Are there any adults in the Democrat Party? Or, do they behave like children because that is how they see the majority of American voters? Cindy Simpson’s article at American Thinker today implies that the latter is the case. She is focused on Obama’s use of the “Fairness Card”.
In the game of Obama politics, the Race Card and the Bush Card are frequently played to trump most any criticism of Obama or his policies. While those cards tend to be the most oft-used defensive tactics, the most effective offensive card in the Obama campaign’s hand is the Fairness Card. Take this recent example, when Obama said:
If you believe this economy grows best when everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share and everybody plays by the same set of rules, then I ask you to stand with me for a second term as president.
Although the grown-ups in the room see that statement for what it is — an appeal to the juvenile thinker, a large boulder to add to the chips accumulating on the 99%-er’s shoulder — we can’t ignore the fact that the Fairness Card is extremely persuasive. Millions of voters will never even attempt to understand the philosophical and economic lessons valiantly offered by Republican candidates. The unhappy voters are looking for someone to blame — Racists, Bush, Republicans, the Rrrrich, Wall Street Fat Cats, Tea Partiers, etc. Because you know how spoiled kids think when the going gets tough: the dog ate my homework, and Suzy got a bigger cookie.
[…]
Obama has taken the tenth Commandment — the one admonishing envy — and spun it around into a campaign platform of “Thou shalt have fairness!” With it, he constructs a fence that divides our nation along numerous lines, with citizens restlessly peering over it, sure their neighbor’s grass is greener.
[…]
Obama’s job, as “President of the United States of America and Protector of their Liberties,” is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Instead, Obama, in the role of President Superfair, flies around handing out Fairness Cards. And while one hand distracts with the cards (which all have huge strings attached), Obama’s other hand is busy playing a trick — taking his own revolutionary vision of fairness and using it to make freedom disappear.
I think Ms. Simpson is right. She has correctly identified Obama’s main strategy for winning reelection. Obama is convinced the that the majority of voters are childish enough that he can sell them an empty bag of promises. Whether Obama has picked the right strategy will depend on whether the so-called “independent voters” are a majority adults or children.
But, sometimes Democrats behave like children because that’s exactly what they are. Among the dimmest of the Democrats is Nancy Pelosi. The Washington Examiner gives us a prime example:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., thinks that President Obama should unilaterally eliminate the debt ceiling, rather than negotiate with Congress to spend more money when the United States hits the debt ceiling later this year.
“I would like to see the Constitution used to protect the country’s full faith and credit, as the Constitution does,” Pelosi told reporters Wednesday. She was endorsing the idea that Obama should use the 14th Amendment — which states that “The validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned” — to circumvent House Republicans who want spending cuts in exchange for another debt ceiling hike.
Can you imagine her as a child saying: “Daddy, there should be no limit on my allowance. It’s not fair!”
Today we are all anxiously awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court on Obamacare. The consensus among pundits is that the Court will strike it down, at least in part. And, if they do, how do you think the Democrats should respond? Here is what Democrat pundit Michael Tomasky suggest:
…There’s very little they can do legislatively. But I’ll be watching for rhetoric, tone, even body language. And on those counts, they had damn well better dispense with the usual liberal woe-is-me hand-wringing and shoulder slumping and come out swinging. They had better communicate to their base that they stand for something, it’s important to them, and they’re pissed. And if they do it the right way, they can make the Supreme Court an issue this fall in a way that might even persuade some swing voters that the court overstepped its bounds. I’d go so far as to say that an aggressive response can reset and reframe the whole health-care debate, once Americans have had their minds focused on this by a blatantly partisan court.
“They had better communicate to their base that they stand for something…”? What the hell do they stand for? They forced this bill through behind closed doors aganst the will of the people. And now, if they don’t get their way , he recommends that they have a hissy fit.
It is all too typical. every time the left is confronted with reality, they revert to name calling. Very childish, don’t you think?
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?
Asylum Watch 
The Democrats know only one thing: Power. And when they are in danger of losing it (as when Lincoln was elected in 1860) childish things happen.
As for the public being childish and stupid. Well, they did elect Obama didn’t they?
On the whole, mankind is a sorry lot; except for you and I, of course. 🙂
And me. And I think I know of a handful of others. 🙂
We are many, in fact, but not yet enough, sadly.
Obama has taken the tenth Commandment — the one admonishing envy — and spun it around into a campaign platform of “Thou shalt have fairness!” With it, he constructs a fence that divides our nation along numerous lines, with citizens restlessly peering over it, sure their neighbor’s grass is greener.
It is, of course, a deliberate ploy. Frankly, I’m not sure that it’s not working pretty well. I even see conservatives showing signs of envy — very disturbing signs of envy.
These words spring to my mind: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
I’m hoping the mush heads stay home on election day.
My feeling of alienation grows daily. I have not a clue how their minds work, nor how a rational mind could say what they say or do.
It is like a religious cult. Anything the leadership says is gospel.
I think the word, fair, is a great utility word. It can play almost any position in the political field. It is the ultimate pitch, and can catch a lot of meaning.
I think it is unfair that you make more money.
It is not fair that you can take my hard earned money because you think it is unfair for me to make more money.
Why is it fair that ten percent of the population makes most of the money?
Why is it fair that ten percent of the population pays most of the income taxes?
It is not fair that you have a big 401K, and all I have for retirement is Social Security.
It is not fair for you to get Social Security checks and a pension when so many others have only Social Security.
I am sure others an fill in with better envy and jealousy examples.
The author is correct. When the race card or the Bush card won’t work, the Fairness card is tailor made to divide the nation. And we thought Bill Clinton was slick.
Bob…your last word could be replaced with “sick” instead of “slick.” Actually, both words work. Clinton’s PCSD is still on steroids in this country, using the word “equity.” “Equity” meaning “Fair.” Clintonistas are still at it. His wife’s speech at Rio+20 was full of the same utopian language.
Funny thing about this “fairness” of theirs…..just another word for thievery in the Liberal dictionary.
Fair is defined by anything that helps them stay in power. Bob is right. Democracy stinks!
Cheryl, I haven’t been keeping up with Rio +20. Thanks for the heads up.
Americans used to be famous for their fierce independence and their work ethic. I’m getting tired of hearing “used to be” and “America” in the same sentence.
Name calling and fear and smear are all the left has left. They have no cogent arguments for their views because their views are illogical and cannot be defended.
And yet they have been winning for the last 100 years. Frustrating!
Strangely enough, a Nazi brought this issue up a long time ago. Carl Schmitt mentioned that appeals to “humanity” are nothing more than baseless smears. After all, no one is against humanity, so trying to define your position as being humane and the other as inhumane is nothing but an ad-hominem.
But both left and right in American politics play the smear game. Who among the politicians are bold enough to call out left and right as being essentially the same? They agree on foreign policy, economic policy, and even social policy (notice that the call is not to get rid of Obamacare and medicare, but rather, to repeal and REPLACE). The idea that there is a different left and right in this country is nothing more than a distraction so that the politicians and crony-capitalists rob us blind.
Good to hear from you, Tony. I hope all is well with you.
I’m going to assume when you say “left” and “right” you are talking about Democrats and Republicans, in which case I agree with you. But I do see some hopeful signs that the Libertarian Party and the Tea parties and Paulites inside the Republican party are growing in numbers. Maybe in another decade or so we will have some real power. It’s a long shot but it is all that I have.
If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional there will be a hissy fit, we can count on that. And let’s face it many of the Democrat supporters are like children; they wait around for their parents (the Democrats) to provide them with everything they need and beg for money when they run out without expecting to do anything in return.
Did you see their reaction to the courts approval of only part of Airizona’s immigration law? Pathetic!
After learning of the administration’s response to Arizona’s Supreme Court ruling today, my first thought was childish and petulant. My second thought obliterated such generosity of mind and spirit and replaced it with evil and tyrannical.
Thay goes beyond petty, doesn’t it? Obama wants Airzona in his win column and he thinks the Hispanic vote will carry it for him.
We have been having quite the discussion over at America’s Watchtower. Steve has been writing about the immigration issue and I didn’t have any better sense than to just chime in with my thoughts. A few liberals found the post and the comments and the first thing they did was start throwing themselves a temper tantrum. Instead of defending their point of view, they resorted to name calling. I didn’t know I was such a rotten person. 😉
They become frustrated easily because have no logical arguments to support their positions so like children they resort to name calling. Pathetic!
It may be worse than you think. The Obamaites have been planning a response to all iterations of the Arizona ruling for some time. The reaction is planned, and malicious.
I’m hoping this is going to backfire on Obama come election day.
This conversation reminds me of what John Taylor Gatto said about the purpose of education: to create the perpetual, dependent child always looking for an authority figure for guidance and approval.
By the way, Pelosi’s daddy was a big shot in Baltimore politics, so I wouldn’t have been surprised if she did have an exorbitant allowance. She’s raking it in hand over fist today with all the insider deals.
A lot of baby boomers weren’t paying attention to the kind of education their cjildren were getting, were they?
I’d say that a lot of WW2 parents weren’t paying attention to the education that their kids were getting.
Democrats as children — ever see The Bad Seed?
Scary!
I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that liberals never really left kinder garden, mentally that is. Some of them have left it and stopped at their teenage years. Either way anyone who has children will see the similarities between them and small petulant children.
They can’t defend their positions with logic and facts so their arguments always sound childish, don’t they?
I’m wondering if there’s some ironic satire in a thread that’s titled “The Childish Left” and then leads off with “Are there any adults in the Democrat Party?”.
I decided at that point that it would be a waste of time to read the rest as it would surely be no more than a disingenuous rhetorical spin. True to my instincts, I scrolled to the last sentence that read “every time the left is confronted with reality, they revert to name calling. Very childish, don’t you think?”
This jogged my memory of reading Paul Brian’s definition several years ago.
“Certain Republican members of Congress have played the childish game in recent years of referring to the opposition as the “Democrat Party,” hoping to imply that Democrats are not truly democratic. They succeed only in making themselves sound ignorant, and so will you if you imitate them. The name is “Democratic Party.” After all, we don’t say “Republic Party.”
Paul Brians is an Emeritus Professor of English at Washington State University
and wrote that several years ago, way before today’s republicans took bullshit to a new level and just kept shoveling it until someone believes it. This was even before George W. Bush would often use it. But with GWB’s gross assault on the English language, I suppose people just over looked it.
And what about BO’s assult on the English language?
BTW, it will be hard, but I will try to refer to you all as Democratics instead of Democrats in the future.