Author Topic: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet  (Read 1013 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« on: October 19, 2011, 04:39:53 PM »
2 pronged, and neither will include any "accomplishments", outside of completely contrived rhetoric, such as how the private sector is doing just fine, compared to the public sector

1st prong of the Campaign.....Class Warfare.....Us vs Them (Us being the compassionate, well intentioned Democrats.  Them being the evil greedy, raping Republicans)  Right in line with how this President was going to bring about "change" and "civility" to DC.     ::)

2nd prong of the Campaign......Race Warfare.....Criticism of Obama and his policies are due to racism.  Non-support of liberal/socialist policies are born out of racism

Watch how it unfolds
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2011, 04:47:06 PM »
Pitting Us Against Each Other

President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have led increasingly successful efforts to pit Americans against one another through the politics of hate and envy. Attacking CEO salaries, the president -- last year during his Midwest tour -- said, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."

Let's look at CEO salaries, but before doing so, let's look at other salary disparities between those at the bottom and those at the top. According to Forbes' Celebrity 100 list for 2010,
Oprah Winfrey earned $290 million. Even if her makeup person or cameraman earned $100,000, she earned thousands of times more than that. Is that fair?
Among other celebrities earning hundreds or thousands of times more than the people who work with them are
Tyler Perry ($130 million),
Jerry Bruckheimer ($113 million),
Lady Gaga ($90 million) and Howard Stern ($76 million).

According to Forbes, the top 10 celebrities, excluding athletes, earned an average salary of a little more than $100 million in 2010.

According to The Wall Street Journal Survey of CEO Compensation (November 2010),
Gregory Maffei, CEO of Liberty Media, earned $87 million,
Oracle's Lawrence Ellison ($68 million) and rounding out the top 10 CEOs was
McKesson's John Hammergren, earning $24 million.

It turns out that the top 10 CEOs have an average salary of $43 million, which pales in comparison with America's top 10 celebrities, who earn an average salary of $100 million.

When you recognize that celebrities earn salaries that are some multiples of CEO salaries, you have to ask: Why is it that rich CEOs are demonized and not celebrities? A clue might be found if you asked: Who's doing the demonizing? It turns out that the demonizing is led by politicians and leftists with the help of the news media, and like sheep, the public often goes along. Why demonize CEOs? My colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell explained it in his brand-new book, "The Thomas Sowell Reader." One of his readings, titled "Ivan and Boris -- and Us," starts off with a fable of two poor Russian peasants. Ivan finds a magic lamp and rubs it, and the jinni grants him one wish. As it turns out, Boris has a goat, but Ivan doesn't. Ivan's wish is for Boris' goat to die. That vision reflects the feelings of too many Americans. If all CEOs worked for nothing, it would mean absolutely little or nothing to the average American's bottom line.

For politicians, it's another story: Demonize people whose power you want to usurp. That's the typical way totalitarians gain power. They give the masses someone to hate. In 18th-century France, it was Maximilien Robespierre's promoting hatred of the aristocracy that was the key to his acquiring more dictatorial power than the aristocracy had ever had. In the 20th century, the communists gained power by promoting public hatred of the czars and capitalists. In Germany, Adolf Hitler gained power by promoting hatred of Jews and Bolsheviks. In each case, the power gained led to greater misery and bloodshed than anything the old regime could have done.

Let me be clear: I'm not equating America's liberals with Robespierre, Josef Stalin and Hitler. I am saying that promoting jealousy, fear and hate is an effective strategy for politicians and their liberal followers to control and micromanage businesses. It's not about the amount of money people earn. If it were, politicians and leftists would be promoting jealousy, fear and hate toward multimillionaire Hollywood and celebrities and sports stars, such as LeBron James ($48 million), Tiger Woods ($75 million) and Peyton Manning ($38 million).  But there is no way that politicians could take over the roles of Oprah Winfrey, Lady Gaga and LeBron James. That means celebrities can make any amount of money they want and it matters not one iota politically.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd shouldn't focus its anger at wealthy CEOs. A far more appropriate target would be the U.S. Congress.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2011, 05:53:01 PM »
Find Villains

What do you do if you can’t run on your record — on 9 percent unemployment, stagnant growth and ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see? How to run when you are asked whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago and you are compelled to answer no?

- Play the outsider.
- Declare yourself the underdog.
- Denounce Washington as if the electorate hasn’t noticed that you’ve been in charge of it for nearly three years.
- But above all: Find villains.

President Obama first tried finding excuses, blaming America’s dismal condition on Japanese supply-chain interruptions, the Arab Spring, European debt and various acts of God.

Didn’t work. Sounds plaintive, defensive. Lacks fight, which is what Obama’s base lusts for above all.

Hence Obama’s new strategy:
Don’t whine, blame. Attack. Indict. Accuse.
Who? The rich — and their Republican protectors — for wrecking America.

In Obama’s telling, it’s the refusal of the rich to “pay their fair share” that jeopardizes Medicare. If millionaires don’t pony up, schools will crumble. Oil-drilling tax breaks are costing teachers their jobs. Corporate loopholes will gut medical research.

It’s crude. It’s Manichaean. And the left loves it. As a matter of math and logic, however, it’s ridiculous. Obama’s most coveted tax hike — an extra 3 to 4.6 percent for millionaires and billionaires (weirdly defined as individuals making more than $200,000) — would have reduced last year’s deficit (at the very most) from $1.29 trillion to $1.21 trillion. Nearly a rounding error.

The oil-drilling breaks cover less than half a day’s federal spending. You could collect Obama’s favorite tax loophole — depreciation for corporate jets — for 100 years and it wouldn’t cover one month of Medicare, whose insolvency is a function of increased longevity, expensive new technology and wasteful defensive medicine caused by an insane malpractice system.

After three years, Obama’s self-proclaimed transformative social policies have yielded a desperately weak economy. What to do? Take the low road: Plutocrats are bleeding the country, and I shall rescue you from them.

Problem is, this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It’s dangerous. Obama is opening a Pandora’s box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation’s leader.

Exhibit A. On Tuesday, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed punitive legislation over China’s currency. If not stopped by House Speaker John Boehner, it might have led to a trade war — a 21st-century Smoot-Hawley. Obama knows this. He has shown no appetite for a reckless tariff war. But he set the tone. Once you start hunting for villains, they can be found anywhere, particularly if they are conveniently foreign.

Exhibit B. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin rails against Bank of America for announcing a $5-a-month debit card fee. Obama echoes the opprobrium with fine denunciations of banks and their hidden fees — except that this $5 fee is not hidden. It’s perfectly transparent.

Yet here is a leading Democratic senator advocating a run on a major (and troubled) bank — after two presidents and two Congresses sunk billions of taxpayer dollars to save failing banks. Not because they were deserving or virtuous but because they are necessary. Without banks, there is no lending. Without lending, there is no business. Without business, there are no jobs.

Exhibit C. To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping,?Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.

These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching — to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.

Except that the real Tea Party actually had a program —
- less government,
- less regulation,
- less taxation,
- less debt.

What’s the Occupy Wall Street program?
- Eat the rich.

And then what? Haven’t gotten that far.

No postprandial plans. But no matter. After all, this is not about programs or policies. This is about scapegoating, a failed administration trying to save itself by blaming our troubles — and its failures — on class enemies, turning general discontent into rage against a malign few.

From the Senate to the streets, it’s working. Obama is too intelligent not to know what he started. But so long as it gives him a shot at reelection, he shows no sign of caring

The Scapegoat Strategy
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2011, 04:46:33 PM »
Dem strategist accuses Romney of invoking Rev. Wright, race in new ad
By Justin Sink - 11/23/11 

(because the only ones allowed to invoke race of course, are Democrats)

Democratic strategist Tad Devine, an adviser to the Al Gore and John Kerry presidential campaigns, accused Mitt Romney’s campaign of invoking the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a recent ad.

Devine said Wednesday that he was “shocked” to see what he believed was imagery of an African-American church in an ad released Tuesday by Romney’s campaign team and airing in New Hampshire. The ad, Romney’s first of the campaign, is “clearly an attempt to bring back Rev. Wright and race,” Devine tweeted.

In the ad, a series of images including those of a foreclosed home and empty businesses flash by as text criticizes President Obama’s economic record. But at two points, the imagery cuts to well-dressed African-American women walking down a large hallway, and pans over a predominantly black audience.

“It appears to be a congregation of African-American people,” Devine told The Hill. “In the first scene there are no white people at all, in the second ... it is all African Americans except possibly one person, [whose race] you can’t really tell.”

Devine said he believes these images were selected intentionally to invoke race and the controversy involving Wright, the president’s former pastor.

“As someone who does this for a living, there is absolutely no way that’s not intentional,” Devine said. “There is no other rational explanation for that scene other than to suggest a racial reference, and most likely invoke Jeremiah Wright.”

The Romney campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. While there is no explicit link to an African-American church congregation or Wright, Devine said there is no way the campaign couldn’t have recognized the imagery it was selecting, and the connotations it carried.

He said Romney might have selected the racial imagery to help with voters in South Carolina, where the former Massachusetts governor trailed Newt Gingrich 31 percent to 16 percent in a recent The Polling Company poll.

“I would speculate that Gov. Romney and his campaign are concerned that they’re losing South Carolina so badly right now they’re using every tool in the toolbox — including the most pernicious tool in American politics, and that’s race and racial imagery,” Devine said.

In the 2008 presidential election, Wright, who was Obama’s pastor at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, was denounced for inflammatory statements, including contending that the Sept. 11 attacks were proof that “America’s chickens [were] coming home to roost.”

Obama responded to the Wright controversy, and discussed the political culture of black churches, in a Philadelphia speech titled “A More Perfect Union.” Wright, who has since retired as senior pastor of the church, later accused “them Jews” in the Obama administration of keeping him away from the president.

Devine went on to compare the Romney ad to a controversial ad aired by the George W. Bush campaign in 2000. In that spot, about prescription drug benefits, images of then-Vice President Gore were contrasted with text that read, “Bureaucrats decide.” But as the word “bureaucrats” disappeared from the screen, the text lingered to just flash “RATS,” in a move that some suggested was an attempt at subliminal messaging.


sit back...you haven't seen nothing yet
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2011, 05:03:48 PM »
I suggest that less taxation will result in more, not less, debt. The teapartiers have done nothing to lower taxes or the debt so far.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2011, 05:07:35 PM »
Nor are they in a position, to do so
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2011, 08:03:36 PM »
I suggest that less taxation will result in more, not less, debt................

I find this very strongly counterintuitive.

If you were gathering maple sap , you can tap a tree but if you tap the tree twice you don't necessacerily get twice the sap, probly you won't.

If you tap the tree enough to injure the tree a little bit , you definately get less sap from the sickened tree.

 If you tap the tree enough to injure it severely you get a lot less sap from the severely injured tree.

    If you tap the tree enough to kill it , you get sap only a little.

   In Greece more than a quarter of the working people are government employees.

   The Greeks need to tap someone eleses tree pretty soon.




Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2011, 09:56:20 PM »
The problem in Greece is that it is very easy to avoid taxes, and everyone does it. Greece has a very unequal distribution of income and a a class system that extends to the language itself: educated Greeks speak a resurrected version of classical Greek, the poor do not. The basic attitude it "I will pay MY taxes when Stavros pays HIS taxes."

There is no doubt a certain optimal percentage at which the maximum amount of tax revenue is paid with the minimal effect on employment. This probably varies from region to region and year to year, simply because there is a great difference between regions and between years in this country. So this optimal percentage is a moving target, but the ideal would be to simply be as close to it as possible.

Reducing taxes does NOT always increase revenue. In fact, this happens only when taxes arer too high or loopholes are too common, and most of the time it is the latter,
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2011, 12:30:56 AM »
   Is the maximum revenue for the government the proper target?

      What if the people could get by with a bit less bossing around, could we shoot for the least expensive possible government?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2011, 01:03:07 AM »
What if the people could get by with a bit less bossing around, could we shoot for the least expensive possible government?

===========================================
I hardly think that providing decent medical care for everyone is bossing around.

I am pretty sure I could get by if we let the Australians defend themselves, though. They seem quite well-suited to the task.

My ideal is Jeremy Bentham. A government should do the greatest good for the greatest number.

If we have big business, we need a government powerful enough to control it.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2011, 01:51:06 AM »
What if the people could get by with a bit less bossing around, could we shoot for the least expensive possible government?

===========================================
I hardly think that providing decent medical care for everyone is bossing around.

I am pretty sure I could get by if we let the Australians defend themselves, though. They seem quite well-suited to the task.

My ideal is Jeremy Bentham. A government should do the greatest good for the greatest number.

If we have big business, we need a government powerful enough to control it.


    Yes it is bossing around, even if they order me to do what is best for me and what I would have done for myself, had I been given the chance.

    I am not familiar with Jeremy Bentham , did he think that government was the best vector for getting good done?  I wouldn't always agree with him.

       Would Jeremy Bentham agree that when some person or agency could do a good thing better than the government could that the government should not hog the resorces and prevent the better agent ?

        I might agree with him part of the time , when there is something that the government can do , that is necessacery and that no better choice exists for .

         But when all things are even I would prefer the non governmental supplyer or server.

        You mention the need for a big and powerfull government to keep business in check, but then who guards the guardians? The very powerfull government becomes the worser problem, the worse abuser, than the businesses and crime orgianisations it might be limiting.
        Balance is golden , a government that feels justified in directing the important decisions of everyones life and considers fairness is soaking up all discretionary earnings is not even trying for a balence.   
   

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2011, 10:19:20 AM »
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was a major British philosopher. He was the origin of the phrase "pursuit of happiness". His mummified body still attends meetings at Oxford College, London, as per his wishes.

He was a child prodigy and a recognized genius, one of the major architects of utilitarianism.

Who guards the guardians? That is the role of the people and the press. When BP ruins the livelihood of thousands of people, we need a government to step in and fine them to pay for the mess. If the oil spill had happened in Nigeria or Ecuador, it would never have been stopped so quickly nor would those damaged been reimbursed at all.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2011, 12:24:13 PM »
Unfortunately, the constitution and the founders intent doesn't quite match the call for a bigger badder Government.  Just enough to protect the country, and help keep some order
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2011, 01:58:00 PM »
The founders lived in a country where the maximum ambition was to be a gentleman farmer.
The Founders thought that slavery was acceptable.

Times have changed.

BP was as big a threat to this country as Al Qaeda.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Left's Campaign Gauntlet
« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2011, 02:12:52 PM »
The founders lived in a country where the maximum ambition was to be a gentleman farmer.
The Founders thought that slavery was acceptable.

Times have changed.

Good thing the founders put in place the mechanisms to AMEND the Constitition, for any subsequent changes deemed necessary by the current populace, vs merely rhetorical fiat and claims of some "living" document, that can mean anything, to anyone, at any time


BP was as big a threat to this country as Al Qaeda.

Oh good lord      ::)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle