OLD PHRASES TAKE ON NEW MEANING

   I was thinking recently about some of the words and phrases that have been bantered about over the past eight years and wondering how they might have new meaning now. For example, can it be said that people such as Rush Limbaugh are “speaking truth to power?” When Obama’s policies don’t work the wonders as promised, can we say “Obama lied, people cried?” Is Barack Obama, after less than four years in the Senate and a virtual unknown four years ago a “winner in life’s lottery?” As we complain about the “Obama regime” as run by “King Barry,” maybe we can identify with the words of Howard Dean in saying “Mr. President, we want our country back.” 

   Once we confiscate 90% of what business owners and managers earn, can we finally acknowledge they are also “hard-working Americans?” Would it be fair to say that 2006 was the year the Democrats “took over Congress?” Since Tom Brokaw certainly won’t say it, can a Fox News anchor refer to the results of the 2008 election as the “people having a temper tantrum?” 

   Will Sarah Palin do us the honor of being the first to scream into the microphone that she is “patriotic” and she “has a right to criticize any president?” (Come on, Sarah, I know you can screech as well as Hillary!) And where is Barbra Streisand? Has she complained to anyone that “the same party runs all of the government?” Which Republican senator will be the first to go on national television and declare that Obama “will go down as the worst president in history?” Which famous Illinoisan (Gary Sinese maybe?) will be the first to say he is “ashamed that Obama is from Illinois?”  Can it be said that Jeremiah Wright or Al Sharpton and their “left wing zealots” make up the “religious left?” Is George Soros the leader of the “vast left-wing conspiracy?”   Are we now free to discuss Keith Olberman and others on “hate television?” Which right-wing comedian (are there any??) will put together a tour of “Another Night with Barack Obama” and make light of his visits to 57 states or his pompous meanderings? On what date can we expect to see the premiere of the new movie “B.O.” about the lovable but naïve young president who can’t put together a Cabinet that knows what the IRS is or who can’t tell when he’s being played by foreign leaders? Or how about the debut of Comedy Central’s new show “Li’l Bo,” about the spoiled son of a single flower child, raised and doted upon by his wealthy grandmother in Hawaii?   And the next time ACORN leads a bus tour of CEO homes can they be accused of “going into the dark of the night to the homes of innocent women and children and disrupting their lives?” If the economy hasn’t improved within the next few months, can Mitch McConnell declare “This war is lost?” 

   And what about the “two America’s,” those who have read the Constitution and those who haven’t? Since a previous Congress has already been referred to as being like the Taliban could we say that this one is “like Bolsheviks?” Can John Boehner complain that Nancy Pelosi has “stifled debate on the stimulus bill?” Or can Harry Reid be criticized for not “reaching across the aisle?” Or can we say that Obama is “tone deaf” to the views of the public?

   Bumper stickers can now proclaim “Out of my back pocket! Now!” Or “Death is not a family value.” Or “Impeach the son of a Barack.”  Or maybe just the very simple one that says “Freedom Day: 1-20-2013.” (OK, I have to give our side credit. They’ve already come up with much cleverer bumper stickers than any variation on those the left had!)

AT LONG LAST, SOME OUTRAGE

   During the Bush administration I was furious about the level of attacks, not just on his polices, but on him personally. I knew that this was part of a plan hatched by the left early in the Bush presidency to win back power by increasing his negatives. Every time I heard any of their outrageous remarks or saw the degree to which they fought everything on his agenda, including judicial nominees, I commented to anyone within earshot, “If the Democrats ever regain the presidency I hope our side returns in kind.” (Side note: I never dreamed it would happen so quickly and with such a radical leftist!)

   So I felt very frustrated with the “kid gloves” treatment Obama got from so many conservatives and Republicans during the first six weeks or so of his presidency. Some may say “Well, what about Hannity and Limbaugh?” While they certainly opposed his policies from the very beginning, I frankly was a little surprised at how mild I considered their comments to be. In fact, for six to eight weeks I would have said that Rush was harder on Clinton during his first few weeks than on Obama. Of course, keep in mind that I was comparing his remarks to the likes of Keith Olberman, Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, Chuck Schumer, and Maxine Waters (or insert your favorite loud-mouth Hollywood leftist, almost any other Democratic senator or almost any other member of the Congressional Black Caucus).

   So I must say that I’ve been pleasantly surprised to finally see some outrage developing over Obama’s leftist lurch. Oddly, the first signs didn’t even come from the sources one might have expected. My first shout of agreement came when Rick Santelli went into a rant over the taxes and stimulus plan. That was followed by some grassroots outrage (a la the team parties that occurred yesterday). Of course Rush and Hannity were not far behind. It was about three weeks ago when I first felt that Rush began hitting his stride in commenting on Obama (actually around the time of his CPAC speech). Gradually the drumbeats have grown, not just from the talking heads but from acquaintances I talk with. 

   Normally I’m a “peace loving” kind of guy, so I feel a bit out of uncomfortable crying out for outrage. But unfortunately it worked for the Dems. They were “outraged” at the outcome of the 2000 election, but they became particularly so after the 2004 election. The result? The growth of leftist websites, the ability to raise huge amounts of cash, and pushing their party further to the left than most old-time Democrats could ever have imagined. So okay, I want our side to rally in the same fashion. 

   After Election night in November I immediately began getting e-mails and pleas for money from various conservative groups ready to take on Obama and the Congress. But most were wrapped in fairly conciliatory tones, and some were even calling for a new direction, one that would lead us closer to the opposition. I’m not wealthy, so I knew what little I might be able to give would hardly be noticed, but I determined that if I made any contributions over the next couple of years it would be to the group that appeared most willing to take the fight to the other side. (I’m still watching closely, but so far it looks like the National Republican Trust might be that group). I recall that, when the brouhaha was going on regarding Rush and Michael Steele, I had entirely different concerns. I very much like Michael Steele and felt his comments about Rush were taken somewhat out of context. But my issue is this: Michael Steele seems like a really nice guy. And I’m not sure a “nice guy” can beat this bunch. Bring back Karl Rove, Tom DeLay (although he’s been sounding rather lame lately), or someone in the spirit of Lee Atwater. Which of our websites displays the venom of Moveon.org or the Huffington Post? The other side set the terms of the debate. Now they’re throwing parties. Let’s hope  our “tea parties” will be the first of many celebratory parties, brought on by a little more outrage!

THE FALL-OUT 

In addition to my policy concerns about an Obama presidency, I have other concerns about the outcome of this election. Many of the messages I feared would be sent have been, and it’s not a pretty picture.

First, although I voted for only one Democratic presidential candidate in my lifetime and lived to regret it (Carter) I do think a strong two-party system is healthy. But over the past ten years or so the radical fringe has taken over the Democratic party. After the elections of 02 and 04 I had hoped the GOP would enjoy at least two more strong election cycles, forcing the Dems to moderate both their positions and their tone in order to win again. Although I no doubt would have voted against them, at least someone like a Bill Richardson or Evan Bayh would have been tolerable. Now even moderate Dems will likely turn left, because the radicals control the money and get out the vote machine. You’d better not cross them—just ask poor Joe Lieberman..

A second concern is what we can expect from future campaigns. After the 2000 campaign the Dems embarked on a strategy of criticizing Bush’s every move, opposing everything on his agenda and blaming him for every bad thing that happened. If something good happened (e.g., catching Saddam Hussein), Bush got no credit, it was all just coincidence. There’s not enough space in a blog to list all of the names and hateful accusations leveled at Bush, Cheney, Karl Rove and all the Republicans in Congress. I believed it would backfire, but obviously I was wrong. Now there’s already discussion of whether our side should employ the same strategy, and the talk show buzz is that it certainly worked. Whether our side goes that route or not, you can bet the Dems will continue to use that strategy, precisely because it did work for them. Get ready for endless attacks on the rich, oil companies, and evangelicals—then once the hatred has been ginned up, they’ll make sure and point out that those groups are loyal GOP supporters. Anyone who thinks the rhetoric is going to cool is smoking something illegal.

This election will also cement the importance of money more than ever. Obama was able to outspend McCain four to one by foregoing limits on spending (after he’d promised he would agree to them), then proceeding to raise obscene amounts of money from sources we’ll never be able to trace. A future Republican candidate would be foolish to agree to spending limits, so we can look forward to even more influence peddling, nastier TV ads than ever and more of them.

And Hollywood, don’t you just love them? Their rhetoric will probably cool for a while because their guy won, but if a Republican ever succeeds at getting into office again, Hollywood now knows that if they turn out enough propaganda in their movies, TV shows, and CD’s or post videos on You Tube ranting against the president or re-treading beloved TV shows (shame on you, Opie!) they can influence public opinion. And one has to wonder if Oprah is already deciding who to anoint in 2016. 

We’ve also learned that mediocrity can be rewarded, but only if you select someone who speaks well and looks good on the cover of People. Make sure you select someone with a blank slate who can’t be pegged for his or her voting record. We may be looking in the wrong places with people like Palin, Jindall, and Huckabee. They’re already known merchandise. Let’s wait until 2010, find some freshman senator who looks good and speaks well, advise them to vote present as often as possible and immediately begin running for president. Hire people to write songs, produce dance movements and videos extolling this person and post them on the internet. Make sure that people who have no faith in a God believe that this person can work miracles, transform lives and save the planet.

Finally, there’s a certain frustration in knowing that while so many of us have been depressed over the last few weeks, parties have been going on in the homes of Michael Moore, George Soros, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, and Rosie O’Donnell. It just doesn’t seem fair. And for eight years I’d been hoping that people of their ilk would make good on their threats to move out of the country! 

(Note: I recognize that my next couple of blogs is a little dated. I was on vacation for a couple of weeks with virtually no access to a computer. These are more of my immediate thoughts after the election. Maybe once I get some of this off my chest I can start looking forward rather than backward).

 In the last blog I posted I said that ultimately the blame for the outcome of this election falls on the voters. Phil Gramm got into trouble earlier this year for saying that Americans were spoiled. My response was “He’s absolutely correct.” We expect to have it all with no sacrifice. Specifically this is what I see:

We expect to earn the income of executives working sixty hours a week while working a thirty hour work week.

We expect to always remain healthy while we eat, smoke, and drink anything we wish and sleep with whomever we wish.

We want our country to be safe, but we don’t want to confront our enemies.

We expect to prevail in any military battle, but we want to be out of there within three days, with no casualties on either side.

We want free health care, education, houses,  food and clothing, nice parks and highways and public television, but we don’t want to pay any taxes. Let the other guy pay for it!

Conversely we want our taxes cut, but don’t want any services cut.

We want advances in medicine to improve pre-natal care and increase our life expectancy, but we want the right to terminate life when it’s not convenient for us.

(Many of us at least) want to end all abortions until it directly impacts our reputation, our wallet, or our political preference.

We want our children to learn the difference between right and wrong, but we want to be known as “tolerant” of any lifestyle, loony theology, or oppressive government that’s out there.

We want low crime rates but we can’t profile, have dogs sniff our kids’ lockers, or be randomly questioned. And if we feel we’ve been treated unfairly, we’d dang well better be able to sue the cop.

We want airline safety, but no metal detectors or random searches, and we expect to take anything on the plane that we want.

We want good paying jobs, but we want corporations and executives taxed to the max, limitless paid holidays, maximum benefits, and restrictive environmental rules. 

We also want to save American jobs by restricting imports, but we expect to continue paying “Made in Japan” prices for our vehicles, plasma TV’s and stereos.