Why has the left’s mask slipped recently?
In the wake of the Tucson shooting, commenter Occam’s Beard made these remarks:
The question is why they’re letting the mask slip now, instead of doing the Walter Cronkite and continuing to hide their true views. Perhaps [they] are doing so because they think they’re on the verge of winning, and are overplaying their hand, Luxemburg/Liebknecht style. Or perhaps they are doing so because they see their historic chance slipping away, thanks to their assorted betes noire (sp?) ”“ Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News, and most especially, Palin ”“ publicly disputing what leftists try to portray as received wisdom, undaunted by the vituperation of the left, and striking a resonant chord with many people.
Good question: why now? I think it’s that, with the 2008 election of Obama and the heavily Democratic composition of both House and Senate, they thought they had it made. They truly believed that they had defeated the conservative monster forever and could do a permanent victory dance in the end zone.
It turned out to be otherwise, and rather quickly at that. And on some deep and perhaps still-unacknowledged level, they know it’s they themselves who blew the golden opportunity, by trying to go too far too fast.
If only they had been more careful and more incremental, they could have had it all. But somewhere between the election of 2008 and that of 2010—probably around the time of the long hard drive to ram through HCR—the mask slipped as to their intentions, and now they don’t care if it slips a bit more if it can get ultimately them where they want to go, and where they fully thought they should have succeeded in going by this time.
After all, demonizing their opponents through the use of Orwellian accusations worked in the past, didn’t it? It can work again, right? The Two Minutes Hate has a venerable function, doesn’t it?
But they may be underestimating the intelligence of the American people once again (at least, I think and hope they are). Fifty-seven percent of Americans polled are not buying the idea that political rhetoric had anything to do with the Tucson shootings. As Democrats lose more and more Americans, they become more and more frantic to win them back.
Last night the president avoided this trap. It is no accident; he reads the polls, too. He knew what he had to do, and he did it. But notice that he waited from Saturday till Wednesday evening to make his statement, allowing the vicious dogs to bark all that time and to deeply plant the accusations that have increased the ire on all the left-wing blogs and discussion boards.
The Anchoress Elizabeth Scalia, insightful as always, has an explanation for the particular form the left’s post-Tucson accusations have taken. She believes the left is desperately racing to its end-game of “putting into place…their long-desired restrictions on speech, gun-control measures…[and] the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine.'”
In their minds, a massacre such as the one on Saturday in Tucson represented a golden opportunity to promote those goals. But in order to do so, the link between the right and the shooting needed to be made. Jared Loughner didn’t oblige by being an actual Tea Party member, as they’d originally hoped. Nor was he even sympathetic to the right—or, as it turns out, especially politically interested at all. That did not stop them, but it made the strategic and amoral nature of their charges more transparent. Let’s hope the American people remember this lesson in 2012.
[ADDENDUM: Jennifer Rubin thinks that one of the big mistakes the left made was jumping the gun, as it were, and making their accusations before they knew the facts about Loughner, which proved them wrong and made them look foolish.
I agree that’s the way it turned out for the majority of people. But I don’t think the left’s early response was an oversight at all. I think it was a gamble, one they thought worth taking. They were hoping facts would prove them right, and thinking they might. They also didn’t want the facts to get in the way of a good argument. That required an early response, and would fire up the base, always a good thing. They just didn’t count on most people in the country paying enough attention to discredit them.]
Well, there will be a lot of us around to remind them.
The fairness doctrine is this simple.
If Rachael Maddow isn’t fair – less people listen to her.
If Dennis Prager, Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt are fair – more people listen to them.
The left got snookered by their own template. They really believe that gun owners, NRA members, and hunters are violent people who are bent on revolution. They don’t know that such people rarely abuse guns. When the shooting occurred, they went with their erroneous gut conclusions.
Anybody with any sense knows it’s the left who are violent going back a long way.
Mr. Frank,
I think the template for the rank-and-file is that liberals tend to ‘believe’ and act on emotion rather than the facts and results.
For people in a professional capacity – it isn’t attractive.
If you are a sheriff (Mr. Dupnik), or a journalist, or a school board super or a city supervisor – you should really be acting on facts or some basis in facts.
These kinds of things wake people up. I was woken up in 1991 and I remember how vividly the facts differed between the mainstream press and talk radio at the time with the LA riots and the Rodney King police officer trial results.
The event clued me into talk radio.
The left does not realize that large events like this clue percentages people into their dishonesty and negligent way of leading by emotion.
In the current paroxysm over how violent and uncivil we (especially the Tea Partiers) are reckoned to be, it’s worth checking Roger L. Simon’s latest, The Sixties Were Violent, Not Today .
I’m old enough to tell you that Mr. Simon’s recollections are dead on.
–
“”If only they had been more careful and more incremental””
Which would require liberals to be more….conservative. It’s not in their DNA. Or either their maturity level is close to that of a teenager who secretly sneaks a beer out of the fridge once in a while and then concludes a whole bottle of vodka surely won’t be missed.
In the essay references to “the left” imply a certain monolithic-ism. Perhaps “The Left” could be better described and understood as a herd; angry, afraid and bitter at something, and easily stampeded.
I have a problem with the statement that the public is not buying that politics had nothing to do with the shooting because 53% say so. That implies a very large portion of the public finds that political rhetoric DID have something to do with the shooting. Frankly I suspect is wrong with that poll. I cannot believe so great a portion of the public is that dumb.
I don’t believe for a moment that in 2008 they believed that they had defeated conservatism forever. They knew all along that they had to fly under the radar to win that election. The goal was to seize power. Then make make massive change to the political system. Then (this is key) legalize 12-30 million illegals and shift the electorate in a way that would ensure that they would hold control for decades.
Well they took power, and they have certainly introduced massive far reaching change (for now). When the electorate woke up, much more quickly than they expected, they had two choices, slow down and probably remain in control or push through their agenda. They knew that if they did not back off, they would be forced to put aside the mask. They bet they could get enough done to accomplish a (more or less) bloodless coup.
A people who are willing to exercise the rights described in the first amendment and who have the arms and the will to protect those rights can not be subjugated. As it happens there are a lot of people like that left in this country.
Having lost control of the legislature the liberals only have executive regulation to complete their mission. Without a crisis the country is unlikely to put up with unrestrained rule by the executive. So now at every turn expect anything possible to be ramped up to crisis proportions. Had the media not lost their credibility, this might have been accomplished while maintaining the mask. Even without it, they have little choice but to press on. Expect this to get worse, possibly a great deal worse.
The people believe in perpetuity and contradictory positions.
Most of us react, not anticipate
Those that react, prevent the anticipators
They need an impetus to believe, conditions are not enough, they need someone they believe tell them.
After all, they are Fabians, wolves in sheep’s clothing and the wolves would succeed every time if it was not for taking too long till others smell the rot upon their skin and their letting the costume slip as they get giddy near the prize.
Their nature is that they are oppressed for having to hide themselves and so they are eager to be what they want to be, not what you what them to be in exchange.
They have what they need…
From the nationalizations
Healthcare
fcc and epa
Centralizing research
Food bill
Soviet of governors to take over in an emergency (what’s wrong with the others?)
It’s ALL assembled and more while we were looking at the WRONG things…
Which I kept pointing out.
Go back to way back before the election and I said that the closer they get to grabbing what they want, the more they show their real selves as the assumption is a win, and there is no more reason to hide.
the Hit ler the public saw before he had his parts in order was a very different man than after, for after, there was no set of rules that people follow that could stop him, as he used THEIR rules to establish his rules, then burned the bridge going back.
All this behavior is WELL known by the experienced, and to others, it’s only a curiosity. Like the water suddenly leaving a beach, the ignorant will stand there, while the experienced will leave for high ground.
No amount of arguing, explaining, etc, can make the others move off the beach or understand what they don’t want to, or even take cursory precautions.
Belief is why
In every direction is belief over and replacing the idea of knowledge.
The ignorant believe against the knowledge
The subversive power grabbers, believe things about the people, and their position.
We will discuss don’t ask don’t tell, but the food bill?
We will discuss nothings, but why discuss the replacement of all powers in an emergency? No way… better to say i am too long…
President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors
A Council and a Soviet is the same thing…
When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
of course if you don’t care to see which are the important pieces put on the chess board and how they interact, then your not going to prevent checkmate in 10 once you get trapped into it.
Gleichschaltung has proceeded almost unhindered. We couldn’t even examine the idea, process, and methods preferring to make up stuff and pretend we were like some fantasy of an erudite renaissance person.
Wait till everyone sees what’s coming…
They have NOT blown anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They are right on time and right on target and nothing has been done to affect that!!!!!!!!!!
The mask coming off will help, NOT hinder
The musings I am reading are devoid of historical reference and knowledge. They are musings, not assessments or analysis. They are exercises in proving that what you want is right, rather than converging on what is empirical.
Even now, near the finality of what they are doing, the best is all these reasons why they failed and that their behavior marks failing, etc.
Of course we never gave them credit for coming this far either, calling those idiots, and explaining all kinds of reasons why their logic is off. Who said it only works if logic is right? what part of the universe performs this action of correction? Confusing those who you oppose is GOOD logic, not bad. beleiving whats for consumption is real is bad logic, not good.
(Note to self: proofread before submitting future comments, to avoid garbling syntax!)
Agree.
I suspect they don’t really care about the facts. At worst, it was an opportunity to muddy the waters with accusations and sanctimonious pronouncements. If the facts later bore them out, so much the better. If not, then they and their comrades in the media will bury the facts, and leave only the images of moral preening that invite the conclusion that there was something for them to preen about. (Look at how many liberals to this day strike sanctimonious poses about “people going hungry,” when we’re in the middle of an obesity epidemic whose epicenter is…the poorest segments of society. Through the magic of liberal analysis 300 lb. black mothers and chubby kids somehow transmogrify into undernourished scarecrows and starving waifs.)
Not just the base, but the population at large, most of whom a) have little knowledge of current events, and what little they have consists of apocryphal word-of-mouth accounts, and b) lack the intellectual resources or interest to sort out the truth of the matter. These people’s take will be that there were accusations and denials, but where there’s smoke, there’s fire. They also commonly think they’re demonstrating intellectual acuity and high-mindedness by splitting the difference in every dispute, which of course rewards those staking out an outrageous position.
At that point we’re one Oliver Stone movie away from the received wisdom holding that a Tea Party operative, unhinged by Palin’s “incendiary rhetoric” (per Simon), snapped and struck down a tribune of the people.
The left holds a great advantage — the sincere belief that they ends justify any means. Of course it’s also a disadvantage, if people catch on, but this belief explains their willingness to stoop to the lowest tactics imaginable, and still consider themselves on the side of the angels.
darn system stopping posts had me put the parts in the wrong order, 1 is 2, 2 is 1, and 3 is 3…
I mean THEIR ends. And I thought I was being so pithy!
I had the opposite reaction: I was gratified that the proportion wasn’t higher.
My metaphor (and I hope this doesn’t give offense) is an old-fashioned seduction (i.e., pre-sexual revolution). After months of wining, dining, poetry, serenading and all that, the roue gets the gal in a passionate clinch, gets her partially undressed, and he thinks he’s about to score. Finally, at long last! Just then, at the last possible moment, she balks, and in his frustration the mask of gentility slips and he uses some muscle. That’s how I see the Left today. So close, yet so far…
Here’s some history that Dan Henninger believe’s helps explain why the Left soiled itself and completely unravelled after the Tucson shootings:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576076373704758778.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
The Establishment of the Nazi Dictatorship, 1933 – 34: Gleichschaltung
http://www.blacksacademy.net/content/3508.html
The term Gleichschaltung, which means ‘bringing into line’, refers to the process of the destruction of the remaining elements of a liberalist and pluralist society in Germany.
the society that the past 40 years moved us to copy and be so similar we can even name the copies if we desired.
The first phase was the destruction of the federal structure of Germany.
-=-=-=-=-
to supersede provisional parliaments, Eighteen regional governors (Reich governors – Reichstatthalter) were appointed.
much like the new signing statement that will replace the local governors and such with a new set…
the DAF (Deutscher Arbeitsfront – the German Labour Front), was created and all trades unions were absorbed into it. The German trade union movement ceased overnight to exist.
you can do the same by having a friendly union and rolling power into it and favoring it, like this administration did and does.
parties adopted self-Gleichschaltung during June and July 1933
that is, when he removed certain parties, the others fell into line. since we cant eliminate certain parties, the masses are seeing that one side is free to lie, free to attack, cant be opposed, so things get in line by themselves. (other parts are put in line with the new laws and the ablity to bribe with special dispensations to avoid the law if they comply, and lots more).
itler did not directly attack the Church, the army and industry. However, this was resented by the lower ranks of the party, and internal party conflict developed
which is pretty much wahtw e have with lower entities attacking the christians and jews, our ignoring it in favor of palistinians, etc..
the point is that such further alignment is through schools, which teach politically correct and want to mold the new socialist child rather than teach. (see bella dodd, dewey, etc).
one of the key things that came about was that the nazi party, found excuses to make the other party illegal. because of maybe inflaming speeches, how they incite people to hurt others, and so on and so forth. sound at all familiar?
Hitler capitalized on the fear of civil unrest and the anxiety Germans felt after the fire as they demanded government intervention to protect against the perceived threat to their safety, lives and property. The Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State, created in response, suspended the civil liberties and habeas corpus rights guaranteed in the Weimar Constitution.
funny how we now have the right signing statments and stuff in place to do just that..
so not the same, but the same kind of outcome by other means.
it would take way too much space to show how the chess pieces aer now arranged and tightening and there is almost zero opposition.
in fact, the opposition is impotent…
and by making the mistake, the big mistake, given our system, we dont get to correct it as the systems corrections do NOT work against such a big error in election and ideal.
Artfldgr: I don’t for a moment think they’ve “blown it” for good. The long march and all that.
But they have blown it in terms of what they thought would happen when they had their advantage and pressed it after the 2008 election. They didn’t expect the Republicans to come back in 2010. That’s all.
I’m waiting for Art to point out the landslide on Nov 2nd was all part of the commie master plan. 🙂
If and when the Left ever wins, it will be the dog catching the bus.
Socialism as it now appears to its adherents is a free lunch. We call it theft. They call it justice.
No matter as to the final judgment. If and when the day finally comes that there are no producing people to steal from, that will be the day the state has to start forcing people to work.
If I am there to witness it, at least for that part, as the Coneheads say, “We will enjoy it.” Kind of like the enjoyment grandparents get watching their kids deal with kids. Kind of like what is happening in Europe, especially Greece. When their slack-jawed vacant expressions give way to fits of infantile rage followed by hunger, chaos and death–will they be doing much rejoicing at the unification of the world’s “workers.”
Bob from Virginia –
To be honest, I had the same reaction as you to the poll. I found it really depressing that on average the polls show only a bit more than a bare majority “don’t buy” the narrative. And I’m sure if we phrased the questions a bit differently we could make even that bare majority turn into a minority.
It feels really awful in general to have to be considering the “angles” in all of this, when people were shot and killed. But responsibility requires it, and as of now I’m much less confident that this won’t do damage that matters in 2012 than I’d like to be. OB said it best when he noted that the goal was to get us “one Oliver Stone movie away” from another “The Right Did It” tattoo on the public mind. I get the sense – and I stress it is only my sense – that the result of the left’s narrativizing is not yet a success. What irks me and makes it tough to sleep is the flip side of that sense – that the narrative is not yet a failure either.
The left will drop these insinuations into every debate – drip by drip, but never letting anyone forget – until the campaigns get going in earnest, whereupon the tar-brushes will emerge, and the people will either be ready to believe that the tarred deserve their treatment or not.
2012 is going to be one of the most barbaric elections we’ve ever had. It gives me the willies just thinking about what’s about to begin. (Of course, I hope I’m wrong about that).
As for why the left let the mask slip, I think it’s pretty simple. They haven’t really had the mask on since November 2008 – it’s been a deluge of one malicious slander after another. They have savaged conservatives and tea partiers, and anyone with any concerns at all about the left’s agenda, fairly loud and clear. So, again, what sticks in my craw is not that the left suddenly went ballistic – that’s par for the course. My unease is with “we, the people,” and why only a bare majority of us, if that, can muster a “nay” to these arrogant, sanctimonious, would-be overlords.
I guess November should assuage that unease. It doesn’t. Maybe I’m just a chicken little. We’ll see.
To those of you discouraged by the poll with the 57% figure for those who don’t think the harsh political tone had anything to do with the shootings–I want to draw your attention to the fact that only 32% did think the harsh political tone had anything to do with the shootings. What’s more, even among Democrats, more people didn’t think so than did. So I think the results were actually better than they look when you just notice the 57% figure.
Curtis, I think we’re seeing now more than a little of the “dog catching bus” effect. Much easier to sit on the sidelines and carp, while patiently explaining what you would have done, had you had the chance.
Neo,
In your addendum you wrote, “I think it was a gamble, one they thought worth taking.‘
When I read Daniel Hennenger I think his quote is illuminating:
The people making these bold accusations have it in their core-belief system. Their emotions poured out while we watched wide-eyed.
They have such a misunderstanding for who we are about and what we believe – and they have such a visceral and mean-spirited way of looking at us.
They can’t tell that we are interested in prosperity and that we care and love people.
In our hearts we know tough love is so much better than subsidizing poor choices.
Personal responsibility is necessary in our minds because then we are better off as a nation.
Our arguments are based on facts and knowledge.
Liberals who made these accusations make their arguments based on emotion.
His article is here.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576076373704758778.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
I read the Henninger piece at lunch and was planning to link it here.
I also heard Rush Limbaugh say, as someone else here mentioned, that Obama waited until Wednesday to get the poll numbers about reaction the media slander. Those results determined the speech he gave. If the poll had gone the other way, the speech would have been very, very different.
neo-
That’s a bit more comforting, I admit. Then again, Obama’s approval is back up to around 53% in at least one poll I saw. (I’m just saying that the polls on opinions about responsibility for the Tucson shooting are not the only or main reason for my eeyore-ish take on things).
A few more speeches like the last one and a few more triangulations – and the approval goes up to 57% and 2012 is a cakewalk for Obama.
I guess what I’m getting at is that I’m not quite convinced that we of the “alternative media” have the power just yet to neutralize the MSM/Left’s slime machine when it kicks into high gear. I think 2010 was a blow against my pessimism, but I’m waiting till 2012 to change my mind. (In no way is this a counsel of defeatism – I’m simply saying what goes through my mind when I consider odds).
And since I’m laying all my irrational cards on the table – reading chicken entrails and such – I might as well add that my pessimism is rooted in my non-data-supported sense that out of the entire population of voting age adults, an absolute majority WANT to vote Democratic (meaning that they need far LESS persuasion to go left than to go right, or, i.e., the left has much more slack than the right). What that means in any given election is still chancy, depending on who votes, how bad the Democrats screwed up, and so on. But I guess it follows from this view of mine that if the Democrats get a good counter-narrative to the tea party up and running, and Obama can keep his trap shut and stick his finger in the wind, I should think that they’ll probably win in 2012. And, lo, I still do.
By no means am I closed to being refuted on all of that – naturally I’d welcome nothing more. As I said, however, I won’t be able to truly believe I’m wrong until 2012 dispels my dark clouds with the bright sunshine of an Obama defeat.
2008 put the kibosh on a lot of my rosier notions about the American electorate. Maybe I’m being unfair. I hope I am.
Baklava: I had read that piece before I wrote mine, and I thought about it before I wrote what I wrote.
The emotion is true of the rank and file; that’s their motivation, and they believe the right’s rhetoric was behind the Tucson killings. I believe that most of the leaders and the MSM do not believe it for a minute. Saying it was a coldly calculated ploy to move their minions.
It’s not that the leaders don’t have the emotion of hatred for the right. They do. But they don’t believe the right’s rhetoric led to the shooting. They’re not that stupid, or that emotional. They are calculating that they can pin it on the right and get away with it.
Of course, I can’t read their minds. But that’s what I think is going on.
I also heard Rush Limbaugh say, as someone else here mentioned, that Obama waited until Wednesday to get the poll numbers about reaction the media slander.
That, and also to let the media to get their licks in. That way the opposition gets roughed up and delegitimized, on one hand, and later, when he quells the campaign, Obama gets to look high-minded and statesmanlike on the other.
One of the few clever things I’ve seen him do. Meretricious, but clever.
Occam’s Beard: I am completely in agreement with you on that. It is Obama’s m.o. He likes to play bad cop good cop, and he’s the good cop.
I’m surprised that Palin released her speech before Obama gave his.
Once one becomes a “recovering liberal,” like the man in the photo in Henninger’s article, one can’t really go back to believing in unicorns, rainbow dust, and the desirability of pouring money down the rathole of entitlements.
Also, the Democrats lost many of voters like me when they proved themselves to be traitors during the Iraq War. I’ll never ever forget my senator, Durbin, calling our troops Nazis. Or the NYT (Dem. rag) telling Bin Laden how to escape satellite detection.
They also proved themselves to be criminal clowns when they funded global warming grafters and banned incandescent light bulbs.
The Democrats would have to change a great deal in order to get back any votes that they lost. And who would start out voting for Democrats? Young voters? Why would they do so? What do Democrats have to offer except higher taxes and more unemployment?
According to Belmont Club, a new war is due to break out over Iranian/Hezbollah control of Lebanon. How can Obama possibly deal with this? He’s used up all his credibility with all the international players.
gs Says:
January 13th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
That’s because she’s not as coldly calculating and cynical as he is.
That’s because she’s not as coldly calculating and cynical as he is.
Actually, I’d prefer that she were as cold calculating and cynical as he is, but differing solely in being committed to American values. We can ill afford a starry-eyed idealist in this fight against leftism.
Having said that, it’s not clear that Obama himself is coldly calculating and cynical. I suspect that h\He is merely the spokesmodel people who define cold calculation and cynicism. And yes, George Soros, I’m thinking of you.
That’s because she’s not as coldly calculating and cynical as he is.
Or because, for one reason or another, she hasn’t set up a rapid-response operation.
There’s a case to be made for getting her licks in first, letting the Messiah try his hand at responding, and then rebutting his response.
In any case, she needed to respond ASAP, given the tenor and magnitude of the vituperation directed her way. She couldn’t afford to wait.
Theres a noticable problem between polls and election results. I’ll suggest the secret ballot is worth at least a 15 point sway in this regard. Which in theory neuters the MSM 15 point advantage.
There’s a case to be made for getting her licks in first, letting the Messiah try his hand at responding, and then rebutting his response.
Maybe that was the plan. (“President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process.”) If so, Obama countered adroitly by pretending to ignore her and, sincerely or not, condemning the vitriol.
It hadn’t crossed my mind that a Palin rebuttal might be in the works. If an effective rebuttal appears in a timely manner, my estimation of Palin will rise a notch. I welcome this chance to formulate an indicator before hindsight can kibitz.
Well written, Neo. the left went overboard and Obama knows it. They’ve tried to tell us that the Tuscon shooter was motivated by the right. Utter nonsense, but talking about motivation, remember this incident:
Last August James Jay Lee took three people hostage at the Discovery Channel building in Montgomery County, just outside of Washington DC. After a four hour standoff, a tactical squad shot and killed Lee after he pointed his pistol at a hostage. Lee specifically said that he had been inspired by former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” Fortunately in this case no one else was killed, but they could easily have been.
Did we see a media campaign to urge environmentalists to “tone down the rhetoric?” Stop their hysterical claims that “the earth has a fever” and that there was “a planetary emergency?” Anyone tell Al Gore to apologize? Of course not. In fact, the reaction of the right was to NOT exploit this, but rather to say “if this had been the other way around the left would exploit it.” Sure enough, they have.
While in line at Starbucks today I glanced at the Washington Post, which had a front page article taking Palin to task for the use of “blood libel.” So let me get this straight: The left, including some of columnists at the Post, villify Palin beyond all reason, and when she responds, they pick apart her statement and decide that the real sin is her use of “blood libel.” What utter B.S.
What’s happening here is obvious; the left lost an election and is madder than hell about it. They’re venting their rage at Palin, the Tea Party movement, Fox News, and conservatives in general as a means of getting even. They want to silence their opponents. All this talk about “civility” is just so much political opportunism. We didn’t hear any of it during the “Bush lied, people died” days.
Yep, gs, think about it.
Obama had to ignore her; after he’d generated a few contretemps by doing otherwise, wiser heads than his (cough*Soros*cough) doubtless have beaten into him the importance of ignoring her so as not to legitimize her.
OTOH, for the same reason, if she rebuts his speech, he cannot really respond himself. So she gets a free kick, and can frame the issue while simultaneously having the last word. All of this follows from having spoken first.
I agree with Scalia. Close liberal friends and relatives have been particualrly vicious and hysterical since the election, even before the horrible events in Tucson. Reminds me of the zeal the Nozzis showed in killing their enemies even as the Allied noose was tightening.
The really big master plan of the Democrats is demographics and that is an unstoppable locomotive. Oh, there may be delays, but the train itself cannot be stopped.
The aftermath of the Saturday shootings was simply a reversion to form, not a slippage of any mask. The Democrats seize any opportunity to get the public into feelings rather than thought. Remember, the Kennedy assassination lead to a landslide
victory for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Kennedy probably would have won that race anyway, but not in a landslide and would not have brought in a congress so inclined to enact social programs (and I am not referring to the Civil Rights bills which were necessary correctives to longstanding injustices) of dubious merit.
Feelings work for them. Logic doesn’t.
We’ll see, OB.
Actually, ‘ignore’ wasn’t the optimal word: I should have said that Obama, while Being Presidential, gave no indication that Palin exists.
I wonder how Palin can respond to Obama’s speech in a manner that the country–independent voters in particular–will find convincing. IMHO it’s Advantage Obama in this particular round, but I’ll certainly be impressed if Palin turns it around with a brilliancy.
A day has elapsed since Obama’s speech.
Tom the Redhunter Says:
January 13th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
As I said a couple of days ago, the Left is trying to delegitimize any opposition to their policies.
The term “blood libel” is absolutely accurate in describing what is going on.
Ordinary libel is telling lies about somebody.
Blood libel means demonizing individuals or entire groups of people to the degree that neutralizing them by the most extreme means imaginable is not only justified, but necessary.
The Romans did it to the Christians. Hitler did it to the Jews. Stalin did it to the Kulaks. And on and on.
If I were Palin I’d wait for another spasm of leftist invective re Tucson, and if one should arise, then I’d tee off. Otherwise, if I had to bring up the matter again to address it, I’d let it drop.
Curtis said, “Socialism as it now appears to its adherents is a free lunch. We call it theft. They call it justice.”
That truism reminds me of a Reagan joke about Russia. Sorry, a bit OT, but we need to laugh at socialism when we can.
Two comrades were sitting and discussing things in the USSR. Both clad in rags and emaciated, they were certainly “equal” in appearance.
One said to the other, “Comrade, don’t you think we have finally achieved true Socialism?”
The other fellow said, “Oh no, we’re not nearly miserable enough.”
Equality of misery is what it brings.
you’re right I think that they think they have it all and no longer need to hide.
You see the same in the greenie movement, which exposed themselves for the anti-human, far left, homicidal radicals that they all are around the same time.
“But they may be underestimating the intelligence of the American people once again (at least, I think and hope they are). Fifty-seven percent of Americans polled are not buying the idea that political rhetoric had anything to do with the Tucson shootings”
If only 57% believe or know rhetoric had nothing to do with it, I think that proves the lack of intelligence of the American population.
Were they intelligent enough 100% would know this, we’d not have 43% firmly believe otherwise (and part of the rest no doubt wavering).
“He likes to play bad cop good cop, and he’s the good cop.”
Good one, neo (and by extension OB). This is comparable to the speech he made on race relations after the Rev. Wright dust-up. He intones a series of obvious but vapid platitudes, and everyone gushes over it as “healing” and “uplifting” because it was set up by the unhinged vitriol of his political allies.
JTW: you seemed to have missed this comment of mine, which addresses the issue of the poll.
Neo,
hmm.. You said a lot in your response.
Of course – it’s probably calculated for some and just emotion for others.
What would be the test to determine?
I think Van Huevel and Debbie Wassermen (sp?) are the type who only calculate. I think you couldn’t even develop a test question for them to answer that illuminate thier conniving.
But I do believe that the emotional types who operate on emotion would have a question that could illuminate where they come from.
For instance – I believe Juan Williams to his core is simply reading the wrong set of information and believes in his heart that liberalism is best. I can’t see him as conniving (is that the way you spell the word???)
If somebody could ask him something – what would that be?
I think the Daily Caller has the question.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/14/stephanopoulos-nyt-cnn-wapo-decline-to-correct-erroneous-giffords-reporting/
These organizations could easily do what is right. They show their cards this way.
wow
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/13/video-charity-fires-director-for-facebook-comments-on-tucson-shooting/
Baks, dont miss the comment at 5:20 pm on the charity firing thread….
Patrick Leahy and Marcy Kaptur???
gag me with a spoon!
Watching them on C-Span is like watching potheads try to string two thoughts together.
Phrenetic ideologues never could wait until facts are clear and simply jump to conclusions. This makes them look like fools later. But this choice of a case to spin their favorite narrative was especially poor:
“”This kid is going to become a textbook case of paranoid schizophrenia,” said retired FBI behavioral expert Kathleen Puckett, who has picked through the minds of some of the nation’s most notorious killers, including “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski and Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.”
they have blown it in terms of what they thought would happen when they had their advantage and pressed it after the 2008 election. They didn’t expect the Republicans to come back in 2010. That’s all.
maybe… but i would rather not look at them as a class, or a monolithic thing, i would rather look at it as the smarter ones using the dumber ones to get their way (some making mistakes of course). looked at it that way, the few key people remain, and the rest are surprised that what they were told didnt work out for THEM, but sure did for the few.
rather than be a part of the in crowd for serving the system, they are seen quite differently, and are completely expendible as there is a long line of replacements.
I’m waiting for Art to point out the landslide on Nov 2nd was all part of the commie master plan.
you mean not working out the enevitable based on your actions and the outcomes and then using that in your favor rather than trying to prevent it? no, why would anyone do that? much better to go into things blindly, ignore what it will do, not be prepared, and then be surprised…. (as its good to think of the whole only and that its parts are homogeneous, etc).
I would look to history and to how many places have actually fallen towards that wayside and let me know if capitalism the live idea is winning over communism the dead and discarded idea on the ash heap of history.
you make fun of this because you are taught from the time your a child that such an idea is comedic and an impossiblity, a fairy tale.
however, in case you havent noticed, the people in power are not military despots, but left socialist administrators making a very large power grab. whose members top people all have street cred in fighting for communist revolution, not just socialism Ayers, alinsky, cloward, piven, stern, wright, dunn, and on and on the list goes.
A dead ideology accidently ended up in power?
Why that one and not some other?
If and when the Left ever wins, it will be the dog catching the bus. – Curtis
Very much so. that is what the history of the soviet union has been since inception. the chinese however have been better as far as how to handle catching the bus through mimicry of sorts.
if you read The lost telegram, you will find that his assesment of socialism was exactly yours, and the whole of it was how to survive the whole process of their situation.
THE TRAP
Once we’ve gloated over de-linking Loughner from Tea Party VRWC we’ve conceded the argument that the next shooter if proven linked, will then need to accede to the idea that it is now reasonable to expect us to suppress speech and if not laws to be made, like in Canada (and Iran).
Palin was actually the closest to defending the point: so what if he were actually a Tea Partier? Does that mean we should put heads down and go home and accept the left’s agenda?
We’re screwed for accepting this argument (on the left’s terms) as only this time a victory because they jumped the gun. Sooner or later, they’ll get their “right wing” shooter.
That sounds like an excellent suggestion, Artfldgr. There’s a whole lot of growing I can do to rise above taking pleasure in the destruction of those who, for the most part, are merely dupes.
And yet, hate is an appropriate reaction, a very invigorating leading-to-action response, and America is ours to lose by not responding. This is why the left preaches against “hate.” Remember a prophet sent by God to expose and denounce the apostasy and hypocrisy of Israel said (speaking for God), “I hate your feasts”(Amos 5).
But hate can slop over into inappropriate areas and expressions. Nonetheless, who would not feel gratification when hunger follows sloth, when chaos follows rebellion, when death follows tyranny, and especially when the death of your family and country is included. Rising to a higher position may not be something everyone can do. May not be something I can do.
And indeed, hate is the tool which Muslims and progressive use to motivate and induce to action their followers. It may be necessary at times to do things we don’t necessarily want to do. I think of King Saul who was rebuked by the prophet Samuel for not slaying King Agag. Samuel slew him. Samuel isn’t known for slaying people, but there is a time for everything. Remember, “The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country.”
I think you are over-thinking the reaction. I believe it is on a much more visceral level and not as well thought out as you present it. The liberals I know honestly believe that there is no or minimal hate-speech on their side and conservatives are full of hate and are bigots and racist. They are blind to their biases and fail to see how this is their Reichstag fire moment. They cannot conceive that they are putting conservative/Tea party in the same position as communist and Jew were in Germany.
Quinnipiac University Poll
January 14, 2011
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1548
Saturday’s shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, in which six people were killed, could not have been prevented, 40 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. Another 23 percent blame the mental health system, while 15 percent say it was due to heated political rhetoric and 9 percent attribute the tragedy to lax gun control.
American voters say 52 – 41 percent that “heated political rhetoric drives unstable people to commit violence,” the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Liberals rather than conservatives are more responsible for such rhetoric, voters say 36 – 32 percent.
Voters surveyed just before the Martin Luther King Day holiday say 31 – 21 percent that the United States is a safer place for political figures today than during Dr. King’s era, with 45 percent saying things are about the same.
There has been “significant progress” toward Dr. King’s dream of racial equality, voters say 78 – 17 percent, including 71 – 26 percent among black voters. Race relations in the U.S. are “generally good,” voters say 64 – 27 percent, including 58 – 30 percent among black voters.
“Americans seem to be rejecting the blame game for the Arizona shooting. By far, the largest number thinks this tragedy could not have been prevented,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “Although a bare majority of voters say political rhetoric might drive unstable people to violence, less than one in seven blame it for the Arizona incident.
[ snip ]
Agreed. The “mobilized masses” that leftist leaders talk about are irrelevant, since they do and think what they’re told, or manipulated into. They no more decide policy than men decide the width of neckties.
But the question remains: why did the Red leaders, the string pullers, choose this time to drop the mask? Was it confidence or desperation that led them to do it now? They’ve operated on the periphery of American society for generations, disingenuously defending communists (Rosenbergs, Hiss, Lattimore, the lot) ostensibly on high-minded civil libertarian grounds, but in fact out of hard-core political kinship.
Now, however, the Red decision makers have dropped any pretense of being anything than what they are: communist subversives. Why?
Parallels with Vietnam suggest confidence as the answer. For years the guerrilla war in Vietnam was portrayed as a civil war, a homegrown insurgency of agrarian reformer, simple farmers turned freedom fighters against a sclerotic and repressive authoritarian regime. After the Tet offensive, the NVA strated operating openly, and the pretense was dropped: the war was an Anschluss of the South by the North, plain and simple. Apparently the Reds did this because they were confident of victory, having broken the back of American public opinion. (Thanks, Comrade Cronkite!)
Having said that, Luxemburg/Liebknecht, and latterly Allende, thought the time was right for them to grab the brass ring too. Oops.
Excellent and perceptive point, Patrick.
True enough of the herd, but they don’t matter. They’re stupid enough to be stampeded in any desired direction. For example, Rosie O’Donnell didn’t come up with her “first time fire melted steel” nonsense (how does she think we smelt steel, hmm?) on her own. She’s parroting someone else, probably a higher primate.
We’re talking about the leaders on the Left, the decision makers, and why they make the decisions that they do. No one tries to figure out why a dog’s tail decided to go someplace; it’s just following the dog.
OK, I know this is not PC, but consider the war analogy. The biggest problem of Generals is that they use the strategy and tactics of the last war to win the next war, even though the technology of the weapons had changed. Thus you had US Union forces continue to fight with bayonette tactics when the rifle made such tactics obsolete. In WWI, trench warfare with attacks through no-man’s-land were used even though the gattling gun made the tactic obsolete.
So too, the left is fighting the battle with obsolete tactics. The tactics of Alinsky, personal destruction, and repeated, coordinated narrative do not work in the new media of talk radio, Fox News and the internet. The only new tactic employed by the left was the rapidity of the response, which was aided by the timing of the event (Saturday). Since Talk Radio is only a Mon-Fri calendar, 1/3 of the new media was inactive for the first two days.
Just like the Union generals had to suffer huge losses at Antiem, Fredricsburg and Bull Run before Lincoln could finally find a general that would use non-obsolete tactics, so too must the left suffer this and many more such losses before they change tactics.
First came Talk Radio, which finally gave a voice to conservatism. The alternative media destroyed the small oligopy (NYT, WP, CBS) that set the national news agenda. The rise of the Tea Party has now given this movement the raw political muscle it needs to influence the national agenda. The left has been without a significant tactic innovation in 50 years.
I agree with the sexual seduction reason as well as the paradoxical truth that the mask has already been off for quite awhile, but here’s another: The mask got too big and fell off on its own.
Also, thanks to Tom the Redhunter for his timely review of James Jay Lee. That’s a good one for an accusation to keep the leftists busy.
Explaining the paradox of how the mask has already been off is best done by reviewing Sergey’s comment:
“We are now in uncharted waters, nobody can predict how it will play out. But some Rubicon was crossed, that’s for sure. The state of mass consciousness sounds schizophrenic now, not only polarized, but disorganized and confused, common meaning of words is lost, and with it ability of opponents understand each other. Many ideological conflicts grow unresolved for decades, and now all of them piled up and aggravate each other. A decisive battle is ahead, its outcome unknown.”
“Common meanings of words is lost.” Ironic, isn’t it, that the madman said the same thing. He only recognized and took the left’s absurdity to its conclusion: madness.
Here is a better response that was very heartening:
“Every once in a while things go astray and the people take notice. Now is such a time. We The People are about the business of whipping the servants back into line. Take heart my friends. These tinpot dictators stand about as much chance as the Brits, the Nazis and the Japs. Buh bye!”
–by Roy Lofquist.
We need to remember we still have the opportunity to preserve America!
Good point, pablo. I hadn’t thought of it this way. Perhaps the Left is becoming more overt because they perceive the growing response fatigue to their tactics. After all, there are only so many times one can yell “Racism!” and have it work.
And the increasingly widespread familiarity with Alinsky’s teachings sensitizes observers to Alinsky-taught tactics, thereby accelerating the growth of response fatigue to them.
Good thinking.
Baklava and Darrell,
Here’s the link to that comment!
It’s gold!
Newton, thanks! I was too lazy last night to link it, it sure is gold.
I have to side with Kolnai in not having any faith in the electorate. I am starting to think that Obama will win in 2012, because most people still think the Democrats are the “good guys” and it does indeed take a lot more persuasion to get someone to vote right than it does to get them to vote left, or even Nader (throwaway third party). Left appears to be the default position more and more.
It really takes a huge internal, fundamental shift in order to come to the right, and it is one that I just don’t see many people making. As bad as the left has been, people just aren’t seeing it. I mean, how much worse can the left even get? They are nearly as bad as humanly possible now.
“Not just the base, but the population at large, most of whom a) have little knowledge of current events, and what little they have consists of apocryphal word-of-mouth accounts, and b) lack the intellectual resources or interest to sort out the truth of the matter. These people’s take will be that there were accusations and denials, but where there’s smoke, there’s fire. They also commonly think they’re demonstrating intellectual acuity and high-mindedness by splitting the difference in every dispute, which of course rewards those staking out an outrageous position. “
Occam, you have said something crucial here. And it’s true. They don’t give a damn about facts and reason, and they never have. They only care about grabbing power (Dodger is right; they already have all the main pieces on the chessboard) and swaying the masses’ emotions.
A friend of mine who’s a financial officer, a serious hawk in the war against the jihadis, and voted for Bush the last go, said to me, “I just don’t like Sarah Palin. I think she’s stupid. ‘I can see Russia from my house.’ For chrissake.” I tried to tell her that that was that creature Tina Fey who said that line, but she just waved this fact aside, saying she had the general impression that “Palin is dumb, an embarrassment. A REDNECK.”
And so it goes. Meanwhile, the tyrants accrue their power, remorselessly.
Also, the Democrats lost many of voters like me when they proved themselves to be traitors during the Iraq War. I’ll never ever forget my senator, Durbin, calling our troops Nazis. Or the NYT (Dem. rag) telling Bin Laden how to escape satellite detection.
They also proved themselves to be criminal clowns when they funded global warming grafters and banned incandescent light bulbs.
The Democrats would have to change a great deal in order to get back any votes that they lost. And who would start out voting for Democrats? Young voters? Why would they do so? What do Democrats have to offer except higher taxes and more unemployment?
Ah, Promethea! you just cheered me up! The traitorous swine lost me over the same issue, and I would like nothing more than to drive a stake through the party’s black heart, and resurrect the Whigs.
I don’t know what y’all are talking about. Newsweek declared, “We are all Socialist now” two years ago. Get with the program, folks!
Part of my frustration during the Clinton years was I just wished the left would come out and admit they were socialists. Now that they have I am relieved and excited by the American people’s response.
I’m with those who believe the mask had to come off sooner or later. It slipped off two years ago and their only choice is to grab for what they can get now to try and force it down our throats. To do otherwise would be to admit a mistake, which people like this simply cannot do. It would also mean them applying force, which is something they love to do. In their minds the only thing they can do is to keep doubling down until they win. Sounds like the leadership of the left are out of control gambling addicts, but I think it fits.
The one exception is Obama, who may understand something of this, since he tried to distance himself from histrionics of other lefties. But the fact that the Tucson memorial (or whatever they called it) turned into a Hitler Youth rally (complete with T-shirts!) leads me to think he still does not get it. He needs to distance himself from the guys who lost the last election, but he is still up to his old tricks.
Occam’s Beard Says: If I were Palin I’d wait for another spasm of leftist invective re Tucson, and if one should arise, then I’d tee off. Otherwise, if I had to bring up the matter again to address it, I’d let it drop.
Just for the record, this is where you lost me and I dropped out of the thread.
Iirc: My contention was that Palin should not have spoken before Obama, and you responded that this left her free to “rebut”. I was skeptical but willing to be shown (and impressed). “I welcome this chance to formulate an indicator before hindsight can kibitz.”
However, apparently you used “rebutting” in a completely different sense than I do. Apparently we are talking past each other.
I continue to think that, if the speeches are evaluated in terms of political effectiveness especially wrt independent voters, Obama came off better than Palin did. (Of course, polling results about this point would compel attention.) I continue to think that Palin would have improved her chances had she let Obama speak first.