Liberal Class Warfare Rhetoric…And Then There’s The Truth

Bookmark and Share

In what is sure to be a tough fought election full of scathing rhetoric, none has been more apparent in the last year then the class warfare being perpetrated for the most part by those on the left.

“Republican’s represent the rich. Republican’s support the rich. Evil millionaires and billionaires the lot of them.”
“Democrat’s represent the little guy. Democrat’s support the poor and downtrodden. Democrat’s are ‘one of you'”.

Basic political rhetoric that most often comes from those on the left. Especially when their fiscal record is as bad as it appears it will be heading in to the 2012 elections. They sure can’t run on the record but what they can do, and do effectively, is pit American’s against each other as they head to the ballot box using the ‘evil rich Republican’ vs. the ‘poor and middle class Democrat’ argument. An argument which I am about to prove false.

Using 2009 data from the 2010 Census, out of the top 20 states in median household income 14 of those states are Blue (Democrat), 2 are considered Purple (Center) and 4 are Red (Republican). The bottom 20 states in median household income are the exact polar opposite. Out of the states at the bottom of the income data 14 are Red, 2 are Purple and 4 are Blue. Median household income data by state

So, if the Republican’s support the rich and Democrats support the poor why is it that the richest states vote Democrat and the poorest vote Republican?

Because that’s what false data and rhetoric does. It attempts to paint a picture that isn’t always a fair and accurate one. Some politicians believe that if you repeat a lie enough it becomes the truth. That appears to be the case in regards to the class warfare being perpetrated as we head into November. The problem is as long as this false information has been perpetrated it apparently hasn’t weighed on the opinions of the classes who are supposed to be ‘at war’. The poorest states still vote Republican and the richest states still vote Democrat.

Don’t tell anyone. We don’t want the Democrats to have to change the perception they believe they have built over decades. We will simply just hope that they don’t notice the rich and poor aren’t listening.

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

The Veiled Message in Clinton’s Endorsement

A highly strategic political game is being played out right before our eyes between the leader of the old-school liberal Democrats and the leader of the new-school socialist Democrats.  When Bill Clinton atoned for his sins in a New York City joint fundraiser with Obama, all I heard was “This Obama guy is no Bill Clinton”.

We got the message…

Don’t misunderstand Clinton when he calls Romney qualified and praises Romney’s business record.  Clinton is not giving up on his party affiliation.  If anything, he is trying to convert his party back to what it was before Obama.  Dick Morris is likely right when he insinuates that Clinton doesn’t want four more years of Obama.  But Clinton doesn’t necessarily want to see his party fail.  Nor does he want to lose the power and influence he has amassed for himself in the DNC.  He just wants to see Obama fail.

That is why Clinton’s endorsement was not a call to support Obama, but a veiled warning to stay home in 2012.  Clinton reminded the crowd that he is the one who gave them four balanced budgets.  Contrast that with Obama who has increased the deficit by a trillion and a half dollars every year in office, and whose wildest dreams of a budget won’t balance even ten years after he leaves office.  Every Obama budget has been voted down bi-partisanly as outlandish to both Republicans and liberal Democrats.  Nothing says “vote for the guy who’s added $6 trillion to the deficit” like an endorsement from someone who’s record is the polar opposite.  Clinton flaunting his budget record in his Obama endorsement was no mistake or gaffe.

Now, Clinton is not a deficit hawk.  He is not pro-austerity, and he certainly is not a conservative.  Anyone who has been alive long enough knows that it was Newt Gingrich who dragged Clinton kicking and screaming into those balanced budgets.  But Clinton’s perception of himself is as a non-socialist compassionate liberal who cut spending and saw it work.

Clinton cannot support Romney.  First, Clinton is not a conservative.  He opposes Romney on social issues.  He doesn’t really agree with Romney on fiscal issues.  Second, Clinton has no higher ambition at this point than to maintain what he has: his life as a Democrat celebrity.  An actual endorsement of Romney would destroy the Clinton dynasty.

But at the same time, Clinton knows what works and what doesn’t.  Even he can look at the Obama record and see what danger our country is in if the new-school socialist Democrats win.  Setting aside Clinton’s personal and racial beef with Obama, he understands what Obama’s out of control spending will do to the Democrat party’s legacy, and by extension his own, if Obama is given another four years to outspend revenues by over a trillion a year.

If Obama is smart, he will find a way to keep Bill Clinton in whatever corner of the country he has kept Joe Biden for the last four years.  However, don’t count old Slick Willy out yet.  Obama may be about to get schooled by the original campaigner-in-chief.

 

%d bloggers like this: