Do not despair of this election, Marxists.

Marxby Brad Nelson   11/6/14
As much as I understand Marxism and Marxists to be evil (and that includes all the disguises they use, such as “Progressive,” “liberal,” or “Democrat”), one must admire the fact that they believe in something (or at least hate something consistently). Natures abhors a vacuum, and Marxism was reborn in America when the adults capitulated to the children back in the 60’s, if not earlier, and when the GOP decided that “social issues” (that is, political convictions) were passé.

No one should be proud of the new Republican majorities in the House and Senate, for these are merely the bureaucrats who count time, and little else. Puffed-up by a sense of self-importance, they mistake ethical vacuousness and political cowardice for the skill of political “centrism” and the supposed blessings of “stability uber alles.” Those who see deeper issues than a pragmatism that masquerades as appeasement are called “wacko birds” by the GOP Establishment. These “wacko birds,” such as Ted Cruz, have not yet shown that they are in a position to oust the GOP Establishment.

Do not despair of this election, Marxists, for you still own the means of indoctrination: the mainstream media, education, and pop culture. And they have yet to lose a majority in their realm. And you have even made vast gains into religion, proper, electing a Pope who seems more conducive to your founder than the Church’s. And mainstream Protestantism has adopted your political speak of “social justice,” in essence relegating religion and God to a mere economic issue. Well done, Marxists!

Do not mistake the petulance of the spoiled materialist children that you have helped to create via your emasculating policies with the permanent swinging of a political pendulum. The GOP has no mandate. Had a group of Labrador Retrievers been in the minority in the Canine Party, they would have gained a majority in this election. The GOP was simply the only place one could register a protest vote.

And what are the people protesting (while keeping in mind that your dear leader, despite all that has happened, still has a 44% approval rating)? Oh, dear Marxists, do not fear that they have rejected the socialist utopia you are trying to build for them, the one that offers free health care, free schooling, free day care, free contraceptives, freedom from adulthood, a $15.00 minimum wage, soaking the rich, and more. Don’t worry. Obamacare (your greatest leverage into the hearts and minds of Americans since Social Security) will not be defunded or otherwise revoked. The GOP have no stomach for such a fight. Mitch McConnell has already declared a surrender of sorts by promising not to shut down the government.

The petulance expressed in this election was the disappointment that many encountered that this socialist utopian paradise would actually cost them something in terms of dollars. It was all supposed to be paid for by “the rich.” Few understood (and they still do not understand) that “the rich” includes everyone who has an asset that can be confiscated by government. Not all of the electorate has yet bought into doctrinaire Marxism. But most have thoroughly bought into the Marxist materialist paradigm, that there is no goal for mankind outside of the trinkets he can own and control.

And you Marxists have used this appeal to promise them a steady supply of such trinkets via government which has been successfully sold now as the best guarantor of prosperity. Well done. That was not defeated at the ballot this past Tuesday. That you over-promised a little and caught some backlash is simply inherent to the movement. There will be short-term disappointments. But you are making great gains in how “prosperity” itself is being defined. Soon the petulant electorate will care more for the diversionary topics (aka “the war on women”) then their own welfare. Thus we see the truly diabolical — and genius — in Marxists claiming that it is everyone else who suffers from a “false consciousness” — the ones who believe in freedom and free markets.

Thankfully this recent election provides you with a temporary respite from any perceived shortcomings of the socialist utopia of Big Government. You Marxists need only snipe and throw rhetorical bombs from the back benches now as things get worse. And things will get worse as reality begins to catch up with the degradation caused by your policies. There is always some delay in the effect. And the Republicans will get blamed for things getting worse. The average voter, made dim and pliable by your propaganda, will not see — still does not see — the truth that socialism and Big Government do not work. They can continue to be easily led by the promise of a socialist utopia, addicted as they are to material gain. The blame for this material utopia not coming will be intensified now that the GOP is in charge. They can, and will, be blamed for inflation (which is coming, big-time) and for the consequences (unintended or otherwise) of decades of the rotting out of America by your very policies.

When the hurt comes, it is convenient for the GOP to be in power, for they then can be blamed for it. If healthcare costs go up (as they will continue to do), then surely you can say that it is because the full implementation of Obamacare was scuttled by the Republicans. You need only ask the dumbed-down electorate to give you power again so that you can complete your fix. And there is no reason to believe that the average American — still hopeful that he is on the profiting end of “soaking the rich” — will not still buy into this. The average American’s civic education, long rotted away by your “Progressive” focus, has not prepared him to even consider alternatives.

So don’t let a little anger at the polls cause you a moment of angst, Marxists. You are still driving the agenda. There are times when it is useful for your opponents to have political power so that they can be scapegoated and blamed. And given that the GOP stands for little more than managing the very policies that your hard-driving ideology has won, you should even try to resist giggling as you view the spectacle from the back benches. You should resist showing a bounce in our step as the feeble GOP manages once again to turn whatever victory they have into a defeat.

Brad is editor and chief disorganizer of StubbornThings.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (6753 views)

Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Do not despair of this election, Marxists.

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Actually, the Molochites do seem to have lost. Apparently there were some scattered initiatives that went against them, and their favorite candidates (Sandra Fluke and Wendy Davis) got trounced (Fluke by a fellow Democrat, admittedly). Davis didn’t even win female voters (and also lost Hispanic men). Aggressively pro-“choice” Republicans didn’t fare particularly well; Scott Brown lost (and his near-victory was a result of attacking immigration deform, not abortion) and Monica Wehby never went anywhere in her Senate race (once considered promising). Apparently the femocrats were among the angriest of the Angry Libs in responding to their debacle. (As I mentioned in Jim Treacher’s blog at the Daily Caller, Schadenfreude about hypocritical liberal hate-mongers is an enduring pleasure of such victories, with the memory lasting long after the winners disappoint.)

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Timothy, I know people who sold all their stock in 2007 or 2008 when there was that big crash. Had they held onto it and done nothing, they’d be fine. Perhaps not great (it was a bubble, after all that over-inflated the value), but fine. The market goes up and down, but it is said that in any 10-year period, there has always been a net gain.

      And that is the track that Marxism is riding on. There may be short-term losses, but its still a bullish ideology. A little temper tantrum thrown by children should not be mistaken for not wanting another scoop of free ice cream.

      There is no reason to believe that the vote against Obama (and I would agree that, in general, this is what it was at the national level) was a vote again any of the principles of the Left, including socialism, environmental wacko-ism, feminism, gender neutrality, gay marriage, racial grievance, abortion, anti-oil, anti-coal, anti-business, class warfare, the assault on private property, etc.

      And given that the Republicans gained power by not actually having to take a serious stand on anything, they are truly the emasculated party now like never before. Yes, there are some governors who ran on specific conservative ideas, particularly lower taxes. But the voters, so far as I can tell, are as economically and politically illiterate as ever. Until you understand the problem, you can’t fix it. And this election therefore won’t fix it because it wasn’t a vote for any kind of fix, at least on the national level.

      In fact, I posit that this election victory by the GOP will make things far worse. The GOP, by their inaction and muddled agenda, will show themselves once again incapable of governing, of offering a positive choice to Marxism-socialism. They will further sully the brand. And with McConnell surrendering the stick of the purse, and with any kind of impeachment off the table, what is going to stop Obama from executive-ordering his way to things like amnesty? Yes, Boehner and McConnell with wring their hands at this, but they will not actually do anything. And their excuse for not doing anything will be because they don’t want to harm their chances for taking the presidency in 2016 (and, even if they do win in 2016, the GOP Establishment will still not do anything but manage the existing bureaucracy).

      • Timothy Lane says:

        You might notice on NRO the interview of a member of the pro-life Chiaroscuro PAC, which actively campaigned (successfully) to defeat 3 Democratic state senators in upstate New York. Despite all our problems, it’s still not yet time to give up. Lee Greenwood is still right about America, if nowhere near as much as he was when he wrote the song (during the Reagan era).

  2. Jerry Richardson says:


    You are one of my Internet heros and I want you to know that before I offer a bit of criticism. So, don’t beat me up too badly.

    I think that sometimes your cynicism causes you to overlook some unmistakable blessings.

    Sorta like the farm boy who walked into the house with manure on his boots, and he couldn’t smell and appreciate the wonderful dinner his mother had put on the table; all he could smell was the manure on his boots.

    There are a number of things, I think, to applaud concerning Tuesday’s election. I don’t especially applaud the Republicans for winning the Senate, although I would rather have them win than to continue with Harry Reid and the Democrats in charge.

    I think the useful thing about Tuesday is the hard-to-dispute fact that the majority of American voters, who voted, sent a message to Obama—although he won’t listen—that they do not like the direction that he and the Democrats are taking the nation. And perhaps as you stated:

    There is no reason to believe that the vote against Obama (and I would agree that, in general, this is what it was at the national level) was a vote again any of the principles of the Left, including socialism, environmental wacko-ism, feminism, gender neutrality, gay marriage, racial grievance, abortion, anti-oil, anti-coal, anti-business, class warfare, the assault on private property, etc. —Brad Nelson

    But at least voters are not pleased with Obama’s and the Democrat’s performance. Maybe there is a slightly better chance to persuade some people as to why his performance has been bad—a host of twisted ideological issues that you mentioned. I do find the fact of voters sending Obama a message of displeasure encouraging. What if they hadn’t sent that message? Would the nation be better-off?

    Do I like a lot of what the Republicans do? Of course not; but I do like what some Republicans have been doing. Here’s one I’m watching, Scott Walker:

    …A hallmark of Walker’s campaign was his total non-interest in appearing with outside surrogates. As he toured the state, he appeared with Republican leaders in their home districts, including Rep. Sean Duffy in Eau Claire and Rep. Paul Ryan. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus also toured the state by bus with Walker in the home stretch. Priebus is also from Wisconsin, a fact Walker often touted as they stumped together. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also visited the state to campaign for Walker, but that’s because he invited himself.
    While Walker was repeating the same simple pitch throughout the state, national labor organizations were running ads targeting the governor and Burke was hobnobbing with the president and first lady in the state’s two most liberal cities, Madison and Milwaukee. If Burke bet on this being an anti-incumbent election cycle, Walker bet on its being anti-Washington. And he bet right.

    “The difference between Washington and Wisconsin—the folks in Washington like this top-down approach that’s old and artificial and outdated and says that government knows best,” Walker said in his victory speech, over roaring fans. “We say that you should build the economy from ground up that’s new and fresh and organic, and that’s what we’re going to do.”

    What, specifically, are they going to do? Tax cuts and school choice reforms are safe bets. The governor has mulled expanding the state’s voucher program, as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel explains, and Madison insiders say that’s likely to be a top priority for the governor’s second term. And Wisconsin Politics is reporting that Republicans grew their majorities in both chambers of the statehouse, so Walker will have ample backing.

    The possibility of passing Right to Work legislation will also come up. Walker hasn’t floated this idea, but, per one statehouse observer, he’ll hear about it from advisers and conservative backers.

    It’s hard to believe that Walker would have the appetite for another round of union battles. But it was also hard to believe he would win three elections in four years, and that he would win this last one, against an opponent whose backers outspent his by a cushy margin. So here’s some analysis: When it’s Scott Walker, the unlikely is never that far-fetched.

    Wisconsin Three-Peat

    Yes, there is plenty of courage-deficit in the Republican party. I wish we had two real fighters leading House and Senate, we don’t; and yes there is plenty of “bad” in the Republican party; but not nearly as much, I think, as there is in the Democrat party. There is also some good in the Republican party; and I think we should look for it and encourage it where we find it. And as you would perhaps point-out, in the real political world we often have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

    I want to be very clear that I am not questioning what I see as your justified criticism of the Republican party. I am questioning your cynicism. Is it justified in regard to Tuesday’s election? Of course you do have a perfect right to that opinion, I’m not questioning that. But does your cynicism best fit the results?

    I do not believe the battle of ideas (conservative vs. progressive) we are engaged in can be won with cynicism. And no, I am not a dreamy every-thing-is-ok person. I also believe that good leaders do not come by the dozen; I think that they are usually singular and unique individual happenings—that why I’m keeping my eye on Scott Walker; I think he might be a “keeper.”

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Eric Erickson pointed out the importance of black voters to the GOP in the Illinois and Georgia gubernatorial races. In Illinois, a group of blacks came out against the Democrats in a video, and Rauner actively campaigned for black votes — and drew about 20%, a figure that would be fatal to the Democrats if other Republicans managed that. In Georgia, Jason Carter attacked charter schools, which are popular with black voters. They didn’t vote much for Deal, but a lot apparently decided not to vote as a silent protest. The accessibility of minority votes (and the Republicans ran nearly even among Asian voters this time according to exit polls) may not be high (without pandering that rarely works well anyway), but it can be higher than the usual.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        and drew about 20%

        I agree. I figure if Republicans received somewhere between 20% and 25% of the black vote, presidential elections would look something like Reagan’s second victory and Republicans would likely have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

        Then the fight really would be between the RINO’s and conservatives.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I once read that Jesse Helms in 1984 spent a weekend in the rural black areas of eastern North Carolina, campaigning on the same issues he used elsewhere instead of relying on racial pandering, and this enabled him to win 15% of the black vote while Reagan was drawing 5% or so (and running far ahead of Helms among white voters, of course). That black vote probably made the difference between a photo finish that might have been lost and a 53-47 victory over Jim Hunt (the governor, term-limited out).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I think the useful thing about Tuesday is the hard-to-dispute fact that the majority of American voters, who voted, sent a message to Obama

      How’s the saying go? If you want to send a message, use Western Union. “Sending messages” is not the same as passing or repealing a law. And I doubt this “message” will have the effect of restraining Obama in the next two years. It will likely embolden him. Revolutionaries usually double-down on failure.

      But at least voters are not pleased with Obama’s and the Democrat’s performance.

      That’s completely meaningless, Jerry, unless they are not pleased with the policies and if (big “if”) someone else offers opposing and better policies…as well as continuing to explain why Obama and the Left’s policies are so bad in the first place. The GOP has not shown this capacity of late.

      I know a lot of my conservative friends have gained a measure of consolation from these results. But consolation and a dime still won’t buy you a cup of coffee.

      Rather than refute the Devil, the GOP (with notable exceptions) has decided to dance with him. The GOP’s guiding principle is to manage the existing state, and certainly not to roll it back. This is a one-way ratchet. I’m simply stating the truth.

      Now, it could be that there are worse things in this world than living inside a forever-in-debt nanny state that continually disappoint the electorate in terms of what they promise and what they deliver. There are worse things than the Church of Global Warming. There are worse things even then the various impingements on private property rights. Maybe capitalism is doomed to being hung by the very rope that it sells its enemies. I don’t know, but things could be worse.

      What I do know is that the GOP, at present, no more believes in conservative/American values than the Left does. Almost all of these same office-holders hold most of the “Progressive” views which are the underpinning of this Marxism, in practice. Chris Christie is an excellent example of this with his Islamo-philia and belief in global warming (not to mention the way he coddles Obama). He is the New Republican Party. They have accepted the premises of the Left and simply mean to mange people’s now socialists expectations better. They are going to play “nice” with the Left, not try to defeat them.

      Good for Scott Walker. But he’s from a small, relatively insignificant state. In effect, it doesn’t matter how well he manages things as long as large states such as California hold the power to pull us all down. And I think California does hold that kind of power. Not only the corruption of the Marxists policies are corrosive by leading to economic drain and debt, but California is still very much of a trend-setter in many other aspects of our culture.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The GOP leadership may not be very conservative (though I will point out that McConnell has an excellent record on freedom of speech issues and has taken serious political risks for it), but a lot of Republicans are, and they do have some influence. And there are a lot more of them now — and the re-elections of 3 Republicans targeted heavily for their conservative policies (LePage in Maine, Walker in Wisconsin, and Brownback in Kansas) will also help encourage others to stand their ground.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I know a lot of my conservative friends have gained a measure of consolation from these results

    For the man next in line on the guillotine, the executioner taking a lunch break is some consolation, even if it delays events for only a few minutes. Who knows, maybe the Scarlet Pimpernel will come to the rescue.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      And note that although the Scarlet Pimpernel was fictional, there was a real life equivalent during the Spanish Civil War, one Christopher Lance (subject of The Spanish Pimpernel by C. E. Lucan-Phillips, which we used to have a copy of before we moved from a house to an apartment in 1976).

  4. Jerry Richardson says:


    I like everything you said except the Scott Walker statement: “Good for Scott Walker. But he’s from a small, relatively insignificant state.”

    The population of Wisconsin is greater than the population of Arkansas; and from that state we got a President, Bill Clinton, although a rather sorry-one in my opinion. I don’t think the size of the state determines the viability of Presidential material; although you might convince me with an argument that Ronald Regan, our best modern President in my opinion, came from the biggest state; and Bill Clinton, bad but not the worst, given Carter and Obama, came from a little state.

    As to the issue I’m actually tabling here, it is one of perspective. I think maybe I’m a person who says the glass is half-full, and perhaps you are a person who says it is half-empty. We both see the same facts, but our perceptions of those facts differ.


      No, the size of the state doesn’t matter as far as Presidential material goes (although it matters that the largest state, California, is unwinnable for Republicans, much less Conservatives), but Walker fills me with apprehension. We Conservatives are understandably desperate for a champion, and that sometimes leads us to see one where there isn’t one. For example, Newt Gingrich generated an irrational wave of exuberance in 2012 that could have lost us the election since he had no chance at all against Obama. Similarly, Walker is basically another Establishment-man in the mold of his buddy Paul Ryan. He’s not the Conservative hero we’re looking for.

      I make that case in Scott Walker on Close Inspection, but the Cliff’s Notes version is this:

      1. Walker favors open borders (that should disqualify him right there).
      2. Walker is un-intellectual (as we expect Establishment-men to be), does not understand the Left or how to fight them effectively.
      3. Walker’s victories and achievements are far less than his cheerleaders would have you believe, and in any case not replicable at the Federal level.
      4. Walker’s political survival was due more to luck than skill.
      5. Walker almost certainly loses against anyone the Democrats choose, and should he somehow win would be a huge disappointment in office.

      • Jerry Richardson says:


        You may be correct. Thanks for the input.
        I think what has impressed me most about Walker has been
        his determined and principled fight against the union.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        No one is perfect, and it would be good for conservatives to keep that in mind instead of engaging in the sort of deification that liberals do with their candidates (Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama all received this adulation, at least at first). But we should also keep in mind the consequence: you run with the candidates you have available. Walker has won 3 times in a relatively Democratic state and has brought about Republican control there. He may not be the best choice available among governors (Susana Martinez and Bobby Jindal both have their advantages), but in the end he must be judged against the other candidates, not against perfection.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Jerry, I was thinking more in terms of the possible widening rehabilitative effect to our republic from one relatively small state such as Wisconsin being somewhat rehabilitated. I wasn’t meaning to talk about Walker’s presidential ambitions. I agree that the size of the state is somewhat irrelevant in that regard, although coming from a big state (California, Texas, Florida) is generally of electoral benefit.

      As for Walker, I’m not as down on him as Nik is. I understand going in that it’s not a question of getting a RINO or Establishment Republican nominated in 2016. It’s just a matter of which flavor. And I would prefer Walker’s flavor to Chris Christie’s. Chris Christie has delusions of adequacy, in my opinion. He’s the kind of character who presents a good bluster that tends to blow away nagging objections to his policies. I’m not sure he can bluster his way to a nomination though.

      But if the alternative is Jeb Bush, I hope he does. We’re sort of into the scenario of Dante’s circles of hell. We’ll try to get an outer circle if we can, but any nominee is likely to be among the circles.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        So you basically prefer Walker to Christie, and Christie to Bush. I would probably agree with you on both.

      • Jerry Richardson says:


        Totally agree. The only way I would vote for either Christie or Jeb Bush is if they won the Republican nomination. Again, it would be a narrowing-choice of the lesser of two evils, Republican over Democrat.

        As to Chris Christie I am not convinced he cares about 2nd Amendment rights. He certainly hasn’t done anything to help the 2nd Amendment in the Communist-state of New Jersey. I will not support anyone who does not support strongly support the 2nd Amendment.

        As to Jeb Bush, where to start. His rabid support of the educational brainwashing scheme, Common Core, is plenty to start with. But if that’s not enough, Jeb is a big fan of Amnesty for Illegal Aliens. If Jeb and Hillary end-up head to head, it might not be a slam-dunk, in my mind, about the lesser of two-evils; more like a head-scratch, a coin-toss, and a hold-your-nose.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Common Core is communism. For Jeb Bush to support it, he is either evil or stupid. Both is obviously a possibility.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Bush actually had a better record as governor (i.e., a more conservative one) than his brother, and at the time I thought he was a better choice. But events have made it clear that he wasn’t a good one. However, he would still be less bad than the Fire Witch or any other Democrat. Any Republican has at least some good points politically. No Democrat does.

  5. Jerry Richardson says:


    One of the other good results of this election has been the repudiation of big Democrat-Donor attempts to set agendas for the election.

    One clear lesson has emerged from this midterm election — voters do not respond to lectures. That’s true whether it’s about climate change, the ridiculous “war on women” meme, Kochsteria, or anything else that activists think they can make a centerpiece of an election.

    …Tom Steyer, the Democratic megadonor who plowed $57 million of his own cash (some estimates range as high as $74 million) into the midterms in an attempt to make climate change a central campaign issue. Slate pointed out on Election Eve that Steyer, and not the oft-demonized Koch brothers, was the biggest outside spender in the race, and ended up with a marginalized issue and very little in results:

    This election cycle’s biggest spender—at least among those who operate through the fully disclosed part of the political system, a.k.a. not the Koch brothers—is liberal billionaire Tom Steyer, who doled out at least $57 million of his own cash to try to get voters to care about climate change. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), an environmental group, dumped another $25 million this year into the 2014 races, about $5 million more than it spent in 2010 and 2012 combined. All told, environmentalist organizations say they’ll pour $85 million into the midterms. As LCV president Gene Karpinski declared proudly to the Washington Post late last month, “This is by far the biggest investment that the environmental community has ever made in politics.”

    What has all that green gotten these green groups? Not a whole heck of a lot.

    Steyer and his like-minded allies opened their checkbooks with the hopes of making climate change a front-burner issue. But as the most expensive midterm election in American history wraps up, it’s clear that environmentalists will fall far short of that goal. A Pew Research Center poll from September found that the environment came in a distant eighth among a list of 11 campaign issues that matter most to voters.

    Michael Bloomberg spent more than $20 million in this cycle, all but $500,000 on Democrats and liberal causes. How many gun-control advocates won election to the House or Senate on Tuesday night? In gubernatorial races? To state legislatures, which went more Republican than they have been in decades?

    This lesson didn’t just get taught to outside groups and activists, either. Democrats tried making the midterms about contraception and abortion, and in Colorado’s Senate race, almost exclusively so. Women, as it turns out, had other issues in mind and didn’t care to be patronized, as I point out in an I told you so column in The Fiscal Times:

    The results of the election also demonstrated the intellectual and political failure of Democratic strategy in the midterm elections, especially on the so-called “war on women.” My column last week predicted that Colorado’s Senate race would be the Waterloo for this particular demagoguery, and the results speak clearly for themselves. Incumbent Democrat Mark Udall got heckled by a major Democratic donor at a campaign stop two days before the election, for obsessing over contraception and abortion. “Who is running the worst campaign? Him,” Leo Beserra later explained, “because [expletive] abortion is all he talks about.”

    How well did that work out for Udall? He lost his seat by 80,000 votes to Cory Gardner in an election where fellow Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper managed to eke out a re-election victory by 26,000 votes. Udall ended up winning among women who voted by nine points, but lost men by 16 points – and women only made up 48 percent of the Colorado electorate, their worst showing in 22 years. The “war on women” meme didn’t boost turnout, and in fact may have depressed turnout with its rank paternalism, especially in the infamous “Sweet Pea” ad sponsored by NARAL and funded by climate change activist Tom Steyer.

    Democrat MegaDonors

    Liars, deceivers, and cheaters always over-extend themselves. Progressives whose basis tactics are based upon calculated deception will ALWAYS over-extend; and that is because there is a foundational flaw of arrogance in these people (exemplified by Barack Obama). We (conservatives) need to have the smarts, the watchfulness, and the patience to capitalize on progressive’s over-extension—it will surely come. I think arrogance is the greatest exploitable flaw of Progressives; and it is a flaw that is built-in to their ideology.

    But we must persist; we must not quit!

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      One of the other good results of this election has been the repudiation of big Democrat-Donor attempts to set agendas for the election.

      Jerry, I’m of the mind to be very careful about reading too much into this election. I doubt it was a repudiation of money into politics. And I doubt that, as Emily Zanotti says, The War on Women is Over.

      I think we can rightly say that the GOP gains were a reaction against Obama and the Democrats. But I wouldn’t say it was therefore *for* any specific Republican policy, although in some local races (such as Hogan’s victory in Maryland’s governor race) the specific issue of high taxes might have been an instance where there was a tangible vote *for* a GOP candidate.

      But we might as well be looking at Rorschach ink-blot tests in eking out much more meaning than a sort of bleary-eyed, blank, unfocused voter dissatisfaction. I do no think that political correctness, Cultural Marxism, grievance politics, environmental wacko-ism, race/class/gender politics, multiculturalism, relativism, or feminism were defeated.

      And that’s really the quandary here. The electorate is like the student who has a “Kick Me!” sign secretly taped to his back. He doesn’t know why people are giving him these strange looks, or why every once in a while someone kicks him. He just knows something is wrong. But he hasn’t the capacity to see what is wrong.

  6. GHG says:

    I hope posting a link to an article on another website is allowed, if not, I apologize and it won’t happen again.

    Diana West has an article on titled “How the GOP Establishment Plans to Steal Your Election”.

    She sites a couple important issues and is not optimistic the GOP will do anymore than status quo. The most important point she makes is that if Obama is allowed to get away with the anticipated amnesty, those illegal aliens become voters which could very likely be the death of any hope of future conservative governance.


      And that point is crucial: I don’t see how this country can survive legalizing a population about that of the State of Illinois who when naturalized will vote heavily Democrats no matter how hard the Establishment GOP tries to pander to them. Let’s hope we can still put the fear of God into the Establishment so that they don’t allow an amnesty in the lame-duck session.

    • Jerry Richardson says:


      I fully agree. If Obama gets Amnesty, which is his goal, he will install a huge influx of Democrat voters. Not something I want.

      In addition, I don’t want Mitch McConnell to reverse Harry Reid’s nuclear option. I think it should be left in place with the understanding that the Democrats broke it, and if and when they capture the Senate again, then they can fix what they broke.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I hope posting a link to an article on another website is allowed, if not, I apologize and it won’t happen again.

      Geez, I wish you guys wouldn’t give me any respect. 🙂 Seriously. I may push the buttons behind the scenes but no one exists here solely at my pleasure. Had I wanted to celebrate my ego this would have been “” not what it is. The guiding premise is: No Marxism (in any form, including libertarianism). Everyone should just try to be thoughtful, but not perfect. Be real, not an “intellectualoid.” Have a firm opinion (if you will), but don’t be an extremist kook, for as libertarians commonly show us, any good principle can be ruined when taken to an extreme.

      For instance, this morning I read a rather good article critical of this bogus “rape culture” that supposedly exists on Progressive campuses. What this “rape culture” consists of, from what I can see, is women who get a little drunk and slutty and then wake up in the morning feeling guilty. And they don’t actually know they’ve been “raped” until these wacko Marxist/Progressive man-hating activists tell them they have been.

      Three cheers for Brendan O’Neil for writing his article, An Ivy League Lynch Mob. And yet beware before clicking on his link at the end of the article to read his Free Speech Manifesto. He would appear to be a libertarian kook.

      No, Brenda, freedom of speech is not the cornerstone of a democratic society. It is not the most important of all freedoms. It is not the foundational freedom upon which every other right we enjoy is built (the right to life is that, if anything can be so-called).

      No, freedom of speech does not make us morally autonomous (whatever that means…which sounds like moral relativism which is a libertarian plank). No, free speech does not make a man master of his own mind and fate. You are investing far too much into one aspect of a good, just, ordered, productive, and free society. The human life cannot simply be defined by what comes out of his mouth. Humans, and the societies they build, are more complicated than that.

      And only a libertarian kook would think of positing an absolute such as “no censorship — ever.” I’m a free speech advocate, but I will delete any posts if someone divulges someone else’s personal information such as their credit card numbers or the address of their children’s day care center, for example. Brendan also advocates no libel laws.

      And no, Brendan, freedom of speech does not make us fully human. There are many principles that must be balanced. You cannot have a society worth living in if the only principle is “no restrictions on anyone, ever.” And that includes speech. I don’t know why so many people are running to such goofy absolutes, but they are.

      So — breathe — back to the issue at hand. I had a bad experience once at Ann Coulter’s site. I was in a good (not heated) discussion with someone once and posted some relevant comments from another thread in support of a point I was making. Well, that turned out to be a no-no and my entire posts (thoughtful, which I thought they were) were deleted. I emailed the moderator and got a reply. It was like talking to a a Little Napoleon. It is typical for moderators to let a little power go to their heads. I was basically told “My way or the highway.” There was absolutely no rational argument given for why I couldn’t use information from another thread on Ann Coulter’s forum, although one could cut-and-paste or use links that were external to the site. It was arbitrary bullshit. Anyone who runs a site that tight-assed, well, there’s something wrong there.

      This was several years ago, so perhaps they’ve amended and simplified their rules since then. Here are my rules as posted on the About page under the “Guidelines” tab:

      We’re free speech advocates. But along with every freedom comes a responsibility.

      Play nice. This isn’t Kindergarten, but consider if you would say what you are saying if the person was seated across from you in a restaurant. The “Superman behind the keyboard” factor often comes into play online, turning mild-mannered people into psychos.

      Keep your language reasonably clean. You needn’t respect anyone’s ideas, but all true Americans are not mindless zealots. If you want extra foam, go get a latte.

      These rules can be short and simple because I trust myself to make judgments when necessary. And I trust that they will not be arbitrary or capricious. And there is nothing in there about not posting links. (Hurrah! I just got to the point!) In fact, I encourage it. Here’s a link I think many of you will enjoy. It’s an excellent article by William R. Hawkings titled GOP Overcomes Libertarian Plot. God bless Mr. Hawkins for having the bravery and wisdom to deal with this topic and American Thinker for having the nads to publish it.

      If you want to be really neat about links, Mr. Lesser, refer to the formatting codes in regards to making hyperlinks (the relevant section is near the bottom of the page). That is in no way required but it just looks and works a little more professionally.

      By the way, that was a terrific article by Diana West. I have her, book, “The Death of the Grown-up,” sitting on my shelf in hardcover form.

  7. oldguy says:

    Sitting here in my old age and watching the shifting of China and Russia away from Communism, it makes me think of how those old Europeans must have felt watching all those ships sailing off to the New World.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      There does seem to be an odd mirror-image going on. Samuel Gregg at The American Spectator has an article regarding Europe’s inability to pull itself out of its socialism: Meanwhile, Europe is (Still) Burning. A similar article is Janet Daley’s Today’s remote and insulated politicians are responsible for the new People’s Revolt.

      The Spectator article is pretty much in tune with what I think: People often have little left to do than give a protest vote to the party not in power, even if the public realizes both parties are the problem. So one can expect the GOP to read into this election exactly what they want, remaining completely tone-deaf to any other implications.

      Both Boehner and McConnell should be ousted from their leadership roles. That’s just for starters. Charles Krauthammer has an article titled GOP, Show That You Can Govern whose subhead on the home page is “Pass good bills and defy Obama to veto them.” Right on, Chuck. And this is completely contrary to the lame NRO “The Editors” editorial that said “beware the governance trap.” Good god, how clueless can these Establishment Republicans be (although Chuck can often be counted among them)?

  8. GHG says:

    Thanks Brad for the markup page … now I only have to remember where I saved it 🙂

    And now for a nebulous stream of consciousness … did you ever see a scene where a car and train are converging at a train crossing and it’s going to be close if the car can cross the tracks before the train gets there? That seems like an apt metaphor for so many issues we face these days, including the political landscape. It seemed the train of leftward “progress” was unstoppable when all of a sudden the car gains speed from some disillusioned democrats breaking ranks. Is the electorate waking up in time to stop the leftward surge or will the train crush the car and continue to plunge the country into the pit?

    It seems to me there are many issue facing humanity that are converging toward a crossroad with the outcome in doubt. Not to go all apocalyptic on ya here, but it makes me wonder.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I believe that was a “train of consciousness” in your case. 😉 But a good one. It is always difficult (if not impossible) to gauge long-term trends from short-term blips. It also helps to understand the Marxist mindset. In that regard, I’m currently reading The Naked Communist by W. Cleon Skousen (the author of “The 5000 Year Leap”). Although there are indeed some differences, however subtle, between Communism proper and the derived Cultural Marxism (Progressivism) of today, the similarities are stunning — as well as the similarities with libertarianism. Both Communists and Libertarians view the state as an inherently corruptive influence, for example. Both believe some kind of utopia will unfold if the state just fades away.

      And both libertarians and Communists have much in common regarding the underpinning of morality. Both reject any kind of objective underpinning, thus both are a scrambled-brain of relativism.

      It’s also stunning (once again) to see how Cultural Marxism (including the “war on women” and such bogus things as the idea that there is a “culture of rape” going on in Progressive college campuses) is an entirely different ethical system. It actually rejects reason and truth (thus, as Dennis Prager notes, “truth is not a left wing value”). Like doctrinaire Marxism, Progressivism sees all of society as a clash between classes, sexes, or races. And thus it rejects such objective notions as “Thou shalt not steal” because such notions are said to be of benefit to, and create by, the oppressors and because to rectify this oppression requires a morality that transcends mere rules (aka “the ends justify the means”).

      Perhaps 95% of the conservative media is little more than mental masturbation because it does not take into account the sheer mirror-image of reality that derives from Marxism and that is inherent to Leftism/Progressivism/Cultural Marxism. It is, frankly, a brainwashing into a pseudo-scientific view of the world. And unless and until we note the Marxist element, and how this element has become a de facto “Religion of Leftism,” we are simply talking past the problem.

      This is why libertarianism can never be the answer to the kind of engrained statism we have. Neither naive Communist or Libertarian beliefs regarding “the state just withering away to produce a utopia” have any purchase in reality (so little of Libertarianism does). To cure the patient we must diagnose the disease. And it matters that so many people are in the grips of Godless Communism, in various forms, sometimes diluted, usually with a name change, but always of the same poisonous nature.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        An interesting point to make here is that modern liberalism not only isn’t at all liberal, but it really isn’t progressive (as the original progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt and Robert La Follette thought of it). TR disliked “hyphenated Americans”; La Follette was a supporter of clean government and direct democracy (neither of which liberals support today). Progressive support for Prohibition is a reminder that they were advocates of the “middle-class morality” that Shaw detested (a good precursor to their attitude may have the British artist William Hogarth) and modern liberals seek to eliminate. Nor were progressives very interested in erecting a welfare state. Pajama Boy would have disgusted TR.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          It’s interesting to consider the raw and primary goals of Communism as outlined in “The Naked Communist”:

          1. the overthrow of capitalism

          2. the abolition of private property

          3. the elimination of the family as a social unit

          4. the abolition of all classes

          5. the overthrow of all governments

          6. the establishment of a communist order with communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society.

          Except for kooky libertarians and true-believing Communists, few on the Left want anything other than a massive, intrusive, and totalitarian state. It is the method whereby society can be perfected (and political power hoarded). It is therefore certainly true that when the proletariat did not all rise up in unison and throw off their masters (and thus seize the means of production)as predicted — adding on top the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed — many of the basic theories of Marxism were de-legitimized, causing a reformulation (the “Frankfurt School”) — what we now call “Cultural Marxism.” One of the casualties of the reformulation was the idea of the state withering away. But most of those other points remain, including the philosophy behind it (which I may get into when I review the book). But it’s a materialist and atheist philosophy, and one that rejects the world that came before it. It sees all of history through a very narrow and stilted lens.

          Marxism (cultural or otherwise) is the worst sort of pseudo-science, reminiscent of the kooky and extremist views typical of libertarians. If you sat a bunch of junior high school adolescents down together and had them write down how the world works, and should work, you would come up with either Marxism or libertarianism. It is uninformed dribble by minds infused with a zealousness borne of a lack of wisdom combined with a naive affinity for one’s own sense of omniscience. Marxism, in particular, is pie-in-thy-sky crapola meant for an atheist age whose sites have been lowered to a man-made utopia on earth as produced by the state.

          That is why there is no “off” switch regarding the Left. They do not recognize the limits to their own power. They cannot, because according to them, there is no power greater. It’s doubtful that TR had a heck of a lot of humility in this regard either. But he was certainly no Pajama Boy. In in some respects, the effeminate, weak, Pajama-Boy types are not not just the products of this system but are now migrating to its head. Obama is one such type.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s a particularly good article by Matt Purple at NRO (of all places) about the dynamic winning Republican governor of Maine that is sure to make Establishment Republicans and their over-paid consultants cry:

    Stone Brain Rises:

    A key political narrative, shouted endlessly from every rooftop and out of every manhole in Washington, is that Republicans need to restrain tea-party fiscal conservatives and broker consensus with Democrats if they want to win elections. LePage’s success puts the lie to that line. He signed into law the largest tax cut in Maine history, reformed the state’s welfare system, attacked regulations, and did all this while mocking, abusing, and figuratively throttling his critics.

    Democrats portray low-tax conservatives as Dickensian misers plunging street urchins out into the cold. LePage has a ready response for this: He was that street urchin. One of 18 children, he was beaten by his father and ran away from home at age eleven. He lived on the streets of Lewiston until he found his way into the care of foster parents who encouraged him to attend Husson College in Bangor. He thrived there and later went into business, and then politics.

    Willa Cather wrote: “There is often a good deal of the child left in people who have had to grow up so soon.” Whether they’ll admit it or not, political elites view LePage with more than a hint of classism, as a child who hasn’t been sufficiently schooled in governing niceties about never picking fights with journalists and moderating upon election and all that rot. His damning flaw to them is that he’s a normal human being, a stage out of which politicians are expected to mature.

    Yet LePage’s reelection shows that a healthy chunk of the electorate is hungry for an everyman, even one who makes the occasional (or more than occasional) gaffe. They don’t regard ideology as a sin, but they have no tolerance for inauthenticity — the sort of inauthenticity demanded by Washington image consultants and media trainers.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Yes, that was a nice article, and LePage’s victory (which brought in a pickup of 5 State Senate and 10 State House seats, taking control of the former) was most satisfying. Note, by the way, that in both Kansas and Wisconsin the GOP added to its legislative majorities (as it did in Pennsylvania despite Corbett losing the governorship).

  10. Jerry Richardson says:


    Jerry, I’m of the mind to be very careful about reading too much into this election. I doubt it was a repudiation of money into politics. And I doubt that, as Emily Zanotti says, The War on Women is Over. —Brad Nelson

    I also doubt that The War on Women is Over. I think a much better way to put it is found in an article on The Federalist written by Mollie Hemingway:

    Democrats Must Accept That This Year’s ‘War On Women’ Was A Disaster

    It Gets Worse For Team War On Women

    Two “personhood” amendments, controversial even among the most ardent pro-lifers, failed to pass in Colorado and North Dakota. And of course that’s precisely what the media focused on despite the fact that these initiatives don’t even gain the support of many pro-life activists. But here were a few other races and issues of interest to the War on Women crowd.

    • Tennessee voters approved an amendment that allows lawmakers there to pass protections for unborn children and restrictions on abortion. The amendment passed despite tremendous spending and activism by abortion rights activists who fought it.
    • The 2014 elections were great for women. It’s just that many of those women don’t fit the War on Women narrative. Take, for instance, the first black Republican woman elected to Congress: Mia Love. She’s pro-life. Or what about Iowa’s first female senator Joni Ernst? Pro-life Republican. The youngest woman ever elected to Congress is Elise Stefanik. Yes, she’s pro-life.
    • When it comes to races that were lost, being strongly pro-life was not a factor. If anything, it might have been the opposite. Scott Brown, who lost the New Hampshire Senate race, certainly didn’t campaign as a pro-lifer.
    • The flipped seats didn’t just go from Democrat to Republican but from pro-choice to pro-life. When Tom Cotton defeated Mark Pryor in his re-election attempt, Arkansas gained a pro-life senator.
    • Pro-life stances helped Sen. Pat Roberts and Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas in their very tight bids for reelection.
    • Pro-choice groups say the midterm election results mean the courts will move in a pro-life direction.

    War of any kind is almost always an ebb-and-flow phenomenon. The problem of course is that without a crystal ball (which none of us have) it is impossible at any time to know for sure if our fortunes are at high-tide, ebb-tide, or low-tide.

    But for the forces of good (versus evil) one thing is absolutely required: Surrender is not an option.

    One of my all-time favorite leader-heros—as well as probably many other people’s—is Winston Churchill.

    His ability to maintain a positive, publically-cheerful, never-say-die attitude even when it appeared that Britain was in route to a disastrous defeat can be found in many of his famous statements. Here are my two favorites:

    Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.
    We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
    we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
    we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
    we shall fight on the beaches,
    we shall fight on the landing grounds,
    we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
    we shall fight in the hills;
    we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

    Winston Churchill, Fight on the Beaches

    Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

    Winston Churchill, End of the Beginning

    I think the above quote, “…end of the beginning” best fits my belief about the so-called “War on Women.”

    Of all the great leadership traits possessed by Winston Churchill, I believe it was his indomitable spirit of resisting discouragement that was most valuable to the British people during WWII.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Churchill had one huge advantage over most of our leaders, and the populace in general, today: He knew who the enemy was.

  11. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s an interesting article from Larry Kudlow: For 2016, Hillary Had the Worst Night. It provides some actual post-election polling results:

    Get this. Here’s a stunning question and answer from Edison Research, which interviewed 18,000 voters around the country as they left the polls on November 4:

    Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good president?
    Yes: 42 percent. No: 52 percent.

    Whether she’s the frontrunner or not, a majority of midterm-election voters don’t want her running the country.

    Does that leave the door open for other Democrats? Sure looks like it.

    Does that leave the door open for a Republican? Hang on to your seats:

    Do you think Jeb Bush would make a good president?
    Yes: 29 percent. No: 59 percent.

    Do you think Chris Christie would make a good president?
    Yes: 24 percent. No: 64 percent . . .

    But there’s more. Hang on to your seatbelts:

    Do you think Rand Paul would make a good president?
    Yes: 26 percent. No: 60 percent.

    Do you think Rick Perry would make a good president?
    Yes: 24 percent. No: 62 percent . . .

    But here’s the kicker — my absolute favorite:

    In the 2016 presidential election, for whom would you be more likely to vote?
    Hillary Clinton (Dem): 24 percent. The Republican candidate: 40 percent.

  12. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s an interesting article by Grace-Marie Turner : Obamacare as Permanent Welfare. I find it interesting because I wonder if the following quoted text is true. And this intersects on whether or not this past election shows any kind of awakening toward the problems of socialism, the lies of Democrats, the problems of Big Government, in general, and the destructive ideology of Cultural Marxism/Progressivism:

    Let’s hope that the American people will be more skeptical in the future of promises that big government can capably administer massive economic reengineering undertakings. And that they recognize that those who are willing to trade liberty for security will wind up with neither.

    Pollster Daniel Yankelovich takes a long view. He is a master at seeing megatrends in society. He says that public opinion progresses through predictable stages, from dawning awareness of a problem, to growing sense of urgency, then discovering that tough choices must be made, wishful thinking, and finally to weighing choices and making responsible judgments.

    For all of its massive flaws, Obamacare has put the American people through a searing educational process. People are smarter now. They continue to be frightened about government power over their health care. They now realize that they aren’t going to get health care for free, and it likely will cost them more. They also see that government giving them choices can actually mean fewer of the choices they want.

    First off, I think this is a thoughtful article by Turner. And it’s not wrong to suppose that the electorate might have learned a lesson. But did they? It’s not wrong to suppose that people can see through some of the political scams, even if they’ve grown up within them and it’s all they have ever known.

    But there is a lot more than just immigration issues, the Ebola virus, and high taxes that go into creating the world view of those who habitually vote Democrat or who hold pretensions of “centrism.” I think it is unlikely that a significant number of voters – for whom their world view, their politics, and their religion are one – can change on a dime, can give up their many very thick prejudices.

    That’s why I characterize this election as the baby who has thrown his plate of food off the high chair because it is too cold. It’s not that the baby has shown that he dislikes food prepared and served by others. It’s that he wants it done better. He may not know that the food is cold because mommy and daddy are addled by pot or crack and either haven’t the care to prepare the food as the baby likes it or have run out of money to do so. All the baby knows is that he has come to expect all his expectations to be met. He’s not interested yet in why the food is cold, why it is of lower quality, or various other disappointments. He just knows how to scream, how to throw his strained peas at the wall and say “No!”

    I would be shocked if the message were to sink in that, as Reagan said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; Government is the problem.” In terms of health care, that is true. In terms of many other things, government is indeed the problem. But a lot of people have much emotionally, financially, socially, and politically invested in the opposite paradigm.

    Until the baby gets out of the high chair and announces “I’ll make my own damn breakfast,” I will be very conservative in terms of reading the tea leaves regarding this last election.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      It’s only anecdotal evidence, but you might want to read Steve Deace’s column today at on his reliably Democratic mother’s eyes opening.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Thanks. Here’s the link to that article by Steve Deace: Dear Democrats, You Lost My Mom.

        My mom doesn’t believe Obama loves America and our traditions, and she never watches Fox News (unless her son is on) either. She doesn’t believe he is an honorable man, but rather lying about what his true intentions for the country are. And looking at polls since Obama’s re-election, it’s obvious she is not alone.


        One of the things my mom detests the most are Obama’s tactics—the pernicious race-baiting, the shameless lawlessness, and all the broken promises (i.e. “if you like your current healthcare plan you can keep it”). She is also disgusted to see Obama try and use government to persecute the religious beliefs of those who still cling to the morality that once founded America, and bound us together as a people.

        I’m glad that this fellow’s mother may be seeing the light. In order to actually see the light, Republicans will have to be upfront and bold about defining the issues and connecting the dots. It is many people’s opinion (including mine), what the GOP will have taken away from this election is that their timid “offend no one” approach has proven itself.

        And “mom” may not like B. Hussein Obama. (No decent person at this point should other than his children and wife.) But does mom understand that this nation is full of people who believe just as he does and lie just as he does? I don’t think so. And I think she will be easily demagogued by the next huckster.

        But there may well be an opportunity here for conservatives to educate people. And they will have to be specific. Will they do so? Or will the Establishment Republicans blur the issue and remain destructively milquetoast?

        Don’t bet too heavily against the Establishment Republicans.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          It sounds like this guy’s mother may unconsciously be starting the 12 step program which drunks and drug addicts use to get clean. Let’s hope she has the proper support group to help her beat her addiction.

          Heh, there may be a way to make some money here. ST, can set up a program to help disillusioned yet needy Leftists and Libertarians break their habits.

          The first step would be to throw darts at a large picture of B.H. Obama while repeating, “he is not the Messiah.”

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Ooh, that sounds like fun. But it’s been so long since I played darts that I’d probably miss the picture. Oh, wait, this was for the recovering liberals. But why should they get all the fun? (And don’t forget to get another picture — slimy Harry Wormwood Reid. I probably detest him far more than I do Barry Screwtape Obama.

  13. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Although I’d like to de-emphasize the purely political, StubbornThings could soon be the go-to place to read reality-based opinions on politics.

    I’ve noted some excellent pieces by various writers in the last day or two. But many more have been truly atrocious. People at ST aren’t even paid and they consistently produce better articles than the “pros.” Case in point…

    How Republicans Can Win the White House by Frank Schell. The first two paragraphis are just silly:

    While it sounds simplistic, in order to win in 2016, the Republican Party must define its objective. That objective is to win the White House. It is not to embrace ideological purity for the sake of itself. With its taking of the Senate, the Republican Party now has the chance to redefine itself — otherwise it may remain a foraging dinosaur lost in contemporary times.

    The Republican Party needs to be a party of rigid principle: its first principle should be flexibility. The GOP has allowed itself to be viewed as the party of insular, middle-aged white men — ensconced in country clubs playing liar’s dice in plaid pants, waiting to tee off at twilight golf. Some in the party have shown a remarkable willingness to drive off the proverbial cliff with their flag fluttering, heads held high with self-esteem — all in the name of values. The GOP has inflicted much damage on itself by becoming labeled as anti-immigration, anti-women and minorities, anti-planet Earth, and anti-gays and lesbians. Many Republicans are hardly like this and are embarrassed by such an unwise, unyielding, and unsuccessful marketing message.

    And it doesn’t get much better, including a recommendation that we get past the Karl Rove “divisive” types (divisive? Rove? “New Tone” Rove?) and move to a new generation of real leaders, such as Jeb Bush.

    Sorry….there should have been some kind of warning before I wrote that. If you had food in your mouth, it’s probably now all over your computer screen. And even if you were sitting down, you might have fallen off of your chair.

    At StubbornThings, we are all volunteers. As Rush might say, we are lovable amateurs. But, good god, compared to what’s out there, we should no longer think that. And this article wasn’t buried at some podunk site. It was at The American Spectator.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I especially find it amusing that someone could be so ignorant as to think that the opposition to Rove comes from the country-clubbers rather than from the Tea Party populists. This is like the article (I think by Jonah Goldberg) that suggested that liberals writing about conservatives are like Dian Fossey writing about gorillas (except that Fossey liked her subjects, a point the article didn’t make). Liberals make it a point not to understand conservatives, freeing them to rely on bigoted assumptions instead of facts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *