Semantic Kindling

A very perplexing thing about political combat is why some simple messages cut through the oppressive fog of demagoguery to capture the day ... Willie Horton, Hope and Change, read my lips, morning in America, etc. Why such semantic kindling spontaneously combusts is beyond my small mind ... but it usually happens late in every election. Watch for it! I’m sure it’s coming!


STAND UP FOR AMERICA!

Dog Whistles

I have noted before how the swamis on the left attempt to slime their opponents, not by quoting them directly but by surmising what they are really thinking ... in other words, mind reading ... see: Mind Readers. This demagoguery is difficult to defuse because it all boils down to offense versus defense: the accusers are on the offense ... and the accused have no way of proving what was on their minds.

Another way of reforming this same assault is to accuse a conservative of issuing a dog whistle. “I know you said A, but you meant B ... and the people who hear you [he dogs] will know what you really meant.” (A perfect example is how Trump’s Charlottesville comment was twisted.) The purpose of this even more nuanced accusation turns out again to be putting the accused on the defense ... it is very difficult to prove what your audience is going to understand what you said.

But interestingly, it is now also the accuser who is now sending the secret message to liberal canine listeners. Putting it another way, those Democrats who accuse anyone on the right of using a dog whistle are, in fact, using dog whistles themselves.

Here’s a perfect example:

Taxing Times

Democrats never seem to see a new tax or a tax hike that they don't like. Take a quick gander at the tax mine field that President Obama laid down for Americans during his reign (mostly tied to Obamacare) ... see: Americans for Tax Reform Listing. Many of these 21 new taxes actually hit the middle class ... violating a pledge that Obama made before he was first elected.

Now, as to be expected, there are also taxes in the Obamacare mishmash that are graduated ... progressive if you will ... meaning that wealthy people will be understandably harder hit. And now comes the expected Democrat demagoguery (note the same first letters) surrounding the Republicans in the Senate's effort to scuttle Obamacare. The Dems are pounding the table saying that this Obamacare repeal will give huge tax breaks to the wealthy. And Warren Buffet, on cue, echoes this refrain ... see: Fortune Magazine Story.

Duh! Do I need to point out the obvious? If Obamacare is eliminated ... along with its repertoire of taxes ... then those taxes meant to soak the rich also go away ... so Upchuck Schumer is technically right ... but still is a big fat demagogue in the process. Are Republican healthcare reformers expected to keep these vestigial taxes as memorials to the disaster that was Obamacare? This would be like the smile that persists after the Cheshire cat has disappeared.

If Warren Buffet wants to pay more taxes, then I am sure that this can be arranged during the next big Republican government overhaul ... the coming tax reform process.

The Trump Way

Watching Donald Trump in action over the last nine months has been very educational as to how he has and is succeeding. And it is obvious that Trump is a very talented verbal pugilist. He has a very effective way of dealing with questions and debate issues. (Notice I didn't say "good," just effective.) He continually pulls from the following remarkable repertoire of rhetorical trump cards ... see if you don't agree:

Taking both sides - often Trump will deny an accusation and then within two or three sentences pretty much verify it.

Eliding -- Trump quite often will not finish a sentence ... leading the listener up to an expected word or phrase, but never actually saying it ... preserving his deny-ability.

Talking over others -- If an opponent is starting to score a point, Trump will often talk so loud as to drown out his opposition.

Eliciting sympathy -- This to me is a surprising side to Trumps rhetoric ... and one he may have learned from the Clintons. He often tries to elicit sympathy by accusing opponents of unfair charges.

Denial -- Trump seems to have no compunctions to deny things that have repeatedly been seen on video clips ... and, for some strange reason, he seems to get away with it.

Insults -- I won't repeat Trump's many demeaning and puerile slights of his adversaries ... but everyone has seen and heard them ... and they do seem to cower his opponents.

Repeated themes -- The Donald repeats certain themes ad nauseam ... "We'll build a beautiful wall," "Our administration people are dumb negotiators," etc. ... and he accuses Rubio of repeating himself.

Playing on emotions -- Trump often uses apocryphal stories to tug on the emotions of his listeners.

Bluster -- Trump shouts down his opponents, waves his arms around, and tries to intimidate his debate foes or news anchors.

Changing the subject -- Very often, when Trump's rhetoric is dead-ended, he will change the subject ... like when talking about violence at his rallies, he will launch into praising the police.

Demagoguery -- Call it lying if you wish, but Trump very often stretches the truth past what anyone who was truly listening would accept.

Lacking in details -- Donald Trump usually talks in generalities ... avoiding specifics to which he might be held.

Braggadocios -- "I went to the best schools," "I am very smart," etc.

Refusing to answer -- Sometimes Trump will refuse to answer a request for specifics like "who are your foreign policy advisers?" Often over and over.

Mugging -- When opponents are pressing, Trump will often start Mussolini-mugging for the camera  to show his contempt or disagreement.


Trump has clearly learned these rhetorical tricks and street smarts (or, better, force of personality) in his years of dealing with tough (but dumb) Manhattan pols and labor bosses. Then they have been refined during his stints on reality TV ... all perfect training for this political arena.

Screwing the Public

The federal government's spending sequestration is scheduled to take effect this coming Friday, March 1st.  This sequestration is nothing more than a decrease in the growth of government spending that Obama first backed … and then fled from … and is now desperately trying to pin on the Republicans.  These spending growth reductions total $43 billion (not the $85 billion as advertised) for fiscal 2013 (ends Sept. 30^th) out of a total federal budget of $3.8 trillion.  This is barely more than a 1% haircut on the baseline government spending that was already scheduled to increase by 0.2% (see: U.S. Federal Budget Detail ) … or as many pundits like to say, "it’s a rounding error."  But they are not even “cuts” … for federal government spending would still increase by 0.7%  even with this sequestration (after adding back the recent emergency appropriation of $64 billion for the victims of hurricane Sandy).  But, given the hair-on-fire rhetoric of the Obama administration … and the complicity of the main-stream media outlets in the United States, the American public generally hasn’t a clue to these meaningful facts.

So, the Obamanistas are out to make this sequestration look exactly like the government shutdown in 1995 when Bill Clinton humiliated Newt Gingrich into submission. It is nothing even closely resembling that.  The Obama administration is likely to go public with “furloughs” for as many government workers as they can in visible sectors of the U.S. economy -- air-traffic controllers, National Park rangers, TSA screeners, meat inspectors, etc. to try to inflict as much pain as possible on the American public (ergo, screw them) in order to pressure the Republicans into relenting on sequestration.  What is even more hypocritical is that these “furloughed” workers will then be paid any back wages due them once this sequestration is resolved.

This administration, using its hand-puppet, Jay Carney, is even saying that teachers, police and firemen will be laid off … employees that are not even paid for out of our Federal coffers.  Dear readers, if you ever want to know exactly what the word “demagoguery” means; this would be a perfect example … screw the naive American public and try to blame it on the other party.  I would love to see this type of despicable political misdirection be labeled the eighth deadly sin ... and come back to haunt Obama and his minions in Congress.

Government Motors

President Obama has attacked Mitt Romney for his saying that General Motors (GM) should have gone through the normal bankruptcy process and, if this were to have happened Obama claims, this country would have lost hundreds of thousand jobs. I've got a news update for The Barry ... GM did go bankrupt (see: GM Chapter 11 Reorganization) and tens of thousand jobs were indeed lost both at the company itself and at the hundreds of GM dealerships that were disenfranchised. The difference is that this bankruptcy was not arbitrated by the courts who best know how bankruptcies work. It was the autocratic Obama administration that decided most of the terms of this bankruptcy while, at the same time, throwing 50 billion dollars into this once great (but geriatric) company. Here are the details of the bankruptcy filings from Wikipedia:

The purchase was supported by $50 billion in U.S. Treasury loans, giving the U.S. government a 60.8% stake. The Queen of Canada, in right of both Canada and Ontario, holds 11.7% and the United Auto Workers, through its health-care trust (VEBA), holds a further 17.5%. The remaining 10% is held by unsecured creditors. On July 10, 2009, GM reported 88,000 U.S. employees, and announced plans to reduce its U.S. workforce to 68,000 by the end of 2009 after filing for bankruptcy.

Now this is just part of this sad story … a great American company becoming a piglet sucking on the government’s teat. To see more of these sordid details go to: Michelle Malkin Article and Subprime Auto Loans. The totality of the General Motors reorganization is extremely complex, but suffice it to say that the shedding of something like $90 billion of liabilities from its balance sheet is bound to make its financial health look much better than in times past. Yet still, the new General Motors stock is down 30% from it offering price of $33. Clearly sophisticated investors are not taken in by the Democrat political hype. Since I am of the opinion that any company that is majority owned by the government (U.S. and Canada) and its employees (the UAW) cannot survive for an extended period, I suggest that you think twice before you buy a Government Motors auto with a long warrantee.

Unfortunately, the Democrat demagoguery that the auto bailout offers Obama probably works for him over the short term. While Romney’s critique of this reorganization process, although likely correct, does not buy him many votes in Ohio and Michigan.

A Cerebral Pick

The AP is reporting that Mitt Romney will announce this morning at 9:00 that Paul Ryan is his choice for VP.  I would love to see the AP be wrong ... for no other reason than that it would be sullied as a news source.  But, assuming that it is right, what is my take on this first important Romney decision?

- It is a cerebral pick in that Paul Ryan is very smart ... he has the federal budget tattooed on the back of his hand.  He knows where all the fiscal skeletons are and he can be instrumental in helping Romney fix our crushing federal debt burden.  He has lectured the lecturers ... including that pompous one in the White House.  And, in the upcoming debates, he will make mincemeat of that court clown, Biden.

- And it is a courageous pick on the part of Romney because Ryan has been twice vilified in the national media for his attempts to put forward budgets that would begin to repair things.  Ryan has shown himself to be an easy target for demagoguery ... but then this has not fazed him.  His obvious "damn the torpedoes" approach shows that he has a much larger "good" in mind than his own political stardom ... very unusual in these days of almost universal political sliminess. And Romney himself has shown himself willing to pick someone who, in important ways, is his better.  This obviously is one of Romney's character traits that has served him well in his business career.  It also augers well for the type of people that Romney would surround himself with if he is lucky enough to be elected.

I use the word "lucky" because I now believe that Romney's chances have been diminished by choosing Ryan.  As some of you might remember, I would have preferred Marco Rubio mainly because of politics.  (He was also Jeb Bush's preference and won the Fox News preference poll.)  Rubio would have changed the dynamics of the race by appealing to many who look no further than the face and the name.  I am loath to admit that the American electorate have too often proven themselves to be governed by their hearts and not their brains. Witness the elections of Carter and Obama.

For the Romney/Ryan ticket to prevail now, this same electorate needs to become much more cerebral.  I can wish this to be the case, but my brain keeps whispering the opposite.