Archive for the ‘Democrats are Funny People’ Category

When waging an effective war, you need to know your enemies and recognize your friends. You have to be able to tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. And perhaps most important, you need to know on which side of the fence you’re going to be. Thanks to Arizona’s new illegal immigration law, we’ve gotten a meaningful look at some of the adversaries in this New American Civil War. And we know on which side of the fence many have chosen to stand.

When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer decided to give her state law enforcement officers the power to enforce federal immigration laws, liberals began concocting hysterical scenarios, as if the concept of enforcing the law could only lurk within the dark chambers of a totalitarian police state. As usual, when the Left’s statist agenda is exposed, they go on an unhinged offensive against any and all who dare to challenge them.

In a collective fit of outrage, liberals everywhere have been calling for boycotts of all things Arizonan. They’ve reduced a serious issue to a pseudo-racial political PR campaign. Playing the familiar race card, mayors, governors, and media pundits across the country have gone on the warpath in an attempt to intimidate Arizona into backing off. In their eyes, Arizona is now a racist rogue state—an enemy to be subdued into submission.

Another one of their tactics is also a familiar one. When liberals lack a sound argument, they just paint the opposition with over-the-top Nazi imagery. Phoenix Suns General Manager Steve Kerr’s comment was fairly typical of the sort of dysfunctional rhetoric coming from the Left. You might have thought he was talking about Vichy France 1940 rather than Arizona 2010 when he said, “It’s hard to imagine in this country that we have to produce papers. It rings up images of Nazi Germany.”

Melodramatic paranoia aside, here on Planet Earth, most Americans can’t go a week without having to produce some form of papers. If you write a check or use a credit card, a personal ID is often required. If you go to the movies, proper authorization documentation must be presented, or you won’t get in. At sporting events, you’re even required to proceed to a specific location determined by your access papers. If you loiter, an official will escort you to your pre-registered destination. They know who you are, and they know where you sit.

If you drive a car, you need three different official papers, and if you refuse to surrender any of them to a police officer, you’ll be headed for jail. At Disneyland they’ve taken it a step further. A Disney agent will ask that you wear a bright red wrist band that publicly reveals your access authorization for all to see.

Meanwhile, the Left puts on phony displays of sympathy for Latinos who they insist are the primary target of immigration laws. Maybe so. But any rational person who desires to show solidarity with the Latino community would be shouting from the rooftops about putting an end to illegal immigration. Even Latino labor leader Cesar Chavez understood the simple and obvious truth. As an ardent supporter of enforced immigration laws he knew that illegals siphoned off government funds as well as jobs. Yet the Left refuses to confront this simple reality. Their negligence is something that should be considered criminal and anti-American.

It didn’t take long for the mainstream media and liberal bloggers to get their crazy wheels spinning last week. In less than 24 hours after Joseph Stack flew his plane into an IRS building, they began working every possible angle that might link the disturbed software engineer to the conservative Tea Party movement. To hear liberals tell it, Stack had all the makings of a quintessential right wing Tea Party prototype. It took some inventive leaps of logic, but they managed to construct some lame comparisons.

If you go by Joeseph Stack’s lengthy and meandering suicide manifesto, he didn’t like Catholics, George Bush, big business, or capitalism. He didn’t even like the city where he was living. In fact, if his angry and bitter 3,000 word coup de plume is any indication, Stack didn’t like much of anything. Is this what the Left is using to make their case for a Tea Party connection? Sort of, but in a weak and unconvincing way. Stack was angry and frustrated, supposedly like the Tea Party followers. But the clincher is that he also hated the IRS. Ah ha! There’s your classic radical right wing wacko: An angry white guy who doesn’t like paying taxes.

It’s liberal deductive reasoning that’s more Clouseau than Columbo. And leftwing pundits and bloggers have since been feverously at work trying to make their contrived conclusions stick, by connecting random dots into a confusing diagram of liberal aberration. Joseph Stack has become the Left’s latest right-wing booger bear: a paranoid construct of biases and misperceptions designed to satisfy their bigotry against conservatives. But that’s their story and they’re sticking to it.

Replacing Ted Kennedy was supposed to be a slam dunk for Massachusetts Democrats. They should have been able to run a cocker spaniel and still walk away with a double digit victory. In a state that is arguably the bluest in the Union, Ted Kennedy had been a permanent fixture in the U.S. Senate since the Pleistocene age, in a state that’s as liberal as they come. Well, stuff happens.

Enter Scott Brown, a virtual nobody who had the upstart temerity to challenge a political establishment that until now, was as immovable as the northern star. How did this happen? That depends largely on whose explanation you’re buying into.

The White House is blaming Democrat candidate Martha Coakley for running a weak campaign, while the Coakley people are blaming the White House for their lukewarm support. And Democrats in general are all over the map blaming anyone they think will put some distance between themselves and what they claim was a flawed campaign.

There are plenty of valid reasons why Coakley lost, and the specifics will certainly be the subject of discussion among media pundits and politicians alike. But looking at the bigger picture will give political strategists a map of the political landscape for the coming elections in November 2010 and 2012.

Democrats did an incredibly inept job of assessing the strength of Scott Brown and his supporters. Along with their liberal media pundits, they did little more than mischaracterize, ridicule and vilify Brown, Republicans, conservatives, the Tea Party movement, Sarah Palin—anything to minimize the opposition. Their over-the-top attacks showed such arrogance and gross negligence of sound political tactics that purposeful self-denial may be the only logical explanation.

As any true strategist knows, victory over an opponent is usually the result of a thorough understanding of your own strengths and weaknesses, as well as those of the opposition. How the Democrats respond to this defeat will show us whether or not they’re prepared to face political reality. GOP strategists better be paying attention.

Sarah Palin sets off liberals the way Klingons set off tribbles. And the result is just as amusing. There’s nothing like watching liberals squeal and chatter like hysterical monkeys when a strong female conservative saunters into the political jungle.

Why is Palin perceived as such a threat? I think the explanation is simple. Palin is a decent human being guided by strong personal values that don’t bend easily to compromise. As a person, she’s everything the Left is not. They resent and despise her the same way the well behaved, teacher’s pet, straight-A student  irritates the underachieving child—especially when mom asks, “Why can’t you be more like Sara? She’s such a nice girl.”

Sarah Palin irritates liberals everywhere she goes—and on such a fundamentally visceral level. What better evidence can there be to keep her in the game? She holds no political office, and is not a candidate for anything. Yet she has this peculiar ability to draw the bitter bile right out of our friends on the Left. That’s got to count for something.

With just two words, Joe Wilson became an instant media sensation. How do you follow an act like that? Alan Grayson thinks he has the answer. On Tuesday night, the Democrat congressman from Florida put on a muddled performance on the floor of the House of Representatives that was part comedy stand-up and old fashioned song and dance.

Complete with easel cards and zesty punchlines like “die quickly,” and “holocaust,” Grayson turned Congress into an evening of mediocre vaudeville. Henny Youngman he’s not. Congressman, please leave entertainment to the professionals.

No doubt Grayson was at the very least looking for his 15 minutes of fame. And he was likely aware of the $2 million spike Wilson got for yelling “You Lie!” And that works out to $1 million per word, by the way. Why wouldn’t Grayson want a piece of that kind of action?

Some are comparing Grayson’s mockery to Wilson’s outburst. The comparison is absurd. Joe Wilson’s reaction was brief, spontaneous and it made a simple point. Grayson’s shtick was modern-day burlesque theater, except without a good punchline or a buxom pretty girl. Who needs that? Certainly not the taxpayer.

watch the video

Democratic congressman Patrick Kennedy spoke to roughly 75 people gathered at a private health-care forum last Saturday morning in Providence RI. He implied that the opposition to national health care could turn to violence. Let’s take another look:

“It’s a terrible thing when people think that in order to get their point across they have to go to the edge of violent rhetoric [challenge the liberal status quo] and attack people personally [demand accountability].”

“…when they go and stoop to the level of the vitriolic rhetoric [insist on honest answers] that we’ve seen this debate turn up, it’s very, I think, dangerous to the fabric of our country [harmful to our statist agenda].”

“Some people can see through TV ratings [buy into liberal media spin] and right-wing talk show hosts that just try to create some theater [make salient points critical to the Obama administration], but unfortunately, there are some that can’t see through it [aren’t gullible enough to fall for our crap].”

read article