It first started with Occupy Wall Street. Cleverly started a year before the actual campaign, it was the media-created antidote to the Tea Party. The arrests, the marxism, drugs, vandalism, anarchism and the smell were all neatly repackaged by the LMC as a viable, reasonable, critique of America that had merit. Also, it attacked the underlying premise of capitalism: that some earn more than others. When some asserted the right to make more than others, they were attacked as elitist, arrogant and greedy. The cry of fairness was howled, but specifics were scarce. How dare those people earn more than other members of the community? Where's a community organizer when you need one? As it happened, the president was more than happy to say he "sympathized" with the astroturf rabble. This marxist backdrop paid dividends during the campaign as Romney was constantly hammered as an elitist, arrogant, greedy member of Bain Capital, which was portrayed in ads as a financial descendant of the SS, laying waste to whole towns and killing people by annihilating local companies.
Today and for the rest of Barack Obama's term, we will have the war on capitalism. Right now there's a debate about raising taxes on the wealthy. But who's rich? Derek Jeter pulling in $25 million a year. That's wealthy. Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle buying a Hawaiian island. That's wealthy. But that's only an extremely small portion of America, so the definition must be broadened to folks, who don't have private jets or second homes etc. Still, punishing anyone with a relatively modest amount of money helps move the ball toward the marxist goal. As the father of the Tea Party, Rick Santelli remarked, "Everything is political now." Wealth, capital, money whatever you call it has been politicized in an extremely damaging fashion. There is no telling where this will stop, nor how far it will go. Anyway, the LMC has a story of those evil rich people and that is all that matters. The goodness of sharing/marxism is touted to lead to societal nirvana. That is, at least until the government needs more money to keep the absurd welfare state afloat, which will probably be in February or March, when the debt ceiling is pierced.
Second stop on this tour of the Democrat media arsenal has to be the "war on women." It's opening salvo was delivered by Clinton flack George Stephanopoulos against Mitt Romney during a Republican debate in New Hampshire. The topic was banning contraception and that puzzled Romney, who couldn't fathom the reason for the question. He and America would soon find out. Weeks later, the flagrantly fabricated Sandra Fluke arrived on the scene. The Georgetown law student claimed her sex life would leave her destitute without government-funded contraception. A faux congressional hearing, a comforting call from the president, and, of course, huffy-puffy indignant Democrats, completed a media tableau that had televised hairdos wringing their hands at the plight of this poor every woman.
Article comments
1 - El Bicho
No surprise the author takes the name of a baseball player famous for taking LSD after reading this distorted view of reality. Have to go but the descriptions of what Fluke and Matthews said are both false
2 - Glenn Contrarian
From an undisclosed location deep within the conservative media bubble, Dock Ellis issues a missive that - if facts were calories - would be the perfect calorie-free diet! Yes, Fox News has become the Roach Motel of facts - facts go in, but they don't come out! (and thanks for the idea of the metaphor to a Shark named Kevin).
Um, Dock - dude, you really need to get out some and get your head out of the Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Hannity Axis of Conservative Pie-hole. A good start would be to hold your own people to the same level of criticism as you demand of us liberals - after all, how can you consider yourself a fair judge of others if you don't hold your own people to the same standard?
3 - Tommy Mack
Your line, " . . . like a sadistic little boy squeezing the paw of a kitten named America until it yells" is a good line. As to the rest of this audition script, your side lost. It must suck to hold such opinion as yours on so many levels.
However, you have an opportunity to articulate a positive -- right, white, conservatism is failed.
What do you propose? Another four years of hating the president? That will really suck.
Tommy
4 - Glenn Contrarian
And Dock -
Looking at your tags above - Goebbels, Kesselring, Rommel, de Sade, Marxism, Putin - why don't you say what you really think: the guy in the White House...could it be...Satan????
And btw - if you'll read some real history, you'll find that Rommel was a very honorable man stuck in a bad situation. He, like Yamamoto and Robert E. Lee, chose to serve the wrong side to the utmost of his ability not because he believed in the goals of that side, but because he believed that it was his nation, his country that had called him to duty. Even the Brits who faced Rommel held him in high personal regard.
5 - Dr Dreadful
The best bit of these four pages of fantasy is the line on page 1 about the widespread "domestic distrust and loathing" of a president who just got re-elected.
Even if 48% (or whatever) of the electorate didn't vote for Obama, it doesn't follow that all of them, to a man or woman, actually loathe him. A large slice of those folks most likely just mildly preferred the other guy.
I think Dock is one of those people who gets so wrapped up in his own opinions that they get completely taken by surprise when it turns out that a majority don't share them.
6 - Igor
@5-Dreadful: good points. I know two middleaged sisters who couldn't decide who to vote for, so one voted Obama and the other voted Romney. And I think that's an honest vote.
The republicans have been following a very destructive plan the past few years, of characterizing every issue as Good vs. Evil, with no compromise possible. It's a "rule or ruin" policy and IMO will end by destroying the republicans, not their opponents.
7 - Dr Dreadful
In other news, President Obama has appointed John Kerry to be his new Secretary of State to replace Hillary Clinton: the obvious and, in my opinion, an excellent choice.
I wonder how many seconds it took after the announcement for Scott Brown to declare his intent to run for Kerry's vacant Senate seat?