Dumb: Stupid Is As Stupid Does
I see you've decided to swallow the red pill. I must warn you that it may be a rude awakening for many of you. After all, you've been stuck in the left-wing Matrix version of reality for most of your lives. You will find that many of the things that you've been told simply aren't true and many things that you need to know have been intentionally withheld from you. This has all been done for a purpose. It serves those who run the Matrix media machine for you to remain in a world of unreality and ignorance. If too many Americans swallow the red pill, they might realize how badly they've been swindled and how close the nation is to fiscal disaster. This must not be allowed to happen!
Thus, the left will do whatever it takes to keep you happy, content and, above all, ignorant inside a Matrix created by their dominance of the press, academia and the popular culture. Because the data and the facts are against them, reality must be manipulated to marginalize, eliminate and/or co-opt those who would wake you up from the fantasy world they try to spin for you. This is why liberals have such a virulent hatred for Fox News, talk radio and the internet. As far as these paragons of "tolerance" and "free expression" are concerned, these uncontrollable rogue purveyors of red pills must be silenced. That's why Democrats are constantly trying to promote the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine (known as the hush Rush law) and the imposition of the Net Neutrality act.
For those on the left, truth is relative. Therefore, the American people should only be allowed to hear "truth" only as filtered through those "respectable" members of the media elite that progressives have selected. Is it any surprise that the failure of fifty years of Democrat programs to combat poverty, improve education and the extent to which these and other entitlements are bankrupting our nation are rarely ever mentioned by these talking heads? That a little tiny kernel of truth is actually allowed to filter through the screen is only so as not to disturb the illusion of reality the spinmeisters are trying to weave. Towards that end, no fact or issue in which the weight of the evidence is against the liberal narrative is allowed to be given the kind of prominence in the national conversation that their gravity and seriousness demand. These "trivialities" are simply glossed over or ignored by a media that is no longer an arbiter of truth and balance, but now act as an adjunct and stenographer of the Democrat party in particular and leftist ideals in general.
2=====================================================================================================
This lack of intellectual honesty on the part of the media Matrix machine is designed to aid Democrats in convincing vast swaths of the voting public that it matters more that they "care" about you than whether that concern has resulted in constructive and effective policy. Far too often, the leftist media chooses to focus any discussion of the issues of the day towards irrational emotional appeals rather than one based on facts and analysis. After all, as every trial attorney knows, if the evidence is against your client, appeal to the heartstrings of the jury. Thus, by selectively reporting or hiding the relevant details and then slanting the issues towards emotional generalities, the leftist media has kept the millions of Americans who rely on their reporting ignorant of critical knowledge and perspective.
More importantly, this virtual monopoly of the means of communication allows the left in America to perpetuate a series of totally false and inflammatory myths and memes in the popular culture about their political opponents. If we were to combine them all together, the storyline would go something like this: Republicans are mean spirited, intolerant, racist, sexist, homophobes and also evil nazis/facsists who are the tools of big business, hate the poor and only believe what they do because they are all incredibly stupid.
As I said, part of the reason that I wrote this book is because I came across too many people whom I assumed were reasonably intelligent and knowledgeable and yet, nevertheless, kept repeating back these memes or their variants to me over and over again. How can one have a serious conversation with someone who comes into a discussion with a preconceived notion that you are both mean and dumb? You can't.
This is by design, of course. It is exactly the way the left likes it. Far better for the conversation to descend to an endless series of defenses of one's own humanity and intelligence or, better yet, into outright name calling, than to rise to a level where people might actually have to discuss the facts and merits of an issue. This reluctance on the part of the left to engage in thoughtful and reasoned debate, while at the same time trying to silence any other point of view but their own, is why the only people who need bodyguards when they come to college campuses to speak are conservatives. For progressives, it is far better to shut them up than to respectfully hear what they have to say. No red pill pushing is to be permitted.
Even though none of the left's characterizations of conservatives have any basis in reality, the perpetuation of these false premises throughout our popular culture serves to create a deep partisan divide that poisons our discourse. Everything in our politics has been reduced to the level of schoolyard arguments between five year olds and the nation has suffered mightily as a result.
To understand the depths to which progressives are willing to go in keeping the level of the national conversation at a kindergarten level, just watch Barack Obama giving a recent speech on his jobs plan:
2=====================================================================================================
This lack of intellectual honesty on the part of the media Matrix machine is designed to aid Democrats in convincing vast swaths of the voting public that it matters more that they "care" about you than whether that concern has resulted in constructive and effective policy. Far too often, the leftist media chooses to focus any discussion of the issues of the day towards irrational emotional appeals rather than one based on facts and analysis. After all, as every trial attorney knows, if the evidence is against your client, appeal to the heartstrings of the jury. Thus, by selectively reporting or hiding the relevant details and then slanting the issues towards emotional generalities, the leftist media has kept the millions of Americans who rely on their reporting ignorant of critical knowledge and perspective.
More importantly, this virtual monopoly of the means of communication allows the left in America to perpetuate a series of totally false and inflammatory myths and memes in the popular culture about their political opponents. If we were to combine them all together, the storyline would go something like this: Republicans are mean spirited, intolerant, racist, sexist, homophobes and also evil nazis/facsists who are the tools of big business, hate the poor and only believe what they do because they are all incredibly stupid.
As I said, part of the reason that I wrote this book is because I came across too many people whom I assumed were reasonably intelligent and knowledgeable and yet, nevertheless, kept repeating back these memes or their variants to me over and over again. How can one have a serious conversation with someone who comes into a discussion with a preconceived notion that you are both mean and dumb? You can't.
This is by design, of course. It is exactly the way the left likes it. Far better for the conversation to descend to an endless series of defenses of one's own humanity and intelligence or, better yet, into outright name calling, than to rise to a level where people might actually have to discuss the facts and merits of an issue. This reluctance on the part of the left to engage in thoughtful and reasoned debate, while at the same time trying to silence any other point of view but their own, is why the only people who need bodyguards when they come to college campuses to speak are conservatives. For progressives, it is far better to shut them up than to respectfully hear what they have to say. No red pill pushing is to be permitted.
Even though none of the left's characterizations of conservatives have any basis in reality, the perpetuation of these false premises throughout our popular culture serves to create a deep partisan divide that poisons our discourse. Everything in our politics has been reduced to the level of schoolyard arguments between five year olds and the nation has suffered mightily as a result.
To understand the depths to which progressives are willing to go in keeping the level of the national conversation at a kindergarten level, just watch Barack Obama giving a recent speech on his jobs plan:
If you can believe it, this is a man who rose to the presidency by promising to unite the country. Remember him saying that there are no red states or blue states, just the United States? Well, here is that same fellow only a few years later claiming that his political opponents are evil (they want dirty air and dirty water) and stupid (he'll give them bite sized pieces so they'll be able to understand him better, the idiots). Notice that after Obama calls conservatives mean and dumb, the creator of this YouTube clip responds by telling his President that his ideas suck. Maybe they do, but that isn't the point. Is this kind of back and forth a place from which an elevated discussion of ideas can take place? Of course not. Thus, the level of the conversation about the President jobs bill has turned into something more likely to be heard on an episode of The Jersey Shore than something worthy of the American people.
3=====================================================================================================
In that regard, there is probably nothing in the realm of political debate that does such a disservice to the American people as when progressives try to promote the meme that Republican politicians are dumb. To say someone is misguided, misinformed, ignorant, naive and just plain wrong is perfectly acceptable. After all, that's about differences of opinion or knowledge. Dumb, on the other hand, denotes that someone is not worth listening to because they are too intellectually challenged to grasp basic reality. Thus, do progressives try to marginalize not just the politician in question, but everyone else who is mentally vapid enough to agree with them. This is a device that allows liberals to pat themselves on the backs for being intellectually superior to conservatives without the bothersome task of actually having to engage in losing arguments based on an evidentiary analysis of issues in question. After all, there's no need to have a logical debate with mental defectives is there?
While it is true that there are some truly stupid people on both sides of the aisle, it is more often the case that what most liberals describe as being "dumb" has more to do with cultural and educational differences than actual mental acuity. Can there be any doubt that if the center of the news and entertainment worlds were in Houston and Indianapolis instead of New York and LA, there would be a radically different assessment of what is considered sophisticated and intellectually chic?
The reality in modern day America is that conservatives outnumber liberals by two to one:
3=====================================================================================================
In that regard, there is probably nothing in the realm of political debate that does such a disservice to the American people as when progressives try to promote the meme that Republican politicians are dumb. To say someone is misguided, misinformed, ignorant, naive and just plain wrong is perfectly acceptable. After all, that's about differences of opinion or knowledge. Dumb, on the other hand, denotes that someone is not worth listening to because they are too intellectually challenged to grasp basic reality. Thus, do progressives try to marginalize not just the politician in question, but everyone else who is mentally vapid enough to agree with them. This is a device that allows liberals to pat themselves on the backs for being intellectually superior to conservatives without the bothersome task of actually having to engage in losing arguments based on an evidentiary analysis of issues in question. After all, there's no need to have a logical debate with mental defectives is there?
While it is true that there are some truly stupid people on both sides of the aisle, it is more often the case that what most liberals describe as being "dumb" has more to do with cultural and educational differences than actual mental acuity. Can there be any doubt that if the center of the news and entertainment worlds were in Houston and Indianapolis instead of New York and LA, there would be a radically different assessment of what is considered sophisticated and intellectually chic?
The reality in modern day America is that conservatives outnumber liberals by two to one:
Yet, when you wake up in the morning to grab your local paper or attempt to get your news on the TV is this what you see? Do you perceive a predominance of conservative opinion and bias? When you watch entertainment programs and movies, do you find that they tend to tilt right twice as often as left? Are the jokes on the comedy shows more often at the expense of some poor liberal? If you go to a University or other place of higher learning, do the professors reflect a more conservative bent than a liberal one? If the answer to those questions is a resounding No!, how is it that this tiny minority of people gets to set the rules of political debate, the norms of the culture and even who is and is not intelligent?
Regardless of how or why they have been successful in dominating the news media, the entertainment and the academic world, the left has taken full advantage of the enormous power this gives them to define the conventional wisdom on a multitude of issues. This position, on top of the elite institutions of the culture, gives them an unparallelled ability to set the narrative towards their ideology. It allows them to construct the Matrix.
For instance, if a politician twenty five years ago had promoted gay marriage, they would have been seen by the American people as extremists. Today, it is exactly the opposite. Because the left has constantly framed the narrative through their control over the popular culture, those who oppose gay marriage are now the ones portrayed as far out of the mainstream. This, despite the fact that polls show Americans are evenly divided on the issue and gay marriage has lost every time it has been on the ballot. Even in left-coast California! Yet, only the anti-gay marriage opinion is portrayed as extremist. Such is the power of controlling the dialogue and being able to disseminate your views into every corner of society.
In the current media climate, anyone who doesn't follow along and agree with the left's agenda is marginalized, ridiculed and dismissed as backward anti-intellectuals on virtually every channel of your TV. In terms of news sources, only Fox News stands against the overwhelming tide of leftist oriented propaganda. For that audacity, they are roundly criticized, hated, and even attacked by the President of the United States. So much for the idea that all sides of a story should be told.
In a country where conservatives outnumber liberals two to one, the only way the left can retain power is to control the narrative of the news in a way that paints Democrats as reasonable and caring individuals and Republicans as mean, racist, troglodytes. This is how they win over the precious "independents". After all, who wants to back a party full of extremists and haters, when it is so much easier to support those who are portrayed as the ones who "care". And all the big Hollywood stars love them too!
4=====================================================================================================
Recently, in a Republican debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, two anchors from one of America's elite news networks showed all the world how this type of narrative setting and bias works to frame the argument in the left's favor. With the country 15 Trillion dollars in debt and with 20 million people unemployed and looking for work, this is what former Clinton hatchet man George "Stephie" Stephanopolous is most concerned about:
Regardless of how or why they have been successful in dominating the news media, the entertainment and the academic world, the left has taken full advantage of the enormous power this gives them to define the conventional wisdom on a multitude of issues. This position, on top of the elite institutions of the culture, gives them an unparallelled ability to set the narrative towards their ideology. It allows them to construct the Matrix.
For instance, if a politician twenty five years ago had promoted gay marriage, they would have been seen by the American people as extremists. Today, it is exactly the opposite. Because the left has constantly framed the narrative through their control over the popular culture, those who oppose gay marriage are now the ones portrayed as far out of the mainstream. This, despite the fact that polls show Americans are evenly divided on the issue and gay marriage has lost every time it has been on the ballot. Even in left-coast California! Yet, only the anti-gay marriage opinion is portrayed as extremist. Such is the power of controlling the dialogue and being able to disseminate your views into every corner of society.
In the current media climate, anyone who doesn't follow along and agree with the left's agenda is marginalized, ridiculed and dismissed as backward anti-intellectuals on virtually every channel of your TV. In terms of news sources, only Fox News stands against the overwhelming tide of leftist oriented propaganda. For that audacity, they are roundly criticized, hated, and even attacked by the President of the United States. So much for the idea that all sides of a story should be told.
In a country where conservatives outnumber liberals two to one, the only way the left can retain power is to control the narrative of the news in a way that paints Democrats as reasonable and caring individuals and Republicans as mean, racist, troglodytes. This is how they win over the precious "independents". After all, who wants to back a party full of extremists and haters, when it is so much easier to support those who are portrayed as the ones who "care". And all the big Hollywood stars love them too!
4=====================================================================================================
Recently, in a Republican debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, two anchors from one of America's elite news networks showed all the world how this type of narrative setting and bias works to frame the argument in the left's favor. With the country 15 Trillion dollars in debt and with 20 million people unemployed and looking for work, this is what former Clinton hatchet man George "Stephie" Stephanopolous is most concerned about:
Watching George Stephanopoulis ask such an ideologically motivated and ridiculous question serves to highlight the degree to which left wing orthodoxy has taken over the elite news departments at the major networks. Once a highly respected institution, ABC News apparently has no problem making a former Clinton War Room hyper-partisan one of its two showcase anchors. With this kind of institutional backing behind him and his ideology, Stephie feels no compunction to be "fair" or "balanced" in pursuing his role as an Obama attack dog.
Let's be clear, the purpose of Stephie's question here is to make Republicans look like backwards and reactionary religious neanderthals who want to reach into your bedroom and snuff out your sex life. That there is no indication that there is any Republican that supports banning contraception is irrelevant to the need of the left wing media to paint them in this way. The issue is important to them because it serves to distract attention from Obama's horrible economy by using inflammatory social wedge issues. They'll try to spin the public with this nonsensical narrative even if that means making things up about those mean dastardly anti-sex conservatives.
What people didn't know at the time of this debate was that Stephie was just the vanguard for an entire Democra/media assault on Republicans. You see, it turns out that right about the time this GOP confab was taking place, back in Washington the Obama administration was getting ready to impose contraception, sterilization and abortifacient mandates on religious institutions in direct violation of their first amendment rights. This, the administration knew, would make the Catholic church and many other religious organizations hopping mad. How best, then, to blunt the political impact of that criticism? Why, reframe the debate into one about "access" to contraception. It's a Matrix word, you see. According to left wing media speak, a woman doesn't have proper "access" to contraception unless it's free. I know it's crazy, but then this is liberals we are talking about.
5=====================================================================================================
Shortly after ABC's Stephanopoulis launched the first salvo on unsuspecting Republican presidential candidates, the Fluke controversy hit the fan. Now I won't go into all the details of how the Democrats set up a scam to make it look like Sandra Fluke (a Georgetown law student and feminist activist) was being persecuted by Republicans in Congress or how ridiculous her claims are about women's lives being ruined because they couldn't afford to pay for their contraception, but take it from me the whole thing was a set-up. Unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh walked right into it. He was so incredulous and outraged by the idea that this woman wanted other people to pay for her sex life that he referred to her as a prostitute and a slut. Oops! Though he later apologized, this was all the media needed to go full speed ahead with phase two of the operation: The Republican War on Women!
Now, it's not as if Democrats and leftists haven't made misogynistic comments of their own. Heck, during their recent convention they honored Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton, one who has been accused of killing a woman and the other accused of all kinds of sexual predation. But, no matter. They are Democrats. If you are a Democrat you have carte blanche to do just about anything to individual women as long as you are in support of the reproductive "rights" of all women. What Rush Limbaugh said compared to that is nothing. Why, Bill Maher and Ed Schultz have said some absolutely vile things about women on the right, but there was no media frenzy about the Democrats War on Women:
Let's be clear, the purpose of Stephie's question here is to make Republicans look like backwards and reactionary religious neanderthals who want to reach into your bedroom and snuff out your sex life. That there is no indication that there is any Republican that supports banning contraception is irrelevant to the need of the left wing media to paint them in this way. The issue is important to them because it serves to distract attention from Obama's horrible economy by using inflammatory social wedge issues. They'll try to spin the public with this nonsensical narrative even if that means making things up about those mean dastardly anti-sex conservatives.
What people didn't know at the time of this debate was that Stephie was just the vanguard for an entire Democra/media assault on Republicans. You see, it turns out that right about the time this GOP confab was taking place, back in Washington the Obama administration was getting ready to impose contraception, sterilization and abortifacient mandates on religious institutions in direct violation of their first amendment rights. This, the administration knew, would make the Catholic church and many other religious organizations hopping mad. How best, then, to blunt the political impact of that criticism? Why, reframe the debate into one about "access" to contraception. It's a Matrix word, you see. According to left wing media speak, a woman doesn't have proper "access" to contraception unless it's free. I know it's crazy, but then this is liberals we are talking about.
5=====================================================================================================
Shortly after ABC's Stephanopoulis launched the first salvo on unsuspecting Republican presidential candidates, the Fluke controversy hit the fan. Now I won't go into all the details of how the Democrats set up a scam to make it look like Sandra Fluke (a Georgetown law student and feminist activist) was being persecuted by Republicans in Congress or how ridiculous her claims are about women's lives being ruined because they couldn't afford to pay for their contraception, but take it from me the whole thing was a set-up. Unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh walked right into it. He was so incredulous and outraged by the idea that this woman wanted other people to pay for her sex life that he referred to her as a prostitute and a slut. Oops! Though he later apologized, this was all the media needed to go full speed ahead with phase two of the operation: The Republican War on Women!
Now, it's not as if Democrats and leftists haven't made misogynistic comments of their own. Heck, during their recent convention they honored Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton, one who has been accused of killing a woman and the other accused of all kinds of sexual predation. But, no matter. They are Democrats. If you are a Democrat you have carte blanche to do just about anything to individual women as long as you are in support of the reproductive "rights" of all women. What Rush Limbaugh said compared to that is nothing. Why, Bill Maher and Ed Schultz have said some absolutely vile things about women on the right, but there was no media frenzy about the Democrats War on Women:
Media Frenzy... It's probably the left's most effective device for setting a narrative and generating a national discussion on their terms. As Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbles understood, repetition is the key to pushing a fictitious meme. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the media isn't capable of going into a frenzy over legitimate stories. However, this "war on women" non-story isn't one of them. Here we have a blatant example of media elites creating an issue where none exists for the express purpose of creating the false impression that Republicans hate women so much they want to outlaw contraception. This despite not one single Republican ever proposing such a thing. Worse, the news media was purposely trying to perform political jujitsu for the Obama administration by attempting to spin a huge Constitutional story about the Obama administration's attempt to violate the principle of religious freedom and morphing it into a case of Republicans wanting to reach into your bedroom to stop you from having fun. Amazing, eh? Clever, too.
6=====================================================================================================
NBC's Meet The Press was once the gold standard for the Sunday news shows. When Tim Russert (RIP) was hosting the show, you could be confident that he'd give no quarter to either political party. There was never a question about whether he would consider acting as a shill in order to create a narrative that favored any president. However, that was then and this is now. Today, the host is David Gregory. Apparently he has no problem adding his voice to the media frenzy in order to create the perception among the public that the GOP is anti-women and anti-contraception. Newt Gingrich, though, was having none of it:
6=====================================================================================================
NBC's Meet The Press was once the gold standard for the Sunday news shows. When Tim Russert (RIP) was hosting the show, you could be confident that he'd give no quarter to either political party. There was never a question about whether he would consider acting as a shill in order to create a narrative that favored any president. However, that was then and this is now. Today, the host is David Gregory. Apparently he has no problem adding his voice to the media frenzy in order to create the perception among the public that the GOP is anti-women and anti-contraception. Newt Gingrich, though, was having none of it:
Ah, well, perhaps George Stephanopoulis and David Gregory are lone wolves trying to peddle propaganda for a President they support. Surely, the other ABC anchor at the Republican Debate in Manchester, a woman who once worked in the Nixon administration, would want to focus on the debt and the economy, right? Nope, Dianne Sawyer wanted to have a discussion about why all of these Republican candidates hate gay people. By framing her question as a personal family "living room" issue rather than a constitutional or public policy issue, she makes it clear that it would be mean to tell a gay couple face to face that they can't get married. Thus, the onus is not on the gay rights movement to show a reason why they should get special treatment, but on the Republicans to show that they are not unfeeling, callous brutes. By posing the question with her patented folksy and endearing personal charm, Sawyer dares them to defy what she and her leftist Manhattan social circle considers right and proper:
To his credit, once again Newt Gingrich would have none of this blatant bias and pointed out how truly slanted the question was and how one sided the media's portrayal of the issue is:
Regardless of the excellent point that the former Speaker of the House made, you can be sure that no one in any of the newsrooms at CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN or PBS were listening.
7=====================================================================================================
It isn't just that these guardians of the Matrix are biased, they are aghast at the notion that anyone would think so. Why, everyone THEY know, thinks just like they do. If you disagree, you must be backward or something:
7=====================================================================================================
It isn't just that these guardians of the Matrix are biased, they are aghast at the notion that anyone would think so. Why, everyone THEY know, thinks just like they do. If you disagree, you must be backward or something:
_You see! Rosie says that if the country doesn't believe in gay marriage then we're not enlightened like she is. And look who is agreeing with her: the prime time interview guy from the supposedly "neutral" CNN, Piers Morgan. It's not that anyone on the right has an issue with them having this conversation or even insulting people who don't agree with them. The problem is that you will never see a conservative daytime talk show host and a conservative prime time talk show host have a chummy little discussion on this subject from an entirely different angle.
For instance, they might discuss whether the equal protection clause that gay marriage proponents offer as their rationale for giving them preferential treatment over single people doesn't logically mean that bigamy and polygamy will also become state sanctioned legal partnerships as well. After all, why should three people or ten people who choose to live as "one" be denied the same rights as any two other consenting adults? Are you going to go into their living room and explain to them why their love is not valid? Why should the number of people involved in a "loving" relationship matter? Where is their equal protection to define their own relationships as they think best?
Now, I watch a lot of cable news, but I don't remember a time anyone had a real conversation about why marriage should be given a special place in our society if the purpose isn't explicitly to promote the rearing of children. And that's the real debate. It isn't about whether someone's feelings are hurt or they think others are mean for having a problem with who they are in love with. It is solely about the legal and constitutional argument over the purpose of giving certain people preferential treatment over others when there is no tangible benefit to society. But, you'll never see an elite media outlet have that kind of discussion. You won't even see that conversation on Fox News. Doing so might make a huge segment of the population wake up to the fact that if Rosie and Piers have their way, single people are going to be forced to start subsidizing, not only married heterosexual couples, but gays, bigamists and polygamists from now on.
Therefore, for the left to change the culture and make our society more "fair" for homosexuals and lesbians, the conversation must instead be about how Republicans and evangelicals are being so mean to poor Rosie. That's why it is perfectly ok for members of the media to snicker at the fact that the first hit that comes up on Google when searching for the name of anti-gay marriage advocate Rick Santorum is for a website that has an absolutely foul and despicable definition of his name:
For instance, they might discuss whether the equal protection clause that gay marriage proponents offer as their rationale for giving them preferential treatment over single people doesn't logically mean that bigamy and polygamy will also become state sanctioned legal partnerships as well. After all, why should three people or ten people who choose to live as "one" be denied the same rights as any two other consenting adults? Are you going to go into their living room and explain to them why their love is not valid? Why should the number of people involved in a "loving" relationship matter? Where is their equal protection to define their own relationships as they think best?
Now, I watch a lot of cable news, but I don't remember a time anyone had a real conversation about why marriage should be given a special place in our society if the purpose isn't explicitly to promote the rearing of children. And that's the real debate. It isn't about whether someone's feelings are hurt or they think others are mean for having a problem with who they are in love with. It is solely about the legal and constitutional argument over the purpose of giving certain people preferential treatment over others when there is no tangible benefit to society. But, you'll never see an elite media outlet have that kind of discussion. You won't even see that conversation on Fox News. Doing so might make a huge segment of the population wake up to the fact that if Rosie and Piers have their way, single people are going to be forced to start subsidizing, not only married heterosexual couples, but gays, bigamists and polygamists from now on.
Therefore, for the left to change the culture and make our society more "fair" for homosexuals and lesbians, the conversation must instead be about how Republicans and evangelicals are being so mean to poor Rosie. That's why it is perfectly ok for members of the media to snicker at the fact that the first hit that comes up on Google when searching for the name of anti-gay marriage advocate Rick Santorum is for a website that has an absolutely foul and despicable definition of his name:
Note, that CNN says that this is Rick Santorum's problem. They don't even pass judgement on whether this is fair or whether those who slimed his name have gone over the line. In fact, their narrative is that this is the kind of thing that should sink the Santorum candidacy. If this kind of thing was done to Barack Obama, you can be sure that a great hue and outcry amongst progressives in the chattering class would force Google to do something to ban the site from its rankings. But, as far as everyone on the mainstream media is concerned, it's perfectly ok to be mean to a Conservative. Even to snicker about it. After all, just like Rosie says, they are so backwards! That at least half of the nation agrees with Senator Santorum's views on gay marriage is totally irrelevant as far as the left wing media is concerned. They have an agenda and that agenda is all about promoting the gay rights movement and defaming and marginalizing anyone who stands in the way of their "righteous" cause.
That's what you see when you watch any discussion of gay marriage anywhere in the elite media. From Dianne Sawyer to Rosie O'Donnell to Piers Morgan the conversation is always slanted away from the legal argument and towards the emotional one. The left knows that in order to achieve proper victim status and sympathy from the public for their cause, everyone must constantly be reminded that conservatives who oppose them are backwards homophobes. But then everybody knows that, right? I mean, duh! It's on TV and in the movies every day!
8=====================================================================================================
In just one presidential debate, the two anchors at ABC used their positions to create a situation in which Republicans were placed in a position of trying to defend themselves against the accusation that they are anti-contraception (and fun), sexist and homophobic. But, hey, all the left wing media is attempting to do is to point out the meanness of the Republican position so the public can make an "informed" choice, right? Rest assured, these elites of the media world will be ones to inform the people of what that right choice is. Because they know better. They are smarter than you and they all read The New York Times. After all, if it says so in The Times, it must be true:
That's what you see when you watch any discussion of gay marriage anywhere in the elite media. From Dianne Sawyer to Rosie O'Donnell to Piers Morgan the conversation is always slanted away from the legal argument and towards the emotional one. The left knows that in order to achieve proper victim status and sympathy from the public for their cause, everyone must constantly be reminded that conservatives who oppose them are backwards homophobes. But then everybody knows that, right? I mean, duh! It's on TV and in the movies every day!
8=====================================================================================================
In just one presidential debate, the two anchors at ABC used their positions to create a situation in which Republicans were placed in a position of trying to defend themselves against the accusation that they are anti-contraception (and fun), sexist and homophobic. But, hey, all the left wing media is attempting to do is to point out the meanness of the Republican position so the public can make an "informed" choice, right? Rest assured, these elites of the media world will be ones to inform the people of what that right choice is. Because they know better. They are smarter than you and they all read The New York Times. After all, if it says so in The Times, it must be true:
And if it doesn't appear on the pages of The New York Times or anywhere else in the "mainstream" media, well, then, it didn't happen!
A hundred people show up outside of President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch to protest the Iraq war and it is news for weeks. Tens of thousands of people show up in the nation's capital to advocate for the rights of the unborn and it isn't worth even a mention. Could it be that this has everything to do with the fact that the media agrees with Cindy Sheehan and her radical Code Pink supporters and they have nothing but contempt for anyone who doesn't believe in abortion on demand? Is the sky blue?
This is just another of many examples of how the media works to create the Matrix. They know that control of the narrative means control of the story. By slanting the news in a way that presents "their" side of the issue in a favorable light while at the same time ignoring pertinent information coming from the other side, they can control the debate. For instance, in the recent debt ceiling debate, the issue the media focused on was not whether or when the country is going to become bankrupt, but on who was acting like the "adult" in the room. Not surprisingly, the media was quick to come up with their predetermined conclusion that the person who was acting most like a grown up was President Obama. Imagine that. Obama's media allies created a storyline that guaranteed that their man would end up winning the propaganda war. And that nasty national credit downgrade? Oh, that was the fault of all those little children in the Republican party who were engaging in public temper tantrums about the, uh... oh yeah.... the debt!
There is no way that the Democrats could get away with that little sleight of hand, were it not for their dominance of the news media in New York and Washington. If that isn't enough, they also have allies in Hollywood that promote their ideological narratives, fantasies and three card monte intellectual diversions in the form of popular entertainment:
This is just another of many examples of how the media works to create the Matrix. They know that control of the narrative means control of the story. By slanting the news in a way that presents "their" side of the issue in a favorable light while at the same time ignoring pertinent information coming from the other side, they can control the debate. For instance, in the recent debt ceiling debate, the issue the media focused on was not whether or when the country is going to become bankrupt, but on who was acting like the "adult" in the room. Not surprisingly, the media was quick to come up with their predetermined conclusion that the person who was acting most like a grown up was President Obama. Imagine that. Obama's media allies created a storyline that guaranteed that their man would end up winning the propaganda war. And that nasty national credit downgrade? Oh, that was the fault of all those little children in the Republican party who were engaging in public temper tantrums about the, uh... oh yeah.... the debt!
There is no way that the Democrats could get away with that little sleight of hand, were it not for their dominance of the news media in New York and Washington. If that isn't enough, they also have allies in Hollywood that promote their ideological narratives, fantasies and three card monte intellectual diversions in the form of popular entertainment:
9=====================================================================================================
_So powerful is the left dominated media's ability to control the
story, that virtually any event can be used as a means to further one of
their chosen narratives. Do you remember when Gabrielle Giffords was
shot? The media went
wild for days trying to pin the blame on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party
for causing the violence. This fit perfectly into the meme that they
and the Democrats had been pushing for months that the newly victorious
Republicans were extremists and terrorists. Yes, right wing extremists (nazis!) and terrorists (Al-Qaeda!). Amazing how the meme has progressed from Republicans being anti-contraception sexists to bigoted mean homophobes and now to terrorists, isn't it? But I digress...
Even over a year after the Giffords shooting, Democratic Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (a.k.a. Debbie Downer) is still pushing this ridiculous myth:
Even over a year after the Giffords shooting, Democratic Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (a.k.a. Debbie Downer) is still pushing this ridiculous myth:
_Amazing that a woman known as a bomb thrower can hold herself up as a paragon of civility with such a straight face, but Debbie Downer knows that she can get away with this nonsense blaming the tea party for Gifford's shooting. She is supremely confident that the media won't call her to task for uttering such blatant falsehoods. Why? Because, she knows that they have already set the narrative of the story. By focusing their intitial coverage of the Giffords shooting on "civility" and the harsh "rhetoric" of the Tea Party instead of on the true story about how the killer was more than a few sandwiches short of a picnic, the talking heads and opinion makers had set everything up perfectly for their
chosen President and his party. For days and days all the media was abuzz 24/7 with this ridiculous spin about how intemperate extremist Tea Party rhetoric and Sarah Palin were the cause of the murders. Right on cue, Obama flies to Arizona to heal the nation's wounds with
his eloquent words about how divisive political debate (from Republicans) had finally gone too far and we should be nice to each other (him) now.
As far as the left wing "mainstream" media was concerned, the fact that the guy who shot Giffords was completely a-political was utterly irrelevant if it messed up their perfect storyline that Republicans were to blame for the tragic violence. After all, it's only those evil Republicans who speak in an "uncivil" way, right?
As far as the left wing "mainstream" media was concerned, the fact that the guy who shot Giffords was completely a-political was utterly irrelevant if it messed up their perfect storyline that Republicans were to blame for the tragic violence. After all, it's only those evil Republicans who speak in an "uncivil" way, right?
And which network was the loudest in promoting the meme that rhetoric from conservatives like Sarah Palin were responsible for the Giffords shooting? Why, it was our old pals from MSNBC. Recently, during a story after a kerfuffle between their hero Barry and that nasty, evil Governor from the very state of Arizona in which the Gifford's shooting took place, MSNBC aired these tweets on the bottom of the screen:
It seems that MSNBC has no problems airing comments by its viewers that say that the Arizona Governor is a "crazed lunatic" and that "Next time Jan Brewer sticks her finger in President's face, the Secret Service should break it & drop her". That, of course, is a reasonable reaction to Governor Brewer having the audacity to point her finger at a President she claims was being argumentative and rude to her. But, Sarah Palin "targeting" congressional districts? Why, that kind of speech leads to murder and must be stopped! Do you see how the game is played when one side dominates the means of communication?
10=====================================================================================================
If these were isolated cases, we might still be able to pretend that the Matrix doesn't exist and that the reality the media feeds us is actually happening. Alas, painting Republicans, conservatives and Tea Party people as violent, extremist terrorists who kill people for fun is just one of the many narrative templates that is employed to distort reality. Why, just the other day, a crazed lunatic went into a Colorado movie theater and mercilessly gunned down a dozen people. George Stephanopoulis and head investigative reporter Brian Ross immediately suspected the Tea Party might be involved:
10=====================================================================================================
If these were isolated cases, we might still be able to pretend that the Matrix doesn't exist and that the reality the media feeds us is actually happening. Alas, painting Republicans, conservatives and Tea Party people as violent, extremist terrorists who kill people for fun is just one of the many narrative templates that is employed to distort reality. Why, just the other day, a crazed lunatic went into a Colorado movie theater and mercilessly gunned down a dozen people. George Stephanopoulis and head investigative reporter Brian Ross immediately suspected the Tea Party might be involved:
It would be bad enough, if progressive control over the media, academic and entertainment worlds was solely used for framing the narrative that they are wonderful, intelligent and caring human beings while Republicans are evil meanies who murder for sport. While it is reprehensible and totally destructive of any kind of rational political debate, it is smart politics and, as Mitt Romney likes to say, politics isn't bean bag. The real travesty isn't that liberals disagree with conservative and use their media lapdogs to portray them as the most sickeningly craven of people, but that they caricature them as stupid in an attempt to marginalize them as "lesser" human beings. I guess it's not surprising they should feel this way. In their minds, if you don't agree with them and their brilliant President, you must be dumb! At least that's the opinion of the formerly influential and once widely read Newsweek magazine:
_
Not to be outdone in spreading the Republicans are idiots meme, Joe Klein, elite columnist from Time Magazine and frequent guest and commentator on all of the network news shows goes for it with both barrels blazing:
Not to be outdone in spreading the Republicans are idiots meme, Joe Klein, elite columnist from Time Magazine and frequent guest and commentator on all of the network news shows goes for it with both barrels blazing:
Since I would say that the evidence is overwhelming that most of the stimulus was indeed wasted, it is clear that it is actually Joe Klein who is misinformed. But, isn't it just like a progressive to accuse those they disagree with of being blindly ignorant followers of Fox News with no minds of their own and a nation of dodos to boot? Again, forget about the fact that this country of misinformed boobs and yahoos are right about this particular issue. To accuse them not of just being mistaken about something because of a legitimate difference of opinion, but rather because they are mind numbed Fox Robots who are not intelligent enough to see how brilliant the policies of the left are is the absolute height of arrogance and elitism. And that, in a nutshell, describes the vast majority of the so called mainstream media: wrong and arrogantly so.
11=====================================================================================================
Speaking of intelligence, one would think that someone who makes his living writing a column for a prestigious magazine, would be smart enough not to insult his own readers. But, then, this is a liberal we are talking about. They really do think that they are intellectually, culturally and morally superior to everyone else. Particularly those who don't come from their social and political milieu. To most progressives, people who live in "flyover country" (anywhere that isn't in the Boston to DC corridor, the Left Coast or Chicago) are primitive rubes who cling to their guns and their religion. I mean, how unsophisticated is that?
Why, according to New York Times columnist and opinion shaper David Carr, people in flyover country are neanderthals:
11=====================================================================================================
Speaking of intelligence, one would think that someone who makes his living writing a column for a prestigious magazine, would be smart enough not to insult his own readers. But, then, this is a liberal we are talking about. They really do think that they are intellectually, culturally and morally superior to everyone else. Particularly those who don't come from their social and political milieu. To most progressives, people who live in "flyover country" (anywhere that isn't in the Boston to DC corridor, the Left Coast or Chicago) are primitive rubes who cling to their guns and their religion. I mean, how unsophisticated is that?
Why, according to New York Times columnist and opinion shaper David Carr, people in flyover country are neanderthals:
Low sloping foreheads, eh David? Is that what you, the panel, Bill Maher and the snickering audience think of people from Kansas and Missouri? But, hey, that's nothing. If you
live in the South that means you are a bunch of racist, redneck, NASCAR
loving hicks and hayseeds. If you are "unfortunate" enough to come from one of these backwaters of the country and you do not properly assimilate yourself into the elitist culture and
politics of Chicago and the two coasts, most progressives believe that
you are an inferior human being whose thoughts and opinions are vapid, misinformed and shouldn't be given the time of day. You just aren't
hip. And you certainly can't be considered to be intelligent.
Think I am making this up or exaggerating the degree to which the mainstream media has contempt for anyone who lives in flyover country? Just watch this clip featuring the influential internet news outlet Politico's senior reporter Jonathan Martin:
Think I am making this up or exaggerating the degree to which the mainstream media has contempt for anyone who lives in flyover country? Just watch this clip featuring the influential internet news outlet Politico's senior reporter Jonathan Martin:
_Cracker counties, eh Jonathan? Can you imagine the reaction if he had called them N-word counties instead? I don't think I've ever seen a clearer example of institutional bias and condescension than this one. These are "southern" counties you, see. More like backwards Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi than the rest of "civilized" Florida. And people who live there are just dumb crackers as we all know, right? Not!
As if any further evidence is needed about this media groupthink about flyover country and the south, notice how chief NBC political reporter Chuck Todd doesn't even bat an eyelash. This characterization of a huge swath of the American public is just the conventional wisdom for these media types. I find it fascinating that it is these very centers of learning and cultural sophistication like New York, Illinois and California where the media elite lives are the most fiscally insolvent places in the country. Bankrupt in fact. Despite this salient truth, the people who live there have the arrogance to claim the rest of us are stupid. But, that's another story and another Reality.
Indeed, it is precisely because of this discrepancy between the ideology of the intellectual elite and its dismal results when translated into public policy that progressives are so eager to disparage their opposition. As we have seen, rather than engage in a debate based on facts, they prefer to lower the level of argument to schoolyard taunts. It's the only way they can spin a losing argument about the absolute failure of big government statism in their favor.
Unfortunately, that's the only reality allowed in the Matrix about those who dissent from the flow. As we have seen, the only thing that the people should know about Republicans is that they are extremists and terrorists who are also mean, evil, racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-intellectual idiots who are only conservative because their IQ's are subhuman and their hearts are two sizes too small:
As if any further evidence is needed about this media groupthink about flyover country and the south, notice how chief NBC political reporter Chuck Todd doesn't even bat an eyelash. This characterization of a huge swath of the American public is just the conventional wisdom for these media types. I find it fascinating that it is these very centers of learning and cultural sophistication like New York, Illinois and California where the media elite lives are the most fiscally insolvent places in the country. Bankrupt in fact. Despite this salient truth, the people who live there have the arrogance to claim the rest of us are stupid. But, that's another story and another Reality.
Indeed, it is precisely because of this discrepancy between the ideology of the intellectual elite and its dismal results when translated into public policy that progressives are so eager to disparage their opposition. As we have seen, rather than engage in a debate based on facts, they prefer to lower the level of argument to schoolyard taunts. It's the only way they can spin a losing argument about the absolute failure of big government statism in their favor.
Unfortunately, that's the only reality allowed in the Matrix about those who dissent from the flow. As we have seen, the only thing that the people should know about Republicans is that they are extremists and terrorists who are also mean, evil, racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-intellectual idiots who are only conservative because their IQ's are subhuman and their hearts are two sizes too small:
12=====================================================================================================
_Indeed, so prevalent and successful is this progressive meme about the lack of intelligence among Republicans that it is considered common knowledge that George W. Bush is stupid, Sarah Palin is a moron and Governor Rick Perry is dumber than… well I won’t even go into the names they called him, but you get the idea.
But, is this meme true? Are these prominent Republican politicians truly intellectual lightweights? Certainly, they are not the most glib and facile politicians that have ever lived. No one can deny that. All three of them have at various times appeared completely tongue tied. They are also not the products of the “right” schools and the "right" social circles either. According to the liberal elite measuring stick, Perry and Palin are unrefined and crude intellects from the sticks who went to third rate colleges. Thus, they are too backwards to be relevant and too ill/mis-educated to possibly have anything sensible to say on the issues of the day.
W, however, actually did go to the right schools and comes from a family of east coast patricians. Of course, he wasn’t from the right social circles, I mean Midland,Texas? Eww! Can you say redneck city? But, W does have the proper pedigree to be part of the elite. However, instead of assimilating and becoming one of them, he chose to go back to Texas after graduating from Harvard and adopt that culture as his own. Anyone who does that must be a moron, right? At least that has always been the elite punditry's rap on him. According to them, W is an anti-intellectual cowboy.
While, it is clear that W has rejected the culture of the media, academic and political elites in favor of his chosen Texas values, that doesn't make him either ignorant or dumb. After all, one can't deny that Yale University and Harvard Business school are two of the most difficult schools to get accepted into and are both demanding intellectually and scholastically. Therefore, if the left's meme depicting W as an idiot is true, he must have gotten into those elite schools solely because he was a Bush, right? Once in, he must've done poorly when competing against the very brightest minds of his generation, right? After all, stupid is as stupid does.
In fact, much to the chagrin of progressives, W had a better academic record at Yale than the haughty and the supposedly intellectually superior John Kerry, who served in Vietnam for those of you who don’t know. W's grades at Yale also stood up very favorably to Algore's at Harvard. Now, Algore may have won a Nobel prize and John Kerry, well, he married the heir to a Ketchup fortune, but neither man is the genius that President Obama is. Surely there is no doubt that Barack is far more brilliant than that anti-intellectual rancher from Crawford, Texas. To prove it, all we need to do is to compare their academic records and it's case closed, right? There's just no way W did better than Obama in school. What? We can’t? Do you mean Barry O won’t reveal his grades so that the rest of us can be in awe of his intelligence? Hmmm. I wonder why?
I say all this not to make the case that Obama is stupid or that he is merely a product of affirmative action gone amuck. This may or may not be true, but that isn’t the relevant issue. The point is that you don’t get to become a major political figure in this country unless you have the requisite mental skills to survive in a very perilous high stakes game. If you are a pretender to intellectual competence, you are fairly quickly exposed when forced into the complexity of political campaigns and the responsibilities of higher executive or political office. No amount of handlers or cadres of bright advisers from the right schools can shield you from constantly having to make numerous and very complex decisions on various issues to which you will be held accountable. No one survives in office for very long unless he/she has been able to convince allies and supporters of their ability to “do the job” and has the record and resume to back it up.
Surely, no one is allowed to become President unless they show that they have both the requisite intellectual heft and a record of successful accomplishments. That's why the governors of states that have done poorly, don't run for president. Therefore, the idea that W is a moron is just plain, well...stupid. But that hasn't stopped the left from trying to make that case from the very day he announced he was running for President, has it?
13=====================================================================================================
There are, however, apparently exceptions to this rule. It seems that in the 21st century, a candidate can rise to the top without a resume, without credentials and by avoiding the need to justify his positions by voting “present” on every controversial item of the day. It would seem that today, the rise to the top of the political heap can be enabled by a worshipful media more concerned with promoting “historic” outcomes than doing their jobs and vetting the candidate:
_Indeed, so prevalent and successful is this progressive meme about the lack of intelligence among Republicans that it is considered common knowledge that George W. Bush is stupid, Sarah Palin is a moron and Governor Rick Perry is dumber than… well I won’t even go into the names they called him, but you get the idea.
But, is this meme true? Are these prominent Republican politicians truly intellectual lightweights? Certainly, they are not the most glib and facile politicians that have ever lived. No one can deny that. All three of them have at various times appeared completely tongue tied. They are also not the products of the “right” schools and the "right" social circles either. According to the liberal elite measuring stick, Perry and Palin are unrefined and crude intellects from the sticks who went to third rate colleges. Thus, they are too backwards to be relevant and too ill/mis-educated to possibly have anything sensible to say on the issues of the day.
W, however, actually did go to the right schools and comes from a family of east coast patricians. Of course, he wasn’t from the right social circles, I mean Midland,Texas? Eww! Can you say redneck city? But, W does have the proper pedigree to be part of the elite. However, instead of assimilating and becoming one of them, he chose to go back to Texas after graduating from Harvard and adopt that culture as his own. Anyone who does that must be a moron, right? At least that has always been the elite punditry's rap on him. According to them, W is an anti-intellectual cowboy.
While, it is clear that W has rejected the culture of the media, academic and political elites in favor of his chosen Texas values, that doesn't make him either ignorant or dumb. After all, one can't deny that Yale University and Harvard Business school are two of the most difficult schools to get accepted into and are both demanding intellectually and scholastically. Therefore, if the left's meme depicting W as an idiot is true, he must have gotten into those elite schools solely because he was a Bush, right? Once in, he must've done poorly when competing against the very brightest minds of his generation, right? After all, stupid is as stupid does.
In fact, much to the chagrin of progressives, W had a better academic record at Yale than the haughty and the supposedly intellectually superior John Kerry, who served in Vietnam for those of you who don’t know. W's grades at Yale also stood up very favorably to Algore's at Harvard. Now, Algore may have won a Nobel prize and John Kerry, well, he married the heir to a Ketchup fortune, but neither man is the genius that President Obama is. Surely there is no doubt that Barack is far more brilliant than that anti-intellectual rancher from Crawford, Texas. To prove it, all we need to do is to compare their academic records and it's case closed, right? There's just no way W did better than Obama in school. What? We can’t? Do you mean Barry O won’t reveal his grades so that the rest of us can be in awe of his intelligence? Hmmm. I wonder why?
I say all this not to make the case that Obama is stupid or that he is merely a product of affirmative action gone amuck. This may or may not be true, but that isn’t the relevant issue. The point is that you don’t get to become a major political figure in this country unless you have the requisite mental skills to survive in a very perilous high stakes game. If you are a pretender to intellectual competence, you are fairly quickly exposed when forced into the complexity of political campaigns and the responsibilities of higher executive or political office. No amount of handlers or cadres of bright advisers from the right schools can shield you from constantly having to make numerous and very complex decisions on various issues to which you will be held accountable. No one survives in office for very long unless he/she has been able to convince allies and supporters of their ability to “do the job” and has the record and resume to back it up.
Surely, no one is allowed to become President unless they show that they have both the requisite intellectual heft and a record of successful accomplishments. That's why the governors of states that have done poorly, don't run for president. Therefore, the idea that W is a moron is just plain, well...stupid. But that hasn't stopped the left from trying to make that case from the very day he announced he was running for President, has it?
13=====================================================================================================
There are, however, apparently exceptions to this rule. It seems that in the 21st century, a candidate can rise to the top without a resume, without credentials and by avoiding the need to justify his positions by voting “present” on every controversial item of the day. It would seem that today, the rise to the top of the political heap can be enabled by a worshipful media more concerned with promoting “historic” outcomes than doing their jobs and vetting the candidate:
But, perhaps that was just 2008. It seems that once again journalists are taking their responsibilities to vet the candidate seriously again:
_Gee. Looks like they had a major change of heart, eh? I mean, Michelle Bachmann becoming President would be historic too, wouldn't it? First woman and all? She even has a far superior resume than our Barry did when he ran for the office. But, somehow, I don't remember seeing a picture like this of Barack on any major magazine, do you?
When Senator Obama first announced that he was running for President, I turned to my wife and told her he had no chance. After all, he was the biggest empty suit to ever run for the job. I mean, seriously, what were his qualifications? Had he ever run anything? Even a hot dog stand? Had he paid his political dues? Been a noted politician? A Mayor? A Governor? A Chairman of a committee for Pete's sake? No, he was just a first term Senator with two years of part time experience who once gave a rousing speech at a party convention. So, I assured my wife, only in the fantasy land of the left could someone like him attain the Presidency. Turned out that when it comes to the One, normal rules don't apply. After all, Obama is just so darned special that we can easily waive the ordinary requirements of a mere mortal:
When Senator Obama first announced that he was running for President, I turned to my wife and told her he had no chance. After all, he was the biggest empty suit to ever run for the job. I mean, seriously, what were his qualifications? Had he ever run anything? Even a hot dog stand? Had he paid his political dues? Been a noted politician? A Mayor? A Governor? A Chairman of a committee for Pete's sake? No, he was just a first term Senator with two years of part time experience who once gave a rousing speech at a party convention. So, I assured my wife, only in the fantasy land of the left could someone like him attain the Presidency. Turned out that when it comes to the One, normal rules don't apply. After all, Obama is just so darned special that we can easily waive the ordinary requirements of a mere mortal:
_ As you can see, President Obama is the exception to the rule. I will give him credit for that. You can’t be a dummy and pull that kind of
trick out of your hat. However, for the
rest of us normal humans, the nitty gritty dirty world of politics quickly
winnows out the losers and the intellectually challenged.
14=====================================================================================================
Thus, a Sarah Palin didn’t just wake up one day and become Governor of Alaska. She started out as a small town council member and then got elected mayor. During her rise from the obscurity of Wasila, Alaska, she worked her way up the political ladder despite having to fight against the powerful establishment of her own party. That is no mean feat in a state where the Republicans own all of the levers of political power the way Democrats own Chicago. Not even Obama had the temerity to challenge Mayor Daley and the Chicago machine. However, Sarah Palin took on the corruption of her own party by going after the GOP chairman who was later convicted of the abuses of power that she had described. Then she challenged the sitting Republican governor, scion of the powerful Murkowski clan, in her party's primary and beat him. Palin then went on to defeat a popular former Governor in the general election to become the Chief Executive of Alaska.
Once she became governor, her approval ratings were sky high right up to the day she was selected as John McCain’s Vice Presidential nominee. Now, say what you will about Senator McCain, and I can say a lot of harsh and nasty things, but no one ever accused him of being an idiot. At least, not until he had the temerity to run against the sainted Barack Obama. But, before that time, he was a media darling. McCain was always portrayed by his fans in the left wing press corps as a brilliant maverick who showed great skill and intellectual nuance by crossing party lines and voting with Democrats. Thus, he was a sensible and intelligent Republican who could occasionally overcome his ideological handicaps and see the truth as the media defined it.
After winning his party's nomination for the Presidency, McCain sent all of his high priced handlers to Alaska to meet Governor Palin and vetted her before selecting her as the VP choice. Obviously, they didn’t come away with the impression that she was a political lightweight with no intellectual heft whatsoever. In fact, McCain and his people, gambled the entire election on her.
Now, I am sorry to disappoint all of you Palin haters, but the truth is in the pudding. To accomplish this kind of personal success and rise from political obscurity, there is no way that she is dumb or even a woman of average intelligence. In Sarah Palin, you have a woman who has uncanny political skills, a knack for recognizing what animates voters and an ability to capitalize on that knowledge. She is also a terrific speaker and a master of the teleprompter. Kind of like someone else I know. That she may or may not have the requisite education, social status or glibness of the tongue in certain unscripted remarks is irrelevant. Palin is many things, but given a record like I just described, dumb is clearly not one of them.
For the same reason, claims by progressive and even some in the conservative Beltway elite that Governor Perry is stupid are just as ridiculous. Say what you want about whether he went to Yale or Texas A&M or what grades he got when he was there, you cannot deny that the United States Air Force does not allow someone to become a pilot of hugely expensive jet airplanes unless they meet above average intelligence levels. By the same logic, no one rises from obscurity to become Governor of Texas for over a decade unless they are very canny and skilled politicians. However, with a ten year record of making decisions and implementing policies, you’d think that someone as supposedly “stupid” as he is, would have wrecked the state by now. But, in fact, the opposite is true. So, who is really dumb? The Governor who has presided over the most job creation in the nation? Or the President who has presided over the worst economy in two generations? Just saying…
15=====================================================================================================
It is precisely because of the massive disparity in the disastrous results of the policies of the brilliant Obama as contrasted to the successful ones of the dolt from Texas that causes progressive elites to go after Perry with such dripping condescension. A couple of bad debate performances, and that is all the evidence they need to disregard ten years worth of evidence of effective policy choices. Perry sometimes looks absolutely clueless when he is debating. Therefore he must be stupid:
14=====================================================================================================
Thus, a Sarah Palin didn’t just wake up one day and become Governor of Alaska. She started out as a small town council member and then got elected mayor. During her rise from the obscurity of Wasila, Alaska, she worked her way up the political ladder despite having to fight against the powerful establishment of her own party. That is no mean feat in a state where the Republicans own all of the levers of political power the way Democrats own Chicago. Not even Obama had the temerity to challenge Mayor Daley and the Chicago machine. However, Sarah Palin took on the corruption of her own party by going after the GOP chairman who was later convicted of the abuses of power that she had described. Then she challenged the sitting Republican governor, scion of the powerful Murkowski clan, in her party's primary and beat him. Palin then went on to defeat a popular former Governor in the general election to become the Chief Executive of Alaska.
Once she became governor, her approval ratings were sky high right up to the day she was selected as John McCain’s Vice Presidential nominee. Now, say what you will about Senator McCain, and I can say a lot of harsh and nasty things, but no one ever accused him of being an idiot. At least, not until he had the temerity to run against the sainted Barack Obama. But, before that time, he was a media darling. McCain was always portrayed by his fans in the left wing press corps as a brilliant maverick who showed great skill and intellectual nuance by crossing party lines and voting with Democrats. Thus, he was a sensible and intelligent Republican who could occasionally overcome his ideological handicaps and see the truth as the media defined it.
After winning his party's nomination for the Presidency, McCain sent all of his high priced handlers to Alaska to meet Governor Palin and vetted her before selecting her as the VP choice. Obviously, they didn’t come away with the impression that she was a political lightweight with no intellectual heft whatsoever. In fact, McCain and his people, gambled the entire election on her.
Now, I am sorry to disappoint all of you Palin haters, but the truth is in the pudding. To accomplish this kind of personal success and rise from political obscurity, there is no way that she is dumb or even a woman of average intelligence. In Sarah Palin, you have a woman who has uncanny political skills, a knack for recognizing what animates voters and an ability to capitalize on that knowledge. She is also a terrific speaker and a master of the teleprompter. Kind of like someone else I know. That she may or may not have the requisite education, social status or glibness of the tongue in certain unscripted remarks is irrelevant. Palin is many things, but given a record like I just described, dumb is clearly not one of them.
For the same reason, claims by progressive and even some in the conservative Beltway elite that Governor Perry is stupid are just as ridiculous. Say what you want about whether he went to Yale or Texas A&M or what grades he got when he was there, you cannot deny that the United States Air Force does not allow someone to become a pilot of hugely expensive jet airplanes unless they meet above average intelligence levels. By the same logic, no one rises from obscurity to become Governor of Texas for over a decade unless they are very canny and skilled politicians. However, with a ten year record of making decisions and implementing policies, you’d think that someone as supposedly “stupid” as he is, would have wrecked the state by now. But, in fact, the opposite is true. So, who is really dumb? The Governor who has presided over the most job creation in the nation? Or the President who has presided over the worst economy in two generations? Just saying…
15=====================================================================================================
It is precisely because of the massive disparity in the disastrous results of the policies of the brilliant Obama as contrasted to the successful ones of the dolt from Texas that causes progressive elites to go after Perry with such dripping condescension. A couple of bad debate performances, and that is all the evidence they need to disregard ten years worth of evidence of effective policy choices. Perry sometimes looks absolutely clueless when he is debating. Therefore he must be stupid:
_Look at the guy in the back laughing his head off at that comment. He, like Mathews, is convinced that Perry is an idiot. Why? Because he has performed poorly in debates. Unfortunately, only the ability to speak well on camera and under tremendous pressure is considered as a benchmark of intelligence by pundits, reporters and anchormen whose
only claim to fame is their own supposed eloquence within their natural milieu. Accomplishments be damned. If you can't express your opinions with the clarity and glibness of a member of the chattering class, then you are an inferior being.
After all, as Harry Reid has opined, the fact that Barack Obama was a "clean, light-skinned, articulate negro" was his primary qualification for the presidency. This thought was echoed by Joe Biden who said:
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Ignoring the obvious racism involved in both men talking about a "clean" black man (as opposed to a dirty one who speaks ebonics), it is clearly the fact that Obama is articulate (and black) that makes him qualified to be President. It seems not to matter to either man that Barack Obama had no resume and no experience doing anything other than "organizing" communities and voting "present". After all, he speaks well, darn it! And a black man who looks non- threatening and can sometimes be eloquent when reading from a teleprompter is storybook, man! Therefore, he should be President! As ridiculous as that is, it is all the evidence you need to see how important being articulate and glib is to the Democrat party and the elite punditry that run the media. Accomplishments and resume are so yesterday.
16=====================================================================================================
That, none of these media elites have the skills that could get them elected dog catcher or have run anything larger than their own mouths is irrelevant. Rick Perry, successful though he may be, is stupid because he doesn't speak well on his feet and he went to the wrong schools. As far as the supposed intelligentsia of the left are concerned the man and all of his supporters are worth nothing more than dripping arrogant condescension:
After all, as Harry Reid has opined, the fact that Barack Obama was a "clean, light-skinned, articulate negro" was his primary qualification for the presidency. This thought was echoed by Joe Biden who said:
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Ignoring the obvious racism involved in both men talking about a "clean" black man (as opposed to a dirty one who speaks ebonics), it is clearly the fact that Obama is articulate (and black) that makes him qualified to be President. It seems not to matter to either man that Barack Obama had no resume and no experience doing anything other than "organizing" communities and voting "present". After all, he speaks well, darn it! And a black man who looks non- threatening and can sometimes be eloquent when reading from a teleprompter is storybook, man! Therefore, he should be President! As ridiculous as that is, it is all the evidence you need to see how important being articulate and glib is to the Democrat party and the elite punditry that run the media. Accomplishments and resume are so yesterday.
16=====================================================================================================
That, none of these media elites have the skills that could get them elected dog catcher or have run anything larger than their own mouths is irrelevant. Rick Perry, successful though he may be, is stupid because he doesn't speak well on his feet and he went to the wrong schools. As far as the supposed intelligentsia of the left are concerned the man and all of his supporters are worth nothing more than dripping arrogant condescension:
_And there you have it, Mr. Bashir. For all your supposed brains, this elected politician and most of the country don't agree with your position on the issues one bit. The chance that you could ever run anything larger than your mouth is about nil. Yet, you have the gall to feel superior to a man that is one of the nation's most successful governors by any metric you can think of. To Bashir and the rest of the mainstream media, it is as if all of Perry's accomplishments
in life matter not a whit. But, as I have said, one doesn't survive in the rough and tumble of politics if the public, even for a moment, buys
into the notion that you are not quite up for the job. Therefore,
Perry's dismal debate performances cratered what looked like a promising
campaign. It's not that Perry is stupid, it's that the public sets a
pretty high bar for the Presidency.
This isn't the first time that a politician has stumbled in his major introduction as a presidential candidate. If you want to see the ultimate deer in the headlights look generated from the easiest softball question ever tossed, check this out:
This isn't the first time that a politician has stumbled in his major introduction as a presidential candidate. If you want to see the ultimate deer in the headlights look generated from the easiest softball question ever tossed, check this out:
_Now was Ted Kennedy an idiot? Sure looks like one to me in this clip. But, the truth is that Kennedy may have been badly mistaken about virtually every political issue of his time, but he was no moron. He just got a bit tongue tied and wasn't ready yet for prime time. At least that's the line that the liberal media would trot out when they called him the "Lion of the Senate" and Bob Shieffer said he was an American hero:
_Sure, Bob, you can totally dismiss Chapaquidick and whether Teddy did or did not kill Mary Joe Kopechnie and whether he did or did not lie about it. You can look at the above clip which ran on your own network and see what appears to be a deer in the headlights moron, and chalk it up to him having a bad day. I mean, hey, he was a liberal, right? You agreed with him. So, therefore, he was a hero not some marginalized moron like Rick Perry.
17====================================================================================================
The ability to define, marginalize and ridicule a politician who makes a verbal mistake has been turned into an art form by the left wing media. That and sexual scandal are the most effective weapons they have in their arsenal to destroy anyone who they see as a threat to their domination of the issues. Knowing this, the progressives in the media world do everything in their power to trip up Republican politicians and play up their gaffes to make them appear stupid. This technique makes them the final arbiters of who is smart and who is relevant and, of course, they frame the narrative against the intelligence and character of Republicans in a way they never do to Democrats. Think about how long it took before the press really started reporting on Anthony's weiner. Until the truth could be denied no longer, the press covered for him. But, when it is a Republican like Herman Cain, they go into feeding frenzy mode the minute they smell even a trace of political blood in the water.
Even the most uncorroborated allegation against a conservative is fair game for them. Remember how pubic hairs on a coke can almost derailed Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court and set the country abuzz for months about the issue of sexual harassment? Remember how that resulted in "the year of the woman" where the Democrats elected several female Senators? Hmmm... year of the woman, war on women... Sure looks like a lot of manufactured hooey to me. Be that as it may, do you remember how at the very moment they were excoriating white male Republicans for their supposed sexism, the media ignored candidate Bill Clinton's numerous sexual escapades before and after his election? So much so, in fact, that they buried the story of how he dallied with one of his interns, the ultimate form of sexual harassment we were told in the Thomas days, until Matt Drudge broke the story:
17====================================================================================================
The ability to define, marginalize and ridicule a politician who makes a verbal mistake has been turned into an art form by the left wing media. That and sexual scandal are the most effective weapons they have in their arsenal to destroy anyone who they see as a threat to their domination of the issues. Knowing this, the progressives in the media world do everything in their power to trip up Republican politicians and play up their gaffes to make them appear stupid. This technique makes them the final arbiters of who is smart and who is relevant and, of course, they frame the narrative against the intelligence and character of Republicans in a way they never do to Democrats. Think about how long it took before the press really started reporting on Anthony's weiner. Until the truth could be denied no longer, the press covered for him. But, when it is a Republican like Herman Cain, they go into feeding frenzy mode the minute they smell even a trace of political blood in the water.
Even the most uncorroborated allegation against a conservative is fair game for them. Remember how pubic hairs on a coke can almost derailed Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court and set the country abuzz for months about the issue of sexual harassment? Remember how that resulted in "the year of the woman" where the Democrats elected several female Senators? Hmmm... year of the woman, war on women... Sure looks like a lot of manufactured hooey to me. Be that as it may, do you remember how at the very moment they were excoriating white male Republicans for their supposed sexism, the media ignored candidate Bill Clinton's numerous sexual escapades before and after his election? So much so, in fact, that they buried the story of how he dallied with one of his interns, the ultimate form of sexual harassment we were told in the Thomas days, until Matt Drudge broke the story:
Who is really being harassed? Yeah, it must be Bill Clinton eh Bryant? After all, he would NEVER do something so vile would he? Oh, wait a minute... he did! Would have gotten away with it too, if it had been up to you and the rest of the mainstream media. Thank God, for the internet! But, let's see the logic that the left expects us to swallow: Pubic hairs on coke cans = huge media outcry and months long stories on the evils of sexual harassment. Actually having sex with a subordinate = bury the story and when it comes out, defend it as "just about sex". But they aren't biased. Oh no. Actually, as far as progressive female media types were concerned, this just made Bill Clinton all the sexier:
Can you imagine this woman saying that about, oh say President Bush? Me either. If the elite media was so willing to defend President Clinton against the indisputably correct allegations that he had sexual relations with an intern and then lied about it, why were they so relentlessly hard on Justice Thomas? To understand this, you need to comprehend how much the left relies on women and minorities to cobble together their electoral coalition. To allow a black conservative to rise to the Supreme Court and serve as an role model for other African-Americans and show that there is another way of thinking besides that of the liberal plantation is absolutely unacceptable to the left. Were minorities to take the red pill, escape the Matrix and begin to believe that the Republican party was not racist and actually included minority men and women of stature and intelligence, it might destroy their monopoly on their allegiance. Therefore, these red pill purveyors like Clarence Thomas must be destroyed!
18====================================================================================================
To this end, Miguel Estrada was filibustered and prevented from being allowed to sit on the DC court of appeals because he might serve that same role with Hispanics. The same is true of the filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American woman. So successful has been the media aided destruction and derailment of conservative politicians, that whenever anyone from a minority background rises in the GOP ranks to national prominence, they are quickly trashed and villified. Why just the other day, Marco Rubio was the subject of a hit piece by a Reuters reporter that was so riddled with factual errors that Powerline called it "the worst news story of 2012". So, why would a respected news agency like Reuters publish a piece that even they now admint was a "fiasco" and a "disgrace"? Because they are deathly afraid that the bi-lingual Rubio will be able to be a role model for other hispanics and introduce them to an eloquent conservative point of view that many of them have never heard in their lives. Therefore, it was imperative that they shoot the messenger before he could be given a national platform to distribute red pills. Like Dan Rather's use of phony papers to implicate W in a National Guard scandal, this one fortunately fell flat on its face.
Recently, another African-American conservative, Herman Cain, was laid low by a week long barrage of 24/7 media coverage of a series of totally unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegations from women who claimed he behaved inappropriately with them. Somehow, I don't remember seeing Bryant Gumbel on TV opining that maybe it was Herman who was being harassed and I certainly didn't see anyone in the media scoff that we should ignore the allegations because they were "just about sex". And I definitely didn't hear some female pundit opine about how it made old Herman sexier.
While media fueled and inflamed scandals are an effective tool that the left loves to utilize in order to destroy their opponents, it is only useful when someone has done something ethically wrong. That's why the number one weapon in progressives the progressive arsenal is to denigrate those Republicans who are morally upright as being dumb or evil. Once the perception of intellectual feebleness gains traction, the politician and his ideas begin to lose credibility and the people stop listening to them. This is their favored tactic used to destroy GOP Vice Presidential hopefuls or their party:
18====================================================================================================
To this end, Miguel Estrada was filibustered and prevented from being allowed to sit on the DC court of appeals because he might serve that same role with Hispanics. The same is true of the filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American woman. So successful has been the media aided destruction and derailment of conservative politicians, that whenever anyone from a minority background rises in the GOP ranks to national prominence, they are quickly trashed and villified. Why just the other day, Marco Rubio was the subject of a hit piece by a Reuters reporter that was so riddled with factual errors that Powerline called it "the worst news story of 2012". So, why would a respected news agency like Reuters publish a piece that even they now admint was a "fiasco" and a "disgrace"? Because they are deathly afraid that the bi-lingual Rubio will be able to be a role model for other hispanics and introduce them to an eloquent conservative point of view that many of them have never heard in their lives. Therefore, it was imperative that they shoot the messenger before he could be given a national platform to distribute red pills. Like Dan Rather's use of phony papers to implicate W in a National Guard scandal, this one fortunately fell flat on its face.
Recently, another African-American conservative, Herman Cain, was laid low by a week long barrage of 24/7 media coverage of a series of totally unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegations from women who claimed he behaved inappropriately with them. Somehow, I don't remember seeing Bryant Gumbel on TV opining that maybe it was Herman who was being harassed and I certainly didn't see anyone in the media scoff that we should ignore the allegations because they were "just about sex". And I definitely didn't hear some female pundit opine about how it made old Herman sexier.
While media fueled and inflamed scandals are an effective tool that the left loves to utilize in order to destroy their opponents, it is only useful when someone has done something ethically wrong. That's why the number one weapon in progressives the progressive arsenal is to denigrate those Republicans who are morally upright as being dumb or evil. Once the perception of intellectual feebleness gains traction, the politician and his ideas begin to lose credibility and the people stop listening to them. This is their favored tactic used to destroy GOP Vice Presidential hopefuls or their party:
How's that for consistency? For the last twenty-five years everyone in the Republican party is stupid, mean or both together! This is all standard operating procedure for the "lamestream" elite media. At the start of a major news event to which many Americans are paying attention for the first time, they go into a frenzy of "mantra" repeating. In unison they all read from the same talking points. Dan Quayle is dumb. Jack Kemp is too nice to be one of those "mean" conservatives. Dick Cheney is the second coming of Darth Vader. Sarah Palin is... well think of anything vile, hurtful and demeaning and that's what she was described as.
19====================================================================================================
Recently, the mantra of the lamestreamers has gone into a full frothing boil over Mitt Romney's pick of Paul Ryan as his VP choice. Like a bunch of parrots repeating the same message over and over again, they call Ryan "controversial" and Romney foolish for picking him:
19====================================================================================================
Recently, the mantra of the lamestreamers has gone into a full frothing boil over Mitt Romney's pick of Paul Ryan as his VP choice. Like a bunch of parrots repeating the same message over and over again, they call Ryan "controversial" and Romney foolish for picking him:
Then the mantra shifts to "worry" among unnamed "Republicans" that this is a huge mistake that will backfire and cost them the election:
And why is the choice of Paul Ryan a "death wish" for the ticket? Because Ryan's budget is controversial:
And there you have it. Within a few short days after Ryan is picked as the VP candidate, the narrative has been set. The pick is a mistake because Paul Ryan's budget is "polarizing" and because the Obama team is gleeful at the choice. Now let's leave aside for a moment, that this was not the type of narrative that was used to describe Joe "the plagiarizer" Biden last time out. As I recall, that choice was seen as a "shrewd" way for Obama to gain some much needed foreign policy "gravitas". If any mention was made of Biden's shortcomings, it was to dismiss them as trivial. But, Paul Ryan... Oh, he's so scary and polarizing! The "journalists" over at NBC even went so far as to suggest that he hasn't received a warm reception by the public despite overflowing crowds at his appearances because two deranged liberal nuts charged the stage.
20====================================================================================================
This is the narrative that the left-wing media has chosen to insert into the Matrix. Having swallowed the red pill, we can look at reality as it really is. But, according to these dinosaur media talking heads, Ryan is a problem for Romney because his budget is so controversial. Okay, let's examine that then. Paul Ryan's budget passed the House of Representatives with 228 votes. In the Senate, the Democrats have been unable to come up with any votes to pass a Democrat budget for the past four years. And President Obama? Well, by law he must submit a budget to Congress every year. For the past two years, his budgets have been put up for a vote. They lost 605-0. That's right, the President's budget was deemed so unacceptable that not only could he not get a single Republican to vote for it, he couldn't even get a single Democrat! Yet, the author of the only budget to pass either house of Congress is the one who is controversial? Only in the universe of the Matrix can that be passed off as reality.
But that's just how the leftist media machine rolls. Find a mantra that depicts Republicans as less than human and repeat it over and over again until it becomes accepted wisdom. In the pursuit of the this ideological agenda, any way they can find to ridicule their enemies is considered fair game. Humor, they have found is a particularly effective way to destroy the enemy's intellectual credibility. The classic example of this kind of technique started out as just a little bit of fun at the expense of George H. W. Bush. Here was a man whose speaking style made him easy to lampoon and no one did it better or more effectively than Dana Carvey:
20====================================================================================================
This is the narrative that the left-wing media has chosen to insert into the Matrix. Having swallowed the red pill, we can look at reality as it really is. But, according to these dinosaur media talking heads, Ryan is a problem for Romney because his budget is so controversial. Okay, let's examine that then. Paul Ryan's budget passed the House of Representatives with 228 votes. In the Senate, the Democrats have been unable to come up with any votes to pass a Democrat budget for the past four years. And President Obama? Well, by law he must submit a budget to Congress every year. For the past two years, his budgets have been put up for a vote. They lost 605-0. That's right, the President's budget was deemed so unacceptable that not only could he not get a single Republican to vote for it, he couldn't even get a single Democrat! Yet, the author of the only budget to pass either house of Congress is the one who is controversial? Only in the universe of the Matrix can that be passed off as reality.
But that's just how the leftist media machine rolls. Find a mantra that depicts Republicans as less than human and repeat it over and over again until it becomes accepted wisdom. In the pursuit of the this ideological agenda, any way they can find to ridicule their enemies is considered fair game. Humor, they have found is a particularly effective way to destroy the enemy's intellectual credibility. The classic example of this kind of technique started out as just a little bit of fun at the expense of George H. W. Bush. Here was a man whose speaking style made him easy to lampoon and no one did it better or more effectively than Dana Carvey:
_The amazing thing was how well it worked to diminish the elder Bush. The above clip is truly hilarious and spot on in pointing out 41's horrible syntax when he spoke. It succeeds in making him look like less than the sharpest blade in the room. This portrayal clearly had the impact of changing people's perceptions of the victor of the Gulf War. From this, the left learned how effective a technique it was to use popular culture to ridicule their opponent's intelligence in this way.
21====================================================================================================
Like his dad, George W. Bush also has a problem speaking. Both of them seem to have a genetic inability to form the concepts so clearly understood by their brains into coherent paragraphs when they speak in public. In any other area of life, from someone who is shy, to someone who stutters it would be inexcusable to equate their physical or mental blocks with their intelligence. Didn't we all see The King's Speech? King George VI had serious issues with public speaking, but as the movie showed, he was far from stupid. However, the progressive elite looks down on any Republican who shows even the slightest sign of inferior locution or clarity. Therefore W was a ripe target for being caricatured as dumb:
21====================================================================================================
Like his dad, George W. Bush also has a problem speaking. Both of them seem to have a genetic inability to form the concepts so clearly understood by their brains into coherent paragraphs when they speak in public. In any other area of life, from someone who is shy, to someone who stutters it would be inexcusable to equate their physical or mental blocks with their intelligence. Didn't we all see The King's Speech? King George VI had serious issues with public speaking, but as the movie showed, he was far from stupid. However, the progressive elite looks down on any Republican who shows even the slightest sign of inferior locution or clarity. Therefore W was a ripe target for being caricatured as dumb:
_Because he doesn't believe what progressives want him to about climate change and isn't as eloquent as they are, he must be a moron, right? Well, as I pointed out, here’s a guy who went to Yale, then Harvard business school. A man, who, like
Perry, was selected by the United States Air Force to become a pilot of a very expensive and
dangerous jet aircraft. Then he had a career in business where he made millions. From there, he became a successful Governor of Texas and then managed
to become President of the United States. As a candidate, he
eviscerated his supposed intellectual superior and sitting Vice President, Algore, in the “foreign
policy” debate and held his own in the others. But, he was a moron. A very lucky moron, perhaps. But, a moron nonetheless. At least according to to the reality of the Matrix.
For those of us who have swallowed red pills, a record like this is clear evidence that this is a man who plainly is not dumb. Yet despite a lifetime filled with accomplishment, all you ever heard from the mainstream media, Hollywood, academe and progressive politicians and pundits were the intellectual failings of their Commander in Chief. They were so obviously intellectually superior to hm. Funny though, that he was President and they were not. Still, the myth of W as intellectually challenged is widely accepted as fact amongst progressives.
22===================================================================================================
Yet, for all of Barack Obama's demagoguery and snarky sarcasm during the campaign about W’s use of Guantanamo, the policy of rendition, the war on terror and the hunt for Bin Laden, the handling of the financial crisis, the auto bailouts, the bank bailouts and the prosecution of the war in Iraq, Obama followed each and every one of the “idiot’s” policies to the T. So good were some of those policies, that the One has even appropriated the credit for them himself.
Think about this. For all the hype about how intelligent and smart Obama is, that moron W was right about the Iraqi surge and he was not:
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., January 10 2007, discussing then-President Bush’s proposal for a surge of troops in Iraq
And who can forget the learned opinion of that glittering jewel of intelligence and reason, Harry Reid:
For those of us who have swallowed red pills, a record like this is clear evidence that this is a man who plainly is not dumb. Yet despite a lifetime filled with accomplishment, all you ever heard from the mainstream media, Hollywood, academe and progressive politicians and pundits were the intellectual failings of their Commander in Chief. They were so obviously intellectually superior to hm. Funny though, that he was President and they were not. Still, the myth of W as intellectually challenged is widely accepted as fact amongst progressives.
22===================================================================================================
Yet, for all of Barack Obama's demagoguery and snarky sarcasm during the campaign about W’s use of Guantanamo, the policy of rendition, the war on terror and the hunt for Bin Laden, the handling of the financial crisis, the auto bailouts, the bank bailouts and the prosecution of the war in Iraq, Obama followed each and every one of the “idiot’s” policies to the T. So good were some of those policies, that the One has even appropriated the credit for them himself.
Think about this. For all the hype about how intelligent and smart Obama is, that moron W was right about the Iraqi surge and he was not:
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., January 10 2007, discussing then-President Bush’s proposal for a surge of troops in Iraq
And who can forget the learned opinion of that glittering jewel of intelligence and reason, Harry Reid:
Had we listened to Barack Obama and Harry Reid, we would have withdrawn our troops and left Iraq in defeat and shame. Today, President Obama has the audacity to claim credit for the very victory which he tried so hard to prevent. A victory that the idiot Bush pursued with a surge that his intellectual superiors thought could never work.
I do not bring these points up to argue for W’s foreign policy over Obama’s or to make the case that this President is more or less intelligent than the previous one. I bring it up to highlight the fact that W clearly wasn’t stupid, close to stupid, or even average. He was clearly intellectually "up" to the job. A good number of his decisions as President, while one may object to them ideologically, have stood the test of time to the point that they were repeated by his successor. Sometimes imitation is the highest form of flattery.
So, if it is reasonable to accept that success is its own validation of intelligence and that it is exceedingly unlikely that that someone who is truly dumb (or average) could get to be Governor, let alone President, what then is the source of progressive’s utter certainty that conservatives are stupid? You see, it is not just a political tactic to them. They actually believe it. It’s one thing to hold forth that you are right and the other side is wrong. It is surely another thing entirely to believe so much in the certainty of your position that anyone who thinks otherwise must be an idiot. It is worse when events prove the dumb guy was right and you were wrong, yet you still remain adamant about the other persons intellectual failings and ascribe their success to “luck” and “good fortune”.
23====================================================================================================
A classic example of this dripping leftist condescension was when the famous, erudite and well respected Democrat, Clark Clifford, once described Ronald Reagan as an amiable dunce. At the time, all the liberals, progressives and elites in the country had a good titter over that one, let me tell you. Kind of like the snickers they had when Maureen Dowd called Sarah Palin a “Caribou Barbie”. Clifford's jibe was arguably the left's first real attempt at trying to destroy a conservative by ridiculing his supposed lack of gray matter.
Yet, the reality of Reagan and his policies refuted every one of Clifford’s conceptions and predictions. Clark Clifford and the progressive elite all pontificated from on high that Reaganomics would lead to economic catastrophe. Instead, it led to one of the great economic recoveries and expansions in American history. All of the sophisticates and academics said that Reagan’s rhetoric and policy towards the Soviet Union would lead to nuclear war. Instead, they led to the end of the cold war and the fall of communism just as Ronnie had predicted. Imagine that!
But, did Reagan get the intellectual credit and validation in leftist circles for being right? Of course not! The economy? Would have expanded anyway. The Cold War? Why, Reagan was just lucky to be President when the real peace maker and game changer Mikhail Gorbachev was elevated to leadership of the USSR. President Reagan was just a bystander to history progressives would later claim. After all, communism was ripe to fall, they opined. Reagan was just extremely fortunate it happened on his watch. Of course, the liberal elites said all of this after the fact. They hoped we would forget the numerous and lengthy columns and speeches they had made contemporaneously where they had pontificated that communism was here to stay and we must deal with the situation in a sophisticated and nuanced way and learn to live in peaceful "coexistence" with our communist brothers. We should all learn to get along. No Nukes, man!
And that’s the problem with believing in your own intellectual superiority. You see, once you have the laugh and the titter about Reagan being a dunce, it is a difficult psychological and intellectual feat to later admit that you were the one that was actually the laughingstock. Eating crow is never easy and it is never fun. Therefore, evidence be damned, it is easier to believe that you were the one who was really right all along. You just need to find any convenient rationalization that will prove it. Eventually, someone glib and facile comes along and finds the slimmest of threads that allows you to to hold on to all of your cherished notions. You see! You weren't wrong. That dummy Reagan just stumbled into the truth. Lucky bastard! Sadly, this is how liberals rationalize inconvenient facts. Instead of learning from their mistakes and accepting when they have been proven wrong, the real intellectual inferiors seek any slim excuse that allows them to continue to promote a failed ideology.
What I find telling is that throughout Reagan’s rise to and assumption of the presidency, the progressive elites dismissed him as merely an actor who was reading the script written for him by more intelligent “others”. This caricature of Reagan was widely propagated amongst liberals and widely disseminated into society by their lackeys in the media and entertainment worlds:
I do not bring these points up to argue for W’s foreign policy over Obama’s or to make the case that this President is more or less intelligent than the previous one. I bring it up to highlight the fact that W clearly wasn’t stupid, close to stupid, or even average. He was clearly intellectually "up" to the job. A good number of his decisions as President, while one may object to them ideologically, have stood the test of time to the point that they were repeated by his successor. Sometimes imitation is the highest form of flattery.
So, if it is reasonable to accept that success is its own validation of intelligence and that it is exceedingly unlikely that that someone who is truly dumb (or average) could get to be Governor, let alone President, what then is the source of progressive’s utter certainty that conservatives are stupid? You see, it is not just a political tactic to them. They actually believe it. It’s one thing to hold forth that you are right and the other side is wrong. It is surely another thing entirely to believe so much in the certainty of your position that anyone who thinks otherwise must be an idiot. It is worse when events prove the dumb guy was right and you were wrong, yet you still remain adamant about the other persons intellectual failings and ascribe their success to “luck” and “good fortune”.
23====================================================================================================
A classic example of this dripping leftist condescension was when the famous, erudite and well respected Democrat, Clark Clifford, once described Ronald Reagan as an amiable dunce. At the time, all the liberals, progressives and elites in the country had a good titter over that one, let me tell you. Kind of like the snickers they had when Maureen Dowd called Sarah Palin a “Caribou Barbie”. Clifford's jibe was arguably the left's first real attempt at trying to destroy a conservative by ridiculing his supposed lack of gray matter.
Yet, the reality of Reagan and his policies refuted every one of Clifford’s conceptions and predictions. Clark Clifford and the progressive elite all pontificated from on high that Reaganomics would lead to economic catastrophe. Instead, it led to one of the great economic recoveries and expansions in American history. All of the sophisticates and academics said that Reagan’s rhetoric and policy towards the Soviet Union would lead to nuclear war. Instead, they led to the end of the cold war and the fall of communism just as Ronnie had predicted. Imagine that!
But, did Reagan get the intellectual credit and validation in leftist circles for being right? Of course not! The economy? Would have expanded anyway. The Cold War? Why, Reagan was just lucky to be President when the real peace maker and game changer Mikhail Gorbachev was elevated to leadership of the USSR. President Reagan was just a bystander to history progressives would later claim. After all, communism was ripe to fall, they opined. Reagan was just extremely fortunate it happened on his watch. Of course, the liberal elites said all of this after the fact. They hoped we would forget the numerous and lengthy columns and speeches they had made contemporaneously where they had pontificated that communism was here to stay and we must deal with the situation in a sophisticated and nuanced way and learn to live in peaceful "coexistence" with our communist brothers. We should all learn to get along. No Nukes, man!
And that’s the problem with believing in your own intellectual superiority. You see, once you have the laugh and the titter about Reagan being a dunce, it is a difficult psychological and intellectual feat to later admit that you were the one that was actually the laughingstock. Eating crow is never easy and it is never fun. Therefore, evidence be damned, it is easier to believe that you were the one who was really right all along. You just need to find any convenient rationalization that will prove it. Eventually, someone glib and facile comes along and finds the slimmest of threads that allows you to to hold on to all of your cherished notions. You see! You weren't wrong. That dummy Reagan just stumbled into the truth. Lucky bastard! Sadly, this is how liberals rationalize inconvenient facts. Instead of learning from their mistakes and accepting when they have been proven wrong, the real intellectual inferiors seek any slim excuse that allows them to continue to promote a failed ideology.
What I find telling is that throughout Reagan’s rise to and assumption of the presidency, the progressive elites dismissed him as merely an actor who was reading the script written for him by more intelligent “others”. This caricature of Reagan was widely propagated amongst liberals and widely disseminated into society by their lackeys in the media and entertainment worlds:
An airhead eh, Katie? I guess it takes one to know one. But, we'll be seeing you and your supposedly superior brain and arrogant snarkiness a little bit later. In this clip, you see the perky Katie doing her best to promote the meme of Reagan as stupid like the good liberal soldier she is. This is the narrative that must be perpetuated so that the successful policies of Ronald Reagan might be forgotten and invalidated. It proves that liberals were really right all along. Reagan was just lucky. However, even this leftist fairy tale is revealed as a fabrication later in the story when biographer Edmund Morris points out that Reagan may have looked like an "apparent airhead", but was actually very bright. But, what Katy and NBC wanted you to remember was their utterly dishonest headline to the story of Reagan as dunce.
24====================================================================================================
In the end, even this beautifully crafted and widely distributed myth was later fully exposed as liberal fantasy. It turns out that once his papers and diaries were released, we learned that Reagan had a deep intellectual understanding of conservatism, wrote most of his own speeches and that the speechwriters were there to write the lines he told them to, not the other way around. In fact, so much was his intellectual mastery of his subject matter that if you go back and watch Reagan's old speeches, you can see that he memorized a good many of them and normally gave them with just a few note cards as a means of reminding him of the points he needed to make. Can any of this be said for President Teleprompter?
Here's what happens to the "smartest man ever to be President" when TOTUS (Teleprompter Of The United States) goes on the fritz:
24====================================================================================================
In the end, even this beautifully crafted and widely distributed myth was later fully exposed as liberal fantasy. It turns out that once his papers and diaries were released, we learned that Reagan had a deep intellectual understanding of conservatism, wrote most of his own speeches and that the speechwriters were there to write the lines he told them to, not the other way around. In fact, so much was his intellectual mastery of his subject matter that if you go back and watch Reagan's old speeches, you can see that he memorized a good many of them and normally gave them with just a few note cards as a means of reminding him of the points he needed to make. Can any of this be said for President Teleprompter?
Here's what happens to the "smartest man ever to be President" when TOTUS (Teleprompter Of The United States) goes on the fritz:
You notice in the video that Obama has no clue what to say once the teleprompter malfunctions. Barry stumbles around a bit, says some totally inane and nonsensical things and generally stalls for time till TOTUS starts working again. And who exactly is the amiable dunce here?
But, did the media make a big deal out of this revealing performance? Of course not, they have Barack's back. However, as we have seen, this kind of kid gloves treatment doesn't apply to Republicans. But, think about it. We actually have a President who brings TOTUS along even when giving a five minute speech to a bunch of sixth graders:
But, did the media make a big deal out of this revealing performance? Of course not, they have Barack's back. However, as we have seen, this kind of kid gloves treatment doesn't apply to Republicans. But, think about it. We actually have a President who brings TOTUS along even when giving a five minute speech to a bunch of sixth graders:
If you can't ad lib a speech to a bunch of school children, then how intelligent can you really be? But, you will never hear that salient point raised by anyone inside the Matrix. Even a story this ridiculous and this hilarious which might garner a few chuckles amongst the populace at Obama's expense and provide a ratings booster is buried and never reported on by anyone other than Fox news.
_ So, if it makes him look so utterly ridiculous, why does President Obama insist on using his teleprompters to speak to elementary school children? Well, as we have seen, without TOTUS, Obama sounds far less intelligent and erudite. Why, left unscripted he's been known to commit some major gaffes, like saying that the private sector is doing "fine" and that people who created their own businesses "didn't build that".
Barack Obama needs TOTUS because he knows that we have a “gotcha” media that delights in emphasizing the verbal mistakes made by people whom they disagree with so they can paint them as being too stupid to be relevant. And there is plenty of available material out there from politicians from both sides of the aisle. After all, when a candidate runs for office they speak thousands of words every single day. They are bound to screw up now and again. They are only human after all. And when Republicans do, the media is there to crucify them. Which they do. Gladly. For days and days on end.
25====================================================================================================
In the case of Sarah Palin, the left went after her with a vengeance. You have to hand it to them. There was just no way they were going to let the Republicans steal the female vote from their beloved Barack. When it looked like she was about to do just that after her masterful speech at the convention, they went ballistic against her. Immediately, they took advantage of Palin's relative newness to the national political scene to exploit every gaffe she made. And, as a rookie on the national stage, she made plenty of them.
After the left wing "lamestream" media got through with her, she is now more remembered by people for her inability to name what things she read, rather than all of her accomplishments as a human being and a politician. In particular, she is also remembered for a line she never uttered about seeing Russia from her house. Here is the classic skit from SNL that did more to cement the public's perception of Sarah Palin as an idiot than anything else: (please excuse the ad)
Barack Obama needs TOTUS because he knows that we have a “gotcha” media that delights in emphasizing the verbal mistakes made by people whom they disagree with so they can paint them as being too stupid to be relevant. And there is plenty of available material out there from politicians from both sides of the aisle. After all, when a candidate runs for office they speak thousands of words every single day. They are bound to screw up now and again. They are only human after all. And when Republicans do, the media is there to crucify them. Which they do. Gladly. For days and days on end.
25====================================================================================================
In the case of Sarah Palin, the left went after her with a vengeance. You have to hand it to them. There was just no way they were going to let the Republicans steal the female vote from their beloved Barack. When it looked like she was about to do just that after her masterful speech at the convention, they went ballistic against her. Immediately, they took advantage of Palin's relative newness to the national political scene to exploit every gaffe she made. And, as a rookie on the national stage, she made plenty of them.
After the left wing "lamestream" media got through with her, she is now more remembered by people for her inability to name what things she read, rather than all of her accomplishments as a human being and a politician. In particular, she is also remembered for a line she never uttered about seeing Russia from her house. Here is the classic skit from SNL that did more to cement the public's perception of Sarah Palin as an idiot than anything else: (please excuse the ad)
_
Such is the aid that leftists get from their allies in the popular culture. There is no question that Saturday Night Live’s Tina Fey did an
amazing job in caricaturing Palin as a complete intellectual lightweight. The whole thing is absolutely hilarious. Notice though, that Hillary has many faults, but intelligence is not seen as one of them.
This SNL spoof of Palin was so effective that a Zogby poll of 2008 voters showed that 87% of them believed that Palin had said she could see Russia from her house. Even the supposedly elite "journalists" over at Politico were sucked into the SNL Matrix:
This SNL spoof of Palin was so effective that a Zogby poll of 2008 voters showed that 87% of them believed that Palin had said she could see Russia from her house. Even the supposedly elite "journalists" over at Politico were sucked into the SNL Matrix:
Hmmm. I wonder what newspapers Politico reads, eh? What Palin actually said to the perky one was that "you can see Russia from land in Alaska." What she was trying to say, (badly no doubt) was that not only had she negotiated deals with the Canadians, but that Russia's close proximity to Alaska gave her more experience in dealing with international issues. As opposed to then Senator Obama, let's say, who had none.
In any case, once the blood was in the water and the openly left wing Fey made it perfectly okay to trash Palin's intelligence, the liberal media went into a feeding frenzy. Sure, the fact that Palin didn’t respond well to the gotcha question from the snarky Katie Couric about her reading habits made her look foolish. But, does anyone really believe that Palin doesn’t read newspapers, magazines and blogs? There is also no question that trying to make the case that she knew something about foreign policy because Russia neighbors Alaska wasn’t the slickest thing any politician has ever said. But, to be fair to Governor Palin, this was her first experience at the Presidential level and her first time before the sharks of the national news media. Up until then, her only experience of this kind was with the tiny minnows of the Alaska press corps.
26====================================================================================================
The amazing thing about the media's trashing of Palin was that her opponent was the ever amazing Joe "please take my foot out of my mouth" Biden. Now here is a man without an original thought in his head. His imagination is so limited that not only did he plagiarize British Labor leader Neil Kinnock word for word, but he did the same to Bobby Kennedy:
In any case, once the blood was in the water and the openly left wing Fey made it perfectly okay to trash Palin's intelligence, the liberal media went into a feeding frenzy. Sure, the fact that Palin didn’t respond well to the gotcha question from the snarky Katie Couric about her reading habits made her look foolish. But, does anyone really believe that Palin doesn’t read newspapers, magazines and blogs? There is also no question that trying to make the case that she knew something about foreign policy because Russia neighbors Alaska wasn’t the slickest thing any politician has ever said. But, to be fair to Governor Palin, this was her first experience at the Presidential level and her first time before the sharks of the national news media. Up until then, her only experience of this kind was with the tiny minnows of the Alaska press corps.
26====================================================================================================
The amazing thing about the media's trashing of Palin was that her opponent was the ever amazing Joe "please take my foot out of my mouth" Biden. Now here is a man without an original thought in his head. His imagination is so limited that not only did he plagiarize British Labor leader Neil Kinnock word for word, but he did the same to Bobby Kennedy:
I don't know which is dumber: plagiarizing not one, but two famous politicians or thinking that he would get away with it. However, even though Joe was hounded out of the 1988 Presidential race in disgrace, when Barack Obama chose him has his VP, nary a word was said about it by his fawning sycophants in the media. Yet, here is a guy who has problems doing simple arithmetic:
But you know our Joe, he was just warming up:
Not only does Joe look like a total ignoramus when he mixes up FDR and Hoover and talks about the President going on TV in 1929 when the only national medium of the day was radio, but he goes off like a loose cannon constantly. Well that's Joe for you. Foot secured firmly in his mouth.
27====================================================================================================
Given how everyone in the media was convinced of what a total airhead Palin was, you'd think that Joe Biden would have wiped the floor with her when it came to knowing the facts during their one and only debate. However, from start to finish, it was the experienced debater Biden who displayed his utter ignorance time and time again:
27====================================================================================================
Given how everyone in the media was convinced of what a total airhead Palin was, you'd think that Joe Biden would have wiped the floor with her when it came to knowing the facts during their one and only debate. However, from start to finish, it was the experienced debater Biden who displayed his utter ignorance time and time again:
_Notice some things about this fact check. At the very end, Alan Colmes (known in this house as Dracula), notes two Palin factual errors. The first is her claim that the US was down to pre-surge levels in Iraq. It turned out that she was off by a few thousand soldiers. Oh my God! What an idiot! Another factual error Colmes claims Palin made was that the US could be energy independent if we so desired. We now know that this is actually true. Who is factually challenged now, eh Colmes?
For me, the biggest factual blunder made by either candidate that night was when Biden claimed that we spent more in three weeks in Iraq than we had in seven years in Afghanistan. I knew immediately when I heard this whopper that this was one of the most ridiculous things I'd ever heard a politician utter . Why, it was right up there with Gerald Ford claiming that Eastern Europe wasn't under the Soviet boot. A gaffe, by the way, that was endlessly replayed in the media and which many say cost Ford the election.
Yet, Biden repeated this idiocy about Iraq spending more than once! Here is a guy who is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee no less and he has no clue whatsoever about how much the war effort in Iraq is actually costing compared to Afghanistan. His perception isn't just wrong, it's not even in the ballpark or the city for that matter. For someone who is given that kind of responsibility by the American people as a Senator, as a committee Chairman and as someone seeking to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, that isn't just ignorance, it is verging on total incompetence.
However, the headlines the next day mentioned not a word about this huge Biden gaffe and what a blithering ignoramus he was. Oh, no. They couldn't have that. It would ruin their narrative that the real idiot in the race is the female Republican. As a result, there would be no week-long pile-on, shark-fest feeding frenzy about their man Barack's Veep. Because Joe is one of them, don't ya know. He thinks like they do. Therefore there is no way that they can allow him to be portrayed as being a few french fries short of an intellectual happy meal.
I know that I am biased, but I honestly thought Palin cleaned Biden's clock in that debate. Given her several unforced errors shortly after being named the VP candidate, I thought she put to rest any notion that she was a lightweight. Especially when contrasted with Biden. Indeed, as far as her early gaffes are concerned, there was nothing that I had seen her do that Barack Obama hadn't done himself earlier in the campaign for the nomination. At least Palin didn't get caught spending twenty years in the church of an anti-American racist and anti-Semite.
28====================================================================================================
Personally, I find it amazing how much improvement time and experience at the Presidential level does for candidates ability to answer questions when the pressure is on. Like I said, if you watched some of Obama's interviews early in the campaign you can see that he had a lot of room to grow. However, after a few months of the campaign, he really got the hang of it and improved dramatically. Much the same can be said for Rick Perry. Here is that dummy from Texas in an early debate:
For me, the biggest factual blunder made by either candidate that night was when Biden claimed that we spent more in three weeks in Iraq than we had in seven years in Afghanistan. I knew immediately when I heard this whopper that this was one of the most ridiculous things I'd ever heard a politician utter . Why, it was right up there with Gerald Ford claiming that Eastern Europe wasn't under the Soviet boot. A gaffe, by the way, that was endlessly replayed in the media and which many say cost Ford the election.
Yet, Biden repeated this idiocy about Iraq spending more than once! Here is a guy who is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee no less and he has no clue whatsoever about how much the war effort in Iraq is actually costing compared to Afghanistan. His perception isn't just wrong, it's not even in the ballpark or the city for that matter. For someone who is given that kind of responsibility by the American people as a Senator, as a committee Chairman and as someone seeking to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, that isn't just ignorance, it is verging on total incompetence.
However, the headlines the next day mentioned not a word about this huge Biden gaffe and what a blithering ignoramus he was. Oh, no. They couldn't have that. It would ruin their narrative that the real idiot in the race is the female Republican. As a result, there would be no week-long pile-on, shark-fest feeding frenzy about their man Barack's Veep. Because Joe is one of them, don't ya know. He thinks like they do. Therefore there is no way that they can allow him to be portrayed as being a few french fries short of an intellectual happy meal.
I know that I am biased, but I honestly thought Palin cleaned Biden's clock in that debate. Given her several unforced errors shortly after being named the VP candidate, I thought she put to rest any notion that she was a lightweight. Especially when contrasted with Biden. Indeed, as far as her early gaffes are concerned, there was nothing that I had seen her do that Barack Obama hadn't done himself earlier in the campaign for the nomination. At least Palin didn't get caught spending twenty years in the church of an anti-American racist and anti-Semite.
28====================================================================================================
Personally, I find it amazing how much improvement time and experience at the Presidential level does for candidates ability to answer questions when the pressure is on. Like I said, if you watched some of Obama's interviews early in the campaign you can see that he had a lot of room to grow. However, after a few months of the campaign, he really got the hang of it and improved dramatically. Much the same can be said for Rick Perry. Here is that dummy from Texas in an early debate:
As you can see, he is doing fine with his answer. Just rolling along. And then... he has a brain fart. For that moment he looks really bad and knows it. He tries to overcome it with a little humor, but the damage is done. In immediate post debate commentary and the next day, he is absolutely crucified by both the conservative and liberal media. After a record of previous debate stumbles, a once promising campaign is laid low by a momentary lapse of memory Given that the early part of his answer is so clear and to the point, you'd think that people would have given him a little slack, like they gave their buddy Teddy Kennedy. But, in today's media circus, a Palin or a Perry is not allowed the time to "grow" if they are Republicans who come from the "wrong" states and the "wrong" schools.
Had the media given Perry the same time to mature as they gave Obama, then performances and crowd reactions like this might have been the start of a comeback given his impressive record as a Governor:
Had the media given Perry the same time to mature as they gave Obama, then performances and crowd reactions like this might have been the start of a comeback given his impressive record as a Governor:
_As Obama had before him, you can see Rick Perry improving immensely as a debater and a candidate. Unlike Perry, as bad as Obama was in the first months of his Presidential campaign, he was extremely fortunate that his friends in the media were willing to give him a pass and not reveal that the Suit had no Emperor. In this and in many other areas, the media covered for his gaffes and did his dirty
work for him by mercilessly attacking his opposition for the same things he was guilty of. So brazenly were they in Barry's
corner, they had the gall to attack Sarah Palin's nomination to the Vice Presidency on the grounds that she didn't have the
necessary "experience" for the job. All during the Republican Convention, the mainstream media was promoting this narrative that it was actually Sarah who was wearing no dress. Finally, it was up to Newt Gingrich to school them on how ridiculous and hypocritical an argument that was:
_29====================================================================================================
Which brings us back to President Empty Suit again. As the reporter points out, Palin has a "thin" resume. Obama had no resume. Supposing the media had been as hard on him as they were on Palin who, of course, was only running for VP? What would have happened to Barack then? Would the One have been elevated to the presidency had the media and entertainment worlds treated his numerous gaffes like they treated Palin's?
Which brings us back to President Empty Suit again. As the reporter points out, Palin has a "thin" resume. Obama had no resume. Supposing the media had been as hard on him as they were on Palin who, of course, was only running for VP? What would have happened to Barack then? Would the One have been elevated to the presidency had the media and entertainment worlds treated his numerous gaffes like they treated Palin's?
Can you imagine a Tina Fey's Obama equivalent looking doe eyed into the camera and saying "and I've been to all 57 States"! The gaffes are the same, but the only place you'll find that kind of parody of the anointed One is on You Tube.
This kind of bias that purposely ignores the gaffes of Democrats while using similar mistakes by Republicans to create the perception that they are all dummies is now an integral part of the media playbook. Think about it. Even after the election was over and her party had lost, after she had been "Palinized" and marginalized by unrelentingly negative coverage including a cheap David Letterman joke about the rape of her daughter, the left wing media just wouldn't quit going after Governor Palin. They were all just foaming at the mouth and waiting to pounce on her every verbal mistake. Who can forget how they went absolutely crazy for days about her supposed mistake about Paul Revere:
This kind of bias that purposely ignores the gaffes of Democrats while using similar mistakes by Republicans to create the perception that they are all dummies is now an integral part of the media playbook. Think about it. Even after the election was over and her party had lost, after she had been "Palinized" and marginalized by unrelentingly negative coverage including a cheap David Letterman joke about the rape of her daughter, the left wing media just wouldn't quit going after Governor Palin. They were all just foaming at the mouth and waiting to pounce on her every verbal mistake. Who can forget how they went absolutely crazy for days about her supposed mistake about Paul Revere:
I am sure you remember how the media went into wall to wall coverage of Palin's supposed ignorance. They arrogantly assumed they knew better than that dumb hick woman from some backwater called Wasila. I chose the above piece of footage because it best exemplifies the elite media's reaction to this story. Note the snarky, elitist sarcasm in Lawerence O'Donnell's voice and face when he scoffs at the concept that Paul Revere warned the British. But, guess what Larry, it's time to wipe that smirk off your mug and learn your history. Seems the caribou barbie from Alaska is smarter than you:
30=====================================================================================================
Ah, but there is more, Lawrence, listen closely and you might learn something:
Ah, but there is more, Lawrence, listen closely and you might learn something:
Did you get that one there at the end? Do you remember when the media immediately went to wall to wall coverage of the Palin is an ignorant moron routine again when she said to party like it's 1773? You'd think that being forced to stop running that particular story once it became apparent that they'd jumped the shark and had egg on their face that they might have learned a lesson. Perhaps even apologized. But, no. The very next opportunity they got, the Lawrence O'Donnell's of the world showed their own ignorance on parade again with the Revere story. Why? Because it serves their purpose to denigrate Palin's intelligence and marginalize her as a politician. Facts be damned! Welcome to the wonderful world of America's Lamestream Media.
Now, admittedly, in watching Governor Palin's response to the reporters question, you can see that she is searching for what to say. This kind of thing often happens in an off the cuff unscripted remark. Sometimes people kind of get their words mixed up a bit and garble what they really want to convey. This is clearly the case here. That Palin did know her history is evident. The fact that she messes up her syntax to make it seem that the purpose of Revere's ride was to warn the British or that she appeared to make the claim that he was riding a horse while at the same time ringing bells and shooting guns was unfortunate. The words might not have been glibly uttered, however, the gist of what she was saying was correct. It is the Lawerence O'Donnell's of the world who showed their own ignorance of US history in this case, not Palin.
The reason I bring the Palin/Revere saga up is not just to make Lawerence O'Donnell look like the fool that he is, but to highlight the hypocrisy of the media. There is no doubt that the media's feeding frenzy over the Revere comment only cemented many people's perception of Palin as an ignorant boob. Nobody remembers all of the professors of history who validated her version of events, they just remember those sarcastic one liners uttered against Palin by the John Stewarts of the world. Thus, the media was able to get a good if mistaken shot in against someone who was looking more and more like a candidate for the Presidency in 2012.
Now, I ask you , if Palin had actually made a factual error about something as recent and important an issue as the Holocaust, do you think that they would have gone into a feeding frenzy? Of course,they would have. There is no way they could resist. Well check out this little gaffe from their buddy Barry O:
Now, admittedly, in watching Governor Palin's response to the reporters question, you can see that she is searching for what to say. This kind of thing often happens in an off the cuff unscripted remark. Sometimes people kind of get their words mixed up a bit and garble what they really want to convey. This is clearly the case here. That Palin did know her history is evident. The fact that she messes up her syntax to make it seem that the purpose of Revere's ride was to warn the British or that she appeared to make the claim that he was riding a horse while at the same time ringing bells and shooting guns was unfortunate. The words might not have been glibly uttered, however, the gist of what she was saying was correct. It is the Lawerence O'Donnell's of the world who showed their own ignorance of US history in this case, not Palin.
The reason I bring the Palin/Revere saga up is not just to make Lawerence O'Donnell look like the fool that he is, but to highlight the hypocrisy of the media. There is no doubt that the media's feeding frenzy over the Revere comment only cemented many people's perception of Palin as an ignorant boob. Nobody remembers all of the professors of history who validated her version of events, they just remember those sarcastic one liners uttered against Palin by the John Stewarts of the world. Thus, the media was able to get a good if mistaken shot in against someone who was looking more and more like a candidate for the Presidency in 2012.
Now, I ask you , if Palin had actually made a factual error about something as recent and important an issue as the Holocaust, do you think that they would have gone into a feeding frenzy? Of course,they would have. There is no way they could resist. Well check out this little gaffe from their buddy Barry O:
Did you know Barack Obama was so ignorant about history? Was his lack of knowledge of the Holocaust the leading story on the news for days and days after this statement? Was he lampooned as an ignorant boob by Stephen Colbert? Of course not. But, perhaps we should cut Barry the break they won't cut the Sarahcuda and say that he just had a brain fart that day and meant to say his uncle was at the Buchenwald or Bergen Belsen camps that the Americans actually did liberate.
31====================================================================================================
It's not as if Barry is able to learn from his mistakes and brush up his knowledge on the Holocaust either. Why, just the other day he caused massive outrage among the people of one of our closest allies by saying this:
31====================================================================================================
It's not as if Barry is able to learn from his mistakes and brush up his knowledge on the Holocaust either. Why, just the other day he caused massive outrage among the people of one of our closest allies by saying this:
Not a Nazi death camp, but a Polish death camp, eh Barry? I think maybe you ought to go read a book about what actually occurred during the Holocaust before you cause another international incident with one of our best friends:
Oops! Ignorant and incompetent. You'd think given the massive attention that Sarah Palin receives every time she opens her mouth, this kind of blistering attack from the Foreign Minister and the President of Poland would lead to an outright media frenzy, but you'd be wrong. Nope. Do you know what causes the media to go into a shark feed when it comes to gaffes? Why, it's when a Republican Presidential candidate ruffles a few feathers in the UK by revealing what was really on his mind:
32====================================================================================================
Yep, no doubt that by speaking the truth about his misgivings about security at the London Olympics, Romney upset a lot of people in the UK. However, his reception in both Israel and Poland were well received. This was unacceptable to a media who wanted to ruin the candidates overseas trip by portraying that all of it was filled with "numerous" gaffes. They did so by bringing the topic up time and time again like a bunch of parrots:
Yep, no doubt that by speaking the truth about his misgivings about security at the London Olympics, Romney upset a lot of people in the UK. However, his reception in both Israel and Poland were well received. This was unacceptable to a media who wanted to ruin the candidates overseas trip by portraying that all of it was filled with "numerous" gaffes. They did so by bringing the topic up time and time again like a bunch of parrots:
I don't know about you, but I'd say that getting the endorsement of the legendary Lech Walesa is worthy of a few positive stories and insulting an entire country by claiming they were responsible for the murder of millions ought to get a lot of negative ones. Same country, two totally different outcomes, but the Republican ends up being the one that gets slammed as "gaffe" prone. Amazing, no?
How can it be that the "smart" guy is the one who knows nothing about the Holocaust and confirms his utter ignorance about WWII:
How can it be that the "smart" guy is the one who knows nothing about the Holocaust and confirms his utter ignorance about WWII:
The bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor? Must've been some bomb, huh? The One sure knows his history. But wait, Barry's not done sharing his extensive knowledge of the War in the Pacific:
As everyone who knows anything about the history of World War II understands, MacArthur specifically exempted Hirohito from the humiliation of having to surrender to him on the Missouri because he felt that to preserve the Emperor's dignity would help in governing Japan in the post-war period. Since Obama is using the Japanese unconditional surrender to buttress his case for not using words like "victory" when talking about Afghanistan, you'd think he would have his history right. But, once again Barry shows that he talks real well, but he doesn't actually know a whole heck of a lot without his teleprompter. When you put Barry's huge factual error as a President of the United States discussing how his understanding of history is shaping his foreign policy up against Sarah Palin's mangled but correct statement talking about her vacation or Romney's inadvertent moment of candor, there's no contest about which the media should have focused on and which should have been the topic of a weeks worth of analysis about the ignorance it revealed.
33====================================================================================================
It's not as if the media doesn't go into a tizzy over a politicians perceived ignorance of foreign affairs. I seem to recall them going into a major meltdown when candidate George W. Bush couldn't name the President of Pakistan:
33====================================================================================================
It's not as if the media doesn't go into a tizzy over a politicians perceived ignorance of foreign affairs. I seem to recall them going into a major meltdown when candidate George W. Bush couldn't name the President of Pakistan:
Victim, eh? Well, I'll be the first to admit that W didn't come through that little test of his knowledge with flying colors. He received and deserved a lot of scorn for his ignorance. But, in his defense, he was just a candidate then. As President, you'd expect the leader of the free world to get a major briefing every time he met with a world leader. You'd expect that even away from his Teleprompter, the President would be able to come up with some new and original thoughts of praise for each country and leader. However, if that is what you expect, then Barry-O will leave you very disappointed:
How embarrassing for the United States, eh? Why our young President can't even anger our closest allies the Brits without bolixing that up too. The other day he was trying to talk about the dispute between Argentina and the UK over the Falkland Islands. In a clear bid to win favor with the Argentinians at England's expense, Obama sought to call the islands what Argentina does: the Malvinas. But what did our Barry say instead? He called them the Maldives, which are over 8000 miles away:
The President makes a double blunder both from an intelligence and a foreign policy standpoint. Mitt Romney reveals his considered opinion from his experience at the Olympics. Both men anger our closest allies. The Obama story is buried, but the Romney story is prima facie evidence that he is a gaffe prone incompetent. That pretty much says it all. Within the Matrix, Republicans are always bad and Democrats are always good.
34====================================================================================================
If you really want a classic example of the "smartest" guy to ever be President and his sycophants in the elite media showing how truly knowledgeable and brilliant they are, there is no better one than when the President claimed that Lincoln promoted the construction of the "intercontinental" railroad from New York to London or was that San Francisco to Beijing?
34====================================================================================================
If you really want a classic example of the "smartest" guy to ever be President and his sycophants in the elite media showing how truly knowledgeable and brilliant they are, there is no better one than when the President claimed that Lincoln promoted the construction of the "intercontinental" railroad from New York to London or was that San Francisco to Beijing?
It's not as if it's a big deal. Intercontinental, transcontinental, it's easy to get mixed up. Once. But, as you can see, the smartest man ever to be President repeated the same mistake for over two years. Why? Because, not one his brilliant speech writers thought there was anything wrong with it and none of the supposedly brilliant people covering him caught the error either or thought it worth mentioning if they did. However, had that been Sarah Palin or W making that gaffe, it would have been national news for a week. Does anyone remember Dan Quayle and Potatoe? Speaking of which, go check the story on that one some day. It's an eye opener about what you were told happened and what actually did happen.
Do you think that Saturday Night Live picks up on this gaffetastic trend of President Obama and Vice President Biden and lampoons them the way they did Presidents Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43 and Sarah Palin? Don't be silly. SNL mocks Democrats, but they are always portrayed as flawed (for comedy purposes) but intelligent people. SNL portrayed Jimmy Carter as brilliant, Clinton as the smart and lovable rogue and Obama is represented as too intelligent for his own good. Even Michael Dukakis, yes THAT Michael Dukakis is depicted as a genius compared to that doofus,Bush 41 when he remarks "How I am losing to this guy?"
Do you think that Saturday Night Live picks up on this gaffetastic trend of President Obama and Vice President Biden and lampoons them the way they did Presidents Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43 and Sarah Palin? Don't be silly. SNL mocks Democrats, but they are always portrayed as flawed (for comedy purposes) but intelligent people. SNL portrayed Jimmy Carter as brilliant, Clinton as the smart and lovable rogue and Obama is represented as too intelligent for his own good. Even Michael Dukakis, yes THAT Michael Dukakis is depicted as a genius compared to that doofus,Bush 41 when he remarks "How I am losing to this guy?"
Of course SNL, is just one media outlet. But, ask yourself when was the last time you ever remember a mainstream media pundit, journalist or entertainer question the intelligence of a Democrat? Even Teddy Kennedy? Is that because they are, in fact, smarter than your average bear, or Republican, as the case may be? Are the places they run virtual utopias as a result of their intelligent policies? No, the exact opposite is true. Yet, all over the TV dial and in the newspapers and magazines we constantly hear and read about what idiots Palin, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Quayle, Bush41, Bush 43, and Reagan were.
35====================================================================================================
As for the intelligence of Democrats... Personally, I think you'd have to be pretty dumb to challenge the press to prove you were having an affair and then get caught (Gary Hart), claim for months you did not have sexual relations with one of your employees and then get busted when said employee produces a semen stained dress (Clinton) or trot out your cancer ridden wife to boost your poll numbers while having an affair on the side only to be exposed by a supermarket rag because the other members of the press corps were covering for you (Edwards). Yet, while all those acts were stupid beyond belief, I don't ever remember any of those men being challenged as being intellectually flawed. Morally flawed, perhaps. Politically stupid, absolutely. But dumb as stumps? Never. That's because all three men had one thing in common. They were all glib, facile, comfortable in front of the camera and articulated a message that the establishment media agreed with.
That said, while there is no doubt that Hart, Clinton and Edwards may have been able to talk well, their decision making skills left lots to be desired wouldn't you say? Which brings me to the gist of my argument. Everyone I've been talking about in this chapter has either run for or become President. Therefore, every move they have ever made and every thing they have ever said is scrutinized under an incredibly intense microscope. This is because the job of the Presidency is seen as highly important and difficult. We wouldn't want an idiot running the country now would we? But, as all of us not living in the elite media New York to Washington bubble understand, there is intelligence and there is wisdom.
Contrary to popular opinion amongst many in the elitist media, it is in wisdom, in a life filled with different experiences including both success and failure that produces real knowledge. You can memorize every book and learn from every Marxist professor at Columbia and Harvard and still not truly understand anything. In fact, I'd argue that you'd actually know less about life outside the walls of the ivory tower.
I have spent a lot of time around supposedly “brilliant” people in academe who wouldn’t last ten minutes outside the campus walls. That is because what might seem perfectly logical in ones mind or on paper, just doesn’t cut it in the real world. No amount of book reading can replace a lifetime actually accomplishing things and finding out what is necessary for successful endeavors. A lifetime of schooling, community organizing and running for office, for example, does not prepare you to understand how the economy works or prepare you to face the challenges of leadership. This isn't to say that you have to be old to be President, although a lifetime of experience helps:
35====================================================================================================
As for the intelligence of Democrats... Personally, I think you'd have to be pretty dumb to challenge the press to prove you were having an affair and then get caught (Gary Hart), claim for months you did not have sexual relations with one of your employees and then get busted when said employee produces a semen stained dress (Clinton) or trot out your cancer ridden wife to boost your poll numbers while having an affair on the side only to be exposed by a supermarket rag because the other members of the press corps were covering for you (Edwards). Yet, while all those acts were stupid beyond belief, I don't ever remember any of those men being challenged as being intellectually flawed. Morally flawed, perhaps. Politically stupid, absolutely. But dumb as stumps? Never. That's because all three men had one thing in common. They were all glib, facile, comfortable in front of the camera and articulated a message that the establishment media agreed with.
That said, while there is no doubt that Hart, Clinton and Edwards may have been able to talk well, their decision making skills left lots to be desired wouldn't you say? Which brings me to the gist of my argument. Everyone I've been talking about in this chapter has either run for or become President. Therefore, every move they have ever made and every thing they have ever said is scrutinized under an incredibly intense microscope. This is because the job of the Presidency is seen as highly important and difficult. We wouldn't want an idiot running the country now would we? But, as all of us not living in the elite media New York to Washington bubble understand, there is intelligence and there is wisdom.
Contrary to popular opinion amongst many in the elitist media, it is in wisdom, in a life filled with different experiences including both success and failure that produces real knowledge. You can memorize every book and learn from every Marxist professor at Columbia and Harvard and still not truly understand anything. In fact, I'd argue that you'd actually know less about life outside the walls of the ivory tower.
I have spent a lot of time around supposedly “brilliant” people in academe who wouldn’t last ten minutes outside the campus walls. That is because what might seem perfectly logical in ones mind or on paper, just doesn’t cut it in the real world. No amount of book reading can replace a lifetime actually accomplishing things and finding out what is necessary for successful endeavors. A lifetime of schooling, community organizing and running for office, for example, does not prepare you to understand how the economy works or prepare you to face the challenges of leadership. This isn't to say that you have to be old to be President, although a lifetime of experience helps:
_It is however to say that raw intelligence is not a substitute for real world wisdom. At the time, everyone in the right social, media, academic and political circles, people who hung out with the likes of Clark Clifford for instance, thought Jimmy Carter was far more intelligent than Reagan was. Yet, today Reagan is acknowledged as one of the great Presidents of the 20th Century and the peanut farmer one of the absolute worst. After all, what good does all the brainpower in the world do you, if the conclusions you reach on the issues of the day are just plain wrong?
36======================================================================================================
Far more that raw intelligence, a good healthy dose of common sense (known as applied intelligence) is actually the most critical factor in a successful President. If IQ was the most critical qualification for the office of the Presidency, then the administrations of the former governor of Georgia and the Senator from Illinois should have been the most successful right? Everyone says they were two of the most intelligent men ever to be President in our lifetimes. But, instead, we have two of the worst performing administrations of the last one hundred years.
But, don't tell them that. They both believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that they have been right in every decision they have made. So sure are both of these Presidents of their own brilliance that they are certain that their mistakes could not be their own. Oh, no. The deficiency was the inability of the bitter, uneducated masses who cling to guns, religion and bigotry to understand the complexities with which they were forced to deal with. Therefore, they were incapable of recognizing the sagacity of these mountains of intellect in presiding over failure after failure. Yes, the fault lies with those lesser mortals known as the American people:
36======================================================================================================
Far more that raw intelligence, a good healthy dose of common sense (known as applied intelligence) is actually the most critical factor in a successful President. If IQ was the most critical qualification for the office of the Presidency, then the administrations of the former governor of Georgia and the Senator from Illinois should have been the most successful right? Everyone says they were two of the most intelligent men ever to be President in our lifetimes. But, instead, we have two of the worst performing administrations of the last one hundred years.
But, don't tell them that. They both believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that they have been right in every decision they have made. So sure are both of these Presidents of their own brilliance that they are certain that their mistakes could not be their own. Oh, no. The deficiency was the inability of the bitter, uneducated masses who cling to guns, religion and bigotry to understand the complexities with which they were forced to deal with. Therefore, they were incapable of recognizing the sagacity of these mountains of intellect in presiding over failure after failure. Yes, the fault lies with those lesser mortals known as the American people:
And Barry and Jimmy are not alone in believing that we are too "stupid" or "lazy" to be led properly by their genius. Michelle Obama believes that people don't understand how much her husband has done for them because they are "confused":
37====================================================================================================
_If President Obama is so intelligent compared to the morons in the rest of the country, how is it that he can look at the anemic results of his failed stimulus plan and ask for more of the same? How does he reconcile the massive debt and structural deficits it produced while watching the three consecutive summers of recovery he predicted fizzle to nothing and then offer another half a trillion dollars of the same as his answer to a moribund economy? How exactly does taxing the millionaires and job creators in the country and redistributing that money in the form of a payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits and infrastructure spending going to overpaid under-performing union labor qualify as a jobs plan? Taking from one productive hand and giving to another less productive creates prosperity? And this is the best policy the vaunted intelligence of the progressives can come up with?
I am sorry but being able to read the nice words that someone else wrote on a teleprompter isn’t intelligence. Understanding real world economics, like the amiable dunce Reagan did, is. Just look at the radical difference between the effectiveness of their recovery programs. Reagan’s voodoo economics or the "brilliance” of Obamanomics. Who is the dunce now?
If Liberals are so intelligent how come, as Johnny Alamo of The American Thinker so eloquently posits, do they believe:
That you can grow the entitlement class beyond the taxpayer class and never hit critical mass where there is no money left.
That using the military to oust a murderous thug dictator in 2003 was criminal, and using the military to oust a murderous thug dictator in 2011 was noble.
That the best way to grow the wealth of the private sector is to take all the money out of it.
That the best way to make us energy independent is to block any effort to produce more petrocarbons in this country.
That the best way to create jobs is to increase taxes and regulations on the job creators.
That the best way to stop arms from this country from getting into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico is to provide arms to the drug cartels in Mexico.
That all the ills of the economy are due to the fat cat banks and other corporations, and the best way to deal with that is to provide billions in bailouts to the fat cat banks and other corporations.
That more unemployment checks create more jobs.
That investigating the background of George W Bush to the point that you have color photographs of his colon is proper vetting of the Chief Executive, but asking for Barack Hussein Obama's college records or for information on his association with a known terrorist is racist.
That somehow making firearms illegal will prevent criminals from using them.
That the life of a murderer on death row is sacred, but an unborn baby's is not.
That the best way to overcome our racist past is to enforce racist affirmative action policies.
That people who are too ignorant to get a free state issued I.D. card are smart enough to vote.
That the best way to overcome our current spending crisis is to spend more money.
That the federal government with no competition can provide a better health care product than the private sector with competition can.
That a grandma in a wheelchair is a bigger potential threat on an airplane than a guy with a name that takes phlegm to pronounce.
That we need to be sensitive to the feelings of people that subscribe to a religion that teaches that we all should submit to their version of righteousness or face beheading, but should demean and diminish those that believe in the religion that teaches we should love and embrace our neighbors no matter what religion they belong to.
That poll watchers who want to ensure that election laws are observed and the vote is without fraud are intimidating voters, and black radicals with clubs in front of a polling place are not.
That ice ages and the warming periods in between were not caused by man's influence on the earth but a half degree rise in average temperatures over 30 years is.
That using the equivalent of two gallons of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol makes sense because it is "renewable."
That a picture of a female guard in Abu Ghraib pointing at the genitals of a terrorist and laughing is deplorable but those same goofballs setting off an IED and killing our troops are just freedom fighters.
That a 70 year old woman with a Gadsden flag is a radical but an OWS protestor that defecates on a police car and breaks windows of businesses is a frustrated citizen.
That in spite of the fact that one third of the world is hungry it makes more sense to use food for fuel than drilling for a fuel source that nobody can eat.
38====================================================================================================
And that leaves us with this challenge to all of you progressives out there who still live in the Matrix. You claim that we conservatives are dumb, stupid, idiots, morons, rednecks and hicks. Yet, you still follow a political philosophy that when given its full measure of power produces California and Illinois, Detroit, Cleveland, Camden and Washington DC. It produces Greece, Italy, France, Portugal and Spain. At its best, in homogenous and orderly societies like Denmark and Sweden, it produces an economy that treads water and has produced not a single major technological advance in our lifetimes. No computers, no TV, no refrigerators, nothing that has moved human civilization further down the evolutionary path.
Yet despite the fiscal insolvency of California and Illinois, you keep voting for the same broken policies to continue and the same politicians who brought on the bankruptcy. Despite the fact that we have hewn to the teachers unions demands and kept them in charge of our public schools, despite the fact that we have doubled spending in inflation adjusted dollars, test scores remain the same, yet you propose we continue to do more of the same. Despite trillions of dollars spent on the war on poverty, three generations mired in dependence you reject any change and ask for more of the same. Despite the clear reality that Europe’s debt crisis is the result of sovereign debt and unsustainable spending by the entitlement state ponzi schemes, you reject any change in our entitlements and want to continue more of the same. Just raise taxes on the rich! As if that is going to make a dime’s worth of difference. Literally. And you call us conservatives dumb? Well Stupid is as stupid does, Forrest Gump always said.
_If President Obama is so intelligent compared to the morons in the rest of the country, how is it that he can look at the anemic results of his failed stimulus plan and ask for more of the same? How does he reconcile the massive debt and structural deficits it produced while watching the three consecutive summers of recovery he predicted fizzle to nothing and then offer another half a trillion dollars of the same as his answer to a moribund economy? How exactly does taxing the millionaires and job creators in the country and redistributing that money in the form of a payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits and infrastructure spending going to overpaid under-performing union labor qualify as a jobs plan? Taking from one productive hand and giving to another less productive creates prosperity? And this is the best policy the vaunted intelligence of the progressives can come up with?
I am sorry but being able to read the nice words that someone else wrote on a teleprompter isn’t intelligence. Understanding real world economics, like the amiable dunce Reagan did, is. Just look at the radical difference between the effectiveness of their recovery programs. Reagan’s voodoo economics or the "brilliance” of Obamanomics. Who is the dunce now?
If Liberals are so intelligent how come, as Johnny Alamo of The American Thinker so eloquently posits, do they believe:
That you can grow the entitlement class beyond the taxpayer class and never hit critical mass where there is no money left.
That using the military to oust a murderous thug dictator in 2003 was criminal, and using the military to oust a murderous thug dictator in 2011 was noble.
That the best way to grow the wealth of the private sector is to take all the money out of it.
That the best way to make us energy independent is to block any effort to produce more petrocarbons in this country.
That the best way to create jobs is to increase taxes and regulations on the job creators.
That the best way to stop arms from this country from getting into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico is to provide arms to the drug cartels in Mexico.
That all the ills of the economy are due to the fat cat banks and other corporations, and the best way to deal with that is to provide billions in bailouts to the fat cat banks and other corporations.
That more unemployment checks create more jobs.
That investigating the background of George W Bush to the point that you have color photographs of his colon is proper vetting of the Chief Executive, but asking for Barack Hussein Obama's college records or for information on his association with a known terrorist is racist.
That somehow making firearms illegal will prevent criminals from using them.
That the life of a murderer on death row is sacred, but an unborn baby's is not.
That the best way to overcome our racist past is to enforce racist affirmative action policies.
That people who are too ignorant to get a free state issued I.D. card are smart enough to vote.
That the best way to overcome our current spending crisis is to spend more money.
That the federal government with no competition can provide a better health care product than the private sector with competition can.
That a grandma in a wheelchair is a bigger potential threat on an airplane than a guy with a name that takes phlegm to pronounce.
That we need to be sensitive to the feelings of people that subscribe to a religion that teaches that we all should submit to their version of righteousness or face beheading, but should demean and diminish those that believe in the religion that teaches we should love and embrace our neighbors no matter what religion they belong to.
That poll watchers who want to ensure that election laws are observed and the vote is without fraud are intimidating voters, and black radicals with clubs in front of a polling place are not.
That ice ages and the warming periods in between were not caused by man's influence on the earth but a half degree rise in average temperatures over 30 years is.
That using the equivalent of two gallons of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol makes sense because it is "renewable."
That a picture of a female guard in Abu Ghraib pointing at the genitals of a terrorist and laughing is deplorable but those same goofballs setting off an IED and killing our troops are just freedom fighters.
That a 70 year old woman with a Gadsden flag is a radical but an OWS protestor that defecates on a police car and breaks windows of businesses is a frustrated citizen.
That in spite of the fact that one third of the world is hungry it makes more sense to use food for fuel than drilling for a fuel source that nobody can eat.
38====================================================================================================
And that leaves us with this challenge to all of you progressives out there who still live in the Matrix. You claim that we conservatives are dumb, stupid, idiots, morons, rednecks and hicks. Yet, you still follow a political philosophy that when given its full measure of power produces California and Illinois, Detroit, Cleveland, Camden and Washington DC. It produces Greece, Italy, France, Portugal and Spain. At its best, in homogenous and orderly societies like Denmark and Sweden, it produces an economy that treads water and has produced not a single major technological advance in our lifetimes. No computers, no TV, no refrigerators, nothing that has moved human civilization further down the evolutionary path.
Yet despite the fiscal insolvency of California and Illinois, you keep voting for the same broken policies to continue and the same politicians who brought on the bankruptcy. Despite the fact that we have hewn to the teachers unions demands and kept them in charge of our public schools, despite the fact that we have doubled spending in inflation adjusted dollars, test scores remain the same, yet you propose we continue to do more of the same. Despite trillions of dollars spent on the war on poverty, three generations mired in dependence you reject any change and ask for more of the same. Despite the clear reality that Europe’s debt crisis is the result of sovereign debt and unsustainable spending by the entitlement state ponzi schemes, you reject any change in our entitlements and want to continue more of the same. Just raise taxes on the rich! As if that is going to make a dime’s worth of difference. Literally. And you call us conservatives dumb? Well Stupid is as stupid does, Forrest Gump always said.