Elections 2008, Political Philosophy, Politics, Propaganda, The State
“The prolix presidential candidates and their aids and enablers have a supply of misleading phrases. These verbal obesities are meant to throw the American voter off-scent.”
In my new WND column, “Lexicon Of Lies,” I offer a run-down of some of those “pitch-perfect platitudes.“ Examples are “comprehensive immigration reform,” and “reaching across the aisle to get things done.” You get the unlovely picture.
An analysis of the divided democrats by the always-edifying William Schneider, CNN senior political analyst:
Well, we are seeing a red/blue split in the Democratic Party, and that could create a serious problem as we head towards the general election.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER (voice over): You’ve heard about the red/blue divide in American politics. Barack Obama condemns Republicans for exploiting it.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: … to slice and dice this country into red states and blue states, blue collar and white collar, white, black, brown, young, old, rich, poor.
SCHNEIDER: Well, it’s happening already inside the Democratic Party. Barack Obama is winning the blue Democrats, young voters, upscale urban professionals, well-educated liberals and African-Americans.
Hillary Clinton is getting the red Democrats — seniors, whites, blue collar and rural voters, and more conservative Democrats. The split has gotten bigger since Clinton became a gun-toting, whiskey- drinking, street-fighting, tax-cutting populist.
SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And I know how hard you’re working, working for yourselves and working for your families. And I will never stop fighting for you.
SCHNEIDER: In Indiana, nearly half the Democratic primary voters said they have a gun in their household. They voted for Clinton. And the half of Democrats who did not own a gun? They voted for Obama.
Red versus blue means left versus right. In Indiana, lost liberal Democrats to Obama. They are the blue voters. Clinton and Obama split the moderates. Conservatives, or red Democrats, voted heavily for Clinton.
This is the first time this year we have seen such a sharp ideological division among Democratic voters. The deeper that split becomes, the greater the risk to Democrats in the fall if Obama wins the nomination. Among Clinton voters in North Carolina on Tuesday, fewer than half said they would support Obama over McCain, whereas 70 percent of Obama voters said they would vote for Clinton over McCain.
SCHNEIDER: Red Democrats, older, more blue collar, more conservative, are the most likely to vote for a Republican in the fall.
Benjamin Shapiro asks a question and answers it (incompletely I think):
“What do you call a candidate who wins 90 percent of the African-American vote, between 30 percent and 50 percent of the Hispanic vote and 40 percent of the white vote in a tight Democratic primary race?
A general election loser. … In a general election, candidates must appeal to the broadest base of support in order to win. Relying on small coteries of like-raced voters simply will not do it.”
This is valid… for now. The “broadest base of support” is indeed Anglo-American, for the near future. But in a few decades, given unchecked immigration, the majority—Anglo-Americans—will be dwarfed demographically by Hispanics. Afro-Americans, who together with Anglo-Americans (and Indians) made up the historical majority, will be usurped too. Birthrates in these populations are similar.
Since voting patterns diverge from one demographic group to the next, it is not unreasonable to deduce that each has different interests and concerns. It is probably fair to say that both Anglo- and Afro-Americans are unhelped by the unchecked influx of Hispanics.
On a related topic: I’ve brought up the flight of the native-born to the heartland before on the blog. Michael Barone has documented this “Realignment of America.”
The motto at Fox News is “my party right or wrong.” Duly, Sean Hannity has been using his considerable clout to convince his viewers that McCain is a changed man on immigration.
Time and time again, Mr. Hannity has chosen not to challenge McCain when the latter kept insisting during interviews that the reason his amnesty betrayal had failed was “because voters didn’t trust the government to handle the security side,” and that the border needed to be secured before perusing “comprehensive immigration reform.”
The Manchurian Candidate has never ceased to use this code for amnesty.
Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports on McCain’s latest pandering:
“Using a Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo, as a launching point, Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign announced a Spanish-language Web site (www.johnmccain.com/ espanol), and said the senator from Arizona will speak to this year’s National Council of La Raza convention in San Diego in July to try to court Hispanic voters.
‘I believe the majority of the Hispanics share our view that the border must be secured, and the border must be secured first. But they also want us to have an attitude, which I think most Americans do, that these are God’s children, and they must be taken care of, and the issue must be addressed in a humane and compassionate fashion,’ Mr. McCain told reporters at an Arizona news conference yesterday.”
“In Defense Of The Fence” I suggested that:
“McCain … consider modifying his mantra about illegal aliens being God’s children to whom he owes a path to citizenship. This is not about the Arizonan’s relationship with God and His creatures; it’s about McCain’s relationship with the Constitution. The Constitution binds a president to uphold the law; it doesn’t authorize him to legislate compassion.”