Liberals are divisive, in the worst way.
Chad Minnick Synthroid Online
Buy Glucotrol
Prevacid Online
Buy Motilium
Elavil Online
Buy Penisole
Propecia Online
Buy Zyban
Celexa Online
Buy Flomax
I can’t say the 24-hours of information, misinformation, disinformation and noninformation that seeps into my psyche from CNN and Fox News has done much for my intellectual health, but I have learned one thing watching the Presidential Primaries. Liberals are master manipulators at the game of “divide and conquer.”
For all of Hillary & Obama’s talk of “unity” and I-want-to-buy-the-world-a-coke campaign messages they are the worst offenders when it comes to being divisive.
Allow me to explain, my friends. (I just saw your eyes roll back in your collective noggins. But in true Barack fashion I’m lifting a phrase from someone else’s speech…McCain’s ubiquitous ”my friends”. But what do you expect? I’m really into “change you can xerox!”)
Compare the demographics that pollsters discuss when talking about the Republican elections to those of the Democrats. When discussing the GOP voter base you hear of “evangelicals”, “self-identified conservatives”, “national security voters”, “moderates”, etc.
But when you hear the demographic breakdown of the Democrat voters it sounds drastically different. It’s “black voters”, “latinos”, “women”, and on it goes.
Do you see the difference? In case you are a race-or-gender-voter yourself let me explain.
The Republican voter base identifies intellectually with their group, not by race or gender. Coservatives, regardless of race or gender, base their voting decisions on concepts like issues and core value systems so the Republican candidates make their appeals appropriately.
Liberal voters are cut into race and gender herds by the Democrat drovers aiming to be El Presidente.
The irony is it flies in the face of everything that liberals swear they stand for!
“I have a dream,” said MLK. “That one day my children will be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
I had chills the first time I saw that speech at school on videotape. It still moves me to this day. But the liberals are dividing us by race and gender in ways they never have before.
When I close my eyes I can see Dr. King weeping in heaven as he sees his legacy hijacked and manipulated by Machiavellian Democrats running for President.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Dear Mr. Minnick:
Though your blog is an entertaining read, there is little substance here, aside from sweeping generalities, partisan hackery, and ostentatious jargon.
Perhaps the reason you see conservatives identified with the “intellectual” base (“evangelicals”, “self-identified conservatives”, “national security voters”, “moderates”, etc.) is because you watch FOX news. Fox news panders to conservatives, much like MSNBC appeals to a more liberal audience. If you watched more news sources, you would see that liberals are often times referred to as “informed democratic voters,” “progressives,” “pro-choice”, etc. The reason African Americans and Latinos identify with liberal candidates is because a staggering percentage of minorities vote liberal. I’m not sure how candidates appealing to large percentages of their supporters is “divisive.” If changes are made to this country to give poor minorities the same rights as God-fearing white folk, this is in support of unity. You’ve taken a few buzz words from Fox news, and slung them into a weak thesis generalizing political parties without any evidence. In blog-form, no less.
I’d advise you to freshen up on your Machiavelli. You seem a little confused.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:34 am
I’ve been called a lot by your friends and family, but never “ostentatious.” That’s a new one and I’ll treasure it always.
But I do believe that by using that word, you is one yourself.
I usually flip between CNN and Fox News, as I said in the post you didn’t read very well. MSNBC isn’t really a news channel. Anyone who thinks Keith Olbermann is a journalist probably thinks the Snohomish Tribune is trustworthy and considers its editor, Jessica Sparks, fair and balanced.
I’m aware of what liberals try to call themselves (i.e. “progressives and informed”) but I’m right in my comments here and you know it. Democrat candidates divide the electorate into groups based on race and economic status while Republicans appeal to voters on philosophical grounds. While there are exceptions to everything, my observation is quite accurate even if you don’t choose to admit it.
And the strategy of maintaining and even fueling divisions among the electorate along unchangeable and inherent lines would make your Machiavelli proud.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Oh, and it is Democrat pollsters and the campaigns’ own staffers that have been out in the news talking about their target demographics, not Republican talking heads on Fox News.
So if you disagree with my premise, then just listen to the campaigns themselves and you’ll see I’m right.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
This is an interesting theory. I don’t know if I have ever noticed it before, but I am going to watch carefully and see if you are right.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I like MSNBC, at least some of their shows, but I agree fully with your comments regarding some of their anchors and their incredible bias. I just watch it for the entertainment value, though. Once you realize that it is just news as entertainment it’s fine.
The Tribune is very biased. What’s your beef with them specifically, though?
February 26th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
I hear you about MSNBC. I actually do watch one of their morning shows fairly regularly. But even earlier today, while checking out what was happening with the Florida blackouts, they were misreporting the news. It was mostly small things they weren’t getting right, but it was inaccurate nonetheless. That had nothing to do with bias, it had everything to do with their ineptitude as a news organization.
This is my problem with the Tribune:
They do a fair job at reporting most things. It’s a small local paper, how hard can it be? But when Jessica Sparks has a hair inconveniently located about someone or something she has no scruples writing her opinions as news and dispensing it as such.
She sides with certain political factions in the town she is supposed to be accurately covering the news, emailing and phone-calling back and forth with her pals to trade gossip and coordinate political attacks on those she doesn’t like or disagrees with.
She uses the newspaper for her own political aims.
Freedom of the press is one thing, but ethics in journalism is another. She violates most of the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. A critical part of that code is to keep opinion and reporting separate. She does not do this.
In fact, she will personally write a “news” story on the very subject that she will pen a scathing opionion-editorial…in the same issue of the newspaper! How can any reader trust that she is giving them a fair and impartial report on the news if she is so angrily and emotionally involved in the story herself? Well, they can’t.
Trust me, she didn’t pick up this habit at journalism school. This kind of disregard for journalistic integrity can’t be taught. It comes either from a bankruptcy of values or from a lack of accountability that is probably the result of too few jobs in the news business before getting to be the top dog herself. When you aren’t accountable for your actions, you can pick up some pretty bad habits. Such is the case with Sparks.
When it comes to Monroe politics, she has proven an inability to be ethical in her “journalism.” When it comes to other items of interest in Snohomish County, I am sure she is quite capable and skilled.
Skilled and ethical are not exactly the same thing though, are they?
February 27th, 2008 at 8:11 am
The Democrats running for President aren’t acting like true liberals. You are right, the divisiveness they are using for political purposes is opposite of what liberals claim they stand for. It’s just a big ruse and I don’t understand the thinking of many minority groups. It’s like they vote Democrat because they promise free giveaways, like Obama is doing with everyone. “I’m going to steal from the rich and give to the poor.” Real American, eh?
February 28th, 2008 at 2:52 am
A lot of conservatives vote for handouts too. What about Bush’s tax cuts? What about Reaganomics? Sure, it may be impossible to unite everyone in America. But what the democratic candidates are trying to do is establish policies that apply to most Americans in a bell-curve distribution. About 2/3 of the population is within one standard deviation of the median, about 19/20 of Americans within two standard deviations, leaving some radical outliers on the outside. A good democratic policy covers the mast majority of people, but not everyone. These are pragmatic idealists at work. They’re not perfect, but they get the job done.
Historically, African Americans have always voted for the progressive party. Back when the 3/5 Compromise was set into place, black voters came in mass to vote against the gluttons that were exploiting their labor. This is sort of similar to today. There is still a lot of racism in America. Many minorities feel they are being treated unfairly by American law, and are voting in ways that will change this.
Mostly, economists and citizens alike are upset by the oligarchy of the world. According to “The Economist” magazine, roughly 1% of people control 98% of the wealth in the world. Liberals would like to make these percentages more reasonable, and improve the quality of life of everyone. This is not “buying-everyone-a-coke,” but allocating federal, state, county, and city money to places that need governmental support.
“No Child Left Behind” is a good example of good policy gone wrong. The administration promised America a results-based form of schooling in the tradition of Horace Mann. Liberals and conservatives agreed that this was a good program, because it was to be funded by the federal gov’t 100%. But it didn’t pan out. The government paid for only 58%, while schools had to dip into their already struggling budgets to accomodate the NCLB program. Schools that struggled had their budgets cut, ad nauseum. After this, poor schools got poorer, and rich white schools got richer. And whiter. Jonathan Kozol, author of “Savage Inequalities” feels that NCLB is a new form of segregation against minorities.
In the last 8 years, 90 percent of African Americans have voted democratic. Is it because they’re stupid? I personally don’t think so. Minorities vote for change because they see this country fit for change. Clinton and Obama know what change the minorities would like, and are responding.
Obama and Clinton aren’t buying us cokes. They’re helping us out of oligarchy.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:51 am
The Democrats would not help those in developing nations much at all. They offer giveaway programs and free assistance. I have spent a lot of time travelling in these countries and have witnessed many failed policies first-hand. What all people in the world need is opportunity, not freebies. Offer education and a chance to work and compete on their own merits on an equal playing field and you will see the standard of living rise quickly.
What laws in America are not equal for all races? The Democrats make divisive statements like this but do not back them up. It’s called “race-baiting” and it stinks. If there is a specific law that needs fixing, let’s fix it. But simply screaming to a group that has been historically oppressed that they are still not free because everyone except Democrats still want to keep them down is divisive. I don’t know how you can call it anything else.
Why don’t schools use their own budgets to implement good policy to ensure every child is getting an education? Why is additional federal funding necessary for local schools to do their jobs? I think this is a copout. I am sure someone will set me straight if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the job of the local school districts to provide a quality education and ensure that every child has access to it? Why fear accountability if you are doing your job well?
Conservatives do not vote for handouts, although I will grant you that Republicans sometimes do. The erstwhile GOP majority was the worst offender in years at voting for earmarked projects and increased spending as I thought only Democrats could do. Shameful.
You have to live in an bizzaro-world for a tax cut to be a handout. Letting people keep some of their own money is not a handout. Taking my money and giving it to a Democrat constituency to secure their vote in an election is a handout. In fact it’s corrupt.
I won’t touch Reaganomics, as you call it. A long discussion of supply-side economics would bore the two readers my blog has left and we wouldn’t change any minds.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:57 am
By the way, bro. I don’t mind rational and pertinent posts. But copying and pasting a half-dozen quotes from your friends attacking my integrity really won’t make it on my own blog. Let’s keep our posts germaine to the discussion and make valid points. If a valid or well-reasoned argument includes a criticism of me, that’s fine. But mean-spirited won’t make it through the censor.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
You keep trying, bro. For the public, I am deleting Vitus’ (a Mechling pupa) many comments that are libelous. I can’t allow his comments, both because they would likely attract litigation and because he is WAY off topic.
Some of your comments are fine, Vitus, but they quickly devolve into slander and personal viciousness. Let’s raise the bar a bit and be better than your parents, shall we?
(if you would like, I will edit your comments to delete the inappropriate remarks since the governor on your brain seems to be malfunctioning…I would prefer for you simply to exercise reason and even use relaxation techniques when authoring commentary)
February 28th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
As a point of interest, try visiting a couple of the most popular liberal blogs and then the more popular conservative blogs. You will notice an incredible difference in the nature of the dialog.
Ask yourself if you would allow your children to read the liberal blogs out loud. I certainly would not.
What is it about liberals that makes them so angry and so vulgar? Everything is personal to them and they hate you if they have a differing opinion.
Go to www.horsesass.org and compare it with www.soundpolitics.com.
But don’t let your children read the former.
February 28th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Maybe horsesass.org is not the best representation of liberal web logging. Here are a few liberal blogs I actually read:
http://religiousliberal.blogspot.com/
http://www.talkleft.com/
http://www.juancole.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/
Sometimes information of politics is not appropriate for children. Take the Monica Lewinski scandal. Charles Manson. The gory details of the holocaust. I find that often time the vulgar truths are important to retain. Horrors are not to be forgotten. [slanderous and false remark deleted]
It can be said that breaking the rule of law is vulgar. I personally think it is. That’s why I have a hard time seeing eye-to-eye with the Bergers of the world.
I didn’t mean to offend you. My motivation in this debate is to make you reflect on your situation and actions. I’m sure you’re a very nice person. I don’t mean to assault you personally, only politically. I disagree with you and your philosophies, but that doesn’t mean we have to be enemies.
No, I am not a Mechling. I was friends with Morgan and Tim in high school, but believe it or not, I’m not on an assignment from their mom. I’m a political science student at Western, and I supported Margie Rodriguez. It’s not hard to find your name on google, and I’ve just done some research. I’m not a liberal. I’m an independent. I go to church on sunday.
I just don’t think it’s fair to just show one side of an argument.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
See, that’s better. It just feels better to keep your comments on an intellectual level, doesn’t it?
You certainly take flights of fancy in redefining my use of the word “vulgar.” I clearly intended it in the context of the language they use. But quite creative in your semantic rabbit trails.
You can disagree with Councilman Stima all you want. But when you transitively tear into family members of his you cross the line. It doesn’t even make sense. It’s just mean, unjust and provides great insight to the true hatred you have of those you dislike.
I have no doubt if the Mechlings made an enemy of you there would be plenty of false and malicious things to read about you. Has it ever occured to you that not a SINGLE allegation the Mechlings or their sychophants have made have turned out to be true? Their method is to throw as much crap at the wall and see what sticks. They have no compunction making false accusations and outright lying to kill an adversary.
I have already been cleared of every single allegation they have made, though their own allies have actually broken laws and are guilty of ethics violations. That’s the great irony in Monroe politics…those making accusations of unethical behavior are the worst offenders.
So if your purpose here is to make me reflect on my “situation and actions” then point it out. What philosophical or political disagreements to you have with me? I’ve thought it all through and I happen to think I’m right.