I just read this article about leaked documents...headlined "GOP Plan To Use Scare Tactics to Raise Money!" and wonder where the scare tactics are? The 'leaked document' includes this:
"The best path to victory in 2010, the document advises, is for Republican candidates to depict themselves as the best hope for resisting the "trending toward socialism" taking shape in a Democrat-dominated Washington." Yes, aaaand? What's wrong with THAT?
WOW, the headline on Yahoo's homepage is really damning, but.....the article? Not so much. (what else is new?) The article even includes this:
"And Democrats have shown a demagogic streak in the past, depicting George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as Bond-like supervillains and playing up alleged GOP plans to kill Social Security to rally voters behind a popular entitlement program." So, why can't the RIGHT do the same thing without SUCH CONTROVERSY?? As the article (and I) say..."Of course, it isn't unusual for parties out of power to court controversy and play with fire to rile up donors and grass-roots activists."
But, let the REPUBLICANS DO IT and THAT HEADLINE "GOP Plan To Use Scare Tactics to Raise Money!" (which made even MY blood go cold with dread ..."Oh, no...NOW what has the press found?), says to Independents "BAD BAD BAD REPUBLICANS" (how many will really read the article? YOU KNOW most won't..but that image SURE does linger....REPUBULICANS ARE ILLEGITIMATELY SCARING PEOPLE!? Show me WHERE, please? )
As I said in a comment at a blog recently...the Leftist media and Leftist politicians say
z
22 comments:
I saw that too and couldn't find anything in the article about scaring anybody. This kind of smear tactic gets SO depressing.
Faith, I'm SO glad you agree...I read it a few times and thought that there's nothing out of the ordinary for ANY convention of people who are fighting for what they believe.
It is depressing, yes.
The Left has got to keep Independents convinced that the charges of "socialism" are "smears," but the simple fact of the matter is, they're socialists... that's what the Congressional Progressive Causus is ,"socialism"... that's what the "progressives" are "progressing" towards... socialism.
I wonder if I could raise enough money to buy a full page ad in the NYT to put a full pic of my butt and put the words in bold, big letters, "MSM and Liberal Progressives... KISS IT"!!!!!
In theory, it sounds like it would be fun, but in reality... I'd probably get tossed into FEMA camp! LOL!!!!
HAM
Like Ducky who so often asks "How is OBAMA SOCIALIST?" You can't make this stuff up. Take from the successful to pay the unsuccessful....what's THAT, capitalism? :-)
A very dear friend sent me this email today:
Not sure I’m in agreement there, Z. At least when you work for the government, you know it’s a lousy job for a lousy salary – you know what you’re getting yourself into. Over the past several years, the corporate world insists on corporate work in quality and volume in return for lousy government-job money…slave labor. I’m beginning to reassess which may be better…
I had no reply. He's a good friend and I can't reply without flipping out.
As you point out, clearly abetted and aided by our in-the-tank media. Although I can make another point: the MSM/DEM is PAYING for their continued Leftist stance as in their bleeding of viewers and readers.
On the other hand, the GOP has a very LARGE problem with wanting to be loved. Seldom are they able, these days, to state the actual truth and, then, LIVE UP to an actual Conservative platform.
Both parties continue to spend like an entire fleet of drunken sailors on first liberty.
Witness this: Jim Bunning. He was the ONE guy who refused to sign off on the benefits. Mitch McConnell WASN'T behind Bunning. And THAT bespeaks volumes!
The GOP currently makes a few measly speeches about the curtailing of spending across the board. But where's the unity? Where's the support for Bunning who -- now -- doesn't care because he's not seeking re-election?
BZ
HAM!! YOU're in a feisty mood tonight, aren't you! :-)
HOW I wish some Republican would just stand up and TELL IT LIKE IT IS! YOU are NOMINATED!
They ARE socialists, not PROGRESSIVES !!
(FJ..that's part of that sudden choice of the left to go to PROGRESSIVE instaed of LIBERAL, right?....PROGRESSIVE makes it sound like REAL progress....the moniker of LIBERAL was beginning to scare Americans...It's our job now to remind Americans the leopard's the same, just the spots have changed.. or something!:-)
The Left doesn't want to get "branded". Hence all the re-branding.
Yes, just amazing the bias and spin used to report any and things Republican. As if the Democrats don't use whatever advantage they have in campaign strategies and tactics. They're awfully transparent.
It is up to the GOP to make their own way. They need to stop letting the lib media and the Dims define them
SOUNDS good, Chuck, but persistent lies (propaganda) are very hard to fight, sometimes impossible.
I'm so desillusioned. I now think those parties are like big businesses. They just want the dollars and don't care about us. I'm done with them. Each time they ask for money, under the pretext of a poll, I either trash the thing or respond with a comment.
Z,
What you do is put the Statists, Socialists, Fascists, and Marxists, in a pot, stir it up, and you have Progressives.
The trick is, to make the term Progressive a dirty word. Which it is BTW. They've been around since the turn of the twentieth century. They just feel they can come out of the closet now.
So, let's call a spade a spade, and a taste of their own medicine.
What difference is there in portaying Obama as the Joker, or Cheney as Darth Vader? This stuff is short lived, don't worry about it.
The people have had it. We're angry, determined, and focused. I hear it everywhere I go. We've heard this stuff so long it ring's hollow.
Power to the People!
Pris
All good points but at my blog some friends made the good point that the word "progressive" doesn't sound so bad, we all like progress to happen and not live in the Stone Ages, so we can't let them control the debate by using that term. Like Pris said, call a spade a spade, they are collectivists!
So then I have a leftist friend suggest that Jesus and his early followers were collectivists. I tell ya, they'll use anything to make us look evil. What's wrong with working hard, using our God given talents, and giving charitably, not through force but with arms wide open?
Yeah, feisty and a little nuts this evening Z! ...
Progressives use that label to deceive. They have been slithering like snakes into our society for decades. Krueshev was issuing more of a promise than a threat when he said "we would destroy ourselves from within and they wouldn't have to do anything". I think though, the Russians put plants in this country to insure that it would come to pass! As far as I'm concerned, the Progressive brand is no more benign than the Communist brand.
HAM
Why else would I have been calling it the ENEMEDIA for the last ten years?
That's what the Media Establishment IS -- the ENEMY of the America envisioned by the Founders.
Faith, FJ and Pris are right, and so is everyone else, but THEY will never change. Even with their DYING breath -- and for good or for ill the print media IS dying -- with their DYING BREATH they will praise "Satan" and defame "the Lord."
I use those terms symbolically, of course, but it's also the literal truth.
They have many names, Marxists, Leninists, Communists, Socialists, Liberals, Progressives, Stalinists, Statists, etc.
We could be more creative and call them what they are -- Deceitocrats, Dirtocrats, Busybodyists, Defamocrats, Corruptocrats, Interventionists, The Know-It-All Party, Robinhoodites, Theftocrats, Poopagandacrats, Dysfunctionists, Anarchrats, Dirty Rats, Dictocrats, Destructionists, and on and on ...
Whatever you call them their policies are HATEFUL. What makes it so complicated is that so many of them are really VERY nice, well-meaning people who have been DUPED.
~ FreeThinke
Why else would I have been calling it the ENEMEDIA for the last ten years?
That's what the Media Establishment IS -- the ENEMY of the America envisioned by the Founders.
Faith, FJ and Pris are right, and so is everyone else, but THEY will never change. Even with their DYING breath -- and for good or for ill the print media IS dying -- with their DYING BREATH they will praise "Satan" and defame "the Lord."
I use those terms symbolically, of course, but it's also the literal truth.
They have many names, Marxists, Leninists, Communists, Socialists, Liberals, Progressives, Stalinists, Statists, etc.
We could be more creative and call them what they are -- Deceitocrats, Dirtocrats, Busybodyists, Defamocrats, Corruptocrats, Interventionists, The Know-It-All Party, Robinhoodites, Theftocrats, Poopagandacrats, Dysfunctionists, Anarchrats, Dirty Rats, Dictocrats, Destructionists, and on and on ...
Whatever you call them their policies are HATEFUL. What makes it so complicated is that so many of them are really VERY nice, well-meaning people who have been DUPED.
~ FreeThinke
One doesn't have to dig back very far into political history to find that "progressive ideology" was the glove around the hand of fascism in the eugenics movement that became both the Holocaust in Nazi Germany and the pro-abortion movement in America.
Full circle.
I think it might have been David Horowitz's autobiography, Radical Son, that made me aware that the term "progressive" was INTENTIONALLY chosen by the Communist Party in the early 20th century to make their policies more palatable to Americans while hiding their source. Apprently it worked.
Faith, I have RADICAL SON and have never read it...I should, I suppose. I understand that many libs came to conservatism through it...very powerful, convincing read, from what I hear? I think you think a lot of it, too, don't you? Seems like you've said that before...am I remembering correctly?
I don't know if I've mentioned this particular information from it before but I think I have mentioned the book here before -- don't remember why. Yes, it's a really good read. Very well written too. I don't think I finished it for some reason though -- but the first part was great.
Puts a lot of things in perspective -- such as what happened in the sixties, where he was of course a major player in his own way as editor of Ramparts magazine, and how the sixties were predominantly the work of a lot of "red diaper babies", that is, children of members of the American Communist Party of the thirties, as he was.
thanks, Faith...I'll have to give it a look.
Post a Comment