The liberal tactics that were evident in the 2008 election can be summed up in a 2 Live Crew CD I had. It was called "As Nasty As They Wanna Be." As I have described in a previous post, the liberal smear machine and bias in the press can be summarized by the treatment of Sarah Palin in the press. In addition, the Bush administration was hammered pretty badly...but when it comes to many of Bush's policies being criticized I might have agreed with some aspects, but not the tone presented. Otherwise supposed legitimate and "professional" members of the press have turned into little nasty partisan creatures.
One of my favorite examples is CNN Reporter Susan Roesgen interviewing people during the TEA party. The TEA party meant taxed enough already, and it consisted of people from many different backgrounds expressing their discontent with the government's policy of seemingly out of control spending. This you tube video is an extension of what occurred after the part that was aired on CNN. I rather enjoy it because Susan Roesgen gets put on the spot and has to explain herself. I am completely bewildered by this "professional" reporters lack of good journalism skills.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xWGvdRQ9Q
The CNN incident is just one example of the partisan attacks on people who oppose the Obama administration's policy. As much as I do not like Rush Libaugh stating "I hope he fails" regarding Obama, it provides another good example. The press had "I hope he fails" all over the place. I looked for the whole context of the what he said, and what it turned out to be was he hoped his policies failed, not the president. That's about all of the 'support' I want to give to that dope addict. Ultimately, it is rather surprising that the Obama administration made a big deal about discussed Limbaugh in an official manner, where you'd normally see ignoring the issue. Any retort from the Obama administration just helped Rush's radio show ratings even more. Personally, if he's what the Republican party has to offer, the party is screwed.
A lot of the general nastiness and bias stems from an unethical and unprofesisonal press who are products of 60s radical thought. One of those promoters is a guy named Saul Alinsky, who was yet another Marxist America hating intellectual who was well known for his work called "Rules for Radicals." It's fascinating when you read of Alinsky, and apply his rules to the dialogue that we see from liberals in our government. In addition, this is not directly related (but notable) Hillary Clinton's senior honors thesis was on Sal Alinsky (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/).
A decent background of Alinsky can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm
A good description of the "Rules for Radicals" can be located here:
http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm
Now I wanted to apply a few rules to some of what we have heard, watched, and read over time.
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
Calling people who do not support Obama racist or people who do not support gay marriage homophobes are two that I can think of right off of the top of my head. I recall the racist dialogue coming from John Murtha during focus on the Pennsylvania campaign. He outright called his constituents racist because they did not support Obama. Such a faulty generalization from a member of congress in the context of mass media coverage is completely uncalled for.
In addition, I really see the application of rule 5 from the liberal immigration rights groups pushing for amnesty for illegal aliens. At first they were calling groups such as the Minute Men racist xenophobes, then in other interviews they insinuate individuals who do not support amnesty as being racist and xenophobes. In addition, an amazing double standard is everything is done so politically correct. Everybody is offended by this or that...but the liberal left can get away with calling Bush a Nazi or someone that does not support their cause to be ignorant and a hater. Any dialogue of opposition to their cause is immediately ridiculed using the lowest common denominator. While I won't agree with Obama's policy, out of respect for his office and being democratically elected, there is a certain degree of natural respect that I have for him and refuse to get nasty about things. But that is the problem, it's that sense of decency in which Saul Alinksy defines and applies his rule to.
One thing the seems to really apply is those who speak the loudest about intolerance tend to be the most intolerant of all, and the only "rights" the left supports is abortion and gay rights. An example is as soon as right leaning radio starts opposing Obama's policies, there is discussion of bringing back the fairness doctrine. In the larger scheme of things, the fairness doctrine is government control on free speech. Another obvious example is the 2nd Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/26/demint-tries-prevent-fairness-doctrine-revival/
Here is another one, albeit more general...RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
This one is pretty easy. We'll see a great depression if this stimulus bill isn't passed! And many other extreme situations as a result of not implementing X policy. But then again, that can be applied to "Our cities will be mushroom clouds is we don't invade Iraq and remove Sadam from power!" Another good example is Rahm Emanuel's gaff "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
While "Alinsky championed new ways to organize the poor and powerless that created a backyard revolution in cities across America," we are strife with massive corruption and voter fraud coming from ACORN and other wonderful things that this new administration is cranking out over time such as stimulus money going to waste (as I read Biden stating in the news today). While the Obama campaign was well done, and his supporters applied their nasty partisan attacks in a manner that would make Alinsky smile, there is a problem. While Alinsky focused on the means to change government by shaking up the power structure in order to have that "hope and change" implemented, he failed to really define what people did when they had it. Obama won and the other branches have DNC party in power now. Yet we see nothing coming from the government that is really helping this economic crisis as a whole. I think they should really go back and review the works of Benjamin Franklin and other founding fathers in regard to handling this economic crisis. I think that their wisdom would far outweigh some 60s Marxist dope each and every time.
