As they usually do, the Democrats have picked a non-violent party and tarred it with the extremist brush (that would be Democrats v. Tea Partiers), while ignoring and abasing themselves before a genuinely threatening movement (that would be Democrats v. radical Islamists). And as always, Mark Steyn ties everything effortlessly together. I particularly like his whimsically savage attack on Bill Clinton’s little rhetorical foray into hysterical rhetoric (emphasis mine):
I suppose the thinking runs something like this. All things considered, the polls on Obamacare aren’t totally disastrous, and the president’s approval numbers seem to have bottomed out in the low forties, and when you look at what that means in terms of the electoral map this November, you’ve only got to scare a relatively small percentage of squishy, suburban moderate centrists back into the Democratic fold, and how difficult can that be?
Hence, Bill Clinton energetically on the stump, summoning all his elder statesman’s dignity (please, no giggling) in the cause of comparing tea partiers to Timothy McVeigh. Oh, c’mon, they’ve got everything in common. They both want to reduce the size of government, the late Mr. McVeigh through the use of fertilizer bombs, the tea partiers through control of federal spending, but these are mere nuanced differences of means, not ends.
Steyn also effortlessly eviscerates the various slurs being heaped on Tea Partiers:
For a long time, tea partiers were racists. Everybody knows that when you say “I’m becoming very concerned about unsustainable levels of federal spending,” that’s old Jim Crow code for “Let’s get up a lynching party and teach that uppity Negro a lesson.” Frank Rich of the New York Times attempted to diversify the tea-party racism into homophobia by arguing that Obamacare’s opponents were uncomfortable with Barney Frank’s sexuality. I yield to no one in my discomfort with Barney Frank’s sexuality, but, with the best will in the world, I find it hard to blame it for more than the first 4 or 5 trillion dollars of federal overspending. Eschewing such cheap slurs, Time’s Joe Klein said opposition to Obama was “seditious,” because nothing says sedition like citing the U.S. Constitution and quoting Thomas Jefferson. Unfortunately for Klein, thanks to “educator” William Ayers’s education reforms, nobody knows what “seditious” means anymore.
If only the average liberal was as logical as Steyn. Most of them take the Gospel of Frank Rich and live their lives according to its tenets.
Please read the whole article. It’s one of Steyn’s best, because he understands that everything the media and the politicians are doing to us amounts to one thing:
Email This Post To A Friend
Imperceptibly, incrementally, remorselessly, the free world is sending the message that it is happy to trade core liberties for the transitory security of a quiet life.
3 Responses to “Mark Steyn on Democratic strategy and cowardice”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.