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?