McCainiacs thinking outside of the box

In 1980 (and again in 1984), Ronald Reagan won in significant part because traditionally Democratic voters abandoned their party to vote for him. Those same “Reagan Democrats” have shown up frequently in the news today.  Indeed, McCain is specifically targeting those same people and demographics.  US News & World Report explained back in May:

As the Democrats struggle to select their nominee, John McCain is quietly finalizing his fall strategy. One of his goals will be to attract white working-class and culturally conservative Democrats who supported Ronald Reagan and now have their doubts about the Democratic presidential candidates, especially Barack Obama. This trend was particularly clear in the May 13 primary in West Virginia, where Obama did poorly among such voters. “The Reagan Democrats are in play more than they’ve been in a long time,” says Frank Donatelli, a senior official at the Republican National Committee and former White House political director for Reagan.

I have my doubts, though, about McCain being able to replicate precisely the same Reagan Democrat trend that occurred in the 1980s.  Don’t get me wrong — I think this is another election that will see renegade Democrats tilt the balance in favor of the Republican candidate (color me hopeful).  I just don’t think it will play out on precisely the same lines as before.

For one thing, back in 1980, the Democrat in question had a record on which to run and, boy, was it a depressing one.  Carter’s ineffectual waffling almost certainly aided the Shah of Iran’s downfall, and his manifest weakness when it came to the situation in Iran was a green light for the Revolutionaries to seize American hostages and to lord that fact over the former super power of the world.  Old-time northern Democrats may have liked their unions, but they liked American strength and security even more, and they weren’t about to put their faith in this pathetic American leader a second time.

The economy also suffered mightily under Carter’s tender economic ministrations, which relied heavily on high taxes and high government spending.  Even long-time Democrats who believed in an expanded and strong central government could see that this approach wasn’t working.

Carter was also so damn equivocal.  He seemed to have no fixed principles whatsoever.  A friend of mine  once tried to explain his waffling away by saying that Carter was an engineer and that he constantly recalculated things every time a new piece of data came along, thereby rendering himself completely ineffectual.  That explanation sounded plausible back then, but I’ve come to believe that, in fact, Carter actually doesn’t now and didn’t then have any fixed principles.  Be that as it may, Ronald Reagan, with his cheerful personality and his strong moral and political beliefs, was a welcome antidote to the vacillating, weak, grim boob occupying the White House.

Obama, unlike Carter, has virtually no record whatsoever on which to run — and this means virtually no highly visible political record that is repugnant to voters.  It’s only by the most diligent digging that people who care have managed to find out information about his politics.  And the sorry fact is that too many people don’t care.  We who peruse blogs believe that all other Americans share our heightened interest in politics.

I suspect that the opposite is true.  Most people are headline readers:  They might scan Drudge, but their news major intake may be limited to reading the cover and back page of Time Magazine while waiting in the checkout stand at the grocery store.  And, perhaps, they watch the first 5 or 10 minutes of the nightly news.  If those are indeed their sole news sources, they keep hearing that Obama is fresh, that he’s brilliant, that he’ll change things — and since things don’t seem so hot right now, and since Bush is not an overwhelmingly popular President — change can only be for the better.

It is true that people are beginning to figure out that all is not as it seems in Obama-land.  He’s pompous, he’s egotistical, his affiliations range from the silly to the scary, he’s ill-informed, he is an unprincipled vacillater, he’s hostile to many traditional American values, his politics come from the far Left end of the political spectrum, he misspeaks with almost unusual frequency, etc.  But again, that news is only slowly trickling into the awareness of the average voter, especially since the mainstream media is assiduously working overtime to protect Americans from Obama’s less savory and flattering aspects.

All of the above is McCain’s first problem in courting conservative Democrats:  Obama is a cipher and, while that’s not good, it’s better than being one of the worst Presidents ever.  In other words, Reagan got lucky that he was running against Carter.

The second problem, and one that I think is even more serious than the first, is the fact that, in many communities, conservatives have been run underground in a way that was inconceivable even in the politically polarized 60s and 70s.  Those decades were still transitional periods, during which traditional values, which still held sway in such cultural markers as the media and schools, were being given a good run for the money by the new Leftists, and were also starting to appear in the media and in schools.  This meant that a lot of the old time Democrats were rethinking their political allegiance in the face of new Democratic politics that, increasingly, had little to do with FDR’s New Deal, and a lot more with Moscow’s old deal.  There was, therefore, a great deal of fluidity that we don’t have now.  This fluidity meant that there was room for open public debate within people’s own communities.  This flux and freedom allowed for political movement.

Things are different now.  Conservatives slink around, afraid of public attacks and social isolation (something I’ve blogged about here and here).  In Hollywood, which has the most visible, vocal liberal community in America, departing from the prevailing liberal orthodoxy can spell career death.  (See here, here and here for articles spelling out what’s going on in Hollywood.)  Liberals speak with increasing frequency of prosecuting political speech with which they disagree, and have resorted to thuggish tactics to suppress donations to conservative causes.  If you’re reading this, I probably don’t have to remind you of the way in which conservative speakers are either barred entirely from America’s campuses or are harassed and attacked.  This is not a fluid time politically.  It’s one that is very fixed.

What all of this means is that people who have historically self-identified as liberal, and who live and work in liberal communities, are very isolated.  They don’t feel as if they’re part of a movement.  The younger ones are especially hampered by a culturally dominant belief that Republicans are hate-filled old fogies who want to suck money away from poor people in America and who keep KKK hoods hidden in the back of their closets.

The problem, then, in true Blue Communities is to give conservatives positive visibility.  In this way, the ones who waver can look around and think, “Hey, I didn’t realize What’s His Name was also thinking of voting for McCain.  We ought to get together and talk.”  There’s really a heady rush that goes along with discovering that you’re not alone, especially if you’ve made a rather painful journey from one end of the political spectrum to another.

I discovered I wasn’t alone in Marin when I bravely journeyed out to my first Marin for McCain meeting.  I learned at this meeting that at least half the people there were former Democrats and that, of those, half of them are scared to let anyone know about their political transformation.  Significant parts of the organizational meetings, therefore, are given over to brainstorming ways to convince Marin’s shy neo-cons (or anti-Obamites) that it’s okay to be a conservative.  I wanted to share with you some of the thinking outside of the box that goes on at these meetings as we work to break through the monolithic liberal attitude that pervades Marin, and other Blue communities.

My favorite suggestion, and one that I think will play well all over America, is to co-opt the concept of Flash Mobbing.  For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, here’s the Wikipedia definition:  “A flash mob is a large group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual action for a brief time, then quickly disperse.”  The idea is a good one right off the bat since the flash mob concept is closely tied to emails and text messaging — it therefore has a young feel to it.

A conservative flash mob could work this way:  Politically active conservatives would agree to show up at some agreed-upon location (a mall or a farmer’s market) wearing their McCain t-shirts.  There’s wouldn’t be anything threatening about these appearances.  That is, the conservatives wouldn’t group together or do cheers.  Instead, they’d just be there, at the mall or the farmer’s market, in their McCain shirts, showing local residents that McCain voters actually exist.  Someone would then take photos of these McCainiacs wandering through the mall or mulling over the fresh fruits and vegetables, and send these photos to a website — providing further proof that conservatives exist in Blue regions.  For the conservatives who show up, there would be a wonderful feeling of camaraderie.  And for those who hear about it and see the pictures, there would suddenly be a visible reminder that they are not alone.

Other ideas for enabling conservative Democrats to become McCain Democrats include using bloggers like me, with stories of breaking away from the computer and working for the McCain campaign; making the McCain headquarters a welcoming place for police and firefighters by offering food, drink and toilet facilities for them; finding local conservative musicians (they do exist), to liven up the campaign headquarters; taking out silly ads in local newspapers (with the latest idea for our dog crazy community being an ad showing dogs in McCain way); and handing out free M&Ms to remind people that Marin is for McCain.

As I said near the start of this post, I believe quite strongly that, as the election draws near, more and more people will be become frightened of Obama and back away from him.  (Or if Hillary comes back, enough people are already frightened of her to render that avoidance prophecy true.)  The challenge is to get these frightened people to take an affirmative step.  They shouldn’t just avoid voting for Obama; they must vote for McCain.  And its our job in the coming months to make that, for them, very big step, as easy and fun as possible.

If you have ideas that can entice those old Reagan Democrats into becoming McCain Democrats, let the active McCain supporters know.  You can email me at Bookwormroom*at*, or just contact your local Republican or McCain headquarters.  Don’t be shy.  It’s fun!  And it’s for an awfully good ’cause if you don’t want to see a scary repeat of the Carter era.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Be Sociable, Share!
  • rockdalian

    Missing in your post BW is any mention about McCain shoring up support of his own base, the Conservatives. The McCain campaign seems to alienate this base at the oddest of times.
    I am speaking specifically about the trial balloon sent up this week concerning a pro abortion VP.

    “I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party,” McCain said. “And I also feel that–and I’m not trying to equivocate here–that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don’t think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out.”
    My very first line in the sand concerns abortion and the protection of life.
    I will never knowingly vote for any pro abortion candidate.
    No doubt this will affect other voters also.
    McCain cannot lose this bloc of voters and expect to win in November.
    I believe the more pressing issue is his lack in shoring up his own partys vote.
    The idea that Conservatives have no where else to go and will vote for McCain was demonstrated by the Democrat wins in 2006.

  • Ellie2

    I want to see more of the McCain team. First of all, his Veep. That person will instantly become the presumptive GOP nominee in 2012.

    I know (because as an early Giuliani supporter, I’m getting all their mail) there is a huge struggle going on in the Republican Party to permanently wrest power and influence away from the conservatives. McCain’s VP pick will signal which way the Repubs are moving.

    You are even seeing this thought in the press; that the nomination of McCain proves that the influence of the Conservatives is over. It’s just so yesterday.

    If the Republicans succeed in their goal of becoming liberals-lite I will spent my time, gifts and graces building the Conservative Party. I think there are many, many, many in the “pox on both their houses” camp and maybe it’s time for a new Party.

  • suek

    >>maybe it’s time for a new Party.>>


    >>there is a huge struggle going on in the Republican Party to permanently wrest power and influence away from the conservatives.>>

    I think the problem is in the Democratic party…it’s been taken over by leftists, and those who were traditional Dems have found they identify with Republicans – not because they agree with the conservatives who have been the traditional Republicans, but because they disagree with their former party. I suspect that what you’re seeing is a dominance of this “center” group or at least a struggle for dominance. If the Dems go down this election, I think it will be the end of the Democratic party as a strong second party. Maybe it’ll take a couple more elections, but what I think will happen is that the Republican “center” will become in effect the new Democratic party even if the name stays on as Republican, and the conservatives will split off as a different party.

    I guess we’ll see…!

  • Ellie2


    While I agree with your analysis, there is a civil war raging in the Republican Party, between the old “Rockefeller Republicans” – the moderates, Bi-Lateral Commision, open borders etc crowd. Papa Bush and Baby Bush fall into this set, along with McCain, Christie Todd Whitman, Guiliani, Olympia Snow etc vs the coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and Libertarians built by Gingrich.

    The Rockefeller Republicans are elitist and pretty much view the conservatives as knuckle-draggers.

    The Dems are also in crisis and I agree that if Obama goes down big, a la Mondale, the Democratic Party is over. There is a sinking feeling coming over the Dems that – damn – they might have blown it yet again. They feel in their gut that the Repubs cheated by nominating a Democrat.

  • rightwingrocker

    If the Republicans succeed in their goal of becoming liberals-lite I will spent my time, gifts and graces building the Conservative Party. I think there are many, many, many in the “pox on both their houses” camp and maybe it’s time for a new Party.

    I’ve already written a platform.


  • rightwingrocker

    Maybe it’ll take a couple more elections, but what I think will happen is that the Republican “center” will become in effect the new Democratic party even if the name stays on as Republican, and the conservatives will split off as a different party.

    I said this very same thing back in April, 2005, though back then I had more optimism for the Republicans. Today I think it’s going to go the other way, and I’m really looking closely at the other options.


  • rightwingrocker

    They feel in their gut that the Repubs cheated by nominating a Democrat.

    They sure cheated America by doing so.

    I also disagree with the idea that McCain’s base is conservative. I don’t know any conservatives who are voting for him. His base is liberal to the core, even though they love to call themselves “moderates”. They’re nothing more than liberals with and R – what we used to call RINOs, but will now be forced to admit have always been Republicans, but have never been conservatives, and that Republican and conservative have never truly been synonymous.


  • BrianE

    I think Romney is a compromise both side could agree on, even though he came to the pro-life side late.
    I think too much is made of his Mormon religion. If you study the tenets of Mormonism, it deviates from orthodox Christianity in irreconcilable ways, but I don’t think would be a deal breaker for most Christians.

    I do agree with the implications that the struggle in the Republican party is to marginalize the social conservatives– but that has always been the case.

    And BW, being conservative in the 60’s and 70’s was no easier than today, especially on college campuses.

    In those days it was Buckley with Kinsley as the foil that kept the conservative message alive, until Falwell’s coalition, The Moral Majority, gave Christians a rational to rejoin American politics.

  • Ymarsakar

    We who peruse blogs believe that all other Americans share our heightened interest in politics.

    Even I don’t share you or Laer’s heightened interest in politics. What more (or less) could apply to the rest of the population?

    And, perhaps, they watch the first 5 or 10 minutes of the nightly news.

    And a lot of young Democrats think that the MSM is owned by right wing corporations and big business, thus relying more on google and internet news, while not realizing that internet headlines have the same source (Ap,Reuters, stringers) as MSM news, whether newspaper or cable news.

    So thus they reproduce the main sewer media’s propaganda while at the same time denying that the MSM has any control over their views.

    If you’re reading this, I probably don’t have to remind you of the way in which conservative speakers are either barred entirely from America’s campuses or are harassed and attacked.

    The hate of the Left for a socially egalitarian and progressive institution like the United States armed forces, especially the Marines, is a good contrast to hold.

    People don’t like competition when they hold a monopoly, Book.

    and who keep KKK hoods hidden in the back of their closets.

    Those are the people who think Lincoln was a Democrat and that people like Robert Byrd are Republicans.

  • suek

    >>there is a civil war raging in the Republican Party, between the old “Rockefeller Republicans” – the moderates, Bi-Lateral Commision, open borders etc crowd>>

    Are we disagreeing on the make-up of the groups? I consider the above to be closer to Democrats of 40 years ago…Bush included.

    The conservatives seem to me to fall into three general groups: security(which can include the old type Dems group), social(which usually includes the religious right), and fiscal(which may or may not include the other two). The groups tend to overlap more than one, which makes stuff very confusing when you try to pin one label on them all, because that one label will make one group say “me – not that guy”.

    Do you include or exclude any of these from your definition of “conservative”?

  • BrianE

    Where would you put the neo-conservatives in that mix?

    Is the continuing vitrol between leftists and conservatives the hangover from the Gingrich revolution?
    Prior to that conservatives in Congress were identified with Michael’s “loyal opposition” philosophy– the permanent minority. Conservatives weren’t supposed to drive the domestic agenda. Sure, America might elect a Republican president for national security– but the steady march to socialism was interrupted in the 90’s. Welfare reform, balanced budgets and slowed government growth were then derailed by 9/11.
    Military budgets that had been stripped during the previous decades “peace dividend” were again in competition with the welfare state.
    The left loathes the military (as those in San Francisio know all too well) and Obama’s friendship with Ayers and Dorne rather than unsettling is proof of his bona fides.

  • Allen

    Counter-intuitive can be a powerful message. Perhaps a bicycle-ride while wearing a T-shirt saying “McCain and I believe in Conserving.” Then when people ask you about it, explain your thinking.

    Behind the riders you could have a couple of skilled people make up the perfect prop, sliding bikes with square wheels along the road. Wearing T-shirts that say “Are you sure Change is good?”

  • suek

    >>Where would you put the neo-conservatives in that mix?>>

    I don’t know. I’ve heard the term thrown around a lot, but I’m not sure I know what or who it includes. Do you know what would define them?

  • Ellie2

    As I see it, both parties have lost their sense of self, their “brand” if you will. Following WWII, the Democrat’s brand was “working class” and the Repub’s was the “owner class” (the Capitalists). Remember Huckabee’s great line in the debates that Romney looks like the guy that just layed you off? The Populist vs the Country Club Repubs.

    That’s the way the Moderates still view the “Grand Old Party.” When the Democrats went too far Left, they left the middle up for grabs. And Regean and Newt grabbed it. There is much in common with the Blacks in the Dem Party and the Conservatives in the Repub Party: both group of votes are coveted, as long as they know their place. The vote of both is taken for granted because “where are they going to go?” The problem in the Repub Party is that the Conservatives
    have this tendency to put principle above Party, and that’s a problem.

    “Fighting Bob LaFollette” proved that a third party who controls only 20% of the votes can have a huge influence on the Congress. That may be the only way to fix Washington.

  • BrianE

    You know, I know very little about neoconservatism, other than it’s adherants had an influence in our Iraq policy.
    This is what liberals think neoconservatism is:

    Over the last half century neoconservatism has grown to become a major foreign policy school of thought in the United States along side the Cold War liberalism of Kennedy, Johnson and Carter administrations and the amoral Realism of the Nixon-Kissinger and Ford-Kissinger administrations. Neo-conservatism emerged as an important school of thought during the Reagan administration and the again more powerfully in the second Bush admisnitration.
    Neoconservatism has proven difficult to define as a political ideology in the normal sense. The problem is that it’s elite adherents, perhaps practitioners is a more accurate description, are disinclined to share its core idea set with others, including the American public. Despite plentiful evidence of their compulsive secrecy and contempt for popular democracy, neoconservatives claim to believe in a foreign policy of moral clarity and idealistic goals such as promting transperancy and democracy. The reality is that neo-conservatives talk a highly moralistic political game but lack the moral certainties that they regularly deploy for political effect among the uninitiated. Theirs is an Orwellian world in which they form the inner party controlling an outer party of bovine Republican true believers.

    Irving Kristol, called the godfather of neoconservatism, had this to say about the “persuasion” in an article “The Neoconservative Persuasion: What it was, and What it is”.

    The article is reprinted here:
    with comments by the blogger.

    It appears to be a movment adhering to a philosophy centered around economic growth to neutralize the classic class warfare argument of socialists, promoting growth even at the expense of deficits; a social conservatism aligned closer to traditional social values than liberatian; and promoting democracy abroad to counter totalitarianism—whether secular or religious.
    From the article:

    The cost of this emphasis on economic growth has been an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives. Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy–because it seems to be in the nature of human nature–that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth. It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning.
    This leads to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on “the road to serfdom.” Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his “The Man Versus the State,” was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

    I guess I would call Bush a neoconservative based on the policies of the last 8 years.

  • Ymarsakar

    Neo-conservatives aren’t part of an ideology movement like the Left is part of. They don’t have the same roots or inspirations. For example, the Left thinks Neo cons came from Trotsky, and cause Trotsky was international in his attempts to spread communism and Stalin was isolationist, this meant Trotsky was a traitor and needed to be stamped out, which is exactly what Stalin did with an ice pick in his chosen assassin’s hands.

    This explains why the Left hates neo-cons so much, cause they see them as an off branch of their own ideology, Marxist-Leninism.

    As for what Neo-cons are, typically they are classical liberals who have seen the light and have defected from the Left.

    A neo-con that was never a Leftist or someone who believed in classical values of liberty and what not, isn’t a neo con. Francis Fukuyama wasn’t a neo-con, even though people said he was. And a bunch of other people, like Pat Buchanan, aren’t neocos and neither is people like ALan Greenspan.

    They just have economically liberal beliefs, one might say. But if they weren’t previously fake liberals or Leftists, then they aren’t neo-cons. They’re just people with conservative values which are non-traditional, one might say.

    The Left likes to come up with enemy ideologies in the same fashion Iran likes to say that their counter-revolutionary corps is out to preserve and sustain their “Islamic Revolution”.

    Such ideologies always need an external or internal enemy to quiet the masses.

    The Left doesn’t like the military because the military is a competitor. Just like neo-cons. They are a competitor for the beliefs and hearts of the same people, the people who can potentially become classical liberals. The bleeding hearts, the people who care and invest time and energy in the Left because Republicans are thugs and want to exploit people.

  • Ymarsakar

    Jeffersonian, Wilsonian, Hamiltonian, and Jacksonian.

    Those are the four political schools of thought from America derived.

    Neo-conservatism, when it was before the Iraq war, contained several elements from all four.

    But with the Iraq War, too many people like me were bunched along with the older neo-cons, because the Left is lazy like that.

    Book may be termed a neo con. A new conservative. So can Neo-Neocon be classified as a … well, you know.

    But I’m mostly a Jacksonian. I believe in Hamiltonian views on economic liberty and prosperity leading to individual liberties and what not, but I do not place it in a higher priority than force and power. I believe in idealism and working together, like Wilson did with his League of Nations, but I believe that it is force, power, charisma, and mutual interests which bind nations together in alliances of blood, not talking around fracking tables in a “League”.

    I believe there is merit to the Jeffersonian school of thought that says good ideas only come from an adversarial exchange where people duke it out via free speech and what not, thus producing the most solid and strongest of all ideas or positions.

    But I believe it is the force, the Jacksonian Second Amendment, that ensures the First Amendment is around.

    The Left and the Democrats understands nothing about this particular details and differences, Brian. Thus their view of neo-conservatives are flawed. They view them as a mass, an ideological group mind like the Mass Sepsis Media which the Left likes to use, rather than a group of individuals.

    We are individuals, first and foremost. We are only part of a hierarchy or a mass mind by choice or by happenstance, but all of those happen after the part of the individual.

  • Ymarsakar

    Tactically and politically, Brian, the Lefts like to use neo-cons since it makes them look less partisan. See, it isn’t about the Republican party going for war, just a small segment of them, who controls bush.

    Read this article.

    Worst of all – from the War Party’s perspective – is that the neocon meme is really getting out there. Every day, it seems, there is a new article in some periodical not only pointing to them as the driving force behind the rush to war, but also detailing their ideological odyssey from left to right – and this is driving the neocons craaaazy. The result is that, within less than 24 hours, no less than four major polemics appeared denouncing this level of scrutiny as evidence of (what else?) “anti-Semitism.”

    Given that conspiracies about Jews always concentrated them on controlling American foreign policy in a secret Cabal against the Arabs, why wouldn’t adherents to the Protocols of Zion be giving American Leftists support in this arena?

    1) As anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of how to use Google could discover in a moment, the neocons’ enemies have long been aware of Strauss’s cult and its baleful influence. Libertarians are naturally horrified by the Straussian devotion to the benevolent dictatorship of a self-appointed elite, and we at have not spared Strauss and his followers their fair share of abuse. While Shadia B. Drury’s 1999 book, Leo Strauss and the American Right, provided a critique of Strauss’s influence from the left, paleoconservatives such as Paul Gottfried were among the first to raise the alarm. But I’ll leave it to my old friend Burt Blumert to capture the essence of the antagonism that has long existed between the followers of Strauss and the Old Right gang centered around

    “Neocons, as ex-Trotskyites, are bad enough, but those who follow the pro-pagan Leo Strauss are deadly. He advocated the Big Lie. Forgive me for all the gory details, but these people – with their other leaders like Bill Buckley and Irving Kristol and the help of the CIA – perverted the American right into loving the welfare-warfare state.”

    This is essentially the charge that America went to war for oil because the Military Industrial Complex is inseparable from the neo-conservative intent on big government or spending.

    Thus, the Left thinks the neo-cons have made war pay for itself and thus they are against that. The Left would rather prefer that war eat up small nations like Somalia while the Left are drinking their chai tee and starbucks coffee. That way, eventually the wars will stop, if only because there won’t be anybody around alive to fight it, i.e. Darfur.

    This is also a reaction to the True Classical Liberal belief which started going into high gear after 9/11. The Left could never tolerate people who actually believed in liberty and security. Thoes people had to be eliminated. One reason why Book has good reason to fear the response from her community if they knew the truth.

    Afghanistan and Iraq purged so many true liberals out that the only people left in the Democrat party are either ignorant people or fake liberals.

    Joe Lieberman is just one guy, but he is probably the one with the best name recognition. Larry Summers was kicked out for talking about how women could think differently. As if we don’t already recognize that individuals think differently and have different tastes and preferences, but suddenly it’s Summers being totalitarian for daring to challenge the status quo belief about women and men and how they may think differently.

    The idea that the major media have been taken over by neo-Nazis, and that the campaign to identify who and/or what got us involved in an unnecessary and ultimately futile war is all part of “the new anti-Semitism,” is the rather implausible theme of the neocons’ defense. In a polemic that has all the hallmarks of having been written by an awful drunk – i.e., not only entirely lacking in logic, but also relentlessly subjective and anecdotal – Christopher Hitchens reveals the ultimate evidence for this worldwide anti-Semitic plot in all its sinister “undertones.” Once again, the use of certain words – or, in this case, their correct pronunciation – is the issue at hand:

    People who know my studies on how the Left views media manipulation, in order to best comprehend how to best manipulate the Left with propaganda, may remeber that I said that the Left views the MSM as biased for us.

    When you study true Leftist Marxist literature and ideology, you will see that Marxist Revolutionaries always needed to challenge a “status quo”. And what better status quo to challenge than their very own totalitarian biased Main Sewer Media, who fights to end the lives of America’s allies and usher in Leftist utopia and totalitarian systems unto the world?

    It doesn’t need to make sense. Humans have doublethink and self-delusion for a reason, you know.

    In the end, as you are reading the article, if you get the sense that there’s something irrelevant about all this to your personal values or the Iraq war or the war in Georgia, you are right.

    This schism is essentially a Leftist internal issue, projected unto the rest of us, without any justice or warrant, because the Left likes to project their problems unto other people.

    It’s like when gays attack a Marine corporal honorably discharged, Matt Sanchez, for being gay, appearing with that… woman I can’t remember her name right now, and for supporting the war and Republicans. It’s an internal issue because the hate and fury is an internal issue, Brian. They hate themselves, so they must hate Sanchez for turning coat on their hate or something.

    They post porn images of Sanchez and what not, thinking this will make him weaker or make the Republicans attack him or something.

    They talk about the neo-con’s Leftist “roots” and talk about how paleoconservatives recognized this and are fighting the “hijacking” of the Right. What do you think they are doing or benefiting politically from such? It’s obvious.

  • Pingback: Soccer Dad()

  • Pingback: Soccer Dad()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: Rhymes With Right()