Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

CBS News: Americans aren't buying Leftist spin on Tucson shootings


"Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country’s heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll.

In the wake of the shooting, much focus has been put on the harsh tone of politics in Washington and around the country, particularly after a contentious midterm election. Rhetoric and imagery from both Republicans and Democrats have included gun-related metaphors, but the majority of the country isn’t connecting the shooting to
politics." Link

Isn't it great how truth always comes out in the end? The American people are waking up to the fact that they are being intentionally manipulated by a regime that was desperately looking for it's own Oklahoma City Moment.

"Clinton was in deep political trouble in April 1995. Six months earlier, voters had resoundingly rejected Democrats in the 1994 mid-term elections, giving the GOP control of both House and Senate. Polls showed the public viewed Clinton as weak, incompetent and ineffective. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his GOP forces seized the initiative on virtually every significant issue, while Clinton appeared to be politically dead. The worst moment may have come on April 18, the day before the bombing, when Clinton plaintively told reporters, "The president is still relevant here."

And then came the explosion at the Murrah Federal Building. In addition to seeing a criminal act and human loss, Clinton and Morris saw opportunity. If the White House could tie Gingrich, congressional Republicans and conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh to the attack, then Clinton might gain the edge in the fight against the GOP.

Morris began polling about Oklahoma City almost immediately after the bombing. On April 23, four days after the attack, Clinton appeared to point the finger straight at his political opponents during a speech in Minneapolis. "We hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other," he said. "They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable."

At a White House meeting four days later, on April 27, Morris presented Clinton with a comeback strategy based on his polling. Morris prepared an extensive agenda for the session, a copy of which he would include in the paperback version of his memoir, Behind the Oval Office. This is how the April 27 agenda began:

AFTERMATH OF OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING

A. Temporary gain: boost in ratings -- here today, gone tomorrow

B. More permanent gain: Improvements in character/personality attributes -- remedies weakness, incompetence, ineffectiveness found in recent poll

C. Permanent possible gain: sets up Extremist Issue vs. Republicans

Later, under the heading "How to use extremism as issue against Republicans," Morris told Clinton that "direct accusations" of extremism wouldn't work because the Republicans were not, in fact, extremists. Rather, Morris recommended what he called the "ricochet theory." Clinton would "stimulate national concern over extremism and terror," and then, "when issue is at top of national agenda, suspicion naturally gravitates to Republicans." As that happened, Morris recommended, Clinton would use his executive authority to impose "intrusive" measures against so-called extremist groups. Clinton would explain that such intrusive measures were necessary to prevent future violence, knowing that his actions would, Morris wrote, "provoke outrage by extremist groups who will write their local Republican congressmen." Then, if members of Congress complained, that would "link right-wing of the party to extremist groups." The net effect, Morris concluded, would be "self-inflicted linkage between [GOP] and extremists."

Clinton's proposals -- for example, new limits on firearms and some explosives that were opposed by the National Rifle Association -- had "an underlying political purpose," Morris later wrote in another book about Clinton, Because He Could. That purpose was "to lead voters to identify the Oklahoma City bombing with the right wing. By making proposals we knew the Republicans would reject…we could label them as soft on terror an imply a connection with the extremism of the fanatics who bombed the Murrah Federal Building."


It's amazing how predictable yet crudmudgeonly the Left behaves in this country.





18 comments:

Glen20 said...

Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated – 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue – 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.

Sounds more like 'Republicans think about the issue the way their leaders tell them to think - Democrats undecided.'
If you lot want to spin the poll that way, I'll spin the poll this way!

And a question.
I can't remember reading this blog for a while,
why is -everything- an example of fascism?
What do you think fascism is?

JD Curtis said...

More independents thought that it was unrelated as well.

"Fascism" condones violence as a means to an end.
It's also a favorite tool of the Left to accuse somebody of even though they don't know anything about the subject.

"George Orwell’s observation in 1946 that fascism had come to mean “anything not desirable”" is being utilized by the Left to demonize dissenting opinions.

JD Curtis said...

Sorry, here's the link to the above quote from Orwell.

Arielle said...

The more things change, eh?

Really, this reminds me of the political plotting that got Daniel thrown in the lion's den. Similar principle.

Glen20 said...

"Fascism" condones violence as a means to an end.

I didn't ask what Fascists condone, I asked what you thought Fascism is.
I'm genuinely curious.
I'm only asking because you use the label so often but it's unclear to me what you mean by it.

JD Curtis said...

I didn't ask what Fascists condone, I asked what you thought Fascism is

I think a good working definition for fascism is as follows (More pertinent parts to this discussion in bold)..

"Characteristics of fascism include a belief that the state is more important than the individual; a leaning towards authoritarian government and violence; preference for centralized economic planning; an emphasis on nationalism and national traditions; militarism; information control and censors; media propagation of the Great Leader which demonizes and trivializes his critics; and a rejection of both free enterprise and Socialism in favor of corporatist economic policies.

Fascist regimes have often concentrated on a "scapegoat" to push their agendas... " Link to full article

It's a tired, old boogeyman trotted out by the Left to silence it's critics, all the while not even realizing that fascism is on the Left side of the political spectrum.

Jill D said...

"information control and censors" is a characteristic of fascism?

You have comment approval and you said you censor comments. 'I should see what you delete!'

Does this tiny element mean you are a fascist? Or is fascism something else?

Glen20 said...

Conservapedia? At least they don't claim to be anything less than biased.

I'm uncomfortable with any movement that re-defines words to suit their agendas.

JD Curtis said...

"information control and censors" is a characteristic of fascism?

You have comment approval and you said you censor comments. 'I should see what you delete!'


Jill, before commenting again, I would appreciate it if you would answer the question thatI left you on the previous thread.

I'm uncomfortable with any movement that re-defines words to suit their agendas

It is my understanding that the characteristics listed in the Fascism page of Conservapedia are pretty mainstream insofar as their acceptance by a wide range of historians.

Unless of course you would like to point out specificallythat which has been "redefined" and argue otherwise.

JD Curtis said...

But getting back to my larger point Glen, it seems that George Orwell recognized that the word "fascism" was being misinterpreted by many people as to dumb down the definition of the word as "anything not desirable".

Josef Stalin pioneered this technique. For example, no less a pinko than Leon Trotsky was labeled a fascist by Stalin after Stalin decided to get rid of him.

At the very least, the outcome of last weeks horrific shooting in Arizona could be termed by any sane person as something "not desirable".

Is that why The Guardian, without hardly any time to researcht the matter, immediately referred to the shooter as "right wing"?

After all, such a horrible event just couldn't have been perpetrated by anyone OTHER than someone on the Right.

It's all reminiscent of how in 1930's Germany, they referred to sunny days as "Hitler weather". Link

Michael Curtis said...

I think Dr. Britt sums up examples and definition of fascism nicely-

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

Glen20 said...

I have a case of diverticulitis so this comment is shorter than it should be.
I'm a bit shakey but glad it was caught early enough.

Authors on both sides tend to fail to distinguish fascism from simple authoritarianism. Lists of elements of fascism often focus on the window dressing instead of what fascism actually is. Disdain for intellectualism, liberalism and communism doesn't make fascism, that's just the window dressing.
To say Fascism requires charismatic leadership ignores the Fascists of Romania, Hungary, Austria, Spain, and Greece.
To say that it is anti-religious ignores the Christian-based Fascisms of the Iron Guard and the Fatherland Front and the Japanese relgious-based Taisei Yokusankai, etc.
I have never seen anyone credible source say violence is a part of Fascism. To paraphrase Mann "violence is something that states do to maintain order; they do it with military and police forces, prisons, and the gallows."
Fascists did not “seize power” through any credible threat of violence. Once in office, they proceeded to consolidate and expand their power through technically legal means.


Fascism is a authoritarian nationalist corporatism which extols unity and vigorous statism.

JD Curtis said...

To say Fascism requires charismatic leadership ignores the Fascists of Romania, Hungary, Austria, Spain, and Greece

If I'm not mistaken, if not of a charasmatic leader than a 'class of elite rulers' is a prevailing idea.

I have never seen anyone credible source say violence is a part of Fascism

From the Encyclopedia Brittanica..


"Some of the ugliest aspects of fascism—intolerance, repression, and violence—were fueled by what fascists saw as a morally justified struggle against “decadence.” For fascists, decadence meant a number of things: materialism, self-indulgence, hedonism, cowardice, and physical and moral softness." Link

In a seperate entry from Brittanica..

"-"Fascists reacted to their opponents with physical force. Primo de Rivera maintained that “no other argument is admissible than that of fists and pistols when justice or the Fatherland is attacked.”

"Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of the following hallmarks....Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development)" Link

"As a system of integration and control fascism used mass organizations. To suppress the opposition, it used organized violence" Link

From the Wikipedia entry on Fascism, under the heading -"Fascism..Style and Organization" we read..Positive view and use of violence. Link

""Violence is the tool of fascism. Force, intimidation and war are glorified by the fascist doctrine as ways to gain power and glory. Violence is purported as greater than reason because it is based on emotion, which the fascists argued would never lead a person wrong, where as reason can be used to deceive. The basis of nationalism and violence made fascist states aggressive and dangerous, though short lived." Link

To paraphrase Mann "violence is something that states do to maintain order; they do it with military and police forces, prisons, and the gallows."

This entry on Mann states that "For Mann, violence is something that states do to maintain order; they do it with military and police forces, prisons, and the gallows. It is the use of paramilitary violence, not violence per se, that Mann finds to be an essential attribute of ascendant fascism.

Fascists did not “seize power” through any credible threat of violence

"March On Rome
On October 26, 1922, Mussolini decided to exploit the chaotic situation to seize power. He threatened a 'March on Rome' if he was not accepted into the cabinet. Bands of armed Fascists marched to Rome from various parts of the country. This threat caused genuine alarm to the politicians in Rome, who failed to deal with the emergency. The Liberal Premier resigned almost at once. King Victor Emmanuel refused to call out the army to resist the Fascists partly because he was anxious to avoid civil war, and partly because he wanted a strong government to restore law and order." Link

And I doubt that they "seized power" through free and open democratic elections.

JD Curtis said...

Take care of your intestine pal. Hope youre feeling better soon Glen!

Glen20 said...

"elite rulers"
I'd think rulers are by definition elite.
Elite: "a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group"

~
No desputes that Fascists used violence but violence is not a defining charatistic of the ideology.
It's a tool used not an element of the ideology.
"Use of violence" defines a fascist to the same extent as "wearing a uniform" defines a fascist, that is - not at all.

~
Fascists did not “seize power” through any credible threat of violence
We'll have to differ on how credible the threat was.
~
The March to Rome?
Once the Nationalists and the Conservative Party joined the Fascists, Mussonlini had the numbers. The Prime Minister Facta (Liberal Party) may have resigned over the March to Rome but it was the King who asked Mussonlini to form government since he had the numbers.
~
My diverticulitis is gone. I started taking antibiotics the day I felt the diverticulitis and now I'm feeling so much better. It really is better to catch things early. I waited to see if it would leave by itself last time - Was terrible ill for a month. Treat illness early.
And if I could be evangelical about anything, it would be - eat more fiber.

JD Curtis said...

Glen,

Could you provide a link in which Fascist movements could be described as non-confrontational and non=violent?

No desputes that Fascists used violence but violence is not a defining charatistic of the ideology

Don't move the goalposts here. We're talking about condoning and approval (tacit or otherwise) of violence to further their cause.

So black-shirted thugs marching on Rome in unison from various parts of the country in order to seize power could be classified as a peaceful transition?

Glad youre feeling better.

Glen20 said...

I don't want this to go around in circles so this will be the last thing I say about whether violence is a part of fascist ideology.

It's not moving the goal posts, it's what I asked in my first and second comments on this post, "not what Fascism CONDONES, what fascism IS". I'm not disputing that most (but not all) fascist movements used violence.

I think I've answered that question with authoritarian nationalist corporatism.

So black-shirted thugs marching on Rome in unison from various parts of the country in order to seize power could be classified as a peaceful transition?

The March to Rome was an exercise in flag-waving.

The March to Rome consisted of fewer than 30,000 thousand men, almost entirely unarmed. I can't find the numbers but the King's troops must have outnumbered them by at least a ratio of 10 to 1 and the King's troops had actually weaponry.
The Blackshirts actually made it to Rome (some of them) where they marched, waved flags, sung patriotic songs and made anti-liberal speeches (The Liberal Party was the party in power at the time).
Think of it as a smaller Glenn Beck rally.
Nevertheless the fact remains that it was the King who saw there were more Fascists then Liberals and asked Mussolini to form government. The Blackshirts were never a credible violent threat, the King could have easily stopped them.

JD Curtis said...

This is mere speculation on your part, of course.

Meanwhile, the 2 deinitions that I cited in the past (Answers.com and merriam-webster.com) mention both, "forcible suppression of opposition" and "suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship" when defining fascism. So there appears to be quite a bit of disinformation out there in mainstream academia concerning a movement often represented by a image of a raised fist was somehow not violent or didn't approve of violence. I wish you luck in changing hearts and minds on the matter.