Thursday, January 21, 2010

The Left does not understand what happened

They think they've been outmaneuvered at "narrative". Barack thinks Scott Brown's truck was purchased as a prop, instead of as a truck.

Axelrod now wants to position Barack as a populist. Snorffle. Arugula Barack's understanding of those who "cling to their guns and religion" amounts to whatever he once saw when he looked out the window of the faculty lounge; amounts to whatever his teleprompter now tells him (look to the right ... now look to the left ... now look to the right ... the common people like this!).

Tea Partiers are now caricatured as one strident voice which might have learned a lesson through their support of Scott Brown the left-center politician. The caricature lacks logic, and is manure, yet that's the caricature.

Tea Partiers are not one voice: they are a cacophony of many voices which is largely comprised of regular Americans who advocate small government and low taxes as best they can - including advocating via Tea Party protests.

The new caricature is a method of undermining the advocacy efforts of these regular Americans; is a method of turning attention away from their preferred issues (small government and low taxes) via focusing attention onto an ad hominem: one strident voice.

Tea Partiers always have been exactly as flexible as the regular Americans they are. Their immediate and wholehearted support for Scott Brown is proof of this.

Another meme: Tea Partiers are hypocrites who did not protest when GW Bush was starting two wars without figuring out how to pay for them, and was giving tax cuts to billionaires and destroying Clinton's surpluses.

Jesus Christ giving the Sermon on the Mount: the left loves tu quoque! Sometimes it seems all they have. I'm pretty sure Jesus said: Blessed are the poor spirits who invoke tu quoque, for theirs will be the Kingdom of Marxism; Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteous instances of tu quoque, for they will always be one revolution away from satisfaction. Always.

That's how my Blogosphere Standard (BS) bible translation reads, anyway.

For the most part: Tea Partiers are citizens who were fed up w/ Repub Congressional spending, and who protested at the 2006 and 2008 ballot boxes via throwing Repubs out of leadership, only to watch Obama's Dem Congress begin a course which will triple the Bush era deficits. The Porkulus budget bill is what generated the Tea Parties. There's a direct line from the Porkulus to the beginning of the Tea Parties.

So: why didn't Tea Partiers protest when GWB was in office? They did: at the ballot box in both 2006 and 2008 - an option not available to them in Spring/Summer 09. In Spring/Summer 09, faced with the likely tripling of Bush era deficits: Tea Partiers who had never protested anything in their lives began making home made signs, grabbing grandchildren, and driving to protests.

Tu quoque Grandma as a hypocrite all you want: you are only fooling yourself.


Bro 64 said...

I am amused as I hear leftist types grappling, trying to reason as to why Brown won this election.

Arianna Huffington says that the voters were declaring their disgust that Congress was not more forceful in legislating Wall Street and reigning in fat cat bankers.

Howard Dean says that the voters were declaring their disgust that Congress did not act more decisively and quickly to get a health care reform bill passed.

Keith Olbermann says that Massachusetts voters are racist, and Scott Brown appealed to that by driving a pickup truck, which is a code for racism.

Wow. Just, wow.

In my view, the MA miracle can not be boiled down to one single reason. There was a host of reasons, including:
a. Coakley's weak campaign (mocking Fenway Park and mistaking Curt Schilling for a Yankee? Yikes.)
b. DSCC and Washington Dems realizing far too late that Brown was a real threat, and that Coakley could lose. The cavalry was late.
c. Brown's excellent campaign
d. Voters making a statement against health care reform bill
e. Voters making a statement against government overspending
f. Voters making a statement against political arrogance, and politicians who feel entitled

However, knowing all this, I suspect that in the future when I look back on the MA miracle, I will only remember one thing. I will remember Brown's debate declaration:

"With all due respect, it's not the Kennedy's seat, it's not the Democrat's seat, it's the people's seat."

Pure political poetry. This is the moment I will carry.

Paul_In_Houston said...

I'll also add Scott Brown's promise to the people of Massachusetts:

"I am your senator, and no one else's.".

Chris Matthews: "We need to keep an eye on this guy; I don't trust him.".

With all due respect Chris (meaning exactly what that phrase implies), I have a Hell of a lot more trust in a former Lieutenant-Colonel, who has served his country, than a media hack who endorses someone for Commander-In-Chief because of a "tingle" in his leg.


Paul_In_Houston said...

I really liked an earlier comment I made about Chris Matthews reaction to Scott Brown's victory: “We need to keep an eye on this guy; I don’t trust him.”, and my rebuttal to it.

Unfortunately, I cannot find any evidence that he said that.

All I can find is a fairly outrageous one from Glenn Beck, who I do NOT recall ever watching, but whose quote is close to what I recall.

So, if I have managed to confuse Glenn Beck with Chris Matthews, I'm not at all sure who I should apologize to.


gcotharn said...

You keep my laughing. MY favorite part of your comment was "With all due respect Chris (meaning exactly what that phrase implies)".

It is amusing. I sometimes feel like a lonely person with quirky humor: as if I am unamused by things which most persons think are funny, and am amused by things which few others think are funny (if anyone). So, at least I have company in this instance.

As for the election, what will I carry away? Hmmm. I think Scott Brown's wife, Gail Huff, is hot - and all that that implies.