New Poll shows the Majority of Americans still want Obamacare Repealed

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 24th, 2012

Week in Review

Americans are giving mixed signals.  First they say they want Obamacare repealed.  And then they say they like parts of Obamacare.  What could possibly explain this (see Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions by Patricia Zengerle posted 6/25/2012 on Reuters UK)?

Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday…

Strong majorities favor most of what is in the law.

A glaring exception to the popular provisions is the “individual mandate,” which requires most U.S. residents to own health insurance.

Sixty-one percent of Americans are against the mandate, the issue at the center of the Republicans’ contention that the law is unconstitutional, while 39 percent favor it…

Support for the provisions of the healthcare law was strong, with a full 82 percent of survey respondents, for example, favoring banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Sixty-one percent are in favor of allowing children to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26 and 72 percent back requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employees.

Americans are strongly divided along partisan lines. Among Republicans, 86 percent oppose and 14 percent favor the law and Democrats back it by a 3-to-1 margin, 75 percent to 25 percent, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.

But in what could be a key indicator for the presidential contest, people who describe themselves as political independents oppose the law by 73 percent to 27 percent.

Oh, that.  They want all the benefits.  They just don’t want to pay for them.  Some things never change.

You could have guessed the responsible adults, the Republicans, who are always ready to rain on someone’s parade, would be against the law because of its cost and that part about violating the U.S. Constitution.  But what is amazing in this poll is that 73% of independents oppose it as well.  For the independents (and moderates) are more middle-of-the-road people.  So one would expect a split closer to 50-50 than such a large percentage against it.  Then again a lot of these people call themselves fiscally conservative but socially liberal.  So clearly the cost of Obamacare is more important to them than providing free birth control and access to abortion.

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court will rule this week.  No doubt they will elate some people.  And devastate others.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

President Obama disagrees with Adults, Republicans, Independents and Democrats over Keystone XL Pipeline

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 24th, 2012

Week in Review

Republicans are most in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline.  But they’re not the only ones in favor of it (see Americans Favor Keystone XL Pipeline by Elizabeth Mendes posted 3/22/2012 on Gallup).

A solid majority of Americans [57%-29%] think the U.S. government should approve of building the Keystone XL pipeline, while 29% think it should not. Republicans [81%-9%] are almost twice as likely as Democrats [44%-38%] to want the government to approve the oil pipeline. About half of independents [51%-35%] also approve…

The proposal from TransCanada Corporation for building a pipeline to carry crude oil from Canada down to the Gulf of Mexico, first made in 2005, needs approval from the U.S. president because it crosses an international border. The Republicans in Congress inserted a provision on the pipeline in the payroll tax extension bill late last year, but in January, President Obama rejected TransCanada’s permit entirely. However, the administration is allowing TransCanada to reapply for the permit it needs.

The pipeline would travel through the Midwest and the South, and Americans in those two regions are the most likely to approve of the project. Nearly 7 in 10 Midwesterners want the government to approve the building of the pipeline and 61% of those in the South do as well. There has been discussion in Washington and in the media about the potential new jobs the pipeline project would create, which may partly explain the higher support seen in those regions. Americans in the West and East are less likely to approve.

Did you catch that?  TransCanada Corporation has been working on this since 2005.  It’s now 2012.  This kind of gives you an idea of the regulatory hoops Big Oil has to jump through and how many palms they have to grease to get approval.  And then the president rejected their permit.  As a nod to his environmentalist base.  And now TransCanada Corporation is right back where they started.  After who knows how many millions of dollars they’ve spent to get to the Obama rejection.

What is really fascinating is that the people the president is protecting with his permit rejection, those in the route of the pipeline that may suffer the ‘horrors’ of environmental impact, are the ones most in favor of running the pipeline.  And the environmentalists who oppose it live where all the rich and connected environmentalists live.  In California and New York.  (Al Gore lives in a mansion on a beach in California despite global warming and rising oceans.  Yes, environmentalists are rich.)  The people who will be least impacted by any environmental fallout.  And the people that have the most to gain.  As California and New York have some of the highest gas prices in the nation.  Which tells you something.  Environmentalists are rich and can pay for gas whatever it costs.  And they don’t care about the poor and middle class who are hurt by high gas prices.  Which means, of course, that the president is protecting his rich fiends over the poor and middle class.  So much for the Democrat Party being the party that protects the working class.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Obama Angers Liberal Base, Obama Record Angers Independents

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 15th, 2011

Obama is not the Liberal Liberals thought he Was

The liberal base of the Democrat Party isn’t happy with President Obama.  He’s not liberal enough.  Even though he’s the most liberal president to have occupied the White House.  And he’s done a lot.  But not enough.  Sure, he gave them Obamacare.  But he didn’t give them the public option.  And he’s done things that just boggle a liberal’s mind.  He said he would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Then he bombed Libya.  The base is not amused (see Democrats’ Disgust With Obama by Patricia Murphy posted 4/14/2011 on The Daily Beast).

For many Democrats, the budget bill was only the latest in a string of disappointments served up from the White House since 2009, when Obama swept into office on a tide of goodwill and a platform of base-pleasing promises they say he hasn’t lived up to. On the list are his pledges to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, pass comprehensive immigration reform, and end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans…

Some legislative grumbling is inevitable when a party returns to power after eight years. But a number of Democrats are past protesting the president, discussing among themselves ways to recruit a primary challenger in 2012.

A primary challenger in 2012?  It’s possible.  The latest Gallup poll shows him at a 41% job approval rating.  Worse, with independents, it’s down to 35%.  And this is a problem.  If you keep losing independents, you simply don’t win elections.  So not only is Obama disappointing the liberal base, he’s becoming a liability for the Democratic ticket.  If they can’t win with Obama, why not challenge him in the primary?

The Problem Liberals have is that they’re only 20% of the Population

So independents are abandoning Obama.  Why?  Probably because he lied to them.  He campaigned as a moderate.  But governed as a liberal.  The near trillion dollar stimulus that stimulated nothing.  Obamacare that was fast-tracked through Congress.  And all the job-killing policies.  Unemployment (U-3) is still flirting with 9%.  A more realistic unemployment number (U-6) is closer to 15%.  And gas prices have broken $4 already and the summer driving season isn’t even here yet.  Sure, all good news for liberals.  More problems for Big Government to fix.  But the problem is, most of the people aren’t liberals (see In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals by Lydia Saad posted 6/25/2010 on Gallup).

Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.

And this is why independents are abandoning Obama.  Independents aren’t liberals.  Independents and moderates bought into all that hope and change stuff because they really hated George W. Bush.  But there isn’t a George W. Bush to hate anymore.  It’s going on two and a half years.  They gave Obama a chance.  And they don’t like his record.  Or the unemployment.  It’s as simple as that.  All they need is a Reagan-like candidate to ask that question again.  Are you better off now than you were four years ago?  And whoever that candidate is, we will hyphenate his or her name to ‘Democrats’.  And these Democrats will be like the Reagan-Democrats.  Who did to Jimmy Carter what a new batch of Democrats may do to Obama.  Make him a one term president.

Unemployment still High, Inflation and Misery trending Up

And speaking of Jimmy Carter, things are really going Jimmy Carter (see Food and gas costs push consumer prices higher by Christopher S. Rugaber, Associated Press, on 4/14/2011 on USA Today).

The Consumer Price Index rose 0.5% in March, the Labor Department said Friday. That matched February’s increase, the largest since the recession ended in June 2009. In the past 12 months, the index has increased 2.7%, the biggest rise since December 2009.

Hard to read that with a straight face.  The recession ended in June 2009?  Really?  Apparently, a lot of people didn’t get that memo.  Like the 15% who can’t find a job.

Consumers are spending more, but the steep rise in food and gas prices could limit their ability to purchase discretionary goods and services. Consumer spending makes up 70% of economic activity.

Rising inflation has caused many analysts to reduce their estimates for economic growth in the January-March quarter from roughly 3% or higher to as low as 1.5%.

Gasoline jumped 5.6% last month and has risen nearly 28% in the past year. Consumers paid an average price of $3.81 a gallon nationwide on Friday according to the travel group AAA.

Food prices rose 0.8% last month, the largest increase in almost three years. Prices for fruits and vegetables, dairy products, chicken and beef all increased. Coffee costs rose 3.5%.

High unemployment.  And rising prices.  We call this inflation.  If you add the unemployment and inflation rates you get the misery index.  And the last time it was trending like this Jimmy Carter was president.  His stagflation worked magic.  It made a bunch of Democrats vote Republican.  The Reagan-Democrats that made Carter one unhappy former president. 

Farmers do a far better job than Teachers

Have you learned anything reading this?  Have you followed any of the links to learn more?  To fact check?  If you said yes to any of the above you have learned quite a bit with your visit here today.  And I’m guessing that a lot of what you learned is probably new.  You probably learned little of this in the public school system.  Even with your 12 years there.  But after some 15 minutes and a few mouse clicks you have.  Pretty amazing, isn’t it?  And it makes you wonder why your public school didn’t teach you any of this.  I mean, we spend a fortune on public education.  Employ millions of people to teach our kids.  But they keep telling us we don’t spend enough.  So we spend more.  I guess because the public schools aren’t making our kids smart enough.  It’s puzzling.  Because we spend less and employ fewer people on farming.  And farmers feed more people than our public school system educates (see Conventional Education Will Go the Way of Farming by Doug French posted 4/15/2011 on Ludwig von Mises Institute).

We have a wider array of food available to us than ever before. Created by fewer people. The division of labor continues to work wonders. Thank goodness we’re not all stuck on the farm. According to the occupational employment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 419,200 were employed in the farming, fishing, and forestry occupations in May of 2009.

The same May 2009 report listed 8,488,740 people employed in education, training, and library occupations. So more than 20 times more people are needed to educate a small portion of the population than to grow food for everyone. But what about serving the food? Yes, food-preparation and food-serving occupations totaled 11,218,260 employees, serving the entire population of over 308 million.

Meanwhile, it takes more than 8 million to educate the 81.5 million that are enrolled in school. History and technology would say this surely can’t last. A proud father recently told me of quizzing his kids about scurvy. And while his young daughter gamely took a wild guess, his crafty teenage son ducked into the next room to google it, quickly emerging to give the correct answer that the disease that killed so many centuries ago is caused by a deficiency of vitamin C.

Public education, then, is a case study of how not to be productive.  But is there anything more sacrosanct than public education?  Public school teachers?  When Wisconsin governor Scott Walker tried to balance the state’s books by restricting public sector workers’ collective bargaining rights, all hell broke out.  Even the president sent some of his people to the state to run interference to stop that legislation.  Why?  Because he was worried about the quality of that education?

This is the information age, yet the ability to communicate is not being taught, or not sinking in. [A] college English instructor…wrote on Boston.com that few of her students had received writing instruction in high school, and that correcting student papers was so time consuming that the task was virtually overwhelming. She quotes Vartan Gregorian, the former president of Brown University, who rightly understands that “the ability to read, comprehend, and write — in other words, to organize information into knowledge — must be viewed as tantamount to a survival skill.”

That doesn’t sound like a very high level of quality from our public schools.  It rather sounds like they’re doing a poor job.  Even though we pay more and more each year.

In a piece questioning the need for colleges offering majors in business, David Glenn writes that employers are looking for “22-year-olds who can write coherently, think creatively and analyze quantitative data, and they’re perfectly happy to hire English or biology majors.”

Yes, the facts and figures are a click away. The ability to use, understand, and communicate those facts is what must be taught and currently is not. And it doesn’t take an army of 8 million and a budget of 1 trillion dollars and counting to do it.

So if the schools are doing such a poor job, why do we protect these public sector workers with such passion?  What other employees that do such a poor job are treated so well?

Well, to understand this you have to look at the money.  For money never lies.  You see, educating our children is not their primary object.  It’s funneling taxpayer money to the Democratic Party via their union dues.  And producing future Democrat voters.  Yes, they may not come out of school with useable job skills.  But a good percentage of them will become moderate/independent voters.  People that a candidate Barack Obama can appeal to.  Especially when there is an incumbent in office that they’ve been taught to hate.

Hate, Fear and Charm

Liberals aren’t happy with Obama.  Because he’s toned down his liberalness.  Because he had to.  Liberals are only 20% of the population.  The voters he fooled last time (moderates and independents) probably won’t get fooled again.  And you just aren’t going to win an election with 20% of the vote.  So he has to move towards the center for the 2012 election.  And hope that the public school system keeps dumbing down our graduates so that they’re still naïve and ignorant enough when they vote for the first time.  Because after four years a lot of people are going to forget to hate George W. Bush.  Or even know who he is (the new voters in 2012 would have only been 14-17 during the last ‘hate’ cycle in 2008.  And you know what 14-17 year olds are thinking about.  That’s right.  Not politics).  And with the misery index trending Jimmy Carter, Obama is going to need all the ignorance and naiveté he can get.

With a record of abject failure, Obama is going to have to bank his reelection chances completely on feelings.  Not fact.  Hate, fear and charm.  No substance.  The platform will be simple.  To hate and fear the Republicans.  And tell charming lies to get people to believe them despite the evidence of the past 4 years.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Rise and Fall of Liberalism – A Study in Deviousness

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 5th, 2010

The Young and Ignorant are a Key Liberal Demographic

America is a center-right country.  In fact, the liberal left is a minority of the population.  They sound bigger than they are because their minority are in very strategic parts of the population. 

Liberals include college professors (who hide from reality on college campuses where they teach the young and ignorant).  College students (the young and ignorant).  The mainstream media (who spread the liberal propaganda, giving it legitimacy).  Celebrities (who laugh at and belittle conservatives).  The poor and government-dependent (who live in fear of losing their Big Government benefits).  The blue-blood rich (who feel guilty for inheriting their money).  Unions (who seek government protection to get better wage and benefit packages than the majority of American workers).  Government workers (high-pay and benefit-heavy work for the unemployable). 

Taken together you’re looking at about 20% of the population.  But thanks to college professors, the media and celebrities, they seem like they’re everywhere.  Especially to the young and ignorant.  Who typically vote Democrat until they get a real job.

From FDR to JFK to LBJ

The key to liberal success has been the ability to deceive.  They have to lie about who they are.  Because their numbers have been dwindling since the New Deal (see Liberalism: An Autopsy by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. posted 12/4/2010 on The Wall Street Journal).

In the tumultuous history of postwar American liberalism, there has been a slow but steady decline of which liberals have been steadfastly oblivious. The heirs of the New Deal are down to around 20% of the electorate, according to recent Gallup polls. Conservatives account for 42% of the vote, and in the recent election the independents, the second most numerous group at 29% of the electorate, broke the conservatives’ way. They were alarmed by the deficit. They will be alarmed for a long time.

The key to winning elections, then, is lying to independents.  For if the independents didn’t vote, Conservatives would never lose an election.  And if there is one thing liberals are good at, it’s lying.  Which is how they win elections.

Liberalism’s decline might appear, at first glance, to have begun with the 1961 inauguration of President John F. Kennedy—when historians noted the first glimmerings of what was to become liberalism’s distinctive trait, overreach. Kennedy’s soaring oratory was infectious and admirable and even impressed a later generation of conservatives. But it was a bit dishonest. There never was a missile gap with the Soviet Union, as he claimed, or any other cause for histrionics. On the domestic side, the oratory set in motion President Lyndon Johnson’s catastrophic War on Poverty.

The Big Government of FDR had failed.  The necessity of war stopped most of the New Deal nonsense.  Big Government released their oppressive hold on business to let them do what they do best.  Pure, unfettered capitalism.  And the Arsenal of Democracy won World War II.

After the Great Depression, World War II, and a couple of standoffs in the new Cold War, Ike wanted to let America be normal again.  To enjoy life a little.  Instead of facing Armageddon time and time again.  Ike had no illusions of grandeur.  Nothing to prove.  No ego to stroke.  America paid a hefty price to win World War II.  It was time to enjoy a peace dividend.

JFK’s stirring language represented a break with the Burkean understanding of President Dwight Eisenhower. Ike, whether he articulated it or not, wanted to put the Great Depression and the dangerous confrontations of the early Cold War period behind us. He wanted to return to normalcy. Yet Kennedy’s inaugural put America on a different path, one that led to the Cuban missile crisis and ultimately to Vietnam. It fixed America’s stance in the world, and with that stance we were on the road to Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically it set us on the path to a behemoth big government.

The Ike years were good years.  Prosperous years.  Happy years.  Everything a liberal hates.  Because there’s nothing for government to fix.  So to trick people into thinking things are bad and need to improve, you need to do 2 things.  You need to lie.  And you need good oratory.  And JFK did both well.

Never let a Good Crisis go to Waste

The country changed in the 1960s.  And liberals reached far.  Too far.  Conservatives pushed back.

LBJ’s Great Society caused even some liberals to warn against the “unintended consequences” of government programs. These were to be the first new recruits to modern conservatism. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol and, for a time, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, were in Kristol’s words liberals “who were mugged by reality.” The radicals were seeking refuge from reality in a self-regarding fantasy. Only a crisis in the leadership of President Richard Nixon, Watergate, allowed them to hide from the American electorate their fantastic delusions.

Few shared the liberals’ vision for America.  Even in the 1960s.  Other than the hippies on college campuses, the ‘silent majority’ was still conservative.  But liberals are devious.  And they never let a good crisis go to waste.  They had two big ones during the Nixon administration.  Vietnam.  And Watergate.

Liberals and Ronald Reagan both Campaigned as Ronald Reagan to win Elections

The problem with liberalism?  It’s sort of like that question ‘why climb Mt. Everest?’  Because it’s there.  Liberals want to amass power and control things.  To tax and spend.  And when you get right down to it, it’s not a popular political platform.  We want to tax and spend because we want to tax and spend.  There are no lofty philosophical ideals.  No charismatic liberal leaders advancing the cause of tax and spend.  Instead, liberalism is a vacuous abyss hidden by lies and doublespeak.

The conservatives, on the other hand, have a philosophical basis.  They are proud to quote previous conservatives.  And try to continue their work.  The best liberals can do are to point to Karl Marx’s socialism (i.e., Marxism) or the Soviet Union’s communism.  And being that this ideology (Marxism/communism) has killed more people than any other ideology in history, they offer little political capital for someone wanting to expand government power.

Conservatives have had Edmund Burke and the Founding Fathers as their cynosures. Sometimes they have provided discipline; sometimes conservatives have followed their own star. The problem for liberals is they have been denied a cynosure. Some had looked to the British Fabian Socialists and some to Karl Marx, but since the late 1940s liberals became coy about their intellectual mentors.

And because liberals have no political philosophy people want, they lie about who they are.  They run as conservatives during elections.  Bill Clinton.  Barack Obama.  They campaigned on a center-right platform.  Sometimes even quoting Ronald Reagan.  But once they won the election, they swung hard to the left.  They governed as liberals.  The electorate felt betrayed.  And at the first opportunity (i.e., the first midterm election in their administrations) their parties lost power in Congress.  Rejecting, once again, their Big Government tax and spend policies.

In 1992, after 12 years of conservatives in the White House, Bill Clinton beat George Herbert Walker Bush. Yet he too ran as a moderate. Once in office he tried to push a big government agenda and was trounced in the midterm election.

The rest of Clinton’s presidency was defined by his pronouncement that “The era of big government is over.” The Reagan revolution was secured. In 2000, Clinton’s vice president lost to the governor of Texas despite prosperity and peace. George W. Bush won the midterms in 2002. Then came the Republicans’ wilderness years in 2006 and 2008—but not conservatism’s. Conservatives remained more popular than liberals by about a 2-1 margin.

A Crisis and a Moderate Republican Candidate help Liberals win Elections

George W. Bush served two terms.  His popularity soared after 9/11.  So the liberals went to work.  All through his second term, they hammered away at the economy.  They said it was worse since the Great Depression.  (Of course, unemployment now under Obama is about twice the rate it was under Bush.  But things are better now.  Remember that lying thing about liberalism?)

And then they had a crisis.  A great big, beautiful crisis.  The Left was just ecstatic.  Their policy of putting people into houses they couldn’t afford triggered the subprime mortgage crisis.  When a Republican was in office.  It just didn’t get better than this.

The media went into overdrive by endorsing the moderate McCain for the Republican candidate.  It leveled the playing field.  Instead of choosing between conservatism and liberalism, the choice was between two moderates.  And the Left was able to hide Obama’s liberal past and radical associations to fool the moderate and Independent voters.  Obama won.  He swung hard to the left.  And loss the midterm election.  Because America is a center-right country.

Conservatism has steadily spread through the country since its larval days in the 1950s, and the reason is that the vast majority of Americans favor free enterprise and personal liberty. Note the tea party movement. The Republicans just took the House of Representatives by over 60 seats and gained six seats in the Senate. The social democrat in the White House has been routed.

Over the past two years the Democrats showed their true colors. Faced with an entitlement crisis, they rang up trillion dollar deficits. We now face an entitlement crisis and a budget crisis—and liberals have no answer for it beyond tax and spend. They still have support in the media, but even here they are faced with opposition from Fox News, talk radio and the Internet.

America is a Center-Right Country

The only way a liberal wins an election in a center-right country is by deception.  That’s why they pray on the young and ignorant.  It starts in the public school system.  And continues in our colleges.  The young are seduced.  By our educational system.  The mainstream media.  And the celebrity left.

It’s a tenuous coalition.  At best 20% of the population.  But that 20% is sometimes enough to fool the moderates and the independents who haven’t been lied to yet.  And this is nothing against the moderates and independents.  The Left are just good liars.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

President Obama’s Bipartisan Commission’s Useless Report on Deficit Reduction

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 14th, 2010

Deficit Reduction:  Increase Taxes, Molest Our Women and Have Old People Hurry Up and Die

President Obama’s bipartisan commission has issued their report on deficit reduction.  A lot of unpleasant things in it.  But, then again, what do you expect from a commission/blue ribbon panel?  Politicians lie and kiss a lot of ass to get elected.  And they’re not going to throw that all away acting like they got a pair.  So they hide behind commissions and blue ribbon panels and say, hey, it isn’t me that wants to raise your taxes and cut your benefits.  It’s these guys.  These commission folks.  And they get a report that will meet with certain opposition and die in committee.  But they can say they tried.  And that’s how you do politics when you got no balls.

You know, Sara Palin probably could have done a better job.  She’s hunted bear.  She’s got balls.  Figuratively, of course.  That’s what you need to do the tough stuff.  Guts.  Pity Barack Obama is no Sarah Palin.

So what’s in this report that’s got everyone talking?  More taxes.  And spending cuts (see Fiscal Panel Chiefs Eye $1 Tril Tax Hike, $1.5 Tril Outlay Cut by Jed Graham, Investor’s Business Daily, posted 11/10/2010). 

  • Raise taxes by a cumulative $1 trillion through 2020.
  • Cut discretionary spending by nearly $1.5 trillion over the decade.
  • Raise Social Security’s retirement age to 69 and beyond.
  • Trim cost-of-living increases for current retirees and disabled beneficiaries.
  • Apply a 15-cent gas tax.
  • Cut $500 billion from Medicare and other federal health programs over 10 years.

Well, we know higher taxes don’t stimulate the economy.  So, to pay down the deficit we are going to prolong the recession.  Swell.  Well, at least old people won’t have to worry much.  They’ll be put out of their misery with the ‘hurry up and die’ provisions included.  Less money to live on.  And less health care so they will hurry up and die before reaching 69.  And, if they do, not only does the government not have to pay them their Social Security benefits, but they can keep all that money the newly deceased paid into the system (the deceased’s Social Security benefits don’t go to their heirs which explains why government is so opposed to private 401(k)s – those contributions can be bequeathed to surviving heirs).  And the cuts in discretionary spending?

They proposed cutting annual discretionary spending by $200 billion, half from defense and half from nondefense.

Ah, yes, the ubiquitous defense cuts.  Gotta have defense cuts.  But you know what?  I don’t think they’re going to sit well after this holiday season.  The fondling of our wives, mothers and daughters in our airports.  Strangers looking at semi-naked images of them.  It’s not right.  Is this the price of safety?  The molestation of our wives, mothers and daughters?  I think not.  There are other ways.  And I’m not talking about the apology tour.  And before all you peaceniks start blaming this on America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, remember this.  We weren’t in those countries before 9/11/2001. It’s better to violate 3-4 enemy combatants a year (say by water-boarding) than having all our women and children molested whenever they fly.  And if it takes a great big fat defense budget to do this, so be it.  Let’s have someone else suffer the fear and humiliation for a change.

Republicans and Democrats Disagree.  Centrists See a Way to Lie to Independents.

So what are others saying?  Well, The New York Times notes there ain’t a chance in hell of it being enacted as-is (see the Op-Ed A Deficit of Respect by Tobin Harshaw posted 11/13/2010 on The New York Times).

“Among Democrats, liberals are in near revolt against the White House over the issue, even as substantive and political forces push Mr. Obama to attack chronic deficits in a serious way,” reports The Times’s Jackie Calmes. “At the same time, Republicans face intense pressure from their conservative base and the Tea Party movement to reject any deal that includes tax increases, leaving their leaders with little room to maneuver in any negotiation and at risk of being blamed by voters for not doing their part.”

And The Washington Post dittos that (see Analysis: Deficit panel pushes Dems, GOP by Andrew Taylor and Charles Babington, The Associated Press, posted 11/12/2010 on The Washington Post).

Their plan – mixing painful cuts to Social Security and Medicare with big tax increases – has no chance of enactment as written, certainly not as a whole.

But they also point out warring sides could reach compromise.

On the other hand, a 1982 Social Security commission chaired by Alan Greenspan came up with a plan for solvency that earned the blessing of President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Thomas O’Neill, D-Mass. It passed Congress easily and generated almost three decades of program surpluses.

Then again, President Obama is no Ronald Reagan.  Reagan listened to the people.  He communicated with the people.  Unlike Obama.  Who’s detached and aloof.  He pushed his agenda against the will of the people.  For him, it’s all about him.  And there are some Democrats who like him as much as he likes himself.  They look at this report and see not what’s best for the country. But what’s best for Barack Obama (see Deficit Directive Tracks GOP Aims by John D. McKinnon and Laura Meckler posted 11/13/2010 on the Wall Street Journal).

Centrist Democrats are encouraging the president to embrace bipartisan ideas for deficit reduction, even if these are unpopular with the party’s liberal wing. They say that among other benefits, that would help Mr. Obama regain credibility with independent voters he will need to win re-election in 2012. Independents backed him in 2008 but shifted to the GOP this year.

A fight with liberals might even be politically helpful, said Jon Cowan, president of Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank. “If you’re looking at re-election, your No. 1 imperative has got to be winning back the center of the electorate,” he said.

It’s nice to know where some people’s priorities are.

Gridlock Can Reduce the Deficit.  So Can Repealing Obamacare.

Of course, all this bipartisan rancor can be a good thing (see Deficit report favors ‘do-nothing Congress’ by David Sands posted 11/11/2010 on The Washington Times).

The report’s scariest deficit scenario relies on a Congressional Budget Office projection that under what it calls “current policy,” the U.S. government’s debt will soar from the current 60 percent of GDP to 100 percent of GDP by 2023 and to twice the country’s annual economic output by the year 2035.

Current policy?  What’s that?

But “current policy” as defined by CBO does — in the sometimes upside-down world of Washington — require action. It assumes that Congress will pass and President Obama will sign a continuation of at least some of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts set to expire; that lawmakers will once again vote to ease the bite of the alternative minimum tax (AMT); that Congress will block a scheduled increase in estate tax rates; and that the government will continue to pass so-called “doc fixes” to shield physicians from mandated cuts in the payments they get under Medicare.

And all that means what?

But if none of those actions are taken — what the CBO calls the “current law” baseline — the deficit numbers look considerably brighter.

In layman terms, we haven’t spent a lot of this money yet.  If Republicans and Democrats simply agree to disagree and give us gridlock, actual deficits won’t be as high as projected.  Yes, there will be pain for some.  But the hole we’ll dig for ourselves won’t be as deep.

And this is really the frustrating part of this whole debate.  These are projections.  They haven’t spent the money yet.  So don’t.  Just don’t spend the damn money.  Repealing Obamacare should be a no-brainer.  That trillion dollar abomination hasn’t given anyone anything yet.  So kill it.  Now.  Before it becomes another entitlement like Social Security.  Come on.  Do the right thing.  And legislate like you got a pair.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Message of the 2010 Midterm Elections: The ‘Teenaged’ Voted for Maturity?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 6th, 2010

Two Americas:  The Silly and the Sensible

Well, the 2010 midterm elections have come and gone.  And everyone has had their say about what they meant.  Few agree.  At least, few on different sides of the aisle agree.  Two interesting columns show the thought on these two sides.  The two Americas.  One sensible.  The other silly.  You decide which is which.

Graydon Carter, editor for Vanity Fair opines in Man Up, America!

What do you call an electorate that seems prone to acting out irrationally, is full of inchoate rage, and is constantly throwing fits and tantrums? You call it teenaged.

Meanwhile, Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal (see Americans Vote for Maturity):

‘The people have spoken, the bastards.” That would be how Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill are feeling. The last two years of their leadership have been rebuffed. The question for the Democratic Party: Was it worth it? Was it worth following the president and the speaker in their mad pursuit of liberal legislation that the country would not, could not, like? And what will you do now? Which path will you take?

So one says the electorate is stupid, immature and churlish.  The other says the electorate is mature, sober and discerning.  One says the voters are idiots.  The other says that they are thoughtful.  One is a sore loser.  The other an objective realist.  One silly.  The other, sensible.

Conservatives, Moderates and Independents Exasperate the Liberal Elite

To make it clear, this is what the liberal elite think conservatives, moderates and independents are.  Too stupid to know what’s good for them.  It is just so exasperating that 80% of the electorate has the right to vote.  Like the children they are, they should be seen and not heard.  While those better than them tell them how they should live their lives.

Noonan further points out the folly of the silly by pointing out their negative ads.

Two small points on the election’s atmospherics that carry implications for the future. The first is that negative ads became boring, unpersuasive. Forty years ago they were new, exciting in a sort of prurient way. Now voters take for granted that politicians are no good, and such ads are just more polluted water going over the waterfall. The biggest long-term loser: liberalism. If all pols are sleazoid crooks, then why would people want to give them more governmental power to order our lives? The implicit message of two generations of negative ads: Vote conservative, limit the reach of the thieves.

For smart people, liberals are pretty dumb.

Ranaldo Magnus Earned his Rendezvous with Destiny

Too many people want to be politicians for the wrong reasons.  They want to be career politicians.  To be part of the ruling elite.  The American aristocracy.  For special privilege.  And because of this, a lot of inexperienced and unqualified people are in Washington.  President Obama perhaps being one of the most unqualified and inexperienced ever to hold elected office.  (Come on, be honest.  What qualifications and experience did he have?  Not as much as Sarah Palin.  And the Left ridiculed her.)

Ranaldo Magnus, on the other hand, did it the old fashioned way.  He earned it.  His rendezvous with destiny.  As Noonan points out so well:

Ronald Reagan was an artist who willed himself into leadership as president of a major American labor union (Screen Actors Guild, seven terms, 1947-59.) He led that union successfully through major upheavals (the Hollywood communist wars, labor-management struggles); discovered and honed his ability to speak persuasively by talking to workers on the line at General Electric for eight years; was elected to and completed two full terms as governor of California; challenged and almost unseated an incumbent president of his own party; and went on to popularize modern conservative political philosophy without the help of a conservative infrastructure. Then he was elected president.

And what did President Obama do?  A partial term as U.S. senator.  Before that?  Community organizer.  A pretty sparse resume.

We Need More Like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington Entering Public Service

Whatever irrationality there was that swept Obama and his Democrats into power is gone.  The grownups spoke this past Tuesday.  And they voted for maturity.  Let’s hope the grownups build on this.  And from them another Ronald Reagan earns his or her rendezvous with destiny.  Again, from Noonan:

Here is an old tradition badly in need of return: You have to earn your way into politics. You should go have a life, build a string of accomplishments, then enter public service. And you need actual talent: You have to be able to bring people in and along. You can’t just bully them, you can’t just assert and taunt, you have to be able to persuade.

This is the true American tradition.  Benjamin Franklin.  George Washington.  The two grand old men of the Founding.  These men were in the autumn of their years when they entered public service.  Old but wise.  Experienced.  With real-world talent.  Masters of persuasion.  Everything that Obama and his Democrats are not.  We need these wise and experienced.  To answer the call of service.  After having a life and a string of accomplishments.  The question is, are they out there?  Yes.  They are.  As we saw this past Tuesday.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

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

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 2nd, 2010

If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit; even if O.J. Simpson did it.

A lie is a lie.  No matter how well you say it.  Or how often you say it.  O.J. Simpson has said over and over that he didn’t kill his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson.  Or her friend, Ronald Goldman.  Few believe him.  Even Oprah Winfrey told Mark Furman recently on her talk show that Simpson did it. And she’s no racist.  She even endorsed Barack Obama for president.  And he’s black.

But if you repeat the lie enough people will believe it.  The Simpson jury apparently believed it.  And they believed Furman was a racist and that he lied under oath.  But Furman is no more a racist than you are.  And although he was a pretty good detective, he actually forgot a thing or two he said in his past.  Like using the ‘n’ word during an interview with a writer who was working on a screenplay about cops.  A recording surfaced during the trial where Furman did in fact make some pretty nasty racial slurs.  But it was probably more bravado than racism.  A young cop trying to sound like a tough and gritty L.A. cop in front of a screenwriter.  Besides, Furman was a Marine.  And Marines aren’t racists.  ‘Nuff said.

Anyway, armed with that, the defense repeated the lie that racist mark Furman planted the infamous bloody glove that did not fit.  The shrunken leather glove that didn’t fit Simpson’s gloved hand.  “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”  And they did.  Simpson went free, though he’s in jail now for other crimes (armed robbery and kidnapping).  And Furman pleaded no contest to perjury.  The only criminal sentence in the Simpson/Goldman murders.  And very sad testament to the L.A. criminal law system.

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”  Anita Hill cried wolf.

President Bill Clinton looked into the camera and wagged his finger at America.  “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”  But the infamous blue dress begged to differ.  In some people’s world, playing with each other’s genitals and climaxing on someone may not be sexual relations.  But you’re not going to do any of that with a hooker unless you pay for it.  And what do hookers do?  They sell ‘sexual relations’.

Clinton did, in fact, lie.  Though to this day he still says what he said was not untrue.  He can say that all he wants but the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct says otherwise.  They suspended his license to practice law because they say he lied about Monica Lewinsky.  Makes one wonder about all those other denials about sexual misconduct with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Dolly Kyle Browning, etc.  He denies the allegations.  But then again, he also denied the Lewinsky allegation. 

Then there was Clarence Thomas.  During his confirmation hearings, the Democrats brought in Anita Hill to testify.  She alleged inappropriate behavior.  Nothing illegal, but inappropriate.  And they gave him a full-blown public anal exam during his confirmation hearing.  Because Hill cried wolf.  There was no substantive proof.  Just some wild-ass allegations.  Of which he was all of a sudden guilty until proven innocent.  The feminist stood tall with Anita Hill.  But nary a one came to the defense of the Clinton women.  Even after the infamous blue dress.  They all stood by their man.  Bill Clinton.  Misogyny and all.  (And the allegations against Clarence Thomas were nowhere close to ‘blue dress’ level).

Pragmatist liberals lie to impose their liberal agenda because the ends justify the means.

Everybody lies.  It’s the degree of the lie, though, that matters.  And the reason.  Militant feminists, for example, will accept and perpetuate any lie to protect a ‘feminist’ man.  Any by a ‘feminist’ man I mean one who will be a staunch supporter of Roe vs. Wade and abortion in general (which they feared Clarence Thomas was not).  And lying in court is especially useful.  As the character Louie DePalma (played by Danny DeVito) illustrated so well in the TV show Taxi.  When Alex Rieger (played by Judd Hirsch) asked Louie if he knew what it meant to lie under oath in a court of law.  Louie replied, “Yeah, it means they gotta believe whatever you say.”

Some liars are just trying to stay out of trouble.  Or jail.  Others, though, are people who lie for another reason.  They’ll fabricate or sustain a lie for a ‘higher’ purpose.  We call these people pragmatists.  These people believe the ends justify the means.  And if the ‘ends’ are important enough, then any means employed are justified.  Liberals are pragmatists.  They have specific ends in mind.  They want legal abortion.  Universal health care.  More government.  Less free markets.  Etc.  And because only approximately 20% of Americans want the same thing, they have to tell a few lies to impose their liberal agenda.

Ronald Reagan was senile.  George W. Bush is stupid.  Sarah Palin is stupid and inexperienced.  Rush Limbaugh is a hate monger.  Glenn Beck is a fear monger.  Members of the Tea Party are a bunch of racists.  Business owners oppress their employees.  Republicans hate the poor.  And hate gays and lesbians.  Hate minorities.  Hate women.  And hate just about anyone liberals have a vested interest in.  Or so the liberal lies go.  Over and over and over again.

The 20% (liberal Democrats) try to rule the 80% (center-right America) with an able assist from the mainstream media, university professors, celebrities and activist judges.

America is a center-right country.  That means liberal Democrats are in the minority.  Which means they can’t impose their agenda at the voting booth.  They can’t legislate their liberal agenda.   So they lie to build a coalition.  To try to pull independents and moderates to their cause.  You know the lies.  Republicans will force women into back alleys for abortions.  Republicans want to defund Social Security.  Republicans will bring back Jim Crowe laws (which, ironically, Democrats put into law).  Republicans want to transfer the tax burden from the rich to the poor.  Etc.

And they have willing accomplices.  Though they are only 20% of the population, they are a very strategically located 20%.  They’re in the mainstream media.  They teach at our universities.  They star in our favorite movies and TV shows.  They perform our favorite music.  And they sit in our courts (what they can’t legislate in Congress, they legislate from the bench).  It’s a small 20%.  But they have a hell of a bully pulpit.  And they use that bully pulpit with extreme prejudice.

And then you have the politicians themselves.  Who will tell any lie.  Smear any character.  For they feel untouchable.  Because they write and enforce the laws.  They ARE the law.  And they think like Louis DePalma.  That the truth doesn’t matter.  Because the people gotta believe whatever they say.  Or should.  Because they are the law.  But we, the other 80%, know they lie.  The DePalma analogy still fits, though.  We see the typical liberal Democrat as a lying, corrupt, despicable scoundrel, lacking any vestiges of integrity who enrich themselves at the expense of the people they serve.  And who can’t see Louis DePalma in that?

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,