« Breathe Easy, America | Main | Debate Question of the Day »

April 05, 2010

"We're All Ignorant Extremists Now...."

Heh:

On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly feel closer to the Tea Party and most Democrats say that their views are more like Obama’s. Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 50% say they’re closer to the Tea Party while 38% side with the President.

The partisan divide is similar to that found in the President’s Job Approval Ratings and on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

“Unaffiliated voters are continuing the pattern they established in 2006 and 2008 of opposing the party in power,” notes Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. In his new book, Scott makes the case that “the American people don’t want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. They want to govern themselves.”

If things keep going this way, the President is going to find himself badmouthing a majority of the country. Not good tactics for such a "smart guy".

Question of the day: how do you marginalize a majority?

Posted by Cassandra at April 5, 2010 02:41 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3602

Comments

How do you marginalize a majority? By putting ever broader powers in the hands of a small minority. Look at North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and (increasingly) Venezuela. All it takes is a complacent majority that tunes out of all that icky political business.

Posted by: Texan99 at April 5, 2010 03:09 PM

How do you marginalize a majority?

First: Pray. Pray the American "silent" majority will not pay attention to your good intentions, or question any of your distortions about what's really going on in the political arena.

Second: Buy a BIG drum (something that can withstand the constant, steady, unwavering, 24/7 pounding on every MSM outlet).

Third: Elect a drum major (an apologist for everything which counters American exceptionalism)

Fourth: Ensure your percussionists (Congress, the Senate, Unions, the MSM, Hollywood, University profs) are on the same sheet of music (Lib agenda "good"; Repubs/talk show pundits/tea partiers, "bad")

Fifth: Pound the drum, until America gets sick and tired of the pounding and votes for hope and change.

Posted by: ziobuck at April 5, 2010 03:49 PM

And here I was going for the laugh line:

How do you marginalize a majority?

Very carefully :p

Posted by: Cassandra at April 5, 2010 03:51 PM

How do you marginalize a majority?

At your peril.

Posted by: BillT at April 5, 2010 04:15 PM

I'd say the answer is "easily"

Posted by: MikeD at April 5, 2010 04:28 PM

Note I didn't say "At your *imminent* peril."

Walking into an L-shaped ambush is easy -- getting away with it isn't...

Posted by: BillT at April 5, 2010 04:40 PM

By saying that the majority is out of touch, especially when they either don't get as tingly as KO or don't get tingly at all.

Posted by: Cricket at April 5, 2010 04:55 PM

AIEEEEE!!!!

Cricket! Shame on you!

Thou shalt not utter the words "tingly" and "KO" in the same sentence. The nightmares and loss of libido could be permanent :p

Posted by: "Ewwwwwww" at April 5, 2010 04:59 PM

Redefine "mainstream."

Posted by: Allen at April 5, 2010 05:07 PM

How do you marginalize a majority?

With a butter knife. What else.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 5, 2010 06:13 PM

*groan*

Posted by: I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! at April 5, 2010 06:14 PM

Come on, November.

Posted by: camojack at April 5, 2010 08:52 PM

I cannot believe this is happening to my country. the pee-resident has now said we won't use nuclear weapons. He is giving away the store. He is violating his oath. I am absolutley livid.

Yeah, let the NORKs and the Iranians have nukes. Let the Russians and chinese have them. We will set the example. And when we have a few smoking holes in the USA, he might pull his head from his alimentary canal....but I doubt it. It will still be BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHES fault.

May God save our souls.

Posted by: kbob in katy at April 5, 2010 09:07 PM

THANK YOU for posting this! I love your page!!

Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

ps. Link Exchange?

Posted by: Steve at April 5, 2010 10:41 PM

You ever seen one of those dancing cat videos? They're just plain funny. It doesn't matter if the cat's a teabagger or a librul or whatever. Dancing cats are funny, period. (Even slow-dancing cats.)

(Yeah, yeah; go make something more of it than it is . . . It won't be any funnier for it . . .)

(HT to some other lunatic fringe website (Does it really matter which one?))

Posted by: pond at April 6, 2010 07:19 AM

Cool! The post title is vindicated!

Posted by: BillT at April 6, 2010 09:29 AM

pond:

I have tried to be patient with you but you're making that difficult.

If you have a problem with what another blogger has written, take it up with that blogger. I have no duty to police "my side" of the blogosphere looking for objectionable posts to denounce.

On the other hand, if you're trying to equate the behavior of an unpaid blogger with that of the President of the United States or of professional journalists, both acting within the course and scope of their jobs, that's a non-starter.

You seem to have a real problem with my asking commenters not to engage in personal attacks and personally insulting rhetoric of precisely the kind you find so objectionable in that post (which, by the way, wasn't directed at his target demographic). If he'd said, "This is yet another example of the mental superiority of my liberal readers", you might have a parallel to what I ask here, or even a point.

But then that's not what he said, is it?

Posted by: Cassandra at April 6, 2010 09:45 AM

Cassandra, I really have no bloody clue what you're going on about.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to reproduce my post in your reply, in full, and then directly point to what language precisely it is that tee'ed you off, and why.

Personally (with respect to my posting), I have and had no particularly unique "problem" with what any blogger said. Left wing blogs tend to spurt their particular rhetoric and right wing blogs tend to do similarly. Personally, I find it overly-simplistic and overall unhelpful, but that's the nature of this epoque.

What I thought I was doing in posting (as if I have any right to know or opine upon the matter) was linking to a video that I personal doubled over in laughter looking at, and which I thought might appeal to many who frequent this blog. And, suggesting at the same time, that things ain't as simple as right and left. Thank God.

Try not to be so speculative, and try not to be be so prickly. It's not all about you, and my posting was nothing about you. The point of my post was was to share some humor, after all . . .

Posted by: pone at April 6, 2010 10:52 AM

Cassandra, I really have no bloody clue what you're going on about.

She may mean that you need to stop tea bagging Obama. He isn't all that stable.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 6, 2010 10:58 AM

Btw, the html format on your link isn't working.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 6, 2010 11:09 AM

Well, I guess that makes it alot less funny. . . .

Posted by: pond at April 6, 2010 11:21 AM

Maybe it was calling cats "librul"? Just because cats get noisy when the want something doesn't make them "librul".

Posted by: crazy mike at April 6, 2010 11:26 AM

Kowabunga (?)

Posted by: pond at April 6, 2010 11:28 AM

It's a bad idea to combine the phrase "tea bagger" with lunatic fringe. I know you may have been trying for a general, all party, joke, but those terms leads to misunderstandings. Especially given recent events.

Haven't you been to the South and figured out what are fighting words? Not everyone here is of the South, but certainly the idea is more prevalent here than in urban populations.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 6, 2010 11:39 AM

Ymarsakar at April 6, 2010 11:39 AM ..

I combined teabagger with librul, not lunatic fringe. The last prior usage of lunatic fringe that I recalled being used on this site was made by Cassandra herself, in a fashion which appeared to demonstrate a recognition that there is no necessary supernatural or totemic reason to avoid the word or take umbrage at its usage. Appearances can be deceiving, or reflect short-lived phenomena . . .

And Ymars - -is this the same Ymars that said (wasn't it just yesterday?) that the left can dish out the humor but can't take a joke? (Whereas the right has a healthy sense of humor reflects self-confidence and some other laudable quality) ?

How soon they forget. . .

Posted by: pond at April 6, 2010 11:56 AM

I combined teabagger with librul, not lunatic fringe

If they are in the same comment. They are combined. That's just how it is.

that the left can dish out the humor but can't take a joke?

The simple counter-point is that nobody here could even say what you were doing, let alone that you were joking about anything.

Your earlier comment there did not make logical sense. Which is why you shouldn't combine words that can be taken in a fashion which is opposite of your intention.

It's not just because the link didn't show up, although that didn't help.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 6, 2010 12:07 PM

Ymarsakar at April 6, 2010 12:07 PM

Lord love you and protect you Ymars.

And thank you for confirming the lesson I learned yesterday (but apparently hadn't taken to heart), about not commenting on your comments.

No more (God willing). While part of me wants to go chapter and verse, no more. Indeed, it would be ludicrous of me to even start.

Thank you.

Posted by: pond at April 6, 2010 01:15 PM

KO tied a tourniquet around his leg as a Liberal Penitent. Every time Bush did something, he took it up a notch. This explains the tingly he got when Obama announced he was running. He loosened the tourniquet.

Posted by: Mean-spirited conservative Persyn at April 6, 2010 01:54 PM

KO tied a tourniquet around his leg as a Liberal Penitent.

Whoa. There's satire and there's over-the-top, and "Liberal Penitent" is the ne plus ultra of over-the-toppinessosity.

Posted by: BillT at April 6, 2010 02:40 PM

Who is KO.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 6, 2010 04:56 PM

It's a bad idea to combine the phrase "tea bagger" with lunatic fringe.

Do y'all even KNOW what a "teabagger" is? Consult your Urban Dictionary [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagger] (second definition), and be prepared to be [fill in your adjective of choice here]

Posted by: I Call BS at April 6, 2010 05:33 PM

With bulletproof hubris.

Posted by: RonF at April 6, 2010 05:33 PM

Who is KO.

Kukla, Fran and Ollie, without Fran [they're batting for the other team now I guess]

Posted by: I Call BS at April 6, 2010 05:34 PM

Pond:

"Teabagger" is a term used by leftists to marginalize and insult people who are members of the Tea Party movement to insult them by making their names synonymous with a particular sexual practice. If you are doing this out of ignorance, I'll excuse you - but stop it. The term used by members of the group is "Tea Partiers", and is the preferred term.

If you are doing it as a deliberate insult, you are outside the norms of civility that I have previously observed on this blog.

Posted by: RonF at April 6, 2010 05:38 PM

And thank you for confirming the lesson I learned yesterday (but apparently hadn't taken to heart), about not commenting on your comments.

Who doesn't know that here?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 6, 2010 07:20 PM

Do y'all even KNOW what a "teabagger" is?

I'm think like the Left. Of course I know, if they know.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 6, 2010 07:23 PM

Well, he is so good at apologizing.

Posted by: Cricket at April 6, 2010 07:45 PM

Back to the primary question: how do you marginalize the majority? Look at how election campaigns have been run for the last, oh, forty years. You convince, by innuendo, the majority to just stay home and not vote at all, leaving the minorities on the fringes to rule.

Posted by: htom at April 6, 2010 08:26 PM

It's a superficial observation. What goes on is out of sight and mind of the primary people involved and even the primary organizations involved.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 7, 2010 10:03 AM

Few issues stir me up more than the problem of voters staying home. I'll always remember my husband engaging in a long political discussion with an old buddy. After a while it developed that this friend took the position that he needn't vote if he was dissatisfied enough with the choices available to him, and in fact hadn't been in the habit of voting for a while. My husband immediately said, "Then what am I arguing with you for?" -- and changed the subject.

It seems to me that if we can't bring ourselves to vote we have at least to run for office. There are lots of lower-level positions that go almost begging in every election cycle. Those people help determine who the candidates will be for the upper contests.

That's what self-rule means. If we don't engage in self-rule, what we get instead, unfortunately, is not freedom from the unpleasant task of mucking around in politics. Instead what we get is a loss of freedom of all kinds, unless we're extremely lucky about which of our neighbors does bother to take office and decide what's best for us.

Posted by: Texan99 at April 7, 2010 10:48 AM

We have many well-qualified people in the USA who can and do run for office. There's no reason for us to subject any of those who've been elected to the temptations of power that re-election would subject them to. Just don't vote for incumbents.

Posted by: htom at April 7, 2010 11:16 AM

I remember a small sign I saw quite a while ago that said "Free the White House One! Free the Senate One Hundred! Free the House 435! Give 'em the Shoe in '92!"

Of course, MY incumbent is just fine and there's no need to get rid of him. It's the others that are the problem. :P

Posted by: LittleRed1 at April 7, 2010 03:47 PM

There's no reason for us to subject any of those who've been elected to the temptations of power that re-election would subject them to.

A system that cannot select for virtue amongst their leaders and maintain those virtues in power, is a system on a ticking time clock.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 7, 2010 04:07 PM

My incumbent used to be good. I am really disappointed in him, and will be considered insensitive and mean when I tell you this, but I can't help it.

His grandson was born, and in a NICU. His wife, daughter and son-in-law were there. But he flew down to Georgia to be with his family...and left word for the Congressional Record as to HOW he would have voted IF he had voted.

I found that bothersome. Our firstborn was in a baby ICU in Germany with heart problems. I was there. My husband was on a field training exercise to prepare for the Soviet invasion.

If I had only known that the socialists used a stealth weapon of subverting the laws, he could have come in to the rear to see his son.

However, I spent 18 hours a day at the hospital.
I also had mastitis, was on antibiotics and it was in the winter. My parents couldn't be with me, and my closest friends were in Fulda. I was in Bad Hersfeld.

Anyway, the point is that if my husband, and any other servicemember's spouse has to be without their loved ones, and sometimes family because of the call of duty, I see no reason why the Congressman could do no less than what he has asked his constituents in the Armed Forces to do. All the more ironic, considering where his grandson was and
what he was voting on.

Posted by: Cricket at April 7, 2010 10:22 PM

Cricket, you're insensitive and mean for saying that --

-- and you *rock*!

Posted by: BillT at April 8, 2010 02:44 AM

The aristocrats get everything. The serfs, nothing.

That's how the Leftist Utopia will always be structured.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 8, 2010 07:56 AM

Aw...thanks. I read the voting record the day the HC bill passed, and found my congresscritter was one of six who had not voted.

That was a red flag. To my knowledge, he has never missed a vote in all the time he has been my rep.

So, I did some digging, and found out why. I thought about it for ten seconds, and then wrote to him.

I got a detailed response, which I promptly forwarded to some of his constituents that I know, and just said 'Tough. Mission first. I don't care that the vote was a 'lost cause.' I would have thought a more of him had he stayed his ground. But he turned tail and ran. Just because he left word that he would have voted against it isn't good enough.'

Do you know, many of them agreed with me, but were too 'busy' to let the critter know this?
And we wonder WHY we are having problems now?

Ever since Leon Panetta was my rep, I have been writing to my reps, no matter where we were and who they were. If this is supposed to be government by the people, and for the people,
I was going to make my voice heard.

Posted by: Cricket at April 8, 2010 09:29 AM

I agree with Y: although it's often important to vote incumbents out, it's equally important to learn enough about our representatives to reward virtue in office when it is found, however rarely that may be. No representative should ever get the message that how he performs won't matter much in a bid for re-election.

I'm afraid that an indiscriminate instinct to "let another party give it a try" led to the results of the 2008 presidential election.

Posted by: Texan99 at April 8, 2010 10:16 AM

Texan, I agree with you; you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If my incumbent has a same party persyn challenging him for his seat, I would seriously consider him/her IF they have a track record of governance in the community or a profession that would help them help their constituents.

Posted by: Cricket at April 8, 2010 12:10 PM

It's not a wise decision to start destroying institutions until you know what will replace those institutions.

Course, the Left are too smart to need wisdom. I voted for Obama, and that makes me smart, obviously.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 8, 2010 01:11 PM

The Left has setup the popular myth and rumor that the Left are very similar to the Right in terms of political parties. This gives voters the idea that they can play musical chairs. Except for the minor detail that the Left started stealing chairs a long time ago. Eventually people will find out that they will have no where to sit and that includes their buddies too. But by then, the Left will have stolen so much money and power, it won't matter who got left out.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 8, 2010 01:13 PM

By then, after switching out politicians and political parties to play the game, they'll find that there is only one chair left. And in that chair sits


Obama

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 8, 2010 01:15 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)