Tea Party vs. Occupy
Snopes published a bit recently about Urban Outfitters CEO Richard Hayne. He is alleged (correctly, according to Snopes) to have…gasp…wait for it…donated money to Rick Santorum. The presumably viral e-mail that Snopes discusses also states that Mr. Hayne is against gay marriage and abortion. (Snopes cannot confirm that part.)
The e-mail does not suggest that readers do anything specific, but the letter does note that Mr. Hayne also owns Anthropologie and Free People. My interpretation is that this is a slightly veiled suggestion that sympathetic readers should boycott Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie, and Free People.
This seems to be part of a trend where the left goes after people whose viewpoints differ from their own as demonstrated by their donations—let’s use the Koch brothers as just one example.
So let’s do another “Turnabout is Fair Play”. This time with major donors to Barack Obama… The charts and data are from OpenSecrets.org.
The first chart is Obama donors by corporation. Now it’s important to note that generally the corporations themselves do not make the donation, their PACs and employees do.
|University of California||$157,092|
|Morgan & Morgan||$130,145|
|Skadden, Arps et al||$119,074|
|Sidley Austin LLP||$116,227|
|US Dept of State||$106,040|
|Debevoise & Plimpton||$92,026|
|National Amusements Inc||$88,014|
|University of Chicago||$87,100|
|Latham & Watkins||$82,783|
The second chart is the top ten bundlers for Obama. Personally, I find it amusing that Jon Corzine is on the list. If that doesn’t reflect the President’s ethical and moral challenges, I don’t know what does.
|Katzenberg, Jeffrey||DreamWorks SKG||
|Eychaner, Fred||Newsweb Corp||
|Cohen, David||Comcast Corp||
|Stetson, Jane||Democratic National Cmte||
|Effron, Blair||Centerview Partners||
|Corzine, Jon||MF Global||
|Rosen, Jack||Rosen Partners||
|Connors, Eileen and Jack||Hill Holliday||
|Barzun, Matthew||Brickpath LLC||
Now, unlike the lefties, I’m not really suggesting that we should do anything about these individuals or corporations. I do think, however, that there are a couple of points that will confound the leftists: First, anyone who claims that big business favors Republicans really needs to take a serious look at the numbers—because they’re WRONG. Second, it certainly shows that many of the demographic claims that the right has been making are right on the money. Nearly all of the companies are from the coasts (excepting a few Chicago outfits, which is understandable). Government agencies, health care, and law firms are well represented, and of course Big Education.
Now tell me again, who is the 1%?
Slate.com has crossed the line. They held a “Caption Contest” featuring Rick Santorum and his two daughters, one of whom is still in middle school. Some of the entries, which can be seen here, are nothing short of heinous.
So I propose some turnabout. If it’s OK for Slate to do this with Mr. Santorum’s children, it must be OK for us to do the exact same thing–only we’ll use the editor of Slate, Mr. David Plotz, and his wife Hanna Rosin, of the Washington Post, and their two children Noa and Jacob.
The Senate Republican Policy Committee just put out a rather interesting little chart. Here’s the link to the version that cites sources.
Here is our talking point for the next few months; I would like all of my Conservative friends to begin spreading the word: Howard Dean is the only viable candidate the Democrats have. Only he can challenge President Obama from the left; only he can possibly win the general election by uniting the unions, OWS supporters, and green party folks, and only he has the stature to pull enough independents.
Besides, Obama can’t possibly win: his negatives are far too high, what passes for his foreign policy is a mess, unemployment is too high, there is too much of a taint of corruption around Solyndra, Fast and Furious, and other scandals. The Democrats clearly need someone with unimpeachable credentials like Mr. Dean. Ralph Nader might be another alternative, but we think that Howard Dean is more electable and appeals much more to moderates.
If Conservatives begin to use this talking point in every interview, every column, and every newscast, I’m sure that we can influence the Democrats to nominate the best person for their party. After all, we have their best interests at heart, right?
If you have managed to read this far without gagging several times, I’ll make my sarcasm plain: the man who can’t win a presidential campaign, Bob Shrum, recently wrote an article for The Week entitled “Mitt Romney is the only adult in the room.” As much as I can not help but admire Mr. Shrum’s chutzpah, I thought it might be fun to turn his idea around. After all, if he’s going to try to pick the Republican nominee, why should we not pick the Democrat nominee?
To be honest, this is just an extension of Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos,” where he tried—with considerable success—to persuade the Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton. (It’s odd that I find myself wishing that Rush had succeeded. After all, could Hillary possibly have been as bad as Obama?)
Back to Mr. Shrum. It is possible that Mr. Shrum senses that the other Democrat favorite, Jon Huntsman, is not likely to succeed. But it is more likely that he is simply trying to get Republicans to nominate a candidate that he thinks can be easily beaten.
He might even be right. In the last election, we saw clearly that Democrat trumps Democrat-lite, especially with a big assist from their toadies in the press. (“I felt this thrill go up my leg” and so on.)
The left hates being ridiculed—even though they spend much of their time ridiculing their opponents. So I see this as an excellent opportunity to mock them. So let’s get out there and trumpet loudly and clearly: “HOWARD DEAN FOR PRESIDENT!”
In a recent piece, I wrote about the increasing desperation of leftists across the country and indeed around the world. Several readers correctly criticized that piece for missing an essential point: the major reason that the left are so desperate is that they know—correctly—that it is their ideology that is being brought into doubt. It is, for them, an existential crisis.
The failure of leftist ideology should be evident to all of us: every time a country has a violent leftist revolution or uses allegedly democratic processes to elect hard leftist regimes, that country ends up with turmoil, misery, economic failure, and often violence. The examples are too many to list, but here are a few: The former Soviet Union, China, Albania, Cuba, all for the former eastern bloc, and more recently Venezuela.
On the opposite side, every time a nation decides to follow conservative principles of free and open markets, political freedom, and economic capitalism, that country prospers and its people become more free. Unfortunately, due to the relentless activism of the worldwide left, the list is much shorter: The United States (at least until recently), Canada, Australia, Great Britain (at times), and possibly a few others.
It may be no coincidence that most, if not all of these countries are of Anglo-Saxon derivation and that most speak English. While all of Western Europe has a liberal tradition (in the Enlightenment sense) that causes it to be more free and open than much of the rest of the world, the Anglo-Saxon cultures of old Europe were especially tenacious in their views of individual liberty.
Yet, for reasons I find unfathomable, there are still those amongst us who would return us to the tyranny and despotism that leftist forms of government and economics always bring us.
As all conservatives know, we have before us an historic opportunity to give the worldwide left an enormous setback—possibly the largest in many generations. And I urge all freedom-loving people to help bring that about.
What, in my judgment, makes this crisis different from those that have happened before is that people who were formerly uninvolved, or at least less involved, in the ideological struggle between left and right have become committed. The Tea Party movement, while important, is merely one symptom. So-called “moderates” are turning to the right and rejecting the ideology of the left.
In response to this rejection—which is blindingly obvious to most leftists—we get the “Occupy” movement: a bunch of spoiled children committing violent and disgusting acts, and who are unable to explain why they wish to do so—or why we ought to view their misbehavior as legitimate political debate. But their acts, which range from violent and serious to outright silly, grow in intensity precisely in response to the majority of the polity rejecting their arguments and thus their ideology.
This is just one more reason that we need to be thoughtful about how we frame our own ideological arguments. In particular, we need not allow the leftist medial to define our ideology for us. If there was ever a time to be thoughtful and convincing, this is it.
Let that be considered good advice to our Republican Presidential candidates: Your constituents on the right need you to explain your views in a serious and thoughtful way so that they can select the one from among you who best meets their needs. And your constituents on the left need to you explain your views in a serious and thoughtful way because many of them are seriously considering conservative ideas as an alternative.
I have written several times about the foolishness of allowing leftists to select the Republican presidential candidate. It was a huge mistake with John McCain and it would be an even worse mistake now—not to mention that it would almost certainly cause Barack Obama to be re-elected.
Let’s review the history. Until the Republican convention in St. Paul, Senator McCain was the darling of the media, with terms like “maverick” and “capable of crossing the aisle” used in profusion. Right until he was actually nominated. Then the press turned on him like a pack of wolves, and partly because McCain had never really impressed conservatives very much, it was fairly easy for the press to sway the public to their favored candidate.
And now they are trying the same thing again. Just change the name “McCain” to “Romney” in the above paragraph and it all still holds true.
Let’s consider how the media have tried to take down every other conservative and/or Republican candidate. The following are a few selected headlines about some conservatives:
Contrast this with the softballs that have been thrown at the incumbent: “The Obama Miracle, a White House Free of Scandal” (Bloomberg), which manages to be both untrue and misleading in the same statement.
So the strategy is obvious. The press are going to try to remove every real conservative until their favored Republican is the last man standing. And then they will turn on him, which will allow President Obama his second term.
That is almost reason to oppose Romney alone—even without my doubts about his policies.
I firmly believe in the vetting process. We do need to let these candidates stand up to the withering fire of the left, because if they can not survive it as candidates they will surely be unable to withstand it as President. Nevertheless, this process is (or at least is supposed to be) for Republicans to decide who will be their candidate. It is my personal preference that the candidate have acceptable conservative policies and viewpoints.
But as I’ve mentioned before, the Republicans could nominate Elmer Fudd and I would cheerfully support him. I think it important to the country to see that President Obama not be allowed to wreak further havoc on our polity.