and I take full responsibility for the oversight. I assure you, faithful readers, that this shall not happen again. The comment has been published (It was in response to the "Gays and Kiss Cams" post), along with my response to it. My sincere apologies, particularly to the poster who originally made the comment...this type of oversight on my part shall not happen again, so sayeth the CWG!!!
Now onto today's topic--the "$75 Tennessee Housefire" and how it relates to the overall poltical climate in our nation today. By now, many of you are aware of the recent situation in which a homeowner in rural Tennessee was denied firefighting assistance because he had not paid a $75 annual subscription fee for such services. The homeowner called the fire department when his house caught fire, the fire department came out, discovered he had not paid the subscription fee, and refused him service, allowing his home to burn to the ground--though they did provide service for his neighbor (who had paid the appropriate fee) when the fire threatened to jump to his property.
The story became national attention when Keith Olbermann tried to use it to attack Conservatives, and the Tea Party in particular. Olbermann made the claim that this type of service was indicative of how the "pay as you go" principals of providing services advocated by many Tea Partiers would function in practice. Olbermann attempted to use this story to illustrate how (in his mind) a system where services are funded by taxes, then provided to everyone is "superior" to a system in which services are funded by a voluntary subscription basis, and only those who buy in for the service are covered.
Keith summoned up all the crocodile tears that he could when delivering this story, even interviewing the homeowner (not once, but twice) sitting in front of his burned out home. Olbermann's reports on this were melodrama worthy of a Sally Struthers "Feed the starving African kids" commercial or a Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon. He used these interviews to blame the fire chief for not putting out the fire, blaming the municipality for having a subscription-based service to begin with, and blamed the voters of the county for not approving a measure that would increase taxes in order to provide fire protection across the board...but of course, he never bothered to blame the one person who was actually responsible for the lost home--the homeowner himself.
After his intial report on his "Countdown" program, Olbermann brought the story up again later in the week (along with another exploitation...erm..."interview" with the homeowner who wasn't responsible enough to protect his own property) and expressed incredulousness at the reaction in many quarters that, essentially, the homeowner "had it coming". How could we be so callous, Olbermann wondered aloud? It would appear that what Olbermann found even more shocking than the deadbeat homeowner's house being allowed to burn down was the fact that many Americans essentially agreed with the Fire Chief's decision.
But should Olbermann (or other Liberals--when I read other interactions on the web about this topic, the shock and sadness from the Left--feigned or otherwise--regarding reaction to the homeowner was farily consistent) really be all that surprised? In my view, they really should not be surprised at the reaction against the homeowner here. There seems to be a growing chasm in America between Responsible Americans and Irresponsible Americans. In other words, there is a growing disparity between that group of Americans that work hard, follow the rules, and pay their own way in life and that group of Americans who feel that they should not have to work or produce, should not have to be responsible for their own lot in life, and who feel they are entitled to live off of the spoils produced by those in the other group who are responsible.
For over 60 years (or even longer, if you really want to go back into history) Responsible Americans have been expected to foot the bill for the Irresponsible Americans in society. Under the guise of "fairness", "equality", or just plain old tugging at emotion, heartstrings, and the attempted imposition of guilt, Responsible Americans are expected not only to carry their own weight, but to carry the weight of those who refuse to contribute to society or their own well-being. For many years, well-meaning Conservatives (particularly those in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, and even 90's--remember that "Compassionate Conservative" garbage?) fell right into this trap--falling for the age-old argument of "Well, we have to do something for them, after all, they're suffereing!" So from Social Security, to Medicare, to the "War on Poverty", to attempts to woo Conservatives over on disasterous policies like Universal Health Care and Amnesty for Illegal Immigrints--the Left has consistantly used the tactic of "we can't just let them fall through the cracks" to shame the some on the Right into supporting programs which the government should never undertake.
However, I'm noticing a different type of reaction starting to come from Conservatives (particularly younger Conservatives) that I speak with every day--a reaction of "To Hell with the Irresponsible Americans". Many of us within this group of "New Conservatives" realize that drastic cuts to government must be made, and we are seriously questioning the entire concept of the government-maintained "safety net" that is practically gospel to Liberals. We look back at the last century of American History--during which billions of dollars have been thrown at the "problem areas" of society...only to provide no return on investment. We've seen money thrown at inner city schools for decades--yet graduates of such schools are no more prepared to function in society than they were earlier in the 20th Century. We've seen different social programs set up to help poor and single mothers--only to see a continual increase in the number of single mothers and children without two parents (as well as a decrease in the number of responsible fathers in America...after all, if the government--and by extension the Responsible Americans who actually pay taxes and fund it--will fund the raising of your illegitimate kids, then why should you do it?). Time and again, Americans are told that it's a "moral responsibility" to help those who are "disadvantaged" (igoring the fact that in most cases, those people are the source of their own disadvantages), despite such "help" never resulting in the eradication of the problems that it is supposed to address.
We see our own history, and we know that a change must be made. We see the destruction that the "safety net" form of public policy has wroght, and we want no part of it going forward. We understand that those who refuse to take responsibility for their lives should have to deal with the reprecussions of their choices (such as the Tennessee homeowner who opted not to subscribe to the fire service) without Responsible Americans having to take up the slack for the Irresponsible. We realize that coddling the parasites who wish to subsist off of Responsible Americans only retards the development and the human potential of those who are currently Irresponsible. In other words, they'll never have develop the skills to prosper in American society if they aren't cut off from the teet of society, and forced to learn those skills and provide for themselves.
If you look back at the Healthcare debate--most of the objection to Obamacare from the Right was on this basis. A growing number of Americans are putting their foot down and saying "Not one more motherfucking dime!!" We want to pay for our own healthcare...not yours. We care if our child gets educated...not yours. We will do what it takes to put food on our table and a roof over our heads...but we will no longer provide food and a roof for those of you who don't feel the need to do so.
A new generation of Conservatives is hell-bent on stopping the gravy train that the dregs of American society have lived off of for most of the 20th Century. Not only do we realize that, as a nation, we can no longer afford to provide this gravy train--but more importantly we realize the destructive effect that such "safety nets" have on the lives of those individuals who choose to spend their entire existence trapped in those nets. You need look no further than your nearest inner city to get an eye-opening picture of the destructiveness to human potential that occurs when government tries to fill the void of personal responsibility and the nuclear family. Are some people going to "fall through the cracks" if we continue to pursue the dismantling of the "safety net"? Probably so..but I suspect it will be a lot less than many people think. Reason being: the human instinct for survival will take over, and those who are currently contributing nothing to society will start, because if they do not, they'll starve.
Man acheives his greatest successes when he has no choice but to achieve, and when failure is simply not an option. We must remove the "safety net" in society, and in so doing, remove the option of failure from those Irresponsible Americans in society.
The Responsible Americans must continue to rebel...our nation and our culture depends upon it.
Now onto today's topic--the "$75 Tennessee Housefire" and how it relates to the overall poltical climate in our nation today. By now, many of you are aware of the recent situation in which a homeowner in rural Tennessee was denied firefighting assistance because he had not paid a $75 annual subscription fee for such services. The homeowner called the fire department when his house caught fire, the fire department came out, discovered he had not paid the subscription fee, and refused him service, allowing his home to burn to the ground--though they did provide service for his neighbor (who had paid the appropriate fee) when the fire threatened to jump to his property.
The story became national attention when Keith Olbermann tried to use it to attack Conservatives, and the Tea Party in particular. Olbermann made the claim that this type of service was indicative of how the "pay as you go" principals of providing services advocated by many Tea Partiers would function in practice. Olbermann attempted to use this story to illustrate how (in his mind) a system where services are funded by taxes, then provided to everyone is "superior" to a system in which services are funded by a voluntary subscription basis, and only those who buy in for the service are covered.
Keith summoned up all the crocodile tears that he could when delivering this story, even interviewing the homeowner (not once, but twice) sitting in front of his burned out home. Olbermann's reports on this were melodrama worthy of a Sally Struthers "Feed the starving African kids" commercial or a Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon. He used these interviews to blame the fire chief for not putting out the fire, blaming the municipality for having a subscription-based service to begin with, and blamed the voters of the county for not approving a measure that would increase taxes in order to provide fire protection across the board...but of course, he never bothered to blame the one person who was actually responsible for the lost home--the homeowner himself.
After his intial report on his "Countdown" program, Olbermann brought the story up again later in the week (along with another exploitation...erm..."interview" with the homeowner who wasn't responsible enough to protect his own property) and expressed incredulousness at the reaction in many quarters that, essentially, the homeowner "had it coming". How could we be so callous, Olbermann wondered aloud? It would appear that what Olbermann found even more shocking than the deadbeat homeowner's house being allowed to burn down was the fact that many Americans essentially agreed with the Fire Chief's decision.
But should Olbermann (or other Liberals--when I read other interactions on the web about this topic, the shock and sadness from the Left--feigned or otherwise--regarding reaction to the homeowner was farily consistent) really be all that surprised? In my view, they really should not be surprised at the reaction against the homeowner here. There seems to be a growing chasm in America between Responsible Americans and Irresponsible Americans. In other words, there is a growing disparity between that group of Americans that work hard, follow the rules, and pay their own way in life and that group of Americans who feel that they should not have to work or produce, should not have to be responsible for their own lot in life, and who feel they are entitled to live off of the spoils produced by those in the other group who are responsible.
For over 60 years (or even longer, if you really want to go back into history) Responsible Americans have been expected to foot the bill for the Irresponsible Americans in society. Under the guise of "fairness", "equality", or just plain old tugging at emotion, heartstrings, and the attempted imposition of guilt, Responsible Americans are expected not only to carry their own weight, but to carry the weight of those who refuse to contribute to society or their own well-being. For many years, well-meaning Conservatives (particularly those in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, and even 90's--remember that "Compassionate Conservative" garbage?) fell right into this trap--falling for the age-old argument of "Well, we have to do something for them, after all, they're suffereing!" So from Social Security, to Medicare, to the "War on Poverty", to attempts to woo Conservatives over on disasterous policies like Universal Health Care and Amnesty for Illegal Immigrints--the Left has consistantly used the tactic of "we can't just let them fall through the cracks" to shame the some on the Right into supporting programs which the government should never undertake.
However, I'm noticing a different type of reaction starting to come from Conservatives (particularly younger Conservatives) that I speak with every day--a reaction of "To Hell with the Irresponsible Americans". Many of us within this group of "New Conservatives" realize that drastic cuts to government must be made, and we are seriously questioning the entire concept of the government-maintained "safety net" that is practically gospel to Liberals. We look back at the last century of American History--during which billions of dollars have been thrown at the "problem areas" of society...only to provide no return on investment. We've seen money thrown at inner city schools for decades--yet graduates of such schools are no more prepared to function in society than they were earlier in the 20th Century. We've seen different social programs set up to help poor and single mothers--only to see a continual increase in the number of single mothers and children without two parents (as well as a decrease in the number of responsible fathers in America...after all, if the government--and by extension the Responsible Americans who actually pay taxes and fund it--will fund the raising of your illegitimate kids, then why should you do it?). Time and again, Americans are told that it's a "moral responsibility" to help those who are "disadvantaged" (igoring the fact that in most cases, those people are the source of their own disadvantages), despite such "help" never resulting in the eradication of the problems that it is supposed to address.
We see our own history, and we know that a change must be made. We see the destruction that the "safety net" form of public policy has wroght, and we want no part of it going forward. We understand that those who refuse to take responsibility for their lives should have to deal with the reprecussions of their choices (such as the Tennessee homeowner who opted not to subscribe to the fire service) without Responsible Americans having to take up the slack for the Irresponsible. We realize that coddling the parasites who wish to subsist off of Responsible Americans only retards the development and the human potential of those who are currently Irresponsible. In other words, they'll never have develop the skills to prosper in American society if they aren't cut off from the teet of society, and forced to learn those skills and provide for themselves.
If you look back at the Healthcare debate--most of the objection to Obamacare from the Right was on this basis. A growing number of Americans are putting their foot down and saying "Not one more motherfucking dime!!" We want to pay for our own healthcare...not yours. We care if our child gets educated...not yours. We will do what it takes to put food on our table and a roof over our heads...but we will no longer provide food and a roof for those of you who don't feel the need to do so.
A new generation of Conservatives is hell-bent on stopping the gravy train that the dregs of American society have lived off of for most of the 20th Century. Not only do we realize that, as a nation, we can no longer afford to provide this gravy train--but more importantly we realize the destructive effect that such "safety nets" have on the lives of those individuals who choose to spend their entire existence trapped in those nets. You need look no further than your nearest inner city to get an eye-opening picture of the destructiveness to human potential that occurs when government tries to fill the void of personal responsibility and the nuclear family. Are some people going to "fall through the cracks" if we continue to pursue the dismantling of the "safety net"? Probably so..but I suspect it will be a lot less than many people think. Reason being: the human instinct for survival will take over, and those who are currently contributing nothing to society will start, because if they do not, they'll starve.
Man acheives his greatest successes when he has no choice but to achieve, and when failure is simply not an option. We must remove the "safety net" in society, and in so doing, remove the option of failure from those Irresponsible Americans in society.
The Responsible Americans must continue to rebel...our nation and our culture depends upon it.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Sarah Palin Conundrum--can we learn from Christine O'Donnell?
I have often thought that the 2012 Presidential Campaign began precisely at 10:57 PM on November 4, 2008, which was the precise moment that the 2008 election was called for Barack Obama. From that moment onward, all poltical activity in this nation--every speech, every debate, every bill, every congressional primary, every governors race, every soundbite, every news report on every network, every book that has been written, every newspaper article, and every poltical blog post (including mine), and every debate over a kitchen table or a neighborhood bar--has been a pawn in the chess game of November 2012. So with that in mind, it is understandable that we would look at the Christine O'Donnell situation in Delaware (one of the most interesting poltical stories I've seen) and see if we could draw some inferences towards 2012.
The biggest story of the O'Donnell-Mike Castle primary ended up being the debate over "pragmaticism vs. ideology" that everybody up to and including Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove ended up getting involved in. The Republican primary in Delaware was the classic case of principled Conservative outsider who has little chance of winning the general election (at least as far as conventional wisdom would be concerned) vs. the Moderate insider who--for all of his faults (including voting for impeachment proceedings of George W. Bush)--has a better chance (again, in terms of conventional wisdom) against a Democratic candidate who is, of all things, a self-described Marxist. O'Donnell (the outsider, and darling of true Conservatives and Tea Party members) is the more Conservative candidate, but Mike Castle has the "better chance" of winning the general election (or so we were told). Therefore, there were voices--pretty loud voices--within the GOP making the argument that we must vote for Castle in order to insure a Republican Congressional majority.
At that point, the philosophical question of "victory vs. ideology" was raised. Should Conservatives sacrifice some of their Conservatism only to win elections? My view was that the answer to the question is a clear "No!" To many in the Conservative movement--myself included--the Big Tent/Go along to Get Along/Appeal to Everybody/Typical Polticians who have plagued the GOP for the last 20 years are a significant part of the problems that America faces, nearly as much so as the Democratic Party. In short, the appeal to the middle is how we got candidates like John McCain and George W. Bush among many others--guys who could get elected, but couldn't (or wouldn't) advance true Conservative values in government and society. To many of us on the Right, we're sick of hollow victories by moderates who tell us what we want to hear at campaign time, only to reach across the aisle once they are in office and stab us (and the American People) in the back.
In other words, we are no longer interested in a "Republican" majority if the only way we can get it is to put "Spineless Moderates" in office who will spend their entire term undercutting the majority of what we stand for. In a race between one of those "Rinos" and a Liberal Democrat, it's pretty much "six of one, half a dozen of the other".
So the voices of the growing Conservative movement was clear in Delaware--we're willing to back the more Conservative candidate, even if we potentially have to sacrifice a short-term goal of winning an election. We're in it for the long haul, focusing on the long-term goal of getting our nation back onto the right track financially, philisophically, and morally, rather than the short-term goals of winning an election.
In the wake of the Delaware primary and the ensuing questions of "vicrtory vs. ideology", I realized that I needed to re-think some positions I had taken on a potential Presidential run by Sarah Palin in 2012. Previously, in converstions I've had with various people as well as on some message boards, I had stated that while I feel that Sarah Palin would do the best job as President of any potential candidates that are currently out there, I have doubts that she could win the election. Therefore, I had stated that the GOP really needs to look in another direction for their 2012 candidate. I arrived at this conclusion through a combination of sheer mathematics, an understanding of human psychology, and good old-fashioned common sense. We all are aware that Obama won in 2008 based mainly off of the huge turnout that he gained within some key groups--and I feel he will have a difficult time replicating this same level of turnout in the same key areas. Obama won in 2008 because of turnout among urban voters, youth voters, and suburban middle-class white voters. Of those three groups, I believe Obama will have some difficulty with two of them in 2012, barring anything unforseen and drastic. Obama will certainly win the urban vote as strongly--and with nearly as much turnout--as he had in 2008..so I think we can concede that group of voters to him. However, I don't think he will be able to inspire the near cult-like following from the youth voters as he did in 2008. He'll win them in terms of percentage, but I don't think he'll get the high level of turnout that he had before--mainly because some youth voters will see through the sham that his 2008 campaign was, others will (through some life experience) will determine that Liberalism isn't all it's cracked up to be and switch their poltical allegiances, and still others will be so dissapointed that the "rainbows and unicorns" promised by the Obama 2008 campaign never came about, and they'll simply stay home. Likewise with the suburban whites--many within this group turned out in 2008 because of a combination of restlessness with "business as usual" government, and the appeal of a "historic" election. However, in 2012, Obama can't play the "historic election of the First Black President" card again--and all of those votes he got that were for that reason alone will have to be re-earned. Many of those within this group who voted for Obama out of some sense of vague "Change" are now having buyers remorse, and don't like the "Change" that they've sen (in particular, Obamacare). Therefore, I can't imagine Obama getting large turnout in his favor from this group as he had in 2008.
So as you can see, Obama cannot win an election with low or moderate voter turnout. With that in mind--and understanding that it would be a herculean task for Obama to replicate the huge voter turnout that he inspired in 2008, even in the best of circumstances--2012 should be an election that is there for GOP taking. The key is to keep the huge voter turnout on the Democratic side from taking root, which shouldn't be terribly hard given the current infighting, apathy, and dissapointment that we see in the American Left.
And this is what brings us to the Sarah Palin Conundrum--my one misgiving about Sarah Palin is that the American Left (and a good deal of the Independants) hate her so much that I fear they will come out to vote against her, when they might not come out to vote otherwise. Despite the fact that Sarah would make a better President than any other current GOP candidate out there, I have always feared that she would have the most difficult time winning, as she might inspire higher turnout from those who would vote for "anybody but Sarah". As a result, I've said throughout the last several months that we on the Right should concentrate on potential candidates other than Sarah.
However, in the light of the Christine O'Donnell race, I'm starting to re-think this position. Should I not back Palin simply because of fears of "electablity", despite believing that she is the best possible candidate? If so, am I falling into the same trap that GOP leadership was trying to lead Conservative into in Delaware? Don't get me wrong, I want Barack Obama out of the White House in 2012 (Hell, I'd prefer to have him run out of the country period--but I'll take "out of the White House"). However, in my haste to end the tyrannical reign of "King Barack I", I may have overlooked the possibility of a Moderate Republican gaining the office in 2012. Would this be much better than an Obama second term? I'm not sure that it would be.
The constant gaffes of Obama and the Left over the last two years have provided Conservatives with a great opportunity to not only re-take power, but more importantly the opportunity to re-educate and re-acquaint the American people with the Conservative poltical philosophy, so that it might take root, grow, and prosper for decades long beyond the 2012 election. Now, if a truly Conservative candidate emerges who is more "electable" than Sarah Palin, then I believe we should go that direction with the GOP nomination. However, if no such candidate emerges, then I no longer feel we should "accept" a moderate candidate just to insure a 2012 win. It was the moderate Republicans who had nearly as much to do with the mess our nation is in as the Democrats did--letting them back into office would be almost as big of a mistake as allowing a second term for Obama. If Sarah Palin turns out to be the only "ideologically pure" Conservative out there, then we must get behind her, and do WHATEVER IT TAKES to make sure she wins, even if it is more of an uphill climb to get her there.
Being a "Republican" is no longer good enough for America. An American President must be Conservative above all else...otherwise they are not fit to serve, regardless of if an (R) or a (D) is at the end of their name.
The biggest story of the O'Donnell-Mike Castle primary ended up being the debate over "pragmaticism vs. ideology" that everybody up to and including Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove ended up getting involved in. The Republican primary in Delaware was the classic case of principled Conservative outsider who has little chance of winning the general election (at least as far as conventional wisdom would be concerned) vs. the Moderate insider who--for all of his faults (including voting for impeachment proceedings of George W. Bush)--has a better chance (again, in terms of conventional wisdom) against a Democratic candidate who is, of all things, a self-described Marxist. O'Donnell (the outsider, and darling of true Conservatives and Tea Party members) is the more Conservative candidate, but Mike Castle has the "better chance" of winning the general election (or so we were told). Therefore, there were voices--pretty loud voices--within the GOP making the argument that we must vote for Castle in order to insure a Republican Congressional majority.
At that point, the philosophical question of "victory vs. ideology" was raised. Should Conservatives sacrifice some of their Conservatism only to win elections? My view was that the answer to the question is a clear "No!" To many in the Conservative movement--myself included--the Big Tent/Go along to Get Along/Appeal to Everybody/Typical Polticians who have plagued the GOP for the last 20 years are a significant part of the problems that America faces, nearly as much so as the Democratic Party. In short, the appeal to the middle is how we got candidates like John McCain and George W. Bush among many others--guys who could get elected, but couldn't (or wouldn't) advance true Conservative values in government and society. To many of us on the Right, we're sick of hollow victories by moderates who tell us what we want to hear at campaign time, only to reach across the aisle once they are in office and stab us (and the American People) in the back.
In other words, we are no longer interested in a "Republican" majority if the only way we can get it is to put "Spineless Moderates" in office who will spend their entire term undercutting the majority of what we stand for. In a race between one of those "Rinos" and a Liberal Democrat, it's pretty much "six of one, half a dozen of the other".
So the voices of the growing Conservative movement was clear in Delaware--we're willing to back the more Conservative candidate, even if we potentially have to sacrifice a short-term goal of winning an election. We're in it for the long haul, focusing on the long-term goal of getting our nation back onto the right track financially, philisophically, and morally, rather than the short-term goals of winning an election.
In the wake of the Delaware primary and the ensuing questions of "vicrtory vs. ideology", I realized that I needed to re-think some positions I had taken on a potential Presidential run by Sarah Palin in 2012. Previously, in converstions I've had with various people as well as on some message boards, I had stated that while I feel that Sarah Palin would do the best job as President of any potential candidates that are currently out there, I have doubts that she could win the election. Therefore, I had stated that the GOP really needs to look in another direction for their 2012 candidate. I arrived at this conclusion through a combination of sheer mathematics, an understanding of human psychology, and good old-fashioned common sense. We all are aware that Obama won in 2008 based mainly off of the huge turnout that he gained within some key groups--and I feel he will have a difficult time replicating this same level of turnout in the same key areas. Obama won in 2008 because of turnout among urban voters, youth voters, and suburban middle-class white voters. Of those three groups, I believe Obama will have some difficulty with two of them in 2012, barring anything unforseen and drastic. Obama will certainly win the urban vote as strongly--and with nearly as much turnout--as he had in 2008..so I think we can concede that group of voters to him. However, I don't think he will be able to inspire the near cult-like following from the youth voters as he did in 2008. He'll win them in terms of percentage, but I don't think he'll get the high level of turnout that he had before--mainly because some youth voters will see through the sham that his 2008 campaign was, others will (through some life experience) will determine that Liberalism isn't all it's cracked up to be and switch their poltical allegiances, and still others will be so dissapointed that the "rainbows and unicorns" promised by the Obama 2008 campaign never came about, and they'll simply stay home. Likewise with the suburban whites--many within this group turned out in 2008 because of a combination of restlessness with "business as usual" government, and the appeal of a "historic" election. However, in 2012, Obama can't play the "historic election of the First Black President" card again--and all of those votes he got that were for that reason alone will have to be re-earned. Many of those within this group who voted for Obama out of some sense of vague "Change" are now having buyers remorse, and don't like the "Change" that they've sen (in particular, Obamacare). Therefore, I can't imagine Obama getting large turnout in his favor from this group as he had in 2008.
So as you can see, Obama cannot win an election with low or moderate voter turnout. With that in mind--and understanding that it would be a herculean task for Obama to replicate the huge voter turnout that he inspired in 2008, even in the best of circumstances--2012 should be an election that is there for GOP taking. The key is to keep the huge voter turnout on the Democratic side from taking root, which shouldn't be terribly hard given the current infighting, apathy, and dissapointment that we see in the American Left.
And this is what brings us to the Sarah Palin Conundrum--my one misgiving about Sarah Palin is that the American Left (and a good deal of the Independants) hate her so much that I fear they will come out to vote against her, when they might not come out to vote otherwise. Despite the fact that Sarah would make a better President than any other current GOP candidate out there, I have always feared that she would have the most difficult time winning, as she might inspire higher turnout from those who would vote for "anybody but Sarah". As a result, I've said throughout the last several months that we on the Right should concentrate on potential candidates other than Sarah.
However, in the light of the Christine O'Donnell race, I'm starting to re-think this position. Should I not back Palin simply because of fears of "electablity", despite believing that she is the best possible candidate? If so, am I falling into the same trap that GOP leadership was trying to lead Conservative into in Delaware? Don't get me wrong, I want Barack Obama out of the White House in 2012 (Hell, I'd prefer to have him run out of the country period--but I'll take "out of the White House"). However, in my haste to end the tyrannical reign of "King Barack I", I may have overlooked the possibility of a Moderate Republican gaining the office in 2012. Would this be much better than an Obama second term? I'm not sure that it would be.
The constant gaffes of Obama and the Left over the last two years have provided Conservatives with a great opportunity to not only re-take power, but more importantly the opportunity to re-educate and re-acquaint the American people with the Conservative poltical philosophy, so that it might take root, grow, and prosper for decades long beyond the 2012 election. Now, if a truly Conservative candidate emerges who is more "electable" than Sarah Palin, then I believe we should go that direction with the GOP nomination. However, if no such candidate emerges, then I no longer feel we should "accept" a moderate candidate just to insure a 2012 win. It was the moderate Republicans who had nearly as much to do with the mess our nation is in as the Democrats did--letting them back into office would be almost as big of a mistake as allowing a second term for Obama. If Sarah Palin turns out to be the only "ideologically pure" Conservative out there, then we must get behind her, and do WHATEVER IT TAKES to make sure she wins, even if it is more of an uphill climb to get her there.
Being a "Republican" is no longer good enough for America. An American President must be Conservative above all else...otherwise they are not fit to serve, regardless of if an (R) or a (D) is at the end of their name.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Who's really to blame for the lack of "diversity" in the New Right?
You hear it from the "news" media everytime there is a major Tea Party rally, or even in the case of last weekends Restoring Honor rally in Washington...the snide comments about how "white" such gatherings are. (My favorite insult from this weekend: The frequent references to the Restoring Honor rally as "Whitestock"). Setting aside the absurd notion generated by the Left that no endeavor can be seen as legitimate unless certain percentages of all ethnic groups and sexual orientations are present (one must wonder if some Liberal parents go through the guest list of their 5-year old's birthday party to make sure there is a certain percentage of black children, a certain percentage of Hispanic children, a certain percentage of Asian children, a certain percentage of Indian children, a certain percentage of gay children---wait, does that even exist?--a certain number of female children, and not too many white children. Oh, and they have to make sure there's enough cake in case an illegal immigrant children show up unannounced--after all, they're just coming by because they don't have yummy cake at their house. Of course, they could just make it easy and invite their kids actual, you know, friends...but wouldn't that be a bit culturally insensitive?), let us ask the question, Should the modern Conservatives be blamed for the lack of participation in the emerging and re-branded modern Conservative movement?
We have seen ad nauseum the isolated racist signs and placards that showed up at some of the first Tea Party rallies in small numbers. While the "Lamestream Media" (thanks, Sarah!) continues to report these incidents as though they are current instead of the old news that they are, the fact is that the fringe racist elements are long gone from the New Right. You don't see racist signs or rhetoric at your neighborhood Tea Party rally these days, and I personally have seen situations where people tried to show up as such rallies with objectionable signs and demonstrative elements, and were abrubtly and unapologetically turned away at the gate. So the knee-jerk explanation that minorities are not participating in Conservatism because the Right is sensitive to and inclusive of racist elements simply doesn't hold water to anyone who has honestly examined the facts as they stand in 2010.
So if it's not the racism (overblown and isolated as it was all along), then what is the problem? Are we on the Right somehow not including or encouraging like-minded minorities to participate alongside us? I don't believe so. Just the other day, I was speaking with a Liberal friend who remarked "Every time a black person shows up at a Tea Party, you all rush them on stage and put a camera in their face!" Now, that is certainly an exaggeration--but on some level there is a thread of truth to it. If I'm honest about it, I believe that most people within the Conservative movement today actually *are* a bit sensitive to the race-baiting that comes from the Left in terms of the Tea Parties. And while it would be folly to bend over backwards and simply react to whatever the whims of the "news" media are at the moment, I do believe that most of us look for situations where we can highlight those strong-minded people within our movement who happen to be minorities. We know that showcasing a strong Black or Hispanic Conservative flies in the face of the narrative that the media has used against us for years--and completely deflates the biggest criticism that is routinely launched in our direction. At most any Tea Party or Conservative rally you go to, you are almost sure to see at least one speaker of minority persuasion (and make no mistake, there is an emerging group of strong young Conservatives who are beginning to make their voices heard these days. Here are two of many examples--Alonzo Rachel: http://www.youtube.com/user/machosauceproduction , Kevin Jackson: http://theblacksphere.net/ )
So, if the racism is non-existent, and we're not only welcoming minorities into the movement, but are doing all we can to highlight and showcase those minorities and their voices, then why aren't more minorities flocking to the New Right in droves?
The answer is not pleasant. It is also not simple. It is also an answer that involves giving some back-handed credit to the Left and the Democratic Party. For over a half century, the Left in general--and the Democratic Party in particular--have pursued a cohesive strategy of convincing minorities (particularly African-Americans) that they are victims, and just can't make it in "unjust" American society without help from the government. Make no mistake, this strategy--appalling to any reasonable person as it is--has been wildly succesful for the Democrats. Whether we're talking about Affirmative Action, Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" (which has cost us more money than any actual war ever has), the demands for "justice" from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or even the community agitating of a young Barack Obama, the message has always been consistent--you are a "victim", and simply cannot make it without our (meaning the government, funded by "evil racist rich people") well-meaning assistance. The result--quite tragically--has been a significant percentage of people across multiple minority groups that are comfortable living off the government teet, with no desire or willingness to get off their duff and compete for a life of their own, using the talents and capabilities given to them by God.
The lowering of expectations, ambition, and responsibility perpetrated by the Democratic Party in the minority community through the 20th Century has destroyed countless human potential. While such a long-term political strategy whould have been viewed for as patronizing, insulting, and even racist towards African-Americans, the American Left must be given...well, maybe "credit" isn't the right word...but at least acknowledged for delivering such a message in a manner which has resulted in multiple generations of minorities (at least a significant percentage of them) buying this toxic ideology hook, line, and sinker. American minorities have been "Punk'd" by the Democratic party, and as a result, many within these communities do not see the need, nor have the desire for personal achievement, to pursue a different path than the destructive one provided to them by the Left. Quite bluntly, if you want to know who has destroyed the inner cities, who has torn apart the Black Families, and who has turned the African-American community into a shell of everything it could (and should) be...you can look no further than the American Left.
When you consider that the clear message of the New Right is a message of limited government, individual responisibility and opportunity, and a rejection of the "cultural victim" ideals of the Left, it is somewhat understandable that we would have some difficulty gaining traction within minority America, given how the American Left has turned Minority-Americans (is that even a real hyphanated-American term?) against their own best interests. Hence, why so few minorities are showing up at Conservative gatherings. However, I sincerly believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. We are starting to see minorities who are seeing (and speaking out against) the last 50 years of Liberal dominance in the minority community and the destruction it has caused. These minorities--small in number, but loud in voice--are beginning to gravitate towards the New Right. As more minorities begin to see the lie that the Left has sold to them for several generations, they will be looking for a message that offers REAL hope...not the "hope" that comes from extended unemployement benefits or unchecked illegal immigration, but the hope that comes from having the freedom to pursue your best interests without having to concern yourself with the alleged best interests of "society". We on the New Right espouse this message, and we are welcoming these minorites, we are encouraging them, and we are showcasing them. Our doors are open to all minorities who have discovered (or are just now in the process of discovering) the truth of the last 50 years.
So to answer the question we posed at the beginning of this post--It is not the Conservatives that are to blame for the lack of minority participation in Conservatism. It is, instead, the fault of the American Left, and to an extent, also the fault of those members of the minority community who do not wish to pursue a fate other than lifetime dependance on the government. To those minorites who do not fit this category--those who with to use their talents and gifts for the betterment of themselves and their families intead of the betterment of a government who only wishes to make minorities dependant upon them--thereby controlling you...you have a home in the New Right. The Left sees you as African-American, or a Hispanic-American, or as an Asian-American, and they want you to believe that you are limited in your potential for achievement by your status as a "victim"...but the Right sees you as an American, period. No hyphens necessary. And we believe that you are not limited in your potential for achievement, because of your status as an AMERICAN.
We have seen ad nauseum the isolated racist signs and placards that showed up at some of the first Tea Party rallies in small numbers. While the "Lamestream Media" (thanks, Sarah!) continues to report these incidents as though they are current instead of the old news that they are, the fact is that the fringe racist elements are long gone from the New Right. You don't see racist signs or rhetoric at your neighborhood Tea Party rally these days, and I personally have seen situations where people tried to show up as such rallies with objectionable signs and demonstrative elements, and were abrubtly and unapologetically turned away at the gate. So the knee-jerk explanation that minorities are not participating in Conservatism because the Right is sensitive to and inclusive of racist elements simply doesn't hold water to anyone who has honestly examined the facts as they stand in 2010.
So if it's not the racism (overblown and isolated as it was all along), then what is the problem? Are we on the Right somehow not including or encouraging like-minded minorities to participate alongside us? I don't believe so. Just the other day, I was speaking with a Liberal friend who remarked "Every time a black person shows up at a Tea Party, you all rush them on stage and put a camera in their face!" Now, that is certainly an exaggeration--but on some level there is a thread of truth to it. If I'm honest about it, I believe that most people within the Conservative movement today actually *are* a bit sensitive to the race-baiting that comes from the Left in terms of the Tea Parties. And while it would be folly to bend over backwards and simply react to whatever the whims of the "news" media are at the moment, I do believe that most of us look for situations where we can highlight those strong-minded people within our movement who happen to be minorities. We know that showcasing a strong Black or Hispanic Conservative flies in the face of the narrative that the media has used against us for years--and completely deflates the biggest criticism that is routinely launched in our direction. At most any Tea Party or Conservative rally you go to, you are almost sure to see at least one speaker of minority persuasion (and make no mistake, there is an emerging group of strong young Conservatives who are beginning to make their voices heard these days. Here are two of many examples--Alonzo Rachel: http://www.youtube.com/user/machosauceproduction , Kevin Jackson: http://theblacksphere.net/ )
So, if the racism is non-existent, and we're not only welcoming minorities into the movement, but are doing all we can to highlight and showcase those minorities and their voices, then why aren't more minorities flocking to the New Right in droves?
The answer is not pleasant. It is also not simple. It is also an answer that involves giving some back-handed credit to the Left and the Democratic Party. For over a half century, the Left in general--and the Democratic Party in particular--have pursued a cohesive strategy of convincing minorities (particularly African-Americans) that they are victims, and just can't make it in "unjust" American society without help from the government. Make no mistake, this strategy--appalling to any reasonable person as it is--has been wildly succesful for the Democrats. Whether we're talking about Affirmative Action, Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" (which has cost us more money than any actual war ever has), the demands for "justice" from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or even the community agitating of a young Barack Obama, the message has always been consistent--you are a "victim", and simply cannot make it without our (meaning the government, funded by "evil racist rich people") well-meaning assistance. The result--quite tragically--has been a significant percentage of people across multiple minority groups that are comfortable living off the government teet, with no desire or willingness to get off their duff and compete for a life of their own, using the talents and capabilities given to them by God.
The lowering of expectations, ambition, and responsibility perpetrated by the Democratic Party in the minority community through the 20th Century has destroyed countless human potential. While such a long-term political strategy whould have been viewed for as patronizing, insulting, and even racist towards African-Americans, the American Left must be given...well, maybe "credit" isn't the right word...but at least acknowledged for delivering such a message in a manner which has resulted in multiple generations of minorities (at least a significant percentage of them) buying this toxic ideology hook, line, and sinker. American minorities have been "Punk'd" by the Democratic party, and as a result, many within these communities do not see the need, nor have the desire for personal achievement, to pursue a different path than the destructive one provided to them by the Left. Quite bluntly, if you want to know who has destroyed the inner cities, who has torn apart the Black Families, and who has turned the African-American community into a shell of everything it could (and should) be...you can look no further than the American Left.
When you consider that the clear message of the New Right is a message of limited government, individual responisibility and opportunity, and a rejection of the "cultural victim" ideals of the Left, it is somewhat understandable that we would have some difficulty gaining traction within minority America, given how the American Left has turned Minority-Americans (is that even a real hyphanated-American term?) against their own best interests. Hence, why so few minorities are showing up at Conservative gatherings. However, I sincerly believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. We are starting to see minorities who are seeing (and speaking out against) the last 50 years of Liberal dominance in the minority community and the destruction it has caused. These minorities--small in number, but loud in voice--are beginning to gravitate towards the New Right. As more minorities begin to see the lie that the Left has sold to them for several generations, they will be looking for a message that offers REAL hope...not the "hope" that comes from extended unemployement benefits or unchecked illegal immigration, but the hope that comes from having the freedom to pursue your best interests without having to concern yourself with the alleged best interests of "society". We on the New Right espouse this message, and we are welcoming these minorites, we are encouraging them, and we are showcasing them. Our doors are open to all minorities who have discovered (or are just now in the process of discovering) the truth of the last 50 years.
So to answer the question we posed at the beginning of this post--It is not the Conservatives that are to blame for the lack of minority participation in Conservatism. It is, instead, the fault of the American Left, and to an extent, also the fault of those members of the minority community who do not wish to pursue a fate other than lifetime dependance on the government. To those minorites who do not fit this category--those who with to use their talents and gifts for the betterment of themselves and their families intead of the betterment of a government who only wishes to make minorities dependant upon them--thereby controlling you...you have a home in the New Right. The Left sees you as African-American, or a Hispanic-American, or as an Asian-American, and they want you to believe that you are limited in your potential for achievement by your status as a "victim"...but the Right sees you as an American, period. No hyphens necessary. And we believe that you are not limited in your potential for achievement, because of your status as an AMERICAN.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
One guy inserts his foot in his mouth, and CWG's will be defending themselves for the next week...
Humor is a bit like a rocket launcher--it looks easy enough to use, and in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing, can be remarkably effective. However, if an untrained civilian tries to pick one up and use it, they usually find that it's not quite as easy to use as they thought...and problems and unintended consequences are bound to ensue.
By now, most of you have likely read the (rather uncomfortable) Mark Williams piece that has generated some controversy around the Tea Party movement over the weekend. Williams initially defended the piece as "satire" before clamming up and stating that he will make no further comment to the media to defend it. Meanwhile, pretty much everybody who is anybody in the Tea Party movements, the Conservative movement, the Republican Party, or Western Civilization has disassociated themselves from Williams.
I read the Williams piece as well, and I did recognize it as satire...really bad, unclear, and shitty satire, but satire nonetheless. I get (or at least, I think I get) the point that Williams tried to make--that the polcies advocated by the NAACP and the Democratic Party thorugh the 20th Century have done much more harm than good to underprivledged Americans of all races, including African-Americans. Unfortunately, Williams did a God-awful job of trying to make this point. What resulted was a piece that was almost sure to be fertile ground for those who are unable (or unwilling) to see the subtext of such a satrical piece without having it spoon-fed to them. It ended up like the literary equivelant to an SNL skit that is supposed to be funny, but just ends up being an 8-minute trainwreck of unfunny overkill that you just wish would end. Yep..."Copier Guy" has just come back to life...
The result? Some raw meat for the Mainstream Media and MSNBC (and they've been in dire need of some red meat as of late, considering that the President they "smoke and mirrored" into office is becoming more and more unpopular and less trusted by the American people every day--in fact, some recent polling shows that Obama currently trails most potential GOP Presidential canidates for 2012, and is tied with Sarah Palin: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/15/ppp-obama-palin-tied-4646-in-2012-polling/ ). Now, for about the next week, the MSM will have ample opportunity to focus the narrative of discussion exactly where they want--on the "rampant" (read: overblown, over-reported, and virtually non-existant) racism within the Tea Party movement. Now we're going to have to hear about the "racial epithet that never was" on Capitol Hill during Obamacare weekend all over again. We'll be spending the next week being questioned (again) about the isolated racist signs at a couple of rallies over two years ago. Not to mention that Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton will have yet another opportunity to tag team the MSM with their "America is racist, unfair, horrible, and icky-poo" rhetoric (which at least has to give Cleveland Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert a sigh of relief...), all while Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, Keith Olbermann, or whomever sits on the other side of the desk while nodding their heads and looking "concerned".
Meanwhile, we're going broke, many of us are out of work, our borders are unsecure, and Militant Muslims are trying to kill every last one of us at every opportunity...but instead of focusing on these real issues, the MSM will be spending the next week focusing on an ill-concieved and horribly executed piece of satire that could almost, kind of, sort of, nearly, but probably not really be considered "racist" (and even then, only if you were brain dead enough to take the piece at face value).
All because Mark Williams tried to step out of his element and attempt to be a humorist.
Memo to any future Mark Williams' out there--leave the parody and satire to Rush Limbaugh and Paul Shanklin (or, might I humbly suggest, yours truly)...they're much better at it than you are. Remember, the Left in America has no collective sense of humor--so it's generally not a good idea to use humor to communicate with them. They generally won't understand it, and as we've seen this weekend, the results can be disasterous.
By now, most of you have likely read the (rather uncomfortable) Mark Williams piece that has generated some controversy around the Tea Party movement over the weekend. Williams initially defended the piece as "satire" before clamming up and stating that he will make no further comment to the media to defend it. Meanwhile, pretty much everybody who is anybody in the Tea Party movements, the Conservative movement, the Republican Party, or Western Civilization has disassociated themselves from Williams.
I read the Williams piece as well, and I did recognize it as satire...really bad, unclear, and shitty satire, but satire nonetheless. I get (or at least, I think I get) the point that Williams tried to make--that the polcies advocated by the NAACP and the Democratic Party thorugh the 20th Century have done much more harm than good to underprivledged Americans of all races, including African-Americans. Unfortunately, Williams did a God-awful job of trying to make this point. What resulted was a piece that was almost sure to be fertile ground for those who are unable (or unwilling) to see the subtext of such a satrical piece without having it spoon-fed to them. It ended up like the literary equivelant to an SNL skit that is supposed to be funny, but just ends up being an 8-minute trainwreck of unfunny overkill that you just wish would end. Yep..."Copier Guy" has just come back to life...
The result? Some raw meat for the Mainstream Media and MSNBC (and they've been in dire need of some red meat as of late, considering that the President they "smoke and mirrored" into office is becoming more and more unpopular and less trusted by the American people every day--in fact, some recent polling shows that Obama currently trails most potential GOP Presidential canidates for 2012, and is tied with Sarah Palin: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/15/ppp-obama-palin-tied-4646-in-2012-polling/ ). Now, for about the next week, the MSM will have ample opportunity to focus the narrative of discussion exactly where they want--on the "rampant" (read: overblown, over-reported, and virtually non-existant) racism within the Tea Party movement. Now we're going to have to hear about the "racial epithet that never was" on Capitol Hill during Obamacare weekend all over again. We'll be spending the next week being questioned (again) about the isolated racist signs at a couple of rallies over two years ago. Not to mention that Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton will have yet another opportunity to tag team the MSM with their "America is racist, unfair, horrible, and icky-poo" rhetoric (which at least has to give Cleveland Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert a sigh of relief...), all while Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, Keith Olbermann, or whomever sits on the other side of the desk while nodding their heads and looking "concerned".
Meanwhile, we're going broke, many of us are out of work, our borders are unsecure, and Militant Muslims are trying to kill every last one of us at every opportunity...but instead of focusing on these real issues, the MSM will be spending the next week focusing on an ill-concieved and horribly executed piece of satire that could almost, kind of, sort of, nearly, but probably not really be considered "racist" (and even then, only if you were brain dead enough to take the piece at face value).
All because Mark Williams tried to step out of his element and attempt to be a humorist.
Memo to any future Mark Williams' out there--leave the parody and satire to Rush Limbaugh and Paul Shanklin (or, might I humbly suggest, yours truly)...they're much better at it than you are. Remember, the Left in America has no collective sense of humor--so it's generally not a good idea to use humor to communicate with them. They generally won't understand it, and as we've seen this weekend, the results can be disasterous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)