When Republicans lose elections on a mass scale, Republicans all across the country are forced to swallow the pill. Republicans are forced to admit that elections have consequences, and they do little to nothing to thwart the legislative process. Filibusters aside, Republican legislators agree to vote for far left wing Supreme Court Justices (Ginsberg?!) under the guise of “elections have consequences”, and they’re always on the ballot voting yea or nay. Even when they vote vote nay on a particular issue, they compromise their beliefs for the sake of compromise, non-partisanship, and for the purpose of getting along to get things done. “Elections have consequences,” Republican legislators tell their constituents, and they tell them that we should be happy we got the Democrats to compromise a little on an issue. They usually end up looking like a John McCain or Bob Dole in a huge national election that embarrasses all Republicans. They lose, in other words, but they go down with the ‘still a nice guy’ toe tag. These weak Republicans loathe being called mean, divisive, a nazi, partisan, mean spirited (yawn) and uncompromising. To their attempts to maintain this ‘nice guy’ status in the face of these “civil” evaluations, members of the media say: ‘as long as you lose, we’ll like you. We may even have you on one of our shows as long as you promise to slam on Republicans…er (cough, chortle) I mean appear non-partisan.’
As evidence of this, former candidate Dole lamented Bill Clinton alluding to the fact that Dole was mean-spirited in a post-election interview. Dole wasn’t upset, on the surface anyway, that he lost the election to Bill Clinton in 1996. He was upset that Clinton had hinted that Dole was not a super swell, neato, feller. It was an election, ya dupe, brush it off the shoulder and move on. As a Corleone would say, it’s just business. McCain did much of the same thing when Obama alluded to the fact (in their third debate) that McCain was responsible for negative ads. I didn’t clock it, but I think McCain spent about three to five precious debate minutes defending himself on the issue. He wanted people to know he was a nice guy.
When Democrats lose elections they go on major news networks and say (without interruption) that a Scott Walker, or a George Walker Bush, or whatever Republican of the moment isn’t shaking behind curtains is a facist, Hitler, dictator, hateful, racist (yawn) biggot who would love nothing more than to see women and small children cry. Then, when legislative turmoil erupts, say when a mob of angry teachers abdicates their roles as teachers to take to the streets in an organizaed effort to thwart a Republican, Democrats run away like Monty Python’s soldiers (or Jimmy Carter!) running from an evil bunny. We even let these Democrats get away with it because of some unfair burden we’ve placed on them to be legislators in an unfavorable climate (i.e. one run by Republicans). Imagine if the media were biased towards Republicans. Imagine how differently the leads in the recent Wisconsin (barely!) civil unrest would sound.
When a Republican president falls into disfavor with the American public, (poll numbers) the Sunday news programs talk about nothing else. When a Democrat leader falls into disfavor, the media lead with bread and circus, distraction stories. In the last couple months, David Gregory and Brian Williams both chose to badger John Boehner about denouncing critics that suggested that Obama was born in another country. They wanted nothing to do with Boehner’s ideas about spending cuts or his legislative agenda for the 112th session of Congress. Neither far left-wing reporter wanted to discuss how Democrats would have to compromise in the House to get things done, neither asked how this affects Barack Obama’s damaged agenda, or what Boehner thought of the last, radical session of the House. I can’t wait to hear what they’re going to talk about this Sunday, now that Obama’s approval ratings have slipped to the lowest point of his presidency, but I’m guessing it might have something to do with Charlie Sheen, the sentencing of Lindsay Lohan, what Lady Gaga wore to the Oscars, or the seamstress that put together whatever revealing dress that some starlet wore.
When Democrats speak of sacrifice they speak only of the sacrifice of the earners of this country. I remember when liberal Bill Maher brought forth some WWII placards that called for sacrifice of the citizenry. Maher’s intention was to mock and deride George W. Bush’s declaration that American citizens should spend more to thwart the documented intentions of terrorists, post 9-11, to ruin the American economy by causing fear among Americans. Maher thought it showed valor that the 1940’s Americans do with less during troubled times. I don’t watch Maher anymore, but I doubt he has had anything of the sort to say about Wisconsin teachers sacrificing the small percentage of their paycheck they’re being asked to sacrifice to pay for their own cherry retirement packages for the good of the economy of the state of Wisconsin. I’m sure he’s made cracks about Governor Walker’s power grab, and I’m sure those jokes don’t rhyme with the jokes Maher told about the Obama and the 111th Congress’ power grab.
Liberal commentators speak of the sacrifice individual Americans must make in the coming years to see us through whatever period of financial unrest we’re going through at whatever time they say it. They say nothing of the fact that legislative liberals usually cause such unrest with their reckless spending, and they say nothing (God forbid!) of the sacrifice these legislators may have to endure when it comes to spending our tax dollars.
President Barack Obama speaks of sacrifice when it comes to those who produce goods and services in this country. He wants those Americans who work their tails off to be willing to make bigger sacrifices for the good of his spending practices. Obama has made no attempt to curb his own spending, and he has done nothing to lead our federal government representatives to a theme of sacrifice. He doesn’t plan on doing anything of the sort either. Oh, he’s said some things in some speeches, but he just sent forth a doubly irresponsible spending budget to Congress. His political goal, presumably, is to set his budget so far out there that when he comes back to the middle a little it will appear as though he compromised. Even with that budget in hand, and the probable compromise(?), the illusion of his sacrifice pales in comparison to the sacrifice he calls for from individual Americans. The individual Americans he calls upon to sacrifice do not belong to a state run union of course, and they do not work in the upper floor offices of GE/NBC or any other large donors and lobbyists that he meets with outside the white house to prevent their names from appearing on Secret Service logs. He only calls upon those that he deems upper class citizens who work their tails off to earn what you and I pay them. He only calls upon those on a payroll, who smoke a cigarette, drink a soda, and go to a tanning salon, then he increases the staff in the IRS to make sure that these tax policies are followed. He calls upon all non-union, non-donor, and non-GE/NBC Americans to tighten their bootstraps and be willing to do more with less, until they can bring this budget to a more manageable level. They call it identity politics.
It leads me to wonder why anyone who has a decent income, doesn’t work for a state sponsored union, and isn’t a part of the 200,000 government jobs Obama has created in the last two years would want to vote Democrat. The old myth about Democrats being for the little guy is being busted every night of the week (these last two years in particular) in the news. Democrats are for the little guy as long as that little guy fits the profile they’ve created for what a little guy should be. As long as you fit into their nice, neat little box, they say, we’ll see to it that you get some help. They call it identity politics.
Once you start to grow a little, we’ll probably need to bring you back down to where we think you should be, and they laugh when they say this. They laugh when they tell a reporter or anchor, “I don’t think you’ll miss anything paying another 5-10 percent into the federal coffers.” (Unless you’re a Wisconsin state sponsored union member of course, then the 5-10% is too precious to give up.)
As Joe Biden said, “It’s patriotic to want to pay more taxes.” On the flip side of the coin, shouldn’t it be just as patriotic for you to control your spending Joe?
Obama mistakenly said: “I think there is such thing as too much money.” For individual citizens, he meant. For earners he meant. He thinks there should be a limit on what those of us who don’t fit his profile should make. There should be a cap, I think is what he’s saying. For us, he means, not for him. No one’s worth that much, he says, but he doesn’t say how much. He wasn’t referring to himself, or his agenda, or anyone in his profile of what a little guy is. Nor was he referring to his spending when he said ‘too much money’. If he was, he would’ve curtailed himself three or four trillion ago.
President Barack Obama is the one conservatives have been waiting for, to paraphrase Obama. He is the one that conservatives dreamed of when they dreamed of an elected liberal who would push the liberal ideal so far over the top to the over reach of all over reaches that would expose liberalism for what it really was/is. Conservatives and Republicans have been waiting for this strain of liberal to come along and upset the applecart out of pure greed and lust for power. Only then, these conservatives have said, will people know what liberalism really is. Conservatives have been talking about this liberal caricature for most of my life, they’ve been waiting for him to enable them to pull victory from the aftermath of defeat, and they’ve been salivating over him to take his place on their mantle and make him their poster child of liberalism. That day is here, he’s sitting on Capitol Hill, what you gonna do now?