O'Bama: I said something that "everybody" knows is true ...

Giving the rest of us a window into the liberal/Democratic worldview ...

By Martin A. Knight Posted in | | | | Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I really didn't have much to say about Barry Henry O'Bama's San Francisco gaffe - but I did notice how similar it was to Michael Weisskopf's little "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command"? gaffe way back in the early 1990s. And, of course, how it echoes one of the Left's most celebrated political books today; "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

As George Will's very nice article on this points out, this has been a part of the Left's mindset since Adlai Stevenson (Eisenhower's opponent in both '52 and '56). Liberals excel at psychoanalyzing the American electorate and assigning attributes/motives/beliefs to vast swathes of the American people, that, strangely enough, always serve to make them look good in comparison.

Read on ...

For example, the Democrats and their allies in the Press can always be counted on to make the argument whenever a Republican wins an election in the South, that the reason for it can be nothing other than Southern racism and the GOP's appealing to it in order to win elections. Note that this also applies to some political races in the North - whenever a white Republican wins a race against a non-white Democrat, reporters generally rush after the fact to attribute it to the supposed racist "code words" that, now seen in retrospect, were subtly deployed by the Republican's campaign.

Many liberals today continue to insist that Reagan's victories in the South in 1980 and 1984 were powered by his passing mention of "States' Rights" in its federalist small-government context in a speech he gave at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi in 1980. Of course, that he won practically every other state outside of the South both times 44 and 49 in 1980 and 1984 respectively is not something they figure into this story.

Anyway, supposedly, at hearing the phrase "States' Rights" uttered in Philadelphia, MS (where three civil rights activists were murdered in 1963), Southern voters fell into a deep trance and many months later trudged into the voting booths and pulled the Republican lever for Ronald Reagan, salivating over the promise of the return of Jim Crow.

When 1988 rolled around, Al Gore in the Democratic Primaries introduces the subject of Massachusetts' now infamous Prisoner Furlough program against Mike Dukakis. The Furlough program was one of those "progressive" inspired innovations in the field of law and order where hardened criminals, including First Degree murderers, were allowed out for furloughs (i.e. breaks) during weekends and other days. One of those furloughed criminals, Willie Horton, traveled over to Maryland, and then proceeded to torture and rape a couple over the course of a weekend.

A PAC in support of George H. W. Bush follows Al Gore's lead and runs the now infamous 28-second ad featuring a picture of Mr. Horton, criticizing Dukakis for (among other things) vetoing a bill passed by the Massachusetts' (Democratic) legislature making First Degree murderers ineligible (like Willie Horton) for the Furlough Program, therefore allowing Horton to engage in his happy fun weekend of rape and torture.

Psychoanalyzing the American electorate again, liberals and their fellow travelers in the Press shrieked immediately that Horton's race, and not the fact that he was a sadistic rapist and murderer allowed out by an insane liberal program avidly supported by the Democrats' Presidential nominee, was what would stick in the "typical" white person's (which would include Barry Henry's grandma) mind.

Which of course, led to them, like the Southern voters Reagan earlier transformed into racist automatons, trooping to the polls to vote Republican - and which, of course, is perhaps the main reason Bush XLI beat Dukakis.

In other words, let us not be surprised to discover that O'Bama, the Democratic Party and their friends in the media already have a prepared storyline they would be advancing in the event of Barry Henry securing the Democratic nomination and then going on to lose to McCain in November. It would be that Republicans "illegitimately" used God, patriotism, guns, gays, race (most especially - it would be some reprise of the "Southern Strategy" conventional wisdom) and (stronger emphasis if Hillary is the nominee) gender to "divide" America so they could win.

As a political tactic, I must admit that it's rather brilliant. Tainting an opponent's victory as somehow illegitimately won by the deployment of unsavory methods/appeals to the worst of human nature by the regular and constant repetition needed to make it conventional wisdom generally tends to get a lot of the politically marginally informed (i.e. "mushies", swing voters) to er ... swing in the needed direction for next time. Your opponents, flushed with their success, generally would not even bother to answer such criticisms until it is already far along in becoming conventional wisdom.

The problem here though, is that it's not a deliberate tactic - which has no real negative effect on its effectiveness. The typical New York Times reporter honestly believes the thesis of "What's The Matter With Kansas." It is axiomatic to him/her that people's beliefs in the Second Amendment, religion, that illegal immigration is a problem, etc. are secondary issues used to bamboozle the "unsophisticated" to vote in a way opposed to "their" interests.

From this, it is a short hop and skip to not just believing that people who vote opposite of you are not as mentally-all-there (and therefore are easily manipulable) as you are, but are also morally deficient in some way.

Barry Henry's problem is that he brought this attitude out into the open in (where else?) San Francisco, thinking he was among people of like mind (which he actually was) and that everyone there had enough of a connection outside of the liberal cocoon to know that it would not go over well outside of the nation's more liberal enclaves, if it ever got out.

Oh well ...

« Poppies in Iraq and Arabs in Afghanistan: Did Barack Obama “Pull a McCain” in his SpeechTuesday Night ?Comments (6) | Paul to GOP: Why don't you Neocon Constitution-haters like me?Comments (26) »
O'Bama: I said something that "everybody" knows is true ... 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

I was exercising this morning to the History Channel, and they were running a piece about the murdered civil rights workers you mentioned. They even had a clip of the governor of Mississippi, but when they put his name on the bottom of the screen, there was (surprise, surprise), no "D" or "R" after his name. I had to go to Wikipedia to find him, and guess what? Yup, he was a "D".

In fact, if you look at the history of that period with any purpose other than mining for generalized white guilt, you will find that, outside of Lyndon Johnson, the number of Democratic supporters of civil rights, north or south, was pretty small, and ALL of the supporters of segregation (including the membership of the Klan) were Democrats. I'd also be willing to bet that the sheriffs who didn't bother to investigate, and district attourneys who declined to prosecute, were all Democrats as well.

For the life of me, I simply do not understand how the Democrats, whose hands are bloody as Lady MacBeth's, have managed to rewrite history to paint the Republicans (the party that advanced abolition to the point of starting a civil war and passed the civil rights bill in Congress)as the party of racists.
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

If John McCain beats Obama in the general election, I wonder if we will have debate on the vote to uphold the electoral college totals in early Jan. 2009. This would be similar to what Barbara Boxer in the Senate along with a few House members did in 2005 when they argued that the Ohio vote was illegitimate due to the GOP and Dieboldt tampering with the voting machines. Maybe they will find a new conspiricy based on "What's the Matter with Kansas?" This type of activity puts us on the road to becoming a banana republic and undermines the legitimacy of our elections -- a key premise on the stability of democratic government.

As George Will's very nice article on this points out, this has been a part of the Left's mindset since Adlai Stevenson (Eisenhower's opponent in both '52 and '56).

Actually, it goes back much further than that.

Michael Lind had a terrific article in Salon.com, in which he traced it practically back to the founding of America: This insufferably smug, superior, elitist, self-righteous moralistic attitude of flinty Yankee types from New England over the trappers, farmers, ranchers and settlers, of the West, or the gentry of the antebellum South. And many folks who eventually settled the West Coast from San Francisco northward came originally from New England.


Thus this New England elitist attitude--we're more educated, we're more worldly, we know more than the rubes of the West and South--can be seen in the Whigs before the Civil War; the "country club" WASP Republicans in the first half of the 20th century; and now the Democrats of the last 50 years.

It's no accident that the base of support for Stevenson, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, was New England plus those West Coast towns that took their cue from New England culture.

And that elitist New England/coastal culture has RARELY produced winning Presidential candidates. The old-style "country club" Northeast Republicans, like Rockefeller, didn't reach the White House either. Neither did any of the Northeast liberal Democrats except JFK--and he only squeaked in on a questionable win from the Daley Chicago machine.

This is my first post on this site, though I have followed it for a while. I enjoy the information that Erick and others provide. With that said, I view myself as a new conservative ... which is different than many old school conservatives on this board. I look forward to debating some of these issues I hope to see my party embrace in the future. For now, I want to advocate what I think would be a damning advertisement against Obama.

We should call it "Just words"

Open with Obama's speech about "just words" that created fluff because he borrowed the term from his colleague.

Cut to him initially denying being around Rev. Wright when he was saying his controversial remarks, and then acknowledging his presence with him.

Cut to Obama's speech about "Just words"

Cut to Obama's comments surrounding bittergate.

Cut to Obama's speech about "Just words"

Cut to Obama's claim that soldiers where mowing down Iraqi civilians.

Cut to Obama's speech about "Just words"

Say we also believe words can have an impact to Senator.

OK folks, what do you think?

If Hill was smart she'd make that comparison tonight at the debate.

Put this in a diary.

Welcome to Redstate.

Romney/Pace 2008

What does it mean I am thread jacking? I looked around for the most appropriate section to post my thoughts. Is there perhaps just an open forumn where I can do this? (not trying to be difficult but just asking)

To the right of the page, below the Recommended Blogs and Redhot sections,
there is a link for you to create your own blog entry.

Threads are what we call a series of replies back and forth, or even all of the comments under a story. "Threadjack" is a play on "hijack" or "car jack". It's commenting out of place, changing the subject.

Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service