Posted by Tina
James Carville, a mouthpiece from the Clinton era, has suggested that the rise of alternative media has caused a deeply polarized America. He’s upset about Citizens United too. I imagine he longs for the old days, when Democrats had an edge with biased media favoring them. Poor dude actually has competition now.
The advent of talk radio and the internet, specifically according to Carville Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party, have caused a troubling outcome in government. Gridlock and contention are upsetting the apple cart for this bombastic leftist. Carville also claims that those who listen to Rush or hang out at local Tea Party meetings never read left leaning newspapers or engage in conversation with people whose views are on the left. Does he really think that lefties engage in any meaningful way with conservatives? Prior to the advent of alternative media the Sunday morning political talk shows always had a token Republican who was rarely meaningfully engaged and even if he was, was then promptly discredited by the last words of the three Democrat guests.
Democrats call the Tea Party a fringe group of radicals with too much influence in politics.
The Democrats have several of these groups that I can think of: unions, green lobby, black race baiters.
The Democrats complain that big corporate money has too much influence. But Democrats and Republicans benefit from this money. Additionally, Democrats have always had an advantage with union money which is considerable. In fact Democrats have never been at a disadvantage with union or corporate money. Consider Barack Obama’s largest donors:
University of California – $1,799,460
Goldman Sachs – $1,034,615
Harvard University – $900,909
Microsoft Corp – $854,717
JPMorgan Chase & Co – $847,895
The reality is this: America has become more polarized since the radical Marxist left took control of the Democrat Party. Their hard left progressive push is at the heart of all of the contention in Washington DC. The progressives brought us all of the social programs that have cause debt to rise. They have pressed decade after decade for more and bigger federal control, higher taxes, and restrictive suffocating regulation to the point that a once vibrant and free country is now looking exactly like socialist Europe. High unemployment and high dependency with very little opportunity.
As you have probably heard the radical progressives in Congress have won today in Washington DC. America will now borrow another 800 billion dollars…eight hundred billion dollars! That growing debt, plus the interest on that debt, must be funded by the sweat of the working man’s brow. In addition there will be no delay in the implementation of Obamacare…the train wreck with a high price tag. Republicans won on a single point, the sequester cuts will remain.
Yes progressives have won the contentious battle in polarized America. Carville may be hoping this will mark the defeat of the Tea Party and an end to the polarization. But Carville should know that the conservative groups in the country have not caved even if the Republicans in Congress have. As far as they are concerned, radical Democrats won today but America LOST! The light of freedom and opportunity has dimmed a little more! Radical progressives should know this defeat will only make those who are concerned with their extreme and costly agenda that much more determined and vocal.
There are less than thirteen months to election time. Let the contest continue.
To be fair, Carville does criticize both liberals and conservatives for only seeking out sources that confirm their beliefs, but he does believe this is more of a habit of conservatives.
“Carville also claims that those who listen to Rush or hang out at local Tea Party meetings never read left leaning newspapers or engage in conversation with people whose views are on the left.”
I wouldn’t generalize that way, but I think this tendency is strong on the right. And you’re leaving out Carville’s evidence. He points to Justice Scalia’s recent (and very embarrassing) interview in which he admits that he stopped reading left-leaning newspapers and only reads right-wing sources of information. He also said he can’t even remember the last party he went to that had both liberals and conservatives.
Yeah, that’s one guy–but other Republicans have also noted this tendency. Bruce Bartlett, David Frum, Megan McArdle, and CATO’s Julian Sanchez have all criticized the “epistemic closure” of conservative media, which, as Sanchez describes it, has “become worryingly untethered from reality as the impetus to satisfy the demand for red meat overtakes any motivation to report accurately.” According to them, it is their fellow Republicans who have become more radical over time as the intellectual side of conservatism has been drowned out by clowns like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
Sanchez’s words ring true. How many times have you and Jack posted information taken directly from a right-wing chain e-mail, it’s original source unknown, that has been easily disproven by a five-minute Google search? Things that are taken as gospel in the right-wing information bubble are easily proven untrue the moment you step outside that bubble. Yet that kind of fact-checking is almost non-existent here.
Carville’s point is fair and accurate. You can choose to ignore it, but given the plummeting approval ratings of the Tea Party, that kind of blissful ignorance isn’t flying with the voters anymore.
Carville’s point was to further discredit the opposition, as always. It’s the same old rule #12 song, Chris. There is nothing fair about it because it covertly conveys that the same isn’t happening on his side, which is absurd!
A survey found that liberals think Rush Limbaugh’s audience is made up of a bunch of uneducated hayseeds…a lie. In fact his audience is extremely diverse, in terms of education, race, area of the country, and political persuasion.
You have to remember too that many of us had no choice for decades but to read and listen to liberal opinion. It’s not like we don’t know who you are and what you believe.
It’s amazing to me that in America the ideals held by the Tea Party, low taxes and smaller government are considered radical or extreme when in fact they mirror the founding principles for our nation.
It is equally amazing that the ideals of the more radical elements of the Democrat Party, which are more in line with the ideals of Lenin and Marx…even Hitler economically speaking, aren’t considered extreme.
Perhaps ones point of reference makes all the difference. If so, then my conclusion is more accurate.
The poll numbers for the Tea Party were manufactured by Democrats and media applying rule #12…is it any wonder that they poll negatively when they have been demonized, lied about, and smeared as mass killers and racists?
The left media has done more inaccurate, left world view reporting than alternative media has had time to counter. They have been overt supporters of the Democrat Party for decades.
And that reality bubble Carville speaks about. The left lives in a bubble that it doesn’t acknowledge exists. That is so damned arrogant! An observer from outside that bubble can easily see it in the repetitive nature of reporting in your media and the lack of diverse thought. I swear on any given day its as if the White House sent out a list of talking points. Not only do they report the same exact thing…they use the exact same adjectives and adverbs. There is always one word that sticks out, gravitas is one that I recall. How likely is it that TV writers on ten different outlets would pick that odd word to describe a political contender at 7:00 AM? One good thing about listening to Rush is that he grabs the sound bites and plays them back for us to hear. The idea that they don’t exist in a bubble where they listen and associate exclusively within their own ideological realm is absurd.
It isn’t the Tea Party that has polarized America. America is polarized because of the polar differences that separate the radical left controlling the Democrat Party and Americans, including Tea Party Americans, that have had enough of the lefts Marxist march toward a socialist state.
Because of the unscrupulous nature of your side the battle is quite difficult. As Libby wrote in comments on another article about what was promised in Obamacare, as opposed to what has been delivered, she doesn’t care if her side lies, damages, or cheats, as long as they win. That is radical. that is the extreme element we and our more squishy fellow Republicans are up against.
Tina, your invocations of Hitler and your abuse of words like “Marxist” and “socialist” just proves how radical you are. Those words have real meanings. You don’t understand them. Obama has not governed as a “Marxist” in any reasonable sense of the term. You’re not a radical because you believe in small government and low taxes, you’re a radical because of the extreme and inaccurate things that you say in order to achieve your goals.
Chris: “Those words have real meanings.
I chose them because they are accurate descriptors of the ultimate goal of the extreme elements of the Democrat party.
“You don’t understand them.”
Is that right.
“Obama has not governed as a “Marxist” in any reasonable sense of the term.”
Is that right.
Redistribution IS Marxist, “From each according to his means to each according to his need.”
Obama’s policies are rife with redistribution triggers. His healthcare law attempts to equalize outcomes…the utopian dream! The real goal is even more so…single payer.
Obamacare puts the federal government in control of the health insurance industry, dictating what insurance companies must cover. The HHS secretary has been given unbelievable powers to control our healthcare. Obamacare directs citizens to buy insurance or pay a fine. All of that is socialist and dictatorial
The IRS under Obama spied on journalists and targeted
“enemies” for unequal treatment under the law; that is tyranny.
Obama not only declared his intention to put coal companies out of business, he achieved that goal. Through the EPA and extreme energy regulations he has seized more control of energy production without going through the legislative process; that’s dictatorial and tyrannical.
During the budget battle three liberal professors from the University of Wisconsin-Madison wrote an op-ed in a Wisconsin paper saying Obama should just bypass Congress: “We propose that if the House fails to act, Obama should unilaterally order the Treasury Department to issue new bonds.”
There are other examples but I think that should suffice.
My final words were: “…Americans, including Tea Party Americans, that have had enough of the lefts Marxist march toward a socialist state.”
Obama has moved the ball down the court quite a distance. If you don’t agree perhaps it’s because you live in that leftist bubble…looks normal to you.
Marxism and Nazism are both forms of socialism.
They leftists in power admit to their socialist aims and goals, why can’t you?
Question: Where did all the Park Service shutdown signs come from? Takes goofernment a LONG time to get things like that made up & distributed – (some even with custom logos) yet they were up immediately at the start of shutdown. And it takes your tax $$ to pay for things like that.
Goofernment is unable to work that fast – unless the white house PLANNED ahead.
Tina: “His healthcare law attempts to equalize outcomes…”
No, it doesn’t.
“The real goal is even more so…single payer.”
Yes or no question: Was Winston Churchhill a Marxist?
“Obamacare directs citizens to buy insurance or pay a fine. All of that is socialist and dictatorial”
Yes or no question: Were the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney all “socialist and dictatorial” back when they advocated for the idea that everyone should be required to buy insurance or pay a fine? Did the re-election of Barack Obama suddenly cause each of them to see the light and abandon their socialist ways?
No, these conservatives advocated for the individual mandate based on conservative principles. Romney called the individual mandate the “ultimate conservative idea” as recently as 2008!
But I guess it’s not their fault. They didn’t know that Obama would soon steal their idea and thereby force them to pretend they were always against it. How heroic of them to abandon all principles to serve the far nobler goal of opposing everything Obama is for.
“The IRS under Obama spied on journalists and targeted “enemies” for unequal treatment under the law; that is tyranny.”
You have no idea what you’re talking about. It was the DOJ who spied on journalists. I agree that is tyrannical. But if it proves that Obama is a socialist, then I guess Bush was too, since he did the same thing.
One more yes or no question: Were the Founders socialist for passing a law that said every free adult male had to purchase a gun or pay a fine?
Chris reverts once more and starts his attack using Saul Alinskys rules of engagement, by trying the following rules:
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating.
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” (Attack, attack, attack from all sides,
RULE 12: Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
So sad it does not work on concerned people with logic or common sense or Post Scripts
Harold: “So sad it does not work on concerned people with logic or common sense or Post Scripts”
Absurd. This website constantly ridicules and makes personal attacks against politicians you don’t like. I’ve never read Saul Alinsky and have no interest in doing so, but those “rules” were not invented by him, and have been used by both political parties since forever. This obsession with Alinsky is just ridiculous, and proves the point Carville made about the bubble you live in. Tea Party members think it makes them look really smart whenever they bring up Alinsky, you have no idea how you look to people outside the bubble.
Chris it may surprise you, but I agree in part with some of what you said, because what you have defined is exactly what is wrong with politics. Let me explain… Political parties are divisive and polarizing, that’s the intent, but they are also the source of a lot of dirty tricks by unethical members. Too often party leaders place partisan advantage ahead of ethics. There’s a lot of disinformation and rhetoric that comes from the two big parties. However, they do serve a good purpose for rallying support and getting out the vote. So, i think we just stuck. People have a natural inclination to belong to a group for power and power corrupts. But, what else can we do? And without good guideance and constant vigilance political groups incorporate extreme positions and this leads to any number of ills, so I guess it all comes back to us to keep our party’s on the straight and narrow.
George Washington had grave concerns about allowing political parties into the system and strongly preferred the concept of citizens running on their own individual merits and voters, voting for based on that alone, not partisanship.
Chris it does! Listen to the rhetoric and observe the law.
Everyone is covered. The rich and invested, through imposed higher taxes and higher premiums, subsidize those with need through their means. The HHS Secretary has been given powers that bypass the legislative process…healthcare for the entire nation is virtually controlled by an unelected bureaucrat!
Winston Churchill suggested a Marxist solution to a problem as you have previously pointed out. One sentence hardly defines a person. Winston Churchill also said this a long time ago. We have since observed the oppressive, tyrannical, debilitating outcomes of that system when imposed over time. We have also experienced the vibrancy and innovation in the form of free Americans acting within a free market capitalist model. America, a very young nation, thrived…the people thrived! We have also watched the decline in America as socialist policies are imposed. Would Churchill hold the same views today? Nobody can say but we know he was a bright person with the ability to observe change and make wise decisions. I can’t imagine that he would come down on the side of systems that follow Hitler’s or Stalin’s economic model.
The Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich are idea people. Thinkers consider solutions. Heritage has since changed its opinion on this. I don’t know about Gingrich. My guess is that he would not now favor this solution at the federal level. Mitt Romney was a governor in a state that favors socialist solutions to problems. He served the people of his state and in doing so supported a socialist solution to a problem. The founders placed this kind power at the state and local levels for a reason. At that level the people are free to vote with their feet if they don’t like it. At the federal level there is no such freedom.
Romney was wrong about the ultimate solution unless he was speaking of individuals. Individuals should be responsible to buy their own insurance; being forced to do so is tyrannical. The mandate at the federal level is dangerous. It sets a precedence. What else might we be compelled to buy or be taxed at the whims of political power? My observation of our legislators is that over decades they will take a good idea and turn it into a means for imposing regulation and taxation with the power to destroy. For instance, the conservation and preservation of the nations most beautiful landmarks was a good idea. Creating a bureaucracy with the power to kill private industry (Obama, through the EPA, destroying the coal industry) is tyrannical.
Is it really “abandoning ones principles” to make an observation, to reconsider based on what happens when something is implemented and imposed as opposed to simply being an idea?
Romneycare works, to the degree it works, in Massachusettes because the people there support it. Romney care is also different than Obamacare so it isn’t a straight across comparison.
(It was the Department of Justice…Obama didn’t do it)
First of all the DOJ, and specifically Eric Holder, serve under the President. Obama is Holders boss. The IRS targeted conservative groups. Obama, his supporters and media all labeled Tea Party as extremists and racist. Whether an actual order was given or Lois Lerner just took it upon herself as a government official activist the Presidents influence cannot be denied.
Secondly, in the same circumstance the left and left media wouldn’t hold Bush responsible, right? Of course they would! In fact they would make it a really big damaging scandal with relentless attacks for weeks. Geez, Chris, they held Bush responsible for Abu Grahib…something for which he had zero control until after the fact.
The buck stops at the Presidents desk unless it is Barack Obama. Nobody seems to want to hold him responsible. Could it be that they are afraid of being labeled racist? Or is it that they would compromise principles, no matter what, to win?
“…then I guess Bush was too, since he did the same thing.”
No Chris, Bush didn’t spy on journalists and he didn’t use the IRS to target his political rivals.
Bush used those tools to keep Americans safe…there is a huge difference and the difference suggests the quality of the man and the ideals he holds.
Bush had no interest in fundamentally transforming America.
I have to wonder…were your questions sincere or were you just back to playing that Saul Alinsky game again?
Chris: “…those “rules” were not invented by him, and have been used by both political parties since forever.”
Not true. Political strategy, attempts to discredit an opponent have been used by politicians since forever.
Organizing community groups to target a person or an idea on cue and pursue it relentlessly until total destruction is reached is new within the past 40-50 years. George Soros, Barack Obam, Hillary Clinton and others in the Democrat Party studied the Saul Alinsky method. Barack Obama was an instructor in the method. Background information here
This Marxist based method is destroying and polarizing American politics leading to the goal of single party rule. The party doesn’t win on the merits of its ideas. It wins by destroying the reputations of those that don’t hold the same views.
Your lack of interest suggest brain washing and falling for the excuse that “both sides do it”.
It is unfortunate that conservatives, including me, are now encouraged to engage in the same game. If you can think of another way to counter this mind bogglingly evil approach to politics I’d like to hear it because playing gentlemen politics has proven ineffective. It has been particularly difficult when faced with a media so biased that it would target Sarah Palin, for instance, and set about to absolutely destroy her as a means of winning the presidency for Barack Obama. No Vice Presidential contender has ever been treated so badly. No contender for office has ever been harassed and demeaned with such determined focus and vitriol.
I suggest you stretch a bit. Step outside the liberal bubble you live in and do some alternative reading. The information is there. Information not opinion. Obama has taught the Alinsky method…its a fact. He does intend to transform this nation and finds the Constitution “too restrictive” for those interested in social change. We didn’t make this up. Your future and your freedom depends on you having the courage to step out of that box. to test the notion that there might indeed be those in America who wish to establish powerful federal control and restriction over your life.
Wow, you’d think John Wayne said this yesterday if he hadn’t passed away four decades ago.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/17/bummed-about-the-gop-congressional-debacle-john-waynes-wisdom-on-liberals-from-nearly-40-years-ago-might-help/
I just listened to John Wayne and he was sure right. Thanks Peggy.
Nothing new under the son!
It sure is neat that because of human creativity and American ingenuity we can hear his opinion expressed after four decades!
Our lives have been improved and enriched because of freedom and the entrepreneurial spirit that when untethered, flourishes.
Chris Writes: Harold: “So sad it does not work on concerned people with logic or common sense or Post Scripts”
Good to know you included us here at Post Scripts as to who it would not apply too, and with that concession you arguably agree that I applied it properly to your style of rebuttal.
Oh, geez. If you really want to be heartened, go read Wayne’s May ’71 Playboy interview, which caused AIM to take umbrage.
Oh, geez.
Sorry we don’t go fetch around here. If you have something to say about the Playboy article or AIM’s take, say it.