PrintSeptember 23, 2010
Liberals Going Blind?
Perhaps mom was right all along -- maybe too much mass debating will make you go blind.
So while Americans all across the country are scared to death of the most radical administration in history killing jobs while expanding government debt and power at record rates, liberals in the elite media are debating some comments Christine O'Donnell made in the '90s about fishing camps for kids.
At least I think it's about fishing camps for kids. I remember hearing something about master baiting -- which I can only assume is the merit badge one achieves after junior baiting and senior baiting. At least I hope that's what it's about. (My kids are not blind -- and they read my columns.)
But I digress. The point is, the liberal elites are so blind to what really matters to us that they think this fervor to return to a constitutional republic will be derailed if they can somehow make enough of us believe Republicans are Bible-thumping wackos intent on ramming Biblical tenets down the throats of the country by way of legislation.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I have not heard O'Donnell -- or Rubio or Paul or Angle -- focus any policy designs on, well, "fishing ranks." This does not matter to the chattering class elites, however. They continue to drone on and on about O'Donnell's comments in the '90s about witchcraft and, sadly, masturbation. They offer this as proof that she's unstable and weird and dangerous.
...As opposed to the safe and stable and normal beliefs of Obama's pastor while Obama was running for president. Or the designs by O'Donnell's opponent, Chris Coons, to become a "bearded Marxist."
(He failed. He is a bald Marxist instead.)
Frankly, I think the elites are missing the point of the tea parties and related anger in the country by having this massive circle-jerk over O'Donnell. (I guess we can say that now, since they brought it up.) They are pleasing themselves but being of no edification to anyone else. Moreover, they are continuing their self-delusion by thinking that this kind of a-Falwell-behind-every-rock campaign will gain any traction in 2010.
The private beliefs candidates hold about their faith are not what animates this season. What bothers people today is what "bearded Marxists" like Coons want to do to us, not themselves. There is nothing private about Marxism or any other kind of statism. By definition, these systems demand that government will invade every part and parcel of your life. Bearded Marxists have a habit of raping private property rights. They don't believe there is such a thing as property rights. That's why they are Marxists.
To my knowledge, little media attention has been paid to these beliefs of Coons -- and he has not out-and-out renounced them, either. Not that it would matter if he did. It is clear that he would be a rubber-stamp vote for every Obama whim. Some of Obama's whims seem Marxist to me, and to many in the country.
Thus, this tone-deaf attack on O'Donnell will fail. That is not to say that she will or will not win this particular election -- I feign no deep understanding of Delaware politics. It is to say that her attackers will fail in their zeal to change the subject from ridiculous debt, economic failure, health care overstepping, and political correctness towards Islam -- to supposed Bible-thumping beliefs on certain acts.
And in most of history, this would work. But this is not "most of history," and the elites do not get that. That would include elites on both sides, by the way.
They simply do not hear what America is saying about whatever O'Donnell did or did not say about such things when she was in her twenties: we don't care.
Besides, out in the country class, we understand that someone running for office at 41 today was only in his or her twenties during much of the '90s. Heck, she looks 20-something still!
That O'Donnell was discussing, as a representative of the Concerned Women for America, some Biblical beliefs with a C-list cable TV host is not surprising. That's typical of what this organization does. That was O'Donnell's job at the time.
That she was allowed to go on Maher's show to specifically discuss sex speaks to poor judgment -- but the judgment of CWA Executive Janet Parshall, not the judgment of a 20-something employee. That's what O'Donnell was at the time. To virtually everyone in the country, the whole thing is totally irrelevant. Moreover, to virtually everyone in the country, its irrelevance is obvious.
So how do the ruling class pundits miss this?
They miss it because they are so formulaic and always fighting the last war. And they miss it because Washington, and to a great extent New York, is a bubble isolated and insulated from most of America. So isolated from America are these cities that their huge "gotcha" insult to the entire Tea Party movement -- the term "teabagger" -- failed totally because virtually no one in the movement knew what it meant until instructed by the cognoscenti.
They miss it because faith either is not a part of their life or is merely a place to be seen. Few in the pundit class take it seriously, and fewer still understand what it means outside the Beltway. They think anything not consistent with "Sex in the City" doctrine will be considered weird everywhere.
They miss it because to them, politics is everything, and they are used to folks who are groomed from the crib to run for something. This is why they often support trust-fund liberals who have had every misstep carefully erased from view as part of the lifelong grooming contest. O'Donnell was not grooming for anything in the '90s.
And they miss it because they are so invested in Obama and his historic presidency that their default reaction to any person considered anti-Obama is to try to destroy them. This kind of thing has worked for decades for the ruling class, and they are oblivious to the fact that it will not in 2010.
As I said, they are simply blind. Way too much mass debating, if you ask me.
