02 December 2007

The one left out

After looking into some of the folks asking questions in the last CNN/YouTube debate, I find it very interesting that the 'plants' (those individuals affiliated with other parties and campaigns on a partisan basis, or who have ties to activists) tend to show up after the first few questioners once the debate was well under way. However, one question from that early set did come from a member of the Democratic Party: Ernie Nardi. Thanks to Newsweek blog for their coverage of that, and this is the sort of voter I think the Republican Party aims at with these debates, as, well... Mr. Nardi explains it much, much better:

Nardi is a registered Democrat, but "at this point," he said, "that doesn't mean anything. I vote for whoever I feel is the best choice." Giuliani, it seems, has never cleared that bar. Citing Rudy's "checkered past"--including his three marriages and the controversy over his decision to keep New York's emergency command center in the Twin Towers--Nardi admits that last night merely reinforced his negative opinion of the former mayor. "It accumulates, it builds up in my mind and it turns into a rage against this guy," he said.

So who will Nardi vote for? Not a Democrat, he says: "They don't impress me." He liked Romney's answer, "but you know, there's a little uneasiness there too with Romney. Still, he's the lesser of two evils when it comes to him and Giuliani."

That said, Nardi's heart, it seems, is elsewhere. "Listen, they never give Tancredo enough time," he said. "He's the only one I really care for, is Tom Tancredo. He's the most level-headed of all of them."
Yes, an 'undecided voter' who has decided, at least, that his own party isn't up to snuff and it is worth checking out the other side.... not so much 'pro-Republican' or 'pro-Tancredo' as 'anti-Democrat' and 'anti-Guiuliani'. Yes the anti-villain who isn't a 'hero' but who you can work with to common ends! Damn, we don't see many of those these days...

Still, the point is that after the first five or so questions and well past the 40 minute mark, one gets lulled into a sense of feeling that 'hey, they might be playing this straight'. Those opening questions were, however, just to get the door open so that the nursery delivery truck could deliver the plants to make a lovely greenhouse. We saw that after the last CNN debate held for the Democrats where, strangely enough, unidentified activists started to show up often enough so as to arouse suspicion. In all, CNN has been Astroturfing these last couple of debates, by rolling out false, bright, plastic green and claiming these are 'grass roots' questions.

What happened, however, is the MSM was going to get a lovely debate in which 25% of the airtime would be spent on 4 out of 33 questions, or 12% of the questions. The other 29 would get much shorter shrift, so while other topics might make up in volume, they just would not get much coverage. Over at the LA Times, Tim Rutten (h/t: Larwyn) would cover that from the non-Republican, non-Right, but certainly (at this point in time) non-nutroots view from the non-Left (with a big L). It is very, very hard these days to classify folks, isn't it? If you don't hold a yelling, screaming, partisan position in which you attempt to undercut *anyone* coming at you as a similar partisan hack, well, you just don't seem to be in the realm of politics as it is done these days. And to actually question (gasp!) the ethics and responsibility of journalists and news organizations from a non-Right position, is pretty close to heresy these days on the Left. Pretty bad in these United States when actually wanting ethical and accountable broadcasters puts you on the Right and even the 'extreme' Right.

Mind you the flip-side position of that is that you want unaccountable, unethical and wholly partisan journalists and news organizations, that will not put their bias on record. In other words: mouthpieces to toe an ideological line and publish propaganda, and vilifying anyone who dares call it propaganda. I am sure that in no time at all poor Mr. Rutten will be classified as part of the 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy' that owns all these media organizations and, yet, puts out such non-Right Wing stuff on such a consistant basis that they must be the Alzheimers Right Wing Conspiracy: they used to be the establishment conspiracy, but they forgot how to run it to their nefarious ways. That has been going on since the late 1970's, in case anyone's attention has wandered from lowered newspaper distribution starting just about the time cable tv put more compelling visual presentations together than on yellowing fishwrap. Pretty telling that CNN is now caught up on that, since it led the way to the decline of the newspaper industry.

To get back to the point: the coverage that was *going* to be written about the debate got pulled out from underneath the Left. Its OODA cycle was compromised and the MSM lost control of the story due to netizens (collectively, not just the Right or Left) picking apart the easy to find potted plants that infested the latter part of the debate. What happens now, a few days after the debate, is that a couple of journalists haven't gotten a clue as to how slanted it was and, instead, have offered their own partisan view of it.

This is like a game of 'musical chairs'... when the music stops, find the one who is marching around to the music and you have someone so enthralled with it that they don't notice it has stopped. Paul Mirengoff over at Poewer Line has identified one of these poor individuals, who can't bother to follow what the actual 'story' is and, instead, is following the music which has stopped: E. J. Dionne and his article in RealClearPolitics of Pandering the Theme of GOP debate. Compare that to Mr. Rutten's article title: CNN: Corrupt News Network.

Someone obviously missed the memo and is operating on the old OODA concept and that one is the one who didn't adjust to the fact that CNN has squandered its ethics and reputation in the last two debates. The concept was to get illegal aliens getting into the Nation as THE topic and then bash the Republicans with it. Here is how it was 'supposed' to go after the debate, and all sorts of partisan hacks, news organizations and such were to get on the case of these nasty so-and-so Republicans:

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani did a fine job of achieving their objectives in Wednesday's Republican presidential debate: Each thoroughly discredited the other.

They also disgraced themselves as they pandered relentlessly to the growing anti-immigrant feeling in their party.

Mike Huckabee and John McCain were the only candidates willing to suggest what now seems unmentionable: Immigrants, even those here illegally, are human beings and shouldn't be used as political playthings.
Yes, they shouldn't be used as 'political playthings', save if you are on the Left, that is perfectly fine!

I have some news for Mr. Dionne that those who are outraged by illegal aliens squatting in America, asking for welfare, abusing our openness by taking advantage of our social services, who come over in such plentitudes that we can't very well do much about them are actually seen DIFFERENTLY than those who go through the proper procedures to come here legally. It is not 'even those here illegally' it is outrage ONLY over those here illegally.

Ah, but with this 'storyline' you also get the 'decent white knight' to counter these nasty so-and-sos who want to actually do this thing known as 'enforce the law'. After pointing to the two main candidates going at it hammer and tongs, he then puts forward to candidates that will continue the Incumbistanian Policy as-is:

But there did come the heroic moments from Huckabee and McCain -- moments that may have done them little good with the GOP's primary voters.
These are 'the Establishment' candidates who are 'moderate' on this issue. Both of those candidates are Big Government types, who see no problem with letting National Sovereignty disappear and would prefer to micro-manage everyone's lives with Mr. McCain wanting that all the way down to the freedom of speech during election seasons. Remember, anything that could 'help' a candidate would be seen as providing material support under the election laws, and not accounting for a free blog, without advertisers, without any form of income generated would be considered to be a form of 'monetary support'. The other is characterized by such folks as Robert Novak, as the following:

There is no doubt about Huckabee's record during a decade in Little Rock. He was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax-and-spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes. When he lost 100 pounds and decided to press his new lifestyle on the American people, he was hardly being a Goldwater-Reagan libertarian.
Yes, a way to reduce the size of America: go on a National Diet! Tax those sins... well, gasoline isn't a sin, just a necessity of the infrastructure, although I am sure many on the Left see it otherwise. That said, Sen. McCain and Gov. Huckabee are the 'Establishment' candidates the Left can get behind because of their anti-personal liberty stances. It also takes a bit of reminding with a sharp stick that for all the things that Ronald Reagan ran on, he carried through on none of his smaller government concepts, presided over the largest tax hike in history up to that point, and sharply increased the size of government. He is beloved for his personality and ability to stand up to the USSR, but those out here in Electistan also remember that there are a slew of things the Republican Party used to promise, but refused to carry out when elected.

But the worst of the Dionne article is the last. Remember how you shouldn't use illegal aliens as 'political playthings'? Well, here is what Mr. Dionne does with them:

As for McCain, he seemed disgusted by the odor of the nativist compost being spread around the stage. "This whole debate saddens me a little bit," he said. Of immigrants, he dared to declare: "These are God's children as well, and they need some protections under the law and they need some of our love and compassion." I hope God blesses McCain for that.

What happened on Wednesday night is actually scary. A legitimate concern over the failures of our national immigration policy is being transformed into an ugly attempt to turn immigrants into scapegoats for all our discontents. The real shame is that both Romney and Giuliani know better.
Yes, if you support upholding the laws of the land, enforcing the borders and ensuring that National Sovereignty is retained by the United States you are a rotten, stinking 'nativist'. What *is* natism? Here we get it from die.net's look-up on word.net:

n 1: the policy of perpetuating native cultures (in opposition to acculturation)

2: the philosophical doctrine that some ideas are innate
Ooooo!! Perpetuating the native culture!! How primitive!!

But then there is Webster's Unabridged 1913 to set us on where Mr. Dionne is going:

Nativism \Na"tiv*ism\, n.
1. The disposition to favor the native inhabitants of a country, in preference to immigrants from foreign countries.

2. (Philos.) The doctrine of innate ideas, or that the mind possesses forms of thought independent of sensation.
Yes, to favor the native inhabitants of a country!! And the natives of the US are? Citizens or those here legally!!! Once you emigrate from your Nation of origin and swear allegiance to the US, you are an immigrant but you are also a part of America and we have seen problems with that in the past. That said, very few in the illegal alien debate go that route, save to get so turned off by the multi-culti view that the idea of having our *own* American culture is passe, and that we really should be just whatever it is that arrives here and forget having a common experience at all. Such an ancient ideal, that, just give it up, retain your own culture and don't try to be a part of the common culture.

When Mr. Dionne brings up 'nativism' he really wants to bring up is the 19th century form of 'nativism' that I can relate to, having it related to me in history courses about NY State. That was the era when bars along the Erie Canal would have signs up saying: "No dogs, No Irish". The remnants of the old neighborhoods are still around, although in name only, as the early 20th century saw the greatest influx of cultures into the US and they all 'acculturated'.

They went 'native'.

When we expect the same of modern immigrants, here legally, little is thought of it. Those here illegally who wish to otherwise mooch off the Nation and *not* be acculturated? Why, it is "scary" and attempting to turn them into "scapegoats" because the see no reason NOT to abuse our kindness. I have some news for Mr. Dionne: we have Nation States so as to separate ourselves out and get government that is in accord with ourselves as individuals. Those coming here who do *not* want to assimilate and do *not* want to come here legally are transgressing this concept. This was enshrined before the United States was even born by this thing known as The Law of Nations.

Empires rule over undifferentiated masses of humanity: the rulers decide and that is the level of differentiation.

In Nations we are allowed a wide variety of systems, governments and how we view ourselves and as citizens of Nations we agree to the restrictions that places upon us. Those calling for no support of the Nation State's sovereignty in this area do not want Nations, they want Empires. An Empire of the multi-culti, feel good, and think as you are told or else, is no better than Rome was and, in many ways, far worse. There is a huge difference between being a bleeding heart and giving to charity to support good works done in other Nations and in bleeding out the American culture to any that want to come here and requiring NOTHING of them and then turn around and call those supporting the idea of having a separate identity *nativist* in a perjorative sense.

I have another word that is equally derided by the Left that then tars it with anything they can, normally going back to Wiemar Germany. This taken, again, from word.net via die.net:
adj : devotion to the interests or culture of a particular nation including promoting the interests of one country over those of others; "nationalist aspirations"; "minor nationalistic differences" [syn: nationalistic]

n 1: one who loves and defends his or her country [syn: patriot]

2: an advocate of national independence of or a strong national government

And many Republicans are embarassed about this, too, as it requires actually standing up for the Nation *first*. Those who come here illegally are not expressing 'minor nationalistic differences' as they are not even a part of the Nation.

The reason that the Republicans don't like it is that the Revolution was not about *any* taxes on trade coming to the colonies, it was about taxes that were levied in an unrepresentative way against the laws and tradition of England. The idea was NOT 'free trade' but trade that was guided by the majority in government with respect to who we trade with and what taxes are necessary for the Nation upon such trade. They are getting a bit antsy as the concept of increasing unaccountable trade has not garnered what they say such good trade will get: increasing liberty for humanity. President Woodrow Wilson put that in place for the Middle East, quite contrary to every view he had espoused up to that point in his life, and President Nixon started that with China. After 90 years in the Middle East and 30 years in China, we can see the efficacy of this, or lack thereof. When something is espoused as 'true' given all contrary evidence it is, at best, a religion and, at worse, a psychopathic problem, and that is the way it is with trade.

No, Mr. Dionne has missed the boat and actually done the thing he describes as detestable: used the illegal aliens to make partisan points as a political football.

He has also swimming out at sea giving out the SOS, like many on the Left. They want to describe what is happening in American politics as: racist, nativist, isolationist, protectionist and authoritarian. Unfortunately, it is not those things, those oh-so-handy labels they apply so as to never address people as individuals but run them down as a group. We are not seeing those things in America.

What we are seeing is the re-birth of Nationalism.

That is why Mr. Nardi is having a hard time finding a Democrat he can agree with. The party is now chasing the last of the Nationalists from it, and it wants to become the Transnational Party of America, set on socialism here, abroad and globally, so that the annointed elite may guide them all. And many of those coming here illegally from China, Mexico, the Middle East, Africa, South America and Europe, are trying to flee lands where it is impossible to get a fair wage because of the Transnationalist corporations and corrupt governements that will not bring them to heel. The Transnationalists in the Democratic Party want us to ask: why can't we be like everyone else?

The answer must be: because we deserve better by our own hand as a Nation.

No comments: