Democrats ignore their own big money and low tactics
Published May 7, 2014
by J. Peder Zane, News and Observer, May 6, 2014.
Cynical Democratic leaders believe calling Republicans stupid, selfish racists is good for business. But how would they characterize their own supporters?
What do they think when they hear their voters and shih tzus in the media repeat their false claims with passionate intensity? When they hear them rattle off their script word-for-word – “The GOP is waging a war on women!” or “The IRS didn’t target conservative groups!” or “President Obama has bent over backward to work with Republicans!” – do they smirk and conclude that you can fool half the people all the time? Or do Democratic leaders smile at how skillfully their backers play their sulfurous game?
I’ve been wondering about this as Democratic leaders unleash their latest bogus strategy to retain their slippery grip on the Senate. Their dreams of running on the triumph of Obamacare or the booming economy have been dashed. Instead, like snake-eyed gamblers down to their last short stack at the craps table, they’re betting that railing against the corrupting influence of money on politics will turn into sevens and 11s come November.
The role of the bogeyman in this year’s election drama – performed admirably in years past by Lee Atwater, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the tea party – is being played by the billionaire Koch brothers.
Sen. Harry Reid never misses an opportunity to call them “unpatriotic” for having the audacity to support his Republican opponents. Imperiled Democrats, including North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan, are making them a cornerstone of their campaigns. And, like Pavlov’s dog at dinner time, Democratic voters and journalists have responded by making the Koch brothers the target of vacuous smears.
Perhaps the Koch brothers are greedy businessman looking to install Republican puppets into high office. Attacks on them might even seem principled if they also noted that Democrats’ strings have long been pulled by their wealthy supporters, especially the trial lawyers and unions. Fair-minded observers would also mention that Democrats receive Koch-like support from their own billionaire backers, including George Soros and the hedge fund manager Tom Steyer – whose donations help explain the latest delay in a decision on the Keystone pipeline.
They don’t.
They conveniently forget that it was Barack Obama who blew up the system of public financing of presidential campaigns in 2008. Instead they rail against the “right-wing” Supreme Court, whose 2010 Citizens United decision did indeed open the floodgates of outside spending. Missing from their incessant and often false denunciations – Justice Samuel Alito famously mouthed “not true” when President Obama mischaracterized the decision in a State of the Union address – is that the court based its ruling on a principle liberals claim to embrace: the First Amendment.
While preserving limits on direct contributions to candidates and parties, the court ruled that the government cannot prohibit corporations, associations and labor unions from advancing their views. Instead of using the case as a talking point, its opponents should discuss why the Koch brothers and Steyer shouldn’t have the same right as The New York Times Company, News Corp or McClatchy to make their case. Freedom of the press is one aspect of freedom of speech.
I agree with Democrats that these outside groups often fund dishonest TV ads. I share their disgust at a recent spot claiming N.C. Supreme Court Justice Robin Hudson is sympathetic to child molesters. But where was their outrage when Obama supporters ran an ad in 2012 blaming Mitt Romney for a woman’s death from cancer?
Finally, Democratic attacks on big money ignore one of the primary reasons that well-heeled groups feel they must spend oodles of cash: the increasing scope and reach of big government. In modern politics, almost nothing is local. Sens. Hagan and Richard Burr may bring some patronage and pork back home, but they are chiefly votes for their party’s agendas. The names don’t matter, just the parties: Democratic or Republican? Why shouldn’t people in New York, Oklahoma or California try to influence North Carolina elections whose outcome will affect them directly?
You can’t have big government and small campaigns.
The real corruption in America – which only the much maligned tea party has confronted – is caused by the massive, vigorous state espoused by Democrats (and accepted to a great degree by mainstream Republicans). The federal government is a big money game of rules and regulations, tax breaks and subsidies that corporations must play by hiring legions of lawyers and lobbyists, many of whom cut their teeth working for the government. It is no accident that the DC metro has eight of the 11 richest counties in America.
I know why Democratic powerbrokers ignore these inconvenient truths – they want to retain power in a system that rewards them with power and treasure. But why do their supporters brush aside these facts? Are they as cynical as their party leaders? Or are they useful idiots?
May 7, 2014 at 10:46 am
Norm Kellly says:
Clearly the final question is rhetorical. Useful idiots or something else?! Really.
Perhaps the N&D would describe themselves as a news outlet. Perhaps when TV 'news' organizations like WRAL, ABC, NBC (of every flavor) simply carry, repeat, without question, the demon party talking points, they still believe themselves to be news outlets. But viewers have the opportunity to educate ourselves and know the difference.
The only, obvious, logical conclusion is definitely Useful Idiots.
Unions support demons because demons then turn around and reward the union bosses.
Why do supposed news outlets support demons? Not a clue. It makes no sense. A media outlet is either news or it's not. Most lame-stream media outlets appear quite content to be demon support organizations rather than news outlets. The N&D wouldn't recognize a decent, intelligent conservative candidate for office if that person walked into their office, found the editor-in-chief and slapped that person across the face. The editor would wonder who the person was (but not try to figure it out) while penning a letter of endorsement for the socialist candidate. If the editor was forced to recognize that the conservative candidate was actually the most qualified, the editor would simply not endorse a candidate. When does this happen? When the socialist candidate is proven to be a child molester? Maybe. But the proof would have to be overwhelming! And they would probably make some excuse about the childhood. When the socialist candidate has had an extra-marital affair? Not even close. For socialist candidates, an extra-marital affair seems to bolster their candidacy. Witness Billclinton. Witness Johnedwards. In John's case, his wife was being killed by cancer, yet his candidacy was barely affected by his affair. Bill became even more electable because he had the audacity to do something that no one should be doing, especially a presidential candidate who could then be compromised by a foreign government. Women seemed to admire something in Bill that would drive them to the divorce lawyer if it happened in their own house. Men seemed to admire Bill because he was able to get away with something that they wouldn't be allowed to do. But even with overwhelming evidence like this the socialists in the media don't feel it necessary to endorse the conservative candidate. Even more outrageous, the socialists in the media choose to powerfully endorse, support, donate to candidates like Bill, withholding information from voters that might sway the outcome.
When Republicans cut spending and cut taxes, bring the budget more in line, how do socialists respond. Even media outlets refer to their minor cuts as draconian. We expect such stupid response from socialist candidates. But what explains media outlets simply repeating the lie? Not a clue. When demons have the power and raise taxes and spending, creating a hardship for some taxpayers and deficits in the budget, how do the socialists in the media respond? They usually find a way to blame Republicans, just like the socialist politicians.
But it is distressing that the majority of media outlets refuse to report news, refuse to educate their audience, and ignore the hypocrisy of their buddies on the left. When was the last time any demon voter heard the name Steyer? How many demon voters KNOW that Steyer runs a private, hush-hush, never-to-be-mentioned secret organization that suports, donates to, socialist candidates? How many demon voters know that the occupier delayed the XL pipeline in response to the money contributed by Steyer? So few that it's disgusting. Outlets that ignore this should no longer be called 'news' outlets. Outlets that purport to be 'news' outlets should have their licenses suspended for not reporting news like this. When was the last time demon voters heard about how much money unions funnel into the coffers of the demon party? Only to be rewarded shortly after the election with a new, generous, unsustainable contract.
And NC Teachers support Clay? Why? Because the union said that he's liberal enough to support. Because the union said that they MUST support a fellow teacher. But special needs appear to be his only interest. Which media type has asked Clay about any other national-level issue that concerns him? Which national level issue actually does concern Clay? Cuz it's not special needs education. This is NOT a national level issue. But no one knows this based on media coverage of campaigns like his.
Butt-buddies are useful idiots. Cuz they are not useful for much else. I'm disgusted with 'news' outlets and their unbelievable coverage of politics for many years. Honesty, news, fair & balanced, investigative have all been left behind by media outlets. They used to be news organizations, now they are simply media outlets. Disgusting. Painful. Destructive. Idiots. NOT useful.
