That's Howard Dean and Robert Gibbs, and perhaps they could clue in that other dunce, Valerie Jarret, who all had to go out this past week and try to lie through their teeth convincingly that democrats have absolutely no electoral fears come November. They have only been able to muster the weak argument that recent electoral reverses, the sudden 'retirement' of (now) 10 major dems who hold up-in-the-air Senate and Congressional seats before they take the beating of their political lives, The rise of Tea Parties, Town Hall meetings full of anger and alarm, the public opinion polls that show that more people want scurvy than government-run healthcare, and the general belief in the public mind that the Administration is soft on terrorism is... simply a reaffirmation of Barack Obama and his enlightened policies.
In other words: people voted against democrats to help the democratic agenda get passed? People are speaking against democratic policies to pollsters, but secretly support them when no one is looking? Or, as Chris Matthews, in a moment of rare lucidity, put it to Howard Dean (paraphrasing), "You're making the argument that even when you lose, you still win?"
It's now such an obviously-false premise that even CNN has noticed. See this poll: 7-in-10 want the democrats to lose their Congressional majority.
There's only three kinds of people who can make that sort of argument and not see the logical contradictions contained within:
The Stupid
The Insane
The Committed
The first two are easy enough to fix; it's what we have elections for. You only hope that the stupid and insane folks don't manage to do much serious damage to the country before they're shown the door. The Committed, however, are a different story; these people purposely set out to do serious damage so that they can have a continual excuse to "fix" the problems they create and then blame on others. For example: We're still fighting a "War on Poverty" that liberals launched in 1968 with LBJ's "Great Society" programs. Has poverty been eliminated or even alleviated? Hell no! The federal government just keeps redefining "poverty" upwards; now people with incomes approaching 30k (almost all of it provided by some form of welfare) who own air conditioners, cells phones, video games, and automobiles can be considered "poor", and eligible for everything from tax credits (people who don't pay taxes get credit for taxes they didn't pay?), food stamps, education grants, etc. Poverty now pays pretty well; there's a whole bureaucracy devoted to it, and a bunch of politicians who know how to use it for votes, money. These programs didn't eliminate poverty; they've just made more poor people to "help", and made it easier for politicians to engage in graft.
That's just one example. These people never intended to help anyone out of poverty, they just used them as an excuse to grab money and power, and every time we come close to saying that poverty is a thing of the past, some new indicator of 'poverty' emerges; the "Digital Divide", for example, and now, lack of "adequate" Health care services, which always require some new form of government intervention or control, and a corresponding loss of liberties.
You have to conclude that such brazen attempts to explain away the otherwise obvious are simply the actions of committed people who have a hidden agenda, and that they really don't care how they are seen or how they are perceived so long as they are able to enact it. Such people are a danger to a free society.
Update: Are the Obamatards Stupid, Stubborn or Out-to-Lunch?
No comments:
Post a Comment