FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #69: “Democrats bank on the youth vote because they’ve lost the wise vote.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 7th, 2011

Republicans are Greedy, Stuffy Old Farts

The perception is that the Democrats are for the working man.  Or woman.  And the Republicans are for the rich.  Which isn’t exactly true.  For there are a lot of wealthy who vote Democrat.  And a lot of working men and women who vote Republican.  But in politics perception is key.  Like it is in real estate.  I’m sure you’ve heard the one about the small agent who people perceived as the biggest agent in town.  Of the few properties listed, the agent had one on the road into town.  And one on the road out of town.  The agent owned two signs.  Each property got one.  And everyone saw these signs as they drove in and out of that town.  And thought, “I see these signs everywhere.  That agent must be the biggest agent in town.”  The agent isn’t.  But people perceive this because of the signs.

And there is a perception in politics.  It starts out when we are young.  In school.  And see our favorite teachers go on strike.  We love them so much we want to help them.  So we stand in picket lines with them.  Hold signs.  Blissfully ignorant of the underlying issues.  But teachers are good.  They’re not rich corporate types.  Some even have to buy their own school supplies because the school is so impoverished.  They deserve better.  Even though they get the summer off.  And don’t pay a dime for their health care or retirement.  If your parents had the same deal when you were a kid, they would have given you a lot more presents on your birthday and at Christmas.  Gone to Disney World a few more times.  And bought you that bike you always wanted.  But kids don’t understand this.  And the perception is that people are greedy because they don’t want to pay more in taxes to help their favorite teachers.

As these kids grow people hammer this message into them again and again.  On television.  In the movies.  In books.  In college.  Republicans are greedy.  Democrats care for the little people.  They don’t explain how.  It is just an article of faith.  Which the kids accept.  Without question.  Especially when they start getting politically aware.  And they feel special when people start initiating them into the political process.  They don’t understand anything yet.  They’re still self-centered kids.  But they like the attention.  It makes them feel good.  And when they learn that the Democrats are for fun, why, that’s even better.  For it is the Republicans that are against fun.  They disapprove of sexual promiscuity.  Drugs.  Birth control.  Abortion.  The greedy, stuffy old farts that they are.

Democrats are Enlightened and Care about People

It’s all part of the generation gap.  The kids against their parents.  Who don’t know anything.  In the sitcom Happy Days, ‘enlightened’ high school kids campaign for the Democrat candidate Adlai Stevenson while the parents support Dwight Eisenhower.  In the sitcom All in the Family, the ‘enlightened’ Meathead supports George McGovern while the bigoted Archie Bunker supports Richard Nixon.  In the sitcom Family Ties, the parents are caring liberals while Alex Keaton is a greedy, unfeeling young Republican who worships money, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. 

Since the Seventies the message has been clear for kids watching television.  Bigoted, greedy, unfeeling, dishonest, out-of-touch people are Republicans.  Enlightened people who care about other people are Democrats.  That’s a powerful perception.  And it works.  The majority of young people typically vote Democrat.  Mostly for the social issues.  Which they believe are enlightened on the Democrat side.  Which is all they really care about at their age.  When their hormones are raging out of control.  They’re not thinking about economic or foreign policy.  They’re thinking about the weekend. 

I mean, let’s face it.  Kids aren’t that smart.  They’re young.  Have little experience.  Which is why they do a lot of stupid things.  Smoke.  Work on deep sun tans.  Drive recklessly.  Drink before they’re of legal age.  Do drugs.  Drive under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.  Have unprotected sex.  Catch a sexually transmitted disease.  Give a sexually transmitted disease.  Accidentally get pregnant.  And the list goes on.  Their concerns are not long term.  Their interests are not long term.  It’s all about having fun now.  So despite this poor judgment we need to get out the vote and get these kids into the voting booth.   Why?  Simply because they will vote Democrat.

The Problem with Young Voters is that they Grow Up

So who votes Democrat these days?  Besides ignorant kids?  Mostly people who benefit from a large and growing government.  The poor who want more welfare benefits.  The elderly who want more Social Security and Medicare benefits.  Unions who get favorable legislation restricting lower-cost competition.  Public sector unions who we pay directly with our taxes.  And the smattering of single-issue people.  Environmentalists.  The anti-nuke crowd.  Gays and lesbians (rejected by some religious groups).  Feminists.  The pro-choice people.  Etc.

It’s a lot of people.  But America is still a center-right country.  Which leans conservative.  Which makes the youth vote so critical.  That’s why they get them while they’re young.  It’s the whole point of public education.  To make good Democrat voters.  That’s why they focus on things like environmentalism.  The theory of evolution.  Multiculturalism.  Sex education.  Birth control.  Things that will drive wedges between kids and their parents.  Should their parents be Republicans.  So after graduation they understand some fundamental truths of life.  Republicans bad.  Democrats good.  Until they start working and raising a family of their own.  At which time they will start complaining about the school curriculum at their own kids’ school.

Again, this is why the youth vote is so important.  For the youth have one fatal flaw.  They grow up.  A large part of that center-right America was once far left.  Kids who voted Democrat.  For the social issues.  Who then grew.  And stopped being ignorant.  Stopped thinking about short term fun.  And started thinking about long term consequences.  About their kids.  And their kids’ future.  A lot of these people changed their views on the social issues.  And started paying attention to economic and foreign policy issues.  Even went back to church.  Because they wanted their kids to go to church.  And they didn’t do these things because they became a bunch of greedy, stuffy old farts.  It’s called being responsible.  Which is what happens when kids grow up.  And have kids of their own. 

Indoctrinating and Dumbing Down

Once they do grow up the Democrats have to replace them with the next batch of kids coming of age.  And they take this seriously.  First it was 12 years of public school.  Then they added kindergarten.  And now there’s been talk about state-paid pre-school.  So the state can get to these kids sooner to start driving that wedge between them and their parents.  And they’re virulently opposed to school vouchers.  The ability to use your school tax dollars on the school of your choice.  For a couple of reason.  It thins the classes at the public schools.  Worst, private and charter schools often make smarter kids.  Who may think for themselves instead of just becoming good Democrat voters.

This attacks the primary mission of public education.  Indoctrinating kids into the Democratic Party.  And dumbing them down.  Teaching them things like global warming and multiculturalism.  While the Chinese and Indians are teaching their kids science and engineering.  So is it any surprise that the Chinese may soon surpass the United States as the world’s largest economy?

This is another reason why America is a center-right country.  Jobs in the private sector are important.  And pay for all those state benefits people vote Democrat for.  The costs of these programs are huge.  Too huge.  And we can’t sustain this kind of government spending anymore.  Grownups with jobs understand this.  Kids don’t.  So they may lose more of the grownup vote if they cut these benefits.  Which makes the youth vote even more important.  Because they are losing more and more of the wise vote.  The responsible ones with jobs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Brandy is Eliminated from Dancing with the Stars and some Blame the Tea Party

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 19th, 2010

It’s not Just Your Dancing that Advances you on Dancing with the Stars

Yes, I watch Dancing with the Stars (DWTS).  This is my second season.  I watched the previous season because of Evan Lysacek.  He had just won the gold in men’s figure skating in Vancouver at the 2010 Winter Olympics.  There was some controversy because he didn’t include a quad jump like the favored Russian, Evgeni Plushenk, did.  Throughout the whole thing, though, Lysacek was a class act.  Even to the favored Russian.  Who wasn’t.  So I wanted to watch him on DWTS.

He finished 2nd.  That was no great surprise.  Most knew who the final two would be.  Lysacek.  And Nicole Sherizinger.  Who won.  But there were some earlier eliminations that were a bit surprising.  And disappointing.  Shannen Doherty was eliminated first.  Before Buzz Aldrin.  Doherty out-danced Aldrin.  Scored higher.  But more viewers voted for Buzz Aldrin.  So he danced another week.  Poorly.  And it was painful to watch such a great American stink up the dance floor.  It almost felt that they included him on the show for the laughs.

But that’s the way DWTS works.  You don’t have to be the best to advance.  Ability only counts for half of your score.  The half from the judges.  The other half comes from the laypeople in the viewing audience.  Who may vote for any number of reasons.  And some of those reasons may have nothing to with a person’s dancing ability. 

Conspiracy?  Or just a Bunch of Conservatives Voting?

This season’s semifinals were this past Monday.  And Bristol Palin advanced to the finals.  Brandy did not.  The people cried foul.  And floated conspiracy theories. 

I thought for sure Brandy and Jennifer Grey would make it to the finals.  They’ve had the highest scores.  They’re beautiful.   And are just gorgeous to watch on the dance floor.  Palin is pretty good, too.  Though she is consistently near the bottom of the leader board, there often aren’t a lot of points between the top and the bottom.  She has good technique.  But she doesn’t make the emotional connection Brandy and Grey do.

But Bristol Palin is a teen advocate for abstinence (a conservative cause).  Her mother is Sarah Palin.  A Tea Party favorite.  And the Republicans just took back the House of Representatives.  The center-right America just emphasized the ‘right’ in ‘center-right’ this past midterm election.  So is it any surprise that a ‘conservative’ contestant would do well with the viewing (and voting) public?

More Republicans than Democrats Watch Dancing with the Stars

Not when you consider who is watching DWTS.  According to Experian Simmons, leading media-research company, Republicans watch DWTS more so than Democrats (see The Reign of Right-Wing Primetime by James Hibberd, Hollywood Reporter via Reuters, posted 11/10/2010 on Yahoo! TV Blog). 

They have lists showing the top 15 shows watched by Republicans and Democrats.  DWTS comes in at number 9 on the Republican list.  It’s not even one of the top 15 shows Democrats watch. 

Ergo, it’s no surprise that Bristol Palin has made the finals.  She is no doubt the contestant the viewers most likely connect to.  And like Maksim Chmerkovskiy (Brandy’s professional partner) said (see ‘DWTS’ results: Brandy is out, Bristol Palin on to finals by The Associated Press posted 11/17/2010 on azcentral):

“People vote and their voices count,” he said. “I love the fact that the show represents that. It represents the people’s choice.” 

That’s the way the show was set up.  The viewers have a say in who wins.  Despite what the judges say.

Brandy is Classy and Gracious in Defeat

Brandy really wanted to win.  She cried when the viewers eliminated her.  And when everyone has been attacking Bristol Palin and crying foul, I haven’t heard Brandy make a disparaging remark.  She’s showing class (see Brandy Was ‘Very Sad’ About ‘Dancing With The Stars’ Elimination by Jocelyn Vena posted 11/18/2010 on MTV).

“Well, I think Bristol did a great job. She has improved [and] one of the great things about ‘Dancing With the Stars’ is the fans can get behind you and vote,” she said when she stopped by “The View” on Thursday (November 18). “I was sad. I was very sad because we worked so hard and when you come into competition you want to go as far as you can.”

To be that gracious in defeat says a lot about this lady.  And I’m sure she’s being genuine.  That’s one of the things I like about DWTS.  It’s a competition.  But unlike competition on other reality television, there’s no trash talking.  No nasty barbs.  These contestants like each other.

May the Best and/or Most Popular Dancer Win

It’s like Kyle Massey said after making it to the finals.  You’re excited to move on.  But it sucks that someone has to go home.  We’re glad to see Grey, Palin and Massey move on to the finals.  But we miss those who didn’t make it.

Brandy was a thing of beauty to watch on the dance floor.  But seeing her go doesn’t hurt as much as it could.  Because with the way the voting works, anything can happen.  And the best dancer doesn’t necessarily win.  We know this going in.  So when something like this happens, we can at least take solace in knowing that the judging wasn’t rigged.

The finals are this Monday.  They’ll award the mirror ball trophy Tuesday.  And may the best and/or most popular dancer win.  All we ask for is that you tear up the dance floor one last time.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tax and Spend and Raise Your Taxes: The Ultra-Left Liberal Agenda

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 7th, 2010

Fiscal Extortion Responsibility:  Approve Our Millage to Raise Your Taxes or Else

Whenever the government wants to raise your taxes, they use fear.  What does the typical family in suburbia hear?  “If the city doesn’t get this millage approved, the city will have no choice but to lay off police officers and fire fighters.”  It’s never, “If we don’t get this millage approved, the city will have to cut pay and benefits of our bloated and overpaid city bureaucracy.  Or lay off some of the deadwood.”  No.  It’s always the cops and the fire fighters.  Because it’s more scary.  Mothers worry about the safety of their children.  And will do anything for them.  Even pay more taxes.  If it was anyone else talking like this, we’d call it extortion.  But when our government shakes us down for protection money, they call it fiscal responsibility.

The federal government works much in the same way.  Of course, there are no federal police officers or fire fighters protecting our communities day in and day out.  So they go for the jugular.  That third rail.  Social Security.  When the White House and Capitol Hill were staring each other off into a government shutdown in the 1990s, what did Bill Clinton do?  He threatened Social Security (see GOP to Use Debt Cap to Push Spending Cuts by Damian Paletta posted on The Wall Street Journal).

Eventually, the debt ceiling was raised, but only after a brief government shutdown and warnings from the Clinton administration that the government might temporarily stop mailing Social Security checks.

One thing not on the table was lawmaker pay and benefits.  Little old ladies would lose their Social Security checks before they would ever let that happen.  Fast forward to today.  Federal deficits and the debt have never been higher.  In the discussion of spending cuts, that discussion included the other third rail of politics.  Lawmaker pay and benefits.  There’s talk now about cutting their pay.  Of course, that will never happen.  Even though they could afford it (see Boehner under fire: First cut should be lawmakers’ salaries by Jordy Yager posted on The Hill).

Boehner is slated to receive a $30,100 pay increase next year when he becomes Speaker of the House. His annual salary will be $223,500. The base pay for House and Senate lawmakers is $174,000, while majority and minority leaders each make $193,400 per year.

And this doesn’t include any of their benefits or graft.  How does this make you feel?  These are the people that are bankrupting our country.  Destroying our jobs with their anti-business policies.  And forcing us to get by on less.  While they live the good life.  Yes, let’s cut their pay.  If we slash it by $100,000, they’d still be making more than the majority of their constituents.  Something just wrong with that.  Our servants living better than us.

President Obama:  Typical Tax and Spend Liberal Who Hates Tax Cuts

With the loss of the House in the 2010 midterm elections, President Obama’s FDR/LBJ spending has hit a snag.  Nancy Pelosi is not there to rubberstamp his ultra-left liberal agenda.  In fact, the new House leadership is talking about repealing some of that ultra-left liberal legislation to reduce that projected annual deficit of $4,125 billion (see Barack Obama Outspends George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan Combined from this same website). 

Front and center in this debate are the George W. Bush tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of this year.  And all of a sudden, President Obama is concerned about deficit spending (see Obama calls for compromise, won’t budge on tax cuts by Kevin Cullum posted on The Hill).

“At a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans,” the president said. “We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children.”

Oh, he’s concerned now.  He wasn’t with his bailouts to help fund union pensions.  Or the biggest explosion in federal spending ever.  The trillion dollar+ per annum Obamacare.  But he’s being a little devious here.  Earlier, he said that $700 billion cost of the Bush tax cuts was over ten years (see the above link to this same website).  That comes to $70 billion annually.  Compared that to his projected $4,125 billion annual deficit and he loses all credibility.  He doesn’t care about $4,125 billion in deficit spending but will put his foot down about a paltry annual $70 billion in tax savings.  Why?  He’s a tax and spend liberal.  Any spending (other than defense) is okay.  But any tax cut is simply irresponsible.

We Rejected Obama’s Ultra-Left Liberal Agenda on Tuesday

The message on Tuesday was that the people have rejected Obama’s ultra-left liberal agenda.  America is a center-right country.  That center-right is made up of conservatives, moderates and independents.  Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al, belong to that far left minority called liberal.  The clear message is that the 80% rejected the 20%.  Of course, Obama sees it differently. 

The president said that the “message was clear” from voters on Election Day, and that he was also “frustrated” by the sluggish pace of economic recovery. “You’re fed up with partisan politics and want results,” Obama said. “I do too.”

No, we’re not upset that Democrats and Republicans weren’t working together.  We were upset that the liberal Democrats used their majority in Congress to govern against the will of the people.  That is the true message.  It wasn’t the partisanship that bothered us.  It was the lack of it to stop the far-left liberal agenda that did.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #38: “Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 4th, 2010

Liars Lie

Lying works.  Political spin.  Poetic license.  Fibbing.  Slander.  Libel.  Call it what you’d like.  Politicians lie.  Because it works.  Especially when you can’t win in the arena of ideas.  If they can’t win the philosophical debate what do our politicians do?  Attack the messenger, not the message.  If the history doesn’t validate their policies what do they do?  Revise history.  It never changes.  The only thing that does is the people hearing the lies.

Presidents may dream, but the House of Representatives controls the purse.  That’s why there are numerous battles between Capitol Hill and the White House.  Between Speakers of the House and presidents.  Some of the big partisan battles in recent times?  Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan.  Tom Foley and George H.W. Bush.  Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton.  Nancy Pelosi and George W. Bush.  When different political parties hold the White House and the Hill, the partisanship escalates.  And the lies get more brazen.  Especially on the political fringe.

Some lies bordered on the ridiculous.  Like Ronald Reagan created AIDS to kill homosexuals.  That George H. W. Bush flew to Iran on an SR-71 to meet secretly with the Iranians during the 1980 presidential campaign.  Why?  To negotiate with the Iranians to keep the American hostages until after the election.  That George W. Bush blew up the Twin Towers to start a war that would let him invade Iraq.  No doubt there was some political damage from these lies.  But the lasting damage from these ridiculous lies pale in comparison to the Big Lies that the Left perpetuates to this day.

Trickle-Down Economics

Ronald Reagan was president from 1981 until 1989.  When he entered office, the economy was in the toilet.  Double digit inflation.  Double digit interest rates.  Unemployment at 7.1%.  Reagan wanted to cut taxes and spending.  The Democrat controlled Congress wanted to increase federal spending to ‘stimulate’ the economy (ala Keynesian economics).  The Congress fought him.  But Reagan used the bully pulpit and appealed directly to the American people.  They liked his message which brought pressure down on Congress.  They gave a little.  Reagan got his tax cuts.  The top marginal rate went from 70% down to 28% by the time he left office.  The result?  The economy boomed.  They call it the Decade of Greed.  Because we were very materialistic and greedy.  And people lived well.

Yes, but at what cost?  That’s what the Left always says to refute Reaganomics.  What they deride as trickle-down economics.  They point to military spending.  They point to Reagan’s deficit spending.  And the growing federal debt.  The Left says this is what Reagan’s tax cuts have given us.  Growth and prosperity at the expense of future generations.  Which is perhaps the greatest lie of the 20th century.  But because the Left has repeated it so often, a lot of people accept it as fact.  Even though the numbers refute this grand lie.

When Reagan entered office, federal tax receipts were $517 billion.  When he left office in 1989, federal tax receipts were $991 billion.  This is an increase of 91.7%.  Or, to look at in another way, tax receipts in 1989 were 1.9 times the amount they were in 1980.  That’s almost double.  So, despite the great lie of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts did NOT cause deficits or increase the debt.  Cuts in the tax rates brought MORE money into the federal treasury.  Excessive federal spending caused the deficits.  Federal spending increased from $590.9 billion in 1980 to $1,143.7 billion in 1989.  That’s a 93.6% increase.  Spending, too, almost doubled.  In other words, spending increased 1.9% more than tax receipts by the end of Reagan’s second term.  Washington was awash in money.  They just spent it faster than it came in.

Blame the excessive spending on Cold War defense spending or domestic spending.  The point is moot.  Because it doesn’t change the fundamental truth that Reagan’s tax cuts INCREASED federal tax receipts.  Or the lesson learned that tax cuts stimulate the economy.  Anyone saying otherwise is lying and trying to revise history.

Wither on the Vine

The Reagan decade ended prosperously.  Reaganomics were a success.  Which was a threat to those with a vested interest in Big Government.  But people liked Reagan.  And only agreed to vote for George H.W. Bush when he made the infamous ‘read my lips – no new taxes’ campaign pledge.  But Bush was no Reagan.  He wasn’t as conservative.  Or as charismatic.  He couldn’t sell conservative America (center-right) his less than conservative policies (center-left).  The Left, seeing he was no Reagan, maneuvered him into a position favorable to them on the deficit.  The Republicans wanted to cut spending.  The Democrats, of course, wanted to raise taxes.  And with the Democrats in control of the House, he caved.  He raised taxes.  And when he did, he became a one-term president.  The American people were so angry when he reneged on his ‘read my lips – no new taxes’ pledge, the third party candidate in the 1992 presidential campaign, Ross Perot, got 18.9% of the popular vote.  No third party candidate did better.  Exit polling shows he drew equally from both Bush and Clinton, though only 20% of his voters were liberal.  The rest were conservatives and moderates.  Perot brought a carnival atmosphere to the campaign.  Charts and props made for good TV.  This spectacle, though, drew critical attention away from Clinton’s past.  Parts of which moderates would have found objectionable.

Clinton ran as a centrist.  He lied.  As liberals are wont to do during a campaign in a center-right country.  Once in office, he swung to the left.  The American people were angry.  As people are wont to be when lied to.  At the 1994 midterm elections, the people spoke.  And gave both houses of Congress to the Republicans.  Newt Gingrich became the Speaker of the House.  He co-authored the Contract with America which was a Republican pledge to return America to a conservative path.  It appealed to the American people.  It’s what swept the Republicans into power.  And it scared the Left.  So they attacked it.  Called it the Contract on America.  And they attacked Newt Gingrich.  With a vengeance.

In 1995, Gingrich discussed an alternative to Medicare.  Number crunchers projected Medicare (and Social Security) to go into the red a decade or two out.  Medicare (and Social Security) is a big federal expenditure and a political third rail.  The Left uses the elderly as political pawns whenever they can.  Because that’s what Big Government does.  Get people dependent on Big Government and then scare the hell out of them by saying the Right wants to take their benefits away.  Gingrich was discussing high-deductible health insurance plans and tax free Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs).  The MSAs included an annual federal subsidy for seniors.  The plan would be appealing to seniors, Gingrich thought, because they could get better health care coverage with a private plan.  The MSAs and the federal subsidies would make it affordable.  Better care without paying more.  Who wouldn’t want that?  Once people made this choice voluntarily, they would move out of Medicare into a private plan.  Those comments in 1995 included this:

What do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It’s a centralized command bureaucracy. . . . Now, we don’t get rid of it in round one because we don’t think that that’s politically smart and we don’t think that that’s the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it’s going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it — voluntarily.

Wither on a vine?  Talk about a hanging softball.  There was no way the Democrats weren’t going to whack that one out of the park.  It quickly became ‘Medicare benefits’ and NOT the inefficient ‘centralized command bureaucracy’ that was going to wither on the vine.  The Left ran with it.  Another grand lie.  Repeated it at nauseam.  And scared the seniors.  Gingrich’s days were numbered.  And Clinton had a new enemy to demonize.  Which came in handy when no one wanted his policies.

The Lies that Keep on Giving

Big Government depends on getting as many people dependent on government as possible.  Medicare (and Social Security) is one program that does this very well.  And when Gingrich dared to threaten it, they destroyed him.  With a grand lie.  Like the grand lie that tax cuts stimulate deficits, not the economy.  Perpetuating these lies enables unsustainable government spending.  Threatens the future of all Americans.  And the longer it takes for the truth to come out, the deeper the hole we dig ourselves into.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #30: “Liberal talk radio is not successful because liberals are not deep thinkers.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 7th, 2010

LESS THAN MEETS THE EYE

The Left has long searched for an answer to talk radio.  It is one of the few mediums they do not control.   And it’s a powerful medium.  Lots of people listen to talk radio.  Few of them liberal.

When you hear ‘talk radio’, what do you think of?  Rush Limbaugh?  Probably.  Most people do.  When you hear ‘conservative talk radio’, what do you think of?  Rush Limbaugh again?  Probably so.  Now think of Liberal talk radio and what do you think of?  Silence?  Silence that is so silent that you can hear crickets chirping?  Probably.  Successful talk radio and conservative talk radio are synonymous.  Why?  America is a center-right country.  Limbaugh’s success isn’t due to any genius on his part.  He just says what a vast majority of Americans think.  And the Left hates that.  Because they’re not in the majority.

They sound big.  But that’s because they’ve got big mouths.  Sort of a mouse that roared kind of thing.  They’ve got the vast majority of the network news and print media.  The college professors.  The Hollywood elite.  And a bunch of rich people who assuage their guilt over their unearned wealth by proclaiming their liberal tendencies.  This is not a lot of people.  In fact, it’s quite few.  However, if we read or watch the news, watch a movie or a program about entertainers, go to college or hear the obscenely rich talk about helping the ‘little people’ they can’t stand and want nothing to do with, they’re there.  They’re in our face.  Some in positions of credibility.  So people see them as…credible.  However incredible they are.  Which makes it seem like there are a lot more of them than there actually are.  So, then, who are they?  Really?  These liberals?

THE GUILTY RICH

Some people have amassed vast fortunes for doing nothing. Some inherited it.  Some married into it.  Others have made vast fortunes by pretending to be other people (actors).  Some wrote books.  Others made it big in pop ‘music’.  Others rode a wave of celebrity for silly behavior for which they have no shame.  These people don’t live in the real world.  The kind of world where you get up with an alarm clock and go to work 5 days a week (or more) for a paycheck that barely pays your bills.  No.  These people don’t need alarm clocks.  And they never want for anything.  Except to be loved.

Because there are some in politics (i.e., Liberals/Democrats) that like to make everything into a class struggle, these rich people feel guilty.  For in class warfare, the rich are always the bad guys.  And they don’t want to be the bad guys.  Because people don’t love the bad guys.  So they show how much they care for those less fortunate.  They call themselves liberals.  And we forgive them for all that wealth.  The kind of wealth we say CEOs shouldn’t have.  But it’s okay for rich liberals.  Even though they don’t create jobs.  Or make things that make our lives better.

THE YOUNG AND THE STUPID

Kids are stupid.  Don’t believe me?  Ask a parent.  You tell them not to drink, do drugs, have sex, drive recklessly, skip class, lie, cheat, etc., and they still do.  Not all of them.  But many do.  They engage in reckless, stupid, irresponsible behavior all of the time.  And parents find drugs in their rooms.  Deal with a teen pregnancy.  Or an abortion.  Comfort a child with an STD.  Or help her deal with the trauma she suffers when her ‘private’ nude photos aren’t so private anymore (and seeing her arrested for distributing child pornography).  Or hearing from a child’s teachers (or your priest) that they were forwarded a sexting from your child.  Seeing a daughter in a Girls Gone Wild commercial (and seeing her lose a job because of it).  Go to the emergency room because of a car accident or drug overdose.  Enroll a child into rehab.  Or go to the morgue to identify a dead child.  Or something less traumatic, like babysitting a grandchild while your daughter dances at a topless bar.  Or is out turning tricks. 

Kids live in the now.  And they want to have a good time.  All of the time.  Sex, drugs, abortion and STDs.  That’s what they’re thinking about.  And the ‘skankification’ of women.  Of girls.  Boys want only one thing.  Sex.  And girls want to be loved.  So they’re liberals.  They’re all for the liberation and empowerment of women.  Of girls.  Anything that makes girls ‘easier’.  And helps a girl’s self-esteem by making them more ‘popular’.  So legalize drugs.  And lower the drinking age.  Makes it easier to get girls into bed.  And keep abortion legal.  So a girl doesn’t have to worry about getting pregnant.  Makes her less hesitant in putting out.  And cure those incurable diseases, damn it.  Sometimes you’d like to hook up with a girl without having to get her drunk first.  And she’d be a whole lot more cooperative if she didn’t have to worry about an STD or two.

LOOK AT ME

I drive a Prius.  Because I care.  And I’m better than you.  That’s the message.  But when a rich celebrity drives a Prius and then flies away in their private plane for some fun in the sun, they give a different message.  They’re saying, “I’m a hypocrite.”  And, of course, that they’re better than us.

There comes a time in a rich celebrity’s life when they realize they haven’t done anything worthwhile.  I mean, sure, they’ve become rich and famous.  But they did that by pretending to be someone they’re not.  Or by writing some songs that Big Music marketed well.  Or simply for being good looking.  At some point in that ’empty’ life they need validation.  That their life has meaning.  So they champion a cause.  Warn us about the oceans.  Global warming.  The hungry.  They become politically active.  And provide expertise in things they know little about.  They’ll testify before Congress not because they have scientific credentials.  But because they played someone in a movie who did.  And to show their cerebral prowess they’ll call themselves liberals.  And warn us not to vote for George W. Bush.  For if we do, he’ll legalize rape or send all the gay people to one state.  (And, no, I won’t say who said these things.  I’m sure they’re embarrassed enough.)

And we love our celebrities.  Want to be like them.  So we, too, drive a Prius.  Because we, too, care.  And, of course, because we’re better than you.

THE SELFISHLY NARROW MINDED

The single-issue people care only for single issues.  Gays and lesbians who vote based on only gay and lesbian issues are single-issue people.  People who vote based only on a person’s abortion stand are single-issue people.  People who vote based only on environmental issues are single-issue people.  Etc.  Social Security.  Welfare.  Anti-war.  Anti-nuclear power.  Race.  Redistribution of wealth.  Animal rights.  People can be passionate about any one issue.  And if they are only passionate about any one issue, they’ll vote to advance that one, narrow issue.  And damn the unintended consequences that result from advancing that one narrow issue.  And they’ll call themselves liberals.  Because they’re about the enlightened ideal.  Not profits.  National security.  The rest of us.  Or common sense.

IT’S JUST A JUMP TO THE LEFT, AND THEN A STEP TO THE RIGHT

Liberals are indeed a minority of the population.  And yet our government governs very liberally.  How does this happen?  Simple.  Politicians lie.

During the primary election, they have to appeal to their base.  And their base includes all the small little groups of people noted above.  And more.  To get that liberal vote, they have to show how liberal they are.  Once they get the nomination, they have to move to the center and lie to the independents and moderates in the general election.  Convince them that they are centrists.  If elected, they move back to the left to pay off the far Left that financed their election.  When their poll numbers fall, they then move back to the right.  It’s a dance.  Like the Time Warp.  From the Rocky Horror Picture Show

It’s just a jump to the left
And then a step to the right
Put your hands on your hips
You bring your knees in tight
But it’s the pelvic thrust
That really drives you insane,

Let’s do the Time Warp again!

And there is some pelvic thrusting going on.  But it’s not the good kind.  If you know what I mean.

IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE?

So why isn’t there a ‘Rush Limbaugh’ in liberal talk radio?  Because liberals are a small demographic.  And it’s a demographic created from small, narrow, special interests.  And a lot of them have things on their minds other than monetary and fiscal policy.  Foreign policy.  Affordable housing.  They’re thinking about sex and drugs.  Where to jet off to next.  Or checking into rehab.  They’ll rock the vote at election time.  But after that, they have better things to do.  You add it up and there is simply no market for liberal talk radio.  At least, not like there is for conservative talk radio.

When Liberal talk radio succeeds, it’s often by shocking the audience.  Belittling conservatives.  Name calling.  Like on SNL.  Or John Stewart’s The Daily Show.  It’s heavy on the comedy.  Light on the issues.  Because their audience is there for the entertainment.  Not for deep, intellectual thought.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #23: “Those who seek a third party cede the election to the opposition.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 20th, 2010

THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES are often election spoilers.  Dissatisfied with the direction of their party, they leave that party to form a new party.  This, of course, will split the party they left.  Some may follow.  Most will probably not.

Third party candidates have small followings.  They typically have a single issue that pushes them to leave their party.  That single issue, though, may not be as important to those they leave behind.  And this one issue may be anathema to the opposition.  Guaranteeing very few, if any, will follow that candidate into a third party.

The Green Party, for example, is an environmental party.  Environmental issues, then, dominate their political agenda.  Environmental policies typically do not result in jobs or economic prosperity.  They will draw some people from the Democratic Party.  But only those with extreme environmental views.  They will draw no one from the Republican Party which is more associated with jobs and economic issues than environmental issues.  They, then, would have little impact on the party they oppose.  But they may have a negative impact on the party that they would have otherwise supported.

And then you have your core voters.  They have and always will vote for their party.  Populist movements rarely change the way they vote.  Populist movements may be single-issue.  They may be more of a subset of an existing political party.  Or they may be vague on details completely.  They may be many things but the paramount thing they are is popular.  And they pander to the people that are demanding something.  And whatever that is, they say they will give it to them.  Populist trends, though, don’t sway core voters.

SO WHO ARE in the two core parties?  The liberals?  And the conservatives?

Liberals are pseudo-intellectuals who want to tell others how to live.  Because they are ‘smarter’ than everyone else.  Most have never held a real job.  They inherited their money or made it big in Hollywood or in some other entertainment genre (the guilty rich), are college professors, sponged off of government (the self-proclaimed political aristocracy) or are in the mainstream media. 

Conservatives typically have jobs.

Few people agree with liberals so they have to offer special privileges in exchange for votes and political power.  They get the support of the poor because they get the poor dependent on their charity.  They get the entertainment elite by stroking their intellectual vanity.  They get the various minorities and single-issue groups by throwing a few bones to them (i.e., by buying their votes).  They get Big Business with crony capitalism.  They get the unions in exchange for anti-business legislation.  They get the young by being weak on drugs and morality.  They get a lot of women because of their abortion stance.  They get the illegal immigration community because they dangle citizenship in front of them while getting as many as they can addicted to welfare (so when they do become citizens they will become good Democrats.  Of course, with the majority of illegal immigrants in question being Hispanic, it will be interesting to see how that loyalty will play out.  A lot of Hispanics are practicing Catholics.  Will they continue to support the party that attacks their religion and religious values?  After all, they’re leaving a corrupt nation where only the ruling elite live well.  They come here for a better life for themselves and their families.  And many work hard for it.  With their religious values being a strong part of their lives.  Will the liberals tempt them with their welfare state after citizenship?  Time will tell).

Many agree with conservatives because they, too, just want to work and provide for their families.  And they would like their children’s future to be a good one.  (Again, the Hispanic question is interesting.  For they have conservative values, too.  Amnesty for illegals may be a Faustian bargain, but wouldn’t be ironic if it’s the Democrats who are selling their souls?  I mean, this large bloc of Catholics could very well vote for the religious right after citizenship.)

So liberals must appeal to their base during the primary election to get their party’s nomination.  Once they have that, they then must start lying about who they really are during the general election.  Because their views and opinions are minority views and opinions. 

The conservatives just need to be themselves.  When Ronald Reagan did just that, he won in a landslide.  Twice.

LET’S CRUNCH SOME numbers.  Some simple numbers.  Let’s say there are only 11 voters.  America is a center-right country based on honest polling.  So let’s say that 4 voters are conservative and 3 voters are liberals.  The 4 in the middle are independents and moderates.  So what happens at an election?

If all of the independents and moderates do not vote, conservatives win (4-3). 

Liberals cannot win unless some moderates and independents do vote.  So liberals must encourage the moderates and independents to vote.  And, of course, to vote for them.  While making sure their base votes (‘vote early and often’ is their mantra).  As well as some criminals.  And some dead who haven’t been purged from the election rolls.

Independents and moderates, therefore, determine elections.  And the general election is all about getting these votes.  Both sides turn down the volume on the ‘extremist’ positions they held during the primaries.  Conservatives talk about bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle.  Liberals campaign as conservatives.  (Bill Clinton ran as a new kind of Democrat with some very conservative planks in his platform.  When he won, though, he moved so far back to the left that he lost the House and Senate at the midterm elections, proving once again America is a center-right country.)

So back to our little example.  If the conservatives get 2 of the 4 independent and moderate votes, they win (6-5).  Liberals need 3 of their votes for the same winning margin.  Advantage, conservatives.

Now let’s look at a rift in the conservative party.  Two leave and form a third party.  And take 2 votes with them.  For the sake of argument, let’s say these two call themselves the Anti-Abortion Party.  It is doubtful that any liberals will leave their party to join them.  And it is doubtful that independents and moderates would make overturning a Supreme Court decision a key voting issue.  They tend to tack to a centrist course through the prevailing political winds.

So the Anti-Abortion Party candidate will only get 2 votes.  This candidate will not win.  That leaves only 9 votes in play.  Which means getting only 5 votes will win the election (less than a majority of the total 11).  All the third party candidate did was to make it easier for the liberals to win.  They only need 2 of the 4 of the independent and moderate votes.  Conservatives now need 3.  The third party took the conservative advantage (only needing 2 additional votes to win) and gave it to the liberals.

THE MORAL OF the story here is that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the opposition.  The lesser of two evils may still be evil, but it is still ‘less’ evil.  You should never lose sight of that.  If a political statement is only going to result in the greater evil, it is better to be more pragmatic than idealistic when voting in a general election. 

The energy of a third party or third party-like movements (such as the new Tea Party) should be marshaled during the primary election.  To get good candidates who can win general elections.  And who will remember that they are the people’s representative, not a member of a privileged, ruling elite.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #19: “Philosophical debates can be effective but character assassination is more expedient, especially when no one agrees with your philosophy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 22nd, 2010

WARNING.  The following contains some explicit language and sexual content and may be inappropriate to some.

“F*ck you.”  “Ass h*le.”  “You’re mother is a whore.”

We all probably heard these before.  Directed at us.  At the end of an argument.  Which means we’ve argued well.  For when the invectives fly, you’ve won the argument.

 A good sales man would never call your mother a whore.  Instead, if you say ‘no’, they come up with other reasons for you to say ‘yes’.  They believe they can get you to see things their way.  And often do.  Not so when it comes to politics.  Especially if you’re arguing with a liberal.

A lot of liberals are liberals for no good reason.  Calling yourself a liberal is just a way to feel good about yourself, to make you feel more enlightened and smarter than non-liberals.  But most are not as smart or enlightened as they would like to think they are. 

I met an old friend for lunch.  She was once a liberal but has since moved to where the bulk of the country is.  Center-right.  She brought an old friend of hers with her.  From her liberal past.  A single mom.  Who successfully juggled career and motherhood.  Did it well, too.  And, of course, my dear old friend introduced me as a conservative.  And she said it with a smirk.

I have long since stopped discussing politics outside my inner circle.  Political and philosophical debate is the raison d’être there.  It’s what we do for intellectual fun.  While drinking some fine single malt.  A time and a place for everything.  And casual conversation is neither the time nor place for politics. 

So I was polite and behaved.  But they kept poking the bear.  Laughing and enjoying themselves.  So, I thought, fine.  Let’s discuss politics.  The current subject was George W. Bush.  Not my favorite president.  Not all that conservative when it comes to the spending.  But I respect him.  I understand his philosophical basis, much of which I agree with.  But there are things I don’t like about him.  So I asked for some specifics.  To make it a fair debate.  Why was he a bad president?  Because he’s an idiot, she said.  Yeah, I asked, but what specifically has he done that you think was idiotic?  Have you heard him speak, she asked.  I mean, she said, he sounds like an idiot.  And so went the conversation.

I pressed for specifics.  Didn’t get any.  Then the name calling started.  I wasn’t being very tolerant of her views.  I replied, but you haven’t told me your views.  All I know is that you think Bush is an idiot.  Apparently, that should have sufficed.  Luckily, we had already consumed a bottle of wine by then so it was easy to change the subject and forget our little dustup.

And that’s a common experience I have with liberals.  They know everything.  But can’t explain anything.  I’m then called intolerant for not seeing things their way while they refuse to consider my arguments for seeing things my way.  In politics, people believe they base their opinions on a sound philosophical basis.  Most times they don’t.  They just heard something funny on Saturday Night Live or the Daily Show.  And they repeat it.  That’s why, when pressed for specifics, they can’t give any.  And then the name calling ensues.

DO YOU KNOW what ‘tea bagging’ is?  If you’re a gay man, you probably do.  At least, one of the meanings.  It’s a sex act in the gay community.  It’s when a dominate man lowers his genitals into a submissive man’s mouth.  It gets its name from the similarity of lowering a tea bag into a cup of hot water.  It’s a popular sex act, for it has migrated into the heterosexual community.  Without the BDSM aspects, though.  But when people call someone a ‘tea bagger’, it generally refers to the homosexual act.  Because of the degrading/humiliation aspects of the BDSM role playing.

David Gergen was on Anderson Cooper’s 360 on CNN.  They were discussing the new grassroots movement known as the Tea Party movement.  It’s called this in honor of those who stood up against the mercantilist policies of the British Empire who said you can drink whatever tea you’d like as long as it is British East India Company tea.  Good tea, yes, but it was British tea.  The Americans were taking a stand on principle.  And tossed the tea overboard. 

Carrying on with the ‘tea’ theme from the colonial period, Tea Party people used tea bags on signs and sent them in to Congress as a symbol of protest.  Some people used the symbol with a sexual undertone.  But most people didn’t.  Most didn’t know of the sexual act.  Well, these people, using tea bags as a symbol of their protest, were dubbed ‘tea baggers’.  And those familiar with the sexual act used it to attack and ridicule those people in the Tea Party movement.  When David Gergen said the Republicans were trying to find their voice, Anderson Cooper made the crude statement, “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea bagging.”

So much for your objective journalist.

Sure, the Tea Party people were worthy of such contempt for the things they stand for.  By the way, do you know what they stand for?  It’s easy to find out.  I did.  They adopted a 10 item agenda called Contract from America.  Here’s a bulleted list:

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law.
2. Reject emissions trading.
3. Demand a balanced federal budget.
4. Simplify the tax system.
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality.
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending.
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010.
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Policy.
9. Reduce Earmarks.
10. Reduce Taxes.

Yeah, I know.  This is crazy talk.  Do you realize what would happen if these ‘tea baggers’ got their way?  Everyone would probably live happily ever after.

FOR TOLERANT PEOPLE, liberals can be pretty intolerant of anyone who doesn’t think like them.  And they can get pretty nasty, attacking people instead of the issues.  The Conservatives are yearning to debate the issues.  But they get invective instead.  Why?  Because it’s the last refuge for someone who has already lost the argument.  Name calling.  Because it’s all they have.  They can’t beat you with the facts.  So they pummel you with personal attacks.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,