Squaring the Culture




"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

11/03/2010 (10:23 pm)

The Public Rejected Political Elitism

This election is not an endorsement of the Republican party. It was, rather, a resurgence of government of the people.

This election was a whole-hearted rejection of the ruling elite. Obama lied and ran as a moderate, which is what the public elected. He’s governing as a progressive elitist, telling the public what he insists they need, which is NOT what the public voted for. The vast majority of Americans see this as a rejection of American citizen government (which, in fact, it is.)

An elite government saddled the public with huge deficits, massive social welfare spending, nationalized industries (health care, automobiles, investment banking), and executive sidestepping of Constitutional process. The public rejected it. The public also rejected earmarks, Congressional nest-feathering, and what they consider the “Old Boy Network” of Congress. Anything that smacks of political elitism is endangered.

This is not a victory for Republicans, though. The public clearly rejected the old-line Republican party in 2006 and 2008, and continued to do so in 2010, tossing at least half a dozen party Republicans to the winds in favor of new candidates who promised to cut government spending, cut taxes, and reduce the size and reach of government. Republicans who continue to play power politics will be thrown to the wolves in 2012. Republican elitists are as endangered as Democratic ones.

The election signals a new citizen activism aimed at restoring the government’s responsiveness to the people. The arrogant hand of progressive leadership spoon-feeding the public by government mandate was slapped aside. The public said “The government will obey us, not the other way ’round.”

For the next several years, any strategy that does not increase the government’s sensitivity to the demands of its citizens will fail. Democrats or Republicans who continue to ignore the voice of the public, ignore it at their peril. Ours is a government of the people, not a government of the progressive elite, and it will remain so.

01/20/2010 (9:07 am)

A Little Lesson in Democrat Tactics

Nobody ever accused Martha Coakley or her campaign of unusual intelligence. Now, thanks to their ineptness, we have a clear lesson in Democrats’ campaign tactics.

The Coakley campaign circulated a press release sometime around 3 PM yesterday, according to Ed Driscoll at Pajamas Media. Here’s how it looked when first posted:

coakley-press-release-earlier

The date at the top of the announcement indicated that the release had been prepared the day before — reporting events from polls before the polls had even opened. After Twitter comments circulated regarding the incredible gaffe, the Coakley campaign fixed the posted date. But it was too late, the cat was out of the bag.

This, of course, is what happens when the pros let the amateurs get their hands on the play book. It’s a tactic. The accusation of fraud is prepared in advance automatically, to be used in the case that the election happens to be close enough for recounts.

These tactics were not new when Al Gore brought them to national attention in Florida, but the Democrats have been employing them routinely ever since. As we learned in Ohio in 2004, even when the election is not close, the Democrats’ political operatives can create the appearance of fraud in the minds of their brainless followers, whose ensuing, incessant noise-making will create a permanent taint on the outcome of the election. As we learned to our dismay in Minnesota in 2008, sometimes they manage to turn a close election with these sorts of shenanigans.

And as we knew back in 2000, the tactics are deliberate and not honest. But this instance is more transparent than most. It’s not just the date on the release, although that’s a dead give-away: I imagine their press-release-generating software automatically posts the date on the release, and they just forgot to change it. It’s the location: Massachusetts registers Democrats more than 2-to-1 over Republicans. Every public official is a Democrat. If there’s any election fraud here in Massachusetts, everybody knows it has to have been carried out with the cooperation of Democrats. So, if there were, in fact, ballots marked deliberately with Scott Brown’s circle filled in, then they were filled in with the knowledge and assistance of Democrats. QED.

The repetitive noise generated by this reflex tactic produces what I’ve called in the past a “screeching inversion” — the appearance in public that Republicans are jimmying elections, when in fact it’s the Democrats who are doing it. This is how it becomes possible for politicians with the character of a snake with a peptic ulcer, like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, to run a campaign against a “Republican culture of corruption,” one of the most stunning ironies of modern politics. There is no such culture, nor is there any significant evidence of widespread election cheating by Republicans. There is widespread evidence of cheating by Democrats, but Republicans do not engage in the same sort of dishonest posturing, nor do they have the cooperation of the press, so they can’t generate the same sort of heat.

According to AP, Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, who appears to be an honest civil servant, has dismissed the Coakley campaign’s reports, saying that there were too few instances to indicate widespread fraud, and that they could not verify the reports. Greg Sargent at the Plum Line has the report pegged to a software engineer in Cambridge, but does not think it indicates anything significant.

Keep it in mind for future elections. The most effective response to the use of such a tactic is to calmly and correctly identify it as a tactic.

My thanks to Gateway Pundit, from whom I borrowed the graphic at the top of the column.

08/13/2009 (4:16 pm)

A Little Good News

Arlen Specter, as predicted, is heading for trouble at home. He’s up for re-election in 2010, and he just switched over to the Democratic party because he knew he was going to lose the Republican primary to Pat Toomey. The electoral numbers in PA looked to favor any Democrat over Toomey by about 55 – 43, as recently as June.

But guess what? Thanks to the Stimuluspaloser and ObamaGesundheitsfursorgevollpacken (that would be “cramming health care wherever”), the electoral numbers have changed. Pretty dramatically.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Pennsylvania voters shows 48% would vote for Toomey if the election were held today. Just 36% would vote for Specter while four percent (4%) prefer a third option, and 12% are not sure.

These figures reflect a dramatic reversal since June. At that time, before the public health care debate began, Specter led Toomey by eleven.

Just 43% now have a favorable opinion of Specter while 54% offer an unfavorable assessment of the longtime GOP senator who became a Democrat rather than face Toomey in a party primary. Those numbers have reversed since June when 53% had a favorable opinion of him.

The current figures include 15% with a Very Favorable opinion of Specter and 36% with a Very Unfavorable view.

Toomey also has a solid lead if the Democratic candidate is Congressman Joe Sestak, although not quite as large a lead. Sestak currently trails Specter in polls of Democratic primary voters by about 13 points.

Pennsylvania is somewhat of a world unto itself, but a shift this large over specific legislation usually means a similar shift elsewhere. This does not get the US out of the woods, but it looks like there’s a growing chance that at least the House could turn Republican in 2010, and the Democrats’ Senate majority should shrink. It is not unusual for the opposition party to gain in a mid-term election, but it is unusual for the gain to be showing up so early in the President’s tenure. Obama and ObamaCare are not very popular.