What a great lesson the Republicans gave the opposition party on Friday. Faced with an incompetent leader the Republicans dumped Michael Steele.
Steele had gambled that his skin color guaranteed him the top job at the RNC. In the wake of the 2008 election Republicans gambled that Steele’s skin color would help them fight the “racist” charge. That gamble paid off.
However, Steele’s subsequent multi-faceted nincompoopery and blue state pedigree combined to turn the Republican gamble into an overall loss (especially of donors and money and consequently additional 2010 election victories). Steele gambled his skin color would continue to protect him. But with the increase in African-American Republican elected officials, the increased and very visible diversity of the Republican ranks, the Republican National Committee voters realized they did not need Steele’s protection from the “racist” charge anymore. Furthermore Obama is so weakened at this point, the “racist” charge so flaccid from overuse, Republicans gave the heave-ho to the blunt Steele.
Obama Dimocrats by contrast relected Nancy Pelousy to be their leader, created an extra position for James Clyburn even as Steny Hoyer kept his post. Tim Kaine and Harry Reid have nothing to fear.
Digest that. The Republicans won victories not seen in generations and they (despite protests and controversy over the new leader) dumped their leader because they wanted to prepare for 2012 and the future. The Obama Dimocrats were slapped nationwide with defeats but the motto remains “stay the course – together we thrive”. Which team would a sensible person hire to run their business?
In our first article about the Arizona Shootings we warned the DailyKooks and other Big Blog Boys that their gamble to blame Sarah Palin and the Tea Party for the murders would crap out.
Proof of our contention came in a Qunnipiac poll:
“Saturday’s shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, in which six people were killed, could not have been prevented, 40 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. Another 23 percent blame the mental health system, while 15 percent say it was due to heated political rhetoric and 9 percent attribute the tragedy to lax gun control.
American voters say 52 – 41 percent that “heated political rhetoric drives unstable people to commit violence,” the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Liberals rather than conservatives are more responsible for such rhetoric, voters say 36 – 32 percent. [snip]
“Americans seem to be rejecting the blame game for the Arizona shooting. By far, the largest number thinks this tragedy could not have been prevented,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “Although a bare majority of voters say political rhetoric might drive unstable people to violence, less than one in seven blame it for the Arizona incident.”
It will get worse for the DailyKooks. Already “liberals” receive more blame for “vitriol”. As news spreads that the “Together We Thrive” slogan was an Obama campaign artifact, the death rally Obama publicity stunt will have all the resonance of “Mission Accomplished” and that ultimately rejected White House propaganda ploy. The Obama White House coordinated the smears and cheers after the Arizona shootings – maybe it’s time for House Republicans to investigate.
Big Media tried to assist Barack Obama and his Hopium Guzzlers in their various attempts to smear and fear those not responsible for the acts of Jared LONER. Some eggheads tried to explain why “fair-minded journalists allowed their judgment to become so clouded?” They examined the question of “why did the press go so far astray this week?” with false charges against Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. The answer is that Big Media is not composed of the “fair-minded” but is an a partner of the Obama White House.
As we wrote at the time, the minute the picture of Jared LONER with his smirk and wild eyes appeared, the DailyKooks had lost the argument and the backlash commenced. Soon after the picture appeared the Christian Science Monitor noted “As portrait of Jared Loughner sharpens, ‘vitriol’ blame fades”:
“The wave of national soul-searching about the level of political vitriol and how it might have played a part in Saturday’s shootings in Tucson, Ariz., now appears to be ebbing. [snip]
But emerging information about primary suspect Jared Loughner suggests that he was motivated not by a climate of hate but rather by his own troubled mind and a personal vendetta against Congresswoman Giffords, who was injured in the attack. The investigation has not concluded, and more information could come to light. But for now, a majority of Americans are dismissing the notion that the shooter was set off by a Sarah Palin political map, tea party anger, or talk about “second amendment remedies.” [snip]
Indeed, one piece of evidence collected so far is a 2007 letter from Giffords’s office to Mr. Loughner, thanking him for attending a meet-and-greet event. On it is scrawled a death threat to Giffords. In 2007, Sarah Palin was a little-known Alaska governor and the tea party movement did not exist.
At this point, then, the left’s initial eagerness to link the shooting to political anger on the right could backfire, says Charles Franklin, a pollster and political scientist at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.”
It will backfire. The smear attempts will be paid for in full. As more and more information emerges of the White House’s role in stoking the smears, the damage to Obama and his DailyKooks will be as apparent and costly as the “Mission Accomplished” publicity stunt turned out for George W. Bush and the Republicans. The DailyKooks and their Clown from Chicago will eventually have to pay for this latest gamble with smears:
“It was the immediate connection from the left of this shooting to political rhetoric from the right that polarized this, and here we have a case where there’s a rush to blame Palin [and other conservatives] with no direct connection to her at all,” he says. “And the more we learn about this guy, it seems there isn’t any political motivation in a broader sense.”
As we wrote, the very fact that a Republicans district court judge was killed and a congresswoman was shot made the shooting “political”. This does not mean that the leap can be made to blame Sarah Palin, the Tea Party movement, “vitriol”, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh for either “creating an atmosphere” or complicit in any way in the Arizona shootings. The ugly politics, the political vitriol, came from those who blamed the innocent for political profit. This particular political shooting was not a political shooting – and too complex a truth and contradiction for the small minds at DailyKooks (“The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”) The Monitor re-explains what we explained early in the week:
“To be sure, Sheriff Dupnik put the issue on the national plate with his comments, and given that that the shooting appears to be a political assassination attempt in a politically rancorous border district, the debate on political tone was, in many ways, inevitable.
But critics point out that the nation largely refrained from linking Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan – the suspect in the 2009 Fort Hood shootings – with terrorism.
In Loughner’s case, no reported evidence so far suggests any connection to the ideology or ideologues of the right. A Loughner friend, Zach Osler, told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Wednesday that Loughner “did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.”
That doesn’t mean the issue of political rancor is unimportant, and some commentators are simply using this moment to argue that – regardless of the facts of the current case – political anger can have outsized effects on troubled minds.
“Among elite circles there is a sharp debate going on about [connections to campaign rhetoric],” says Mr. Franklin. “So we’re seeing some people who deny that political rhetoric had any connection to the shooting, but who nonetheless are speaking out about the question of civility and the level of rhetoric, and they’re coming from both the left and the right.”
Like Hillary Clinton, civility is something we would love as the dominant form of discourse here and abroad (the need for civil discourse in other countries is a particular cause of Hillary’s remarks this week which the Hillary haters chose not to think about). However, we recall when we were called “racists” by Obama Hopium Guzzlers. They opened the door. We wish Sarah Palin had not employed the term “blood libel” with all the historical ramifications that term brings. But we were not the ones attacked as murder accessories like Palin was.
We will not have civility or a “civil public discourse” until Barack Obama and his thugs confess and apologize for their libels against us and against people like Sarah Palin. When it comes to thugs like Barack Obama and his henchmen the only response can be to fight back with the very weapons they wield.
The uncivil thugs cannot demand civility. It is thug Barack Obama and his henchmen who are responsible for the uncivil discourse. Kirsten Powers makes the argument:
Obama mostly chose to be vague on this point, “For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.”
He did add to his prepared remarks that incivility did not cause this tragedy, but he stopped short of a full rebuke of the complete irresponsibility of those who have been stoking anger at conservatives who—as far as we know—had nothing to do with this.
When the president did lay blame, it was on Americans in general. Among the many odd assertions he made: suggesting that “what a tragedy like this requires” is that “we align our values with our actions.” We were told to “expand our moral imaginations.”
A mentally ill gunman opened fire at a Safeway. A lack of “aligning” or “imagination” really wasn’t the problem. Obama chided Americans to “be better,” as if we somehow caused this shooting to happen. He said, “We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us.”
Now if Obama isn’t talking about political discourse here, I don’t know what he’s talking about. Certainly he can’t be suggesting that how you treat the mailman or your mother is at issue.
Let’s be clear: How we “treat each other” also is not what caused this shooting. Mental illness combined with a gun and a 33-round high-capacity magazine collided to produce a tragedy. This may not have been the venue to discuss this in such pointed terms, but it also should not have been used as an opportunity to push further into the media bloodstream the lie that hostile rhetoric or incivility even played a role in this, let alone caused it.
Multiple polls have shown that Americans reject the assertion that political speech incited the shooter. Nothing has come up in the investigation to suggest it played a role. In fact, it’s been reported that a friend of gunman Jared Lee Loughner flatly rejected heated rhetoric as an issue, telling Good Morning America, “He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.”
The friend hadn’t seen Loughner in two years, so perhaps in that intervening time he turned on the radio or television. However, police have yet to turn up such evidence. To my liberal friends: The existence of heated political rhetoric does not prove that it played a role in this shooting, unless new evidence emerges. Don’t confuse coincidence with causation. Sadly, facts don’t seem to be enough to dislodge this insidious and distracting media meme. Wednesday night brought us no closer to moving on from that.”
Having provoked and (as usual with Obama thuggery done behind the scenes) stoked the hatred and blood libel, Barack Obama called for civility because it increasingly became clear that the gamble was not going to go well. The bluff did not work. The American people rejected the blood libel. The American people are getting to know how these Chicago thugs work.
The backlash is a comin’. Even Obama blowhard Charles Blow at the New York Times knows it:
“Immediately after the news broke, the air became thick with conjecture, speculation and innuendo. There was a giddy, almost punch-drunk excitement on the left. The prophecy had been fulfilled: “words have consequences.” And now, the right’s rhetorical chickens had finally come home to roost.
The dots were too close and the temptation to connect them too strong. The target was a Democratic congresswoman. There was the map of her district in the cross hairs. There were her own prescient worries about overheated rhetoric.
Within hours of the shooting, there was a full-fledged witch hunt to link the shooter to the right. [snip]
The only problem is that there was no evidence then, and even now, that overheated rhetoric from the right had anything to do with the shooting. (In fact, a couple of people who said they knew him have described him as either apolitical or “quite liberal.”) The picture emerging is of a sad and lonely soul slowly, and publicly, slipping into insanity. [snip]
But I also know that potential, possibility and even plausibility are not proof.
The American people know it, too. [snip]
So the left overreacts and overreaches and it only accomplishes two things: fostering sympathy for its opponents and nurturing a false equivalence within the body politic. Well done, Democrats.”
A White House Obama orchestrated campaign of smears fell apart as the American people rejected the blood libel and false witness testimony. Barack Obama pretended (again) to be an innocent and called for a ceasefire before the conflagration he started turned and burnt him to a crisp. After the foolishness in Arizona described by Kirstein Powers no idiot dared continue to repeat the foolishness. This did not mean that lantern-jawed Michelle Obama would keep herself from uttering stupidities. Wrote Michelle Obama to the nation’s parents::
We can teach our children that here in America, we embrace each other, and support each other, in times of crisis. And we can help them do that in their own small way – whether it’s by sending a letter, or saying a prayer, or just keeping the victims and their families in their thoughts.
We can teach them the value of tolerance – the practice of assuming the best, rather than the worst, about those around us. We can teach them to give others the benefit of the doubt, particularly those with whom they disagree.
Perhaps her sweaters are too tight. But this is stupidity. Isn’t the lesson from this entire episode quite the contrary to what idiot Michelle Obama is saying? Isn’t the lesson that you should not be tolerant? Isn’t the lesson that prejudice has it’s value? Indeed the fellow students of Jared LONER who sat near doors thinking that he might have a gun were smart to fear and run away from him. The professor who feared and wanted Jared LONER as far away as possible was smart. So where does idiot Michelle Obama come off telling us that we should “give others the benefit of the doubt”? It’s a stupid platitude from a stupid person at best.
So where does Michelle Obama come off telling us that the lesson from this sorry episode is tolerance? No one can be that stupid can they? Ann Althouse replies that the lesson is the opposite of what stupid Michelle Obama says it is:
“Shouldn’t we learn to be perceptive, analytical, and aware that some of the individuals among us are, in fact, mentally sick and need something other than tolerance and wishful thinking about how good they might be? So why is the First Lady telling us to teach kids the opposite?”
Michelle Obama is not that stupid. She is joining her Chicago Clown in a politically motivated flim-flam (which now includes church attendance, and gray hair at “serious events” and dark hair at events aimed at the young or those which require the pretense of vigor). A case can be made for tolerance and understanding but not in this case. What we learn here is that walking down a dark street when instinct tells you not to is stupid. What we learn here is that sometimes that person you fear is a person you damn well should fear. What this case tells us is that sometimes you should listen to your gut when it tells you to get away from someone. If anything this case teaches that instinct and prejudice and intolerance are sometimes the way to go! Three cheers for intolerance and prejudice! Down with politically incorrect inanities!
Not to be outdone with stupidity from Michelle Obama, ABC News made a supreme effort at stupidity and won the contest. The facts and truth are tampered with at Big Media. Christiane Amanpour and David Muir prattled about how tolerant and adult the Tucson community has been concerning the shootings – even as at the event they manufactured a survivor of the shootings was busy threatening a Tea Party leader with death. ABC News compounded the foolishness by not mentioning that the threat was made against a Tea Party leader.
Obama and his Hopium addled advisors and Big Blog Boys thought the Arizona shootings would help them. They thought they could pull a Bill Clinton Oklahoma City speech. But they could not because Obama is not half the man Bill Clinton is and there is not one biological cell in Obama as presidential as Bill Clinton.
But there can be no denying that we have seen a dead cat bounce in the past few weeks. Is this good news for Obama or simply a consequence of Obama not being visible when he vacationed? Or is there a deeper meaning and Obama is on the way up? Howard Kurtz provides some answers:
“Amid the glowing reviews for Barack Obama’s memorial speech in Tucson—with even conservatives dishing out praise—some prognosticators see a political resurrection for the embattled president.
That’s not how the White House views it. [snip]
In the sharp-edged world of Beltway scorekeeping, the Obama oration probably won’t lead to legislative progress, or even a better working relationship with Republicans trying to repeal his health-care law.”
Jay Cost has meatier analysis:
“The 111th Congress was extremely divisive, and the political process over the last two years has basically separated the country into two groups; by Election Day, those opposed to the president outnumbered those in support by 2-4 points. Yet over the last two months, the over-heated rhetoric has noticeably cooled, the country has not really discussed the big issues that divide it, and in general there’s just been a break in the partisan action. This has given the president an opportunity to elevate his image, and his success in that regard is showing up in the polls.”
Throw in another vacation and we get the “absence makes the heart grow fonder” effect. But has anything changed to give Hope to the Hopium dealers? Nah!:
“I don’t really think any of the fundamentals have changed in the few months since the election, so I have my doubts that this uptick is fundamentally similar to Clinton’s improvement when he battled the GOP on the budget. That fight re-framed the national conversation with Clinton on the popular side — for the first time, really, since the start of his presidency. Similarly, I don’t think this is like the rebound in Reagan’s job approval numbers in 1983, as the economy was on the good side of the “V-shaped” recession of the early 80s.
In the long term, I think voters are generally going to evaluate President Obama on three big issues: jobs, the deficit, and health care. In that order. Nothing I have seen in the last few weeks suggests that the needle has moved substantially on any of these items — and, in fact, looking at the AP/GfK poll’s internals, you’ll see that his approval on these items trails his overall approval. There might be up-ticks and down-ticks depending on the news climate, but I think that those three issues have set the basic parameters of opinions on the president, and they will continue to do so.”
The fear with smears campaign of Barack Obama has failed. The backlash is building. The culprits, like the red thong killer, must be held to account. They gambled and lost. In 2012 they must be made to pay.