Leftist Reality: A Dream In A Vacuum.

Back in the day I used to people watch and imagine I could pick out the radical left in a crowd. It had as much to do with my imagination as fact. Pinch-faced, grim-lipped people, who look like they are in perpetual pain and think that everyone else needs to pay for that pain. No matter what it is, or how much, it’s never enough.

I’ve had many liberal acquaintances over the years and by and large they are nice people to be with until, as inevitably happens, the conversation turns to politics or social issues. The ‘progressive’ will automatically drop back to certain fixed points from which their faith cannot be shaken. I can name a few but you will undoubtedly come up with your own. George Bush, big oil, Halliburton, Rove, the war. It’s a target rich environment.

The leftist has an inexhaustible supply of grievances, most of which have been passed down as doctrine from the statist leadership. It’s amazing to watch their collective mentality work. What never fails to astound me is how totally wrong they are. Not just about small parts of what they think and believe, but totally conceptually wrong about everything they do.

The statist sees everything through the fog of mystic idealism… it’s a surreal world where intentions rule and any means to an end is the norm. The statist seeks government approval as dog to its master.

Government, our government, this government, is on a campaign of destruction in our country. The wanton destruction of our economy, the railroading through of the health care bill, the failed stimulus. We don’t have very far to look to see failed leftist policy, and we don’t have to look far abroad to see the failures of socialist policies either.

We’re going to change Washington in November. This country is overwhelmingly against socialism and socialist policies and we mean to see them stopped and removed.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Massa-ive Distraction - Why You Should Never Consort with the Enemy

Playing with Massa has landed Glenn in Swampland.  

YahooNews posted a serious "Overmatched by Disgraced Dem!" zinger on it's landing page this morning, meant to compliment the writer's understanding of unbiased mainstream media propagation. This article that was meant to denigrate and soil Glenn Beck, based on guilt by association, was listed under these titles on various pages scattered throughout the web:  

 This one article under various titles, designed to give passerbys the impression much has been written on the topic, was written by one slimey, Slimeland "Swampland"  blogger Michael Scherer, Time's White House "correspondent" who went to Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism to learn how to blog about Jay Z and Beyonce, Saturday Night Live, groping and back hair.  

Yes, there's a reason why Scherer blogs at Swampland.  

We could credit Scherer for giving a stab at explaining the White House's healthcare legislation via the blogger's old cut 'n paste fall-back (while taking the devil's word for it) , but on the day that news broke of the the Democrat's hostile, reinvent-the-rules, no-vote, socialist take over of legislation through the Slaughter Solution , Scherer was busy doing the write-up about Massa's Caligulan orgy discussion on Glenn Beck's show.  

Perhaps doing other things as well.  

The problem is, one of conservativism's darlings, who was once thought of as "the next Rush," whom perhaps Rush "should fear," did not heed the advice of conservative media mavens such as Michelle Malkin who advised Beck on his radio show that Massa is  

a sick, desperate pol looking to save his hide and distract from his smelly ethics problems and personal problems. This is not a hero, not a bona fide champion of reform and integrity in government. He’s the jerk who gave the figurative middle finger to his own constituents as he proclaimed last year that he would ram single-payer down their throats no matter what they thought..  

Beck refuted Michelle's insistence that Massa's controversy was a distraction by pouting and yelling at her like a petulant teenager responding to a parent's concern over questionable behavior (after they've left the room) with "You don't know!"

She would blog about Massa 2 days before her heated discussion with Beck, and mere hours later, would blog about the Slaughter Solution before Massa would appear on Beck's show.  

For Beck, this was never a question of finding a replacement -- who would NOT want to appear on Beck's show, even last minute? -- but more of a refusal to capitulate to the sage advise of conservative veterans, that included Rush who said a full day before the Massa interview:  

[Massa's] out there challenging me to a fight. He wants to come on this show, calling me a coward on this phony soldier business. And these guys in the media are trying to say I'm one of this guy's champions. Anybody who embraces this guy, including the Democrats, please do, but it isn't me ..  

Actually from the moment this thing started yesterday I suspect a rope-a-dope and I still think a rope-a-dope's going on and I still think that anybody out there who embraces this guy is in for big trouble.  

Anybody who embraces this guy is gonna get caught.  

On the day before Beck's radio discussion with Michelle and the Massa Interview, Talking Points would skewer Rush's comments, an obvious, ominous foreshadowing of how the left would interpret Beck's handling of Massa. On the day of Beck's radio discussion with Michelle and Massa Interview, Rush would talk about "The Train Wreck That Passes for TV "News in 2010."  

Neither would influence Beck's decision to host Massa for an entire "faaaascinating" hour.  

So, while Obama continued his campaigning in the Middle America (no John McCain?) to advance socialized healthcare, and the Slaughter Solution would be on everyone's radar -- from small, conservative news organizations in my homestate to media giants, Glenn Beck would decide to follow through on his commitment to court controversy, like "one of this guy's champions."  

Glenn played with caca and he got his hands dirty.  

As for me, an established conservative who understands a bit about the dynamics of media and polics, -- and integrity and character -- my question about Beck is this:  

Is he courting conservativism because the movement is the "Now Controversy"?  

A serious question. 

About Fox, I would ask:

Why does Fox News allow this sort of gamble that would result in a distortion about the conservative movement?

Because this is what happens when you consort with the enemy: you lose control of the narrative. 

And then it gets picked up by people like Scherer who like  to blog in Swampland. 

I am comforted because the only reason Beck showed up on Scherer's radar was because of Massa. 

Massa will always be Progressive's Progeny, their breed. 

He doesn't belong to us. They own him and others like him, even if he's been blackballed and labeled "damaged goods" by their own. 

I have hope, not because Beck has said Michelle was right, but because conservative truth prevails.

I pity their envy. 








The Democrat's 2010 Problem

By now, everybody knows about the shockingly bad electoral conditions for Democrats.  If a Republican has a good chance to win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts, then almost every Democrat in the country has to be scared stiff.

But the electoral problem creates a more immediate predicament for Democrats, and I think we're going to see two sustained Democratic freak outs as they try to figure out how to address this.

  • The 2010 elections may mark the end of the Democrat's ability to move a lot of the really big legislation/regulation.
  • But if they try to move the really big legislation/regulation before the 2010 elections, they're only going to make their electoral situation worse.

The first Democratic freak out will be an internal Congressional fight in 2010 over whether to (1) move big and fast while they still have the votes, or (2) slow down and preserve as many seats as they can.

The second Democratic freak out is going to occur in 2011 and beyond, when Democrats try to figure out what the lesson of the 2010 elections really is.

  • Progressives - and especially the netroots - will say the lesson is "Damn the Republicans, Full Speed Ahead", but that's what they always say.  Revolutionaries like bold action more than practical details.
  • Moderates/pragmatists will say the lesson is "don't try to do too much, take smaller steps, make reasonable compromises".  But that is more effective at maintaining power than accomplishing major policy goals.

I think Congressional Democrats are going to become awfully pragmatic.  I'm not really sure where the White House will end up, especially if Rahm Emanuel leaves.  We are definitely going to see a lot of bargaining and ugly deal-making.

Nobody would have predicted this a year or two ago, this going to be the triumph of the DLC over the Progressives within the Democratic Party?

Democracy and Empowerment

Micah Sifry writes an important essay about hope, change and disillusionment: "The Obama Disconnect: What Happens When Myth Meets Reality".

[T]he image of Barack Obama as the candidate of "change", community organizer, and "hope-monger" (his word), was sold intensively during the campaign. Even after the fact, we were told that his victory represented the empowerment of a bottom-up movement, powered by millions of small donors, grassroots volunteers, local field organizers and the internet. [...] The truth is that Obama was never nearly as free of dependence on big money donors as the reporting suggested, nor was his movement as bottom-up or people-centric as his marketing implied. [...] 

The problem for Obama and the Democrats today, as they head into 2010, is that much of their activist base appears to have swallowed too much of the wrong half of the myth: they thought that Obama would be more of a change-agent, and never really embraced their own role.

I wrote about this in 2008: "The election of Obama did not empower people. It empowered politicians. ... Hope and Change got people on board the Democratic bus. Political convenience will throw them under it."

Sifry has recognized a deep flaw in the Democratic/Progressive message: Progressives preach "empowerment", yet they constantly move power to Washington, DC and away from local and state government.  As a matter of pure statistics, individual voters have more power at the local level than the State level, and more power at the State level than the Federal level.  Decentralization + voter mobility is even more empowering.

And yet, power continues to consolidate in Washington, DC.

Ezra Klein has been arguing that "a political system too dysfunctional to avert crisis is also too dysfunctional to respond to it."  David Roberts has said that critically important issues rest "in the myopic, sociopathically indifferent hands of Ben Nelson, who represents one-half of one percent of U.S. citizens".  And you know what?  They're right.  While we may disagree on the policies that ought to be enacted - and on whether the problem is the filibuster or the public choice theory problems - it is true that there are many structural, political flaws in our collective decision-making process that make it difficult, perhaps impossible, to address difficult problems effectively.

Progressives continue empowering Washington, DC, but what they are ultimately empowering is a Single Point of Failure.

This discrepancy between the Democratic message and reality represents an opportunity for Republicans to both discredit the Democratic message and pursue a better, more reality-based agenda.  If Republicans want to pick up these voters alienated by the Obama Myth and tap into America's deep, populist interest in limited government and individual freedom, they should take advantage of this opportunity to legitimately "empower the people"

What will Democrats do about Arlen Specter?

The news that Arlen Specter is switching parties has sparked a lot of attention to the predictable Republican reaction, which ranges from disappointment to blame-storming to "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out".

But that's not the most interesting story here.

Once everybody gets the Republican reaction story out of their system, we'll turn to a much, much more interesting chapter in this story: How will Democrats react to Democratic Senate candidate Arlen Specter?

Early reaction (Daily Kos, Glenn Greenwald, The New Republic, MyDD, Open Left) suggests Senator Arlen Specter has somehow managed to join a political Party that dislikes him even more than Republicans did. 

So, by promising to give Specter the institutional support of the Democratic Party, it looks like the Democratic establishment has engineered a switch that advances their political control at the expense of the ideological agenda and ideals of the progressive movement.

This will be a crucial test of who holds the power on the Left. Who controls the Democratic Party: the Party establishment or the progressive movement?

Conservative Commentary Without Compromise

By John Barnhart, Executive Editor, American Daily Review

All one need do is watch the news regarding politics and religion during the holidays to discover that there is indeed a culture war going on in America.

The reason the war exists at all is because secular progressives cannot stand practicing Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Evangelical Christians or Christianity, they do not want to answer to God for their behavior, and the concept of a natural connection between Jews and Christians as it relates to the birth of our nation, the U.S. Constitution and service to Jehovah is even more repugnant to them.

In addition, secular progressives are on a mission to confuse others who are stuck in the middle, lost, unsure what they believe, or are atheist republicans and pull them over to “the dark side” if they can.

To find evidence of the hatred secular progressives have for organized, reverent religion and our Lord who inspires it, just study Supreme Court and other case law.

Secular progressives support the sadistic slaughter of innocent babies, they hate any allowance of prayer in school, they force people to consider and discuss homosexuality, bestiality and other sexual deviancy like the pedophilia that the North American Man Boy Love Association promotes as “normal.”

The Ten Commandments, The Holy Bible, the Crucifix, the Cross, the Star of David, “In God We Trust”, “One Nation Under God” and many other religious icons, traditions, phrases, publications, are under constant attack from secular progressives depending on where and how they are discussed or displayed.

Ruthless, Godless, secular progressives constantly shove their empty, selfish, deviant lifestyles in the face of God fearing believers while trashing us and God in the process. They use the media, science, education and the judicial system to help them in their quest to rid our nation of any reference to God, and they make huge efforts to pit Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelical Christians against one another.

The way that they twist our faith and portray us angers me greatly, especially when I see their pundits on CNN and other media outlets discussing us as in a negative way as if having a deep seeded faith is a bad thing or just a stupid superstition.

Then they push the envelope and try to split us by saying thing like these…

“Hey you there…yes you… you Jew, you Christian, you Catholic, do you realize how many times that Israel has stolen intelligence material from the United States… the country that “props them up,” or “hey have you forgotten how many Jews and Protestants were killed by Catholics”, and oh yes then there is this old method… “Do you not remember that each of your faith’s have different beliefs in regards to if there is a Heaven, a Hell, a Messiah and if it was or was not Jesus?” And of course it eventually comes down to “where is and who is this God you speak of and why would he allow people to live in horrible poverty and die horrible deaths?” OR “anyone who believes that there is a God is stupid, and uneducated.”

They demonize us by bringing up the worst elements of our histories or the most “unbelievable” stories, “myths” and “legends” of our common Biblical heritage in hopes we will feed on one another instead of closing ranks.

They cite The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Slaughter of the Innocents by Herod the Great, Noah’s Flood, Adam and Eve, Joshua’s bloody battles in Canaan where “God told him to do it”, the mere belief in God, the very concept of or belief in a Messiah, they even use Abraham’s potential sacrifice of his own son to cast shadows on us when some nutty mother or father does something evil like kill their own kids and it makes huge headlines.

What they don’t realize is that for me, and many like me, whether I was a Catholic, a Protestant or an Evangelical Christian, my beliefs will never waver. I will always believe that God gave Israel to the Jews, and that he gave “the free world” especially America, to the Jew and to the Christian so we may live free and enjoy liberty without fear of religious persecution.

To me, secular progressives have chosen to not just oppose our common beliefs but to trample on them, twist them, spit on them, etc. and as such they might as well have declared war on Jehovah God himself and then tied a mill stone around their necks and launched themselves into the deepest ocean.

I have little to no sympathy for them!

The people I care about are those who are “lost.” They “recognize there might be a God” but they don’t have a relationship with him, or they recognize Israel’s right to The Holy Land but don’t understand why, they just think it’s because of the holocaust and they have no clue to the deeper meaning.

Moderate, Atheist or agnostic “conservatives” are you listening? There is more to this conservatism we hold dear than just simple economic politics. REAL conservatism truly comes down to faith in God and his promise to watch over us, if we only do the few simple things he asks and move our nation in his direction.

REAL conservatives recognize the right way to live because of our faith not because of our wallets.

Anyway, with all that said, I will leave readers with this…

Despite secular progressive’s attacks and attempts to divide politically conservative Jews and Christians in the culture war, I will NEVER feel guilty for being a Judeo-Christian, I will NEVER renounce or relinquish my faith in God or deny God’s promises to his chosen people regarding The Holy Land.

I will NEVER stop offering conservative commentary without compromise, and neither should anyone else.

Reading through some LeftRoots Lit, Part 1

So, inspired as I was by some of the talk around here about RedRoots and organizing a new path for conservatism, I wandered on down to my local big bookstore, plopped in a chair, and started reading through some netroots stuff. Namely, I spent the majority of my time on The Practical Progressive, a directory of progressive groups and think tanks, and DailyKos's book.

Why? Not out of admiration nor out of any wish to simply mimic the Left, but rather to see if the reasons for their grassroots success could point us in the right direction. Here's a few quick observations.

1. Not surprisingly, there is a near-unanimous belief that the issue holding back the Left in the 90's and 00's was a lack of organization rather than a deficiency of quality candidates. I dunno how much I buy it, but many many lefties think that 2002 was a turning point, that the internet-boom of left-sites and re-formation of more established progressive groups (like NOW or Planned Parenthood) are primarily responsible for recent electoral success. I strongly disagree with this analysis, as I think the ineptitude of the GOP is much more responsible for the rise of the Left than DailyKos and MyDD.

2. Here's a highlight list of moments that progressives are taking credit for: exposing a culture of corruption (think Delay, Abramoff, Mark Foley; unearthing the issue of underprepared body armor for soldiers; reporting on Blackwater's "unfettered behavior" in Iraq; exposing GOP plants in the White House press corps; and  ousting John Bolton. What I took away from these claims was that:

a) a lot of the Left's victories in the past few years have been GOP-specific mistakes. If we took better care of our own house, many Left attacks would fall by the wayside. So, whatever shape our next step as conservatives takes, it should be essential that we rigorously inspect our own side for foibles. For example, right now Sen. McConnell, one of our own "conservative" leaders, is campaigning around Kentucky crowing about how much money he's directed his constituents' way. This is no different than Congressman Murtha. We don't need "right-wing" versions of the same statism, we need to rebuild our brand as fighters for freedom.

b.) Progressives, I think, are overstating their case if they believe any specific incident in the abovementioned laundry list is responsible for any specific electoral gain. I think they are correct, however, if they say that, as a whole, these stories created a mosaic of unresponsive, inept, and tainted-with-the-Beltway-stench politicians. What does that mean for the future? There needs to be a greater emphasis on constantly replenishing the well of conservative politicians in D.C.

Let the Left have Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and John Conyers. Let the Left have the "lifetime" politicians who sit in their offices doling out government money to buy votes. We need to drop the Ted Stevens from our side. I don't think it's a coincidence that some of our best spokespeople have self-imposed term limits (Think Tom Coburn). Additionally, when we have men and women in D.C. who are there for a shorter period of time, it won't be as easy to sink into a bureaucratic lethargy. When you are in office for a defined period of time, it's easier to remind yourself why you were sent to D.C.: to return power, money, and responsibility to your consitituents, to effectively put yourself out of a job.

I'll put more in later posts, but I'd love to see some of y'all's thoughts, not just on my points but also your own ideas.

Left Watch: 2009 Agenda

Open Left's Chris Bowers provides some insight into the progressive's perception of the likely Democratic agenda for 2009...

In our attempts to build a large Democratic trifecta in Washington, D.C., what, exactly, are we fighting for? To answer that question, here is a comprehensive list of legislation that is certain to pass if Obama wins the White House, we pick up 20 more seats in the House, and 8 more seats in the Senate...

You can find the full list at his post.  Suffice it to say, from legislation that puts a thumb on the scale for Labor Unions to government price controls for health care to massive regulatory expansion, there's something there to worry everybody.....including elements of the Democratic coalition. 

But this point from Bowers should raise the most concern.

The most exciting bits are the positive, progressive feedback loops around increasing unionization (the employee free choice act) and election reform (D.C. voting rights, verified paper trails). These are laws that will make the country itself more progressive, thus building a progressive majority down the road. If we can get more of these, including sweeping media reform (about which we should be optimistic), real immigration reform, (about which I am not optimistic) and the progressive budget (which might just happen by 2011, if all goes well), then we will be on our way to a progressive majority in America that will last for an entire generation.

Policies that redistribute the media to liberal interests, make the public more dependent on liberal institutions and give the government more largesse to distribute to the public.  Policies that entrench Democratic power.

That's the agenda. 

Syndicate content