On September 13, 2010 a group of moderates, progressives, and independents have shed their old labels for an enticing new one: No Labels. Founded by Nancy Jacobson and, Mark McKinnon, they launched their group in NYC together with Joe Scarborough, Charlie Christ, David Brooks, Mike Bloomberg, Michael Smerconish, Dylan Ratigan and a whole lot of other spineless elitists.
The No Label’s group professes to put political partisanship aside to accomplish for the good of the nation without specifying how and what they consider good. They completely disregard the fact that this country is comprised of different groups that have different goals. While conservatives fight for free enterprise, individual choice, and shrinking of the government, to name a few, liberals push for reducing carbon emissions, redistributing wealth and regulating just about everything. On the same issue, both will have two opposing solutions, and each will feel the others is detrimental to the country’s future.
Two years ago, Bloomberg had said the same as the No Label’s group professes about the bailouts; “Nobody knows exactly what they should do, but anything is better than nothing.” Oh really? Is pouring gasoline on fire the same as pouring water? Or is doing nothing better perhaps better than adding fuel to the fire?
No Labels presents itself as a righteous group who opposes labels at all costs. Let’s look at the history of the previously mentioned individuals.
Mike Bloomberg had three different letters preceding his name in the span of under seven years! He jumped first from a lifelong Democrat to a Republican in ’01 before running for mayor and then to Independent in’07 before the third elections. I find it hard to believe that along with his party swaps, he changed his beliefs and positions on major issues with each label change. No, he remained the same arrogant elitist yet deemed it extremely vital to be branded with a new label at each election.
Oh, and wasn’t it Bloomberg who labeled anyone who dared voice their opinion against the Ground Zero Mosque as Un-American? And who remembers the Time Square bomber being labeled by the mayor as a probable political terrorist who plainly opposes Obamacare? In a sense, that statement labeled thousands of common citizens and many of our military as a danger to our safety because of their opposition to a bill which forces you to buy healthcare and may very well be overturned as unconstitutional!
Ironically, Bloomberg is obsessed with the lack of labels on items produced by private manufacturers’ such as your favorite sandwich at your local drive-thru, not trusting the pitiful people to possibly be able to control their own eating habits.
And he is now preaching us against the use of labels!
Let’s take a look at another prominent member at the No Label’s launching: failed radio host Joe Scarborough.
Joe deemed it important to label himself as a conservative talk show host hoping that listeners hearing someone brand himself as conservative will remain loyal to his program. Alas, the stupid and uninformed mass did not fall for it, for after all- it was a label and only a label.
This is the same reason why his heavily advertised book, “The Last Best Hope; Restoring Conservatism and America’s Promise” sold less than five thousand copies. His obvious misuse of the term conservatives didn’t fool those who look deeper than the title. Oh, and since most of you are probably not to familiar with what he considered as the only path to regain control and score some major victories in the ’10 elections, here’s his brainy idea to bring conservatives back to power: Appeal to the independents by bashing radical and rigid conservatives. Don’t proclaim your pro-life beliefs even if you are so, because you’ll alienate the middle path. As we are all well aware, it was mostly the moderates who lost and the conservatives who scored victory in 2010. What a failed book-both in sales and in content.
Mr. Scarborough, I’ve got a last best hope for you, and it’s a label too: a retired Liberal!
Mark McKinnon, a co-founder of the group must be above the pettiness of labels… or is he? He wrote an article after the midterm elections where he explained how Rubio can solve the Palin Problem. I got dizzy trying to keep track of the many labels he attached to Rubio! He started off with Rubio’s age- label #1, his appeal to Hispanics- label #2, and so on. In order to put down Palin, he suddenly became a Rubio fan. You’re a little too late, Mark. Where were you before the midterms?
In a different article, he told Palin not to run and immediately labeled her as having expired, saying “she reached her sell-by date.” This is coming from a man who spent a total of three hours with Sarah Palin and claims to know her and her thoughts. McKinnon had left the McCain campaign in June’08 because he felt John McCain was going negative against Obama. Can someone tell McKinnon that the Obama’s 20 years they spent in Jeremiah Wright’s church and their hanging out with Bill Ayers are hard facts and not some abstract labels!
It’s interesting to note that the left has always been the party of labels. Any and every opponent was immediately labeled as a racist, sexist, homophobic, islamaphobic and so forth. Who doesn’t remembers our president on the campaign trail naming people of small towns as bitter religious folks clinging to their guns or religion, and more recently calling the senate Republicans as hostage takers? The left labeled virtually the entire state of Arizona as Nazis for trying to enforce what is simply an unenforced federal law. Instead of being open about their beliefs and laying it out before the people, the left sticks to slogans and bumper stickers such as hope and change. Today, when the constituents have awoken and these old tactics are no longer working, they came about with a new bumper sticker-No More Labels!
Indeed, these phony elitist that have always focused on labels are once again hyped up about labels.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The nation is still coming to terms with the horrific shootout, yet the media jumped full force ahead on a ridiculous smear campaign against conservatives in general and Sarah Palin in particular. Firstly, I want to express my pain for all the loved ones of those murdered or injured in the attack and a blessing for a brighter future.
Immediately after news of the terrible tragedy spread, the nation was plunged into a deep state of mourning. That is, the entire nation excluding a group of heartless individuals who jumped at the opportunity to politicize the news without even minimal knowledge of what has occurred. While the wailing ambulances raced to transport the victims, with Gabrielle Gifford’s condition still critical, and the public walking around dazed, this selfish group pounced upon their computers and laptops to report the news while pointing fingers at their political opponents. Their perverted reasoning in a nutshell is as follows: The hateful rhetoric coming from the right is downright dangerous and breeding violence and therefore must be put to an immediate halt. In the very same breath that the Paul Krugmans of society call for a calmer tone and increased civility to one another, they have the audacity to ignite hatred against talk show hosts, tea parties, and Sarah Palin by blaming them for the murderer’s insanity. I don’t remember the Republicans heatedly blaming or naming Obama or anyone else on the left as the cause of killing since it would’ve been an unbelievably absurd act. Nevertheless the media pointed fingers at the conservatives and called on them for growing a “climate of hate”. It seems that they believe that blasting your opponents as the root of peoples’ deaths results in a more peaceful society.
DNC map: Targeting Strategy: Targeting Republican seats with Bulls Eye on the vulnerable districts
|This map was posted on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s website about a year ago|
All this reminds me of a well known story of a person who wanted to change the good for first the world, then his country, his state, his city, etc. albeit without success until he realized that in order to have an effect on anyone he first had to start with himself. This week many members of the media like have undertaken a campaign to correct the choice of words used by others while keeping a different standard for themselves. The Marcos Moulitsas’ and the Paul Krugmans’ have shown their true colors as one of the worst society has produced and are attempting to drag the rest of us with them. But no, we will not give you the pleasure in stooping as low as you have, now or ever. In that sense, I can proudly announce, Mission Failed.
This article appeared on C4P's website on Jan. 11, 2011
Friday, January 7, 2011
I know I’m new on the scene and I’m not the Harvard college graduate or even have the privilege of people reading my columns at a regular basis because this is from my first articles posted. I nevertheless leap into the stormy debate or so called civil war in the Republican Party, namely, whether Palin is so radioactive as to be deemed unelectable.
Erick Erickson from Red State whom I greatly admire posted an article recently on Palin’s lack of electability. It is indeed very sad to see someone who would’ve supported a candidate completely, raise the white flag and surrender to the media. What shocked me most about Erickson’s post is the fact that at the ’10 primaries, when Palin endorsed Fiorina in California in a three way race between Carly Fiorina, Chuck DeVore, and Tom Campbell, Erickson did not see eye to eye with Palin on her endorsement. Okay Erick, I understand that although you share the same values and agreed with most of her endorsements you felt she was wrong at that time, but here’s how I see it. Palin’s reasoning was simple. Tom Campbell, a true liberal with ties to radical Palestinians, would’ve been another Barbara Boxer code pinker, and would only tarnish the Republican name even more. Fiorina and DeVore are both more conservative, true-to different degrees, but Fiorina was the one that with a small push forward was able to beat Tom Campbell in the primaries. If Palin would’ve endorsed DeVore, who was trailing Campell by 20% the conservative vote would’ve been split between the two and led to a Tom Campbell victory.
Erickson however wrote the following: I’m not abandoning Chuck just because Sarah Palin had decided to go elsewhere. He then explained that he stuck with Chuck because he was the more conservative of the two. Why are you now abandoning Palin, the most conservative candidate, just because a few elitists have decided that the main issue is electability? Let’s face it. Whoever the Republican nominee will be, the media will pounce upon them and seek to destroy them with every truth and untruth they will unearth against them, and the base will have to unite in support of their candidate to debunk the baseless claims. If a candidate fits all your criteria for president and the only problem is media bashing from liberals and beltways, won’t that happen to whoever wins? Why not stick with the one that’s already gone through all that? Otherwise, you’ll be back to square one with the media defaming them and the public buying into it while the minority of us will fight for the truth. It’s like going one step forward and two steps back. My father taught me that a glass that has been shattered once can’t be broken again. The media already threw at Palin everything they found and didn’t find on her and her family. Playing Tina Fey’s “I can see Russia from my house” again won’t create any additional haters. Informing and educating ignorant folks who believe such and other lies, can and will increase her supporters.
Erick, as someone who has always fought for conservative values and the candidates supporting those values, how can you suddenly take a true conservative and dump her just because Krauthammer, Will, and the likes have decided she’s unelectable? You have written a great article in the past criticizing those who tried to proclaim themselves as the leaders with of the tea party movement saying it should be by and for the people, shouldn’t we use here the same standard? Why should a select few determine who should or shouldn’t run in a primary? How can they decide for an entire movement with millions of voters if a candidate is unelectable before a single campaign ad or message has been released? How can they (may I use this word?) label her as unelectable if, as you wrote, things can still change? I know you support her as and are ready to go down together with her as you very clearly highlighted, but why are you buying into this unelectability crap? This is America with its unlimited potential! (I’m no fan of Hillary and don’t buy into the victimhood mentality of the left, but with her presidential launch she said she made 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling! Can one person accomplish such a tremendous feat in any other country on this planet? UPDATE: my liberal friend just told me that theirs is no glass ceiling in any countries besides for here.)
In your article you brought a comparison of Goldwater’s loss to Johnson. Bear in mind however that that election was before the social networking and internet blogosphere which minimizes the absolute control the mainstream media had at previous elections. Another point to ponder is that Goldwater lost 38.5-61.1%. That’s a landslide loss! He needed an additional 12% to tide the election in his favor. If the 2012 election would be in a month or two a 12% gain is almost nearly impossible (although Reagan and others have breached it). However, with close to two years to the elections and a primary that has not yet begun, 12% is an insignificant number that will shift upwards and downwards many times following debates, ads, and campaigning both in the primary and general election. In truth, history has proven that regardless of whoever wins the primaries they will get the parties support which amounts to 37%-40% of the country. All you truly need is to convince an additional 10%-15% of the public and the focus lies mostly on several battleground states.
Here’s one last point. After Obama has rammed through healthcare, repealed DADT, Stimulus I & II, and a whole bunch of other radically liberal bills, no one dares to predict Obama reaching close to 60% of the votes. The worst polls cited against Palin, has media endorsed incumbent Obama at 55 vs. 40 and in most polls Obama doesn’t even hit the fifty percent mark. All this is before even one shot was fired at him and his outstandingly liberal record. Oh, and don’t forget that most the voters in the Republican primary aren’t the close minded liberals who fall for style and rhetoric rather than content.
This Article was originally posted on C4P’s website on Jan. 7 2011