******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Dems' Strategy of Crazy

What would one call a political strategy which depended upon portraying the majority of Americans as crazy extremists? The answer is: The current Democratic Party strategy which ignores the meaning of the Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts races, and focuses on smearing opponents as extremists and "Birthers."

We saw this template throughout the summer as the public protested against the Democratic health care plans. Peaceful protesters were called terrorists and facists, and falsely accused of fomenting violence.

We saw this template again in the Scott Brown campaign, when prominent left-wing bloggers such as Steve Benen pushed the demonstrably false story that Scott Brown was a "Birther."

Now Benen is pushing hard for this sort of rhetoric to become a focus of Democratic efforts to stem the tide of electoral upsets.

In addition to the usual blame Bush meme, Benen urges Democrats to define Republicans as the "Party of Crazy":
Republicans have spent a year trying to drive away moderates, and taking orders from a drug-addled radio talk-show blowhard. Instead of moderating its message and direction in the wake of humiliating failures in 2006 and 2008, today's GOP moved even further to the right -- becoming the home to Tea Partiers, Birthers, Deathers, Oathers, and "Freedom Fighters."
In fact, Brown, with his vow to be the 41st vote against Obamacare and cap-and-trade, won independents by a 3-1 margin, and even won the union rank-and-file vote. Brown won Barney Frank's congressional district, and Ted Kennedy's hometown on Cape Cod. Brown won over 20% of Democrats.

Virginia. New Jersey. Massachusetts. In overwhelming numbers independents and centrist Democrats are rejecting the current Democratic agenda.

The gig is over for those political strategists on the left who think that calling people names can overcome the weakness of the Democratic agenda. The best days are behind Media Matters and Think Progress, and the bloggers who feed off their handiwork.

The strategy of smears worked before the country experienced a year of Democratic ineptitude and duplicity, broken promises, backroom deals, and the toxic soup of government-gone-wild packaged in the House and Senate health care bills.

The smear tactics will not work again because we are on to you, will respond quickly, and no one in the vast center believes you anymore. While you call us names, we will keep talking about your agenda.

Now you will have to run on your ideas of bigger government, more spending, higher taxes, higher debt and deficits, weak national security, and increased government control over the lives of ordinary citizens.

You have nothing to fear but your own agenda. Pretty crazy, huh?

Related Posts:
A Warning For The Next Scott Brown
Ghouls Preparing To Dance on Sparkman's Grave
We're All Political Terrorists Now

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
Bookmark and Share


  1. Good Post - The strategy worked before because every time you opposed progressive policy you were accused of being a racist. Most people could not afford teh reputation risk of being labled a racist and the subsequent economic risk. Using political correctness we were rhetorically beaten into submission.

    Hope and change has truly changed that dynamic forever.

    Now that the leftist club of racism is largely removed, free people are reclaiming their government.

    The left used the club so often, it's their only play - substance beats faux racism charges - NOW that America can no longer be called racist.

  2. Great post! After so long of being called names and belittle it just doesn't matter anymore. We have too much to lose to let some name-calling stop us.

    Let them keep calling us names. We will keep voting them out of office.

  3. This has been the Dem strategy for awhile. The main selling point of Obama is his educational pedigree and perceived intellect. To draw attention away from his lack of accomplishment of anything lastingly significant at any level of his existence, they use the old reliable Alinsky playbook. They highlight each and every mistake made by opponents and inflate it into a symptom of idiocy, and highlight every character flaw and inflate it into either depravity or insanity.

    By the way, Professor J: My newest blog post recalls BUCKJOHNSON's prediction that Coakley would prevail with a double-digit margin:


  4. There is a Texas Hold'em poker saying ... "All In!!!".

    The Dems are going All In.

    Bring it, baby. Bring it.

  5. The Dems do not understand that there are many Dems and Indies in the Tea Party movement. These tactics are doing a great job of alienating the very people that they need to vote for them and keep them in office. Big mistake on their part.

  6. Benen's a hack.

    Great post exposing these creeps for the bankrupt smear merchants they are...

  7. Steve Benen is projecting. It's the Dems that are driving away the moderates and are the party of crazy. With out them driving away moderates Scott Brown could not have ever won the Senate seat in Massachesets.

  8. Another excellent, concise post Mr. Jacobson.

    After the Mass. Miracle, I am no longer afraid of *crazy* radical libs. Matter of fact, the faster and harder they continue their assault on normal Americans, the more sure I am that citizens are simply biding their time until November, when we can straightjacket the *crazies* via the ballot boxes.

    For the sake of the country I'd like to see the president correct course and sane Dems take control of their party. But I wouldn't bet a nickel on that happening.

  9. Dems have controlled Congress for three years. They have accomplished nothing they are proud about, so they engage in childish name calling.

    Also, it's strange that Benen would deride a radio talker who inadvertantly became dependent on pain killing drugs following spinal surgery, while the President of the United States has acknowledged he abused cocaine and marijuana on a recreational basis. No double standard there.

  10. Why is being a "birther" extremist? Aren't birthers simply people who want Obama to release the long form, certified copy of his actual birth certificate? You know, like all other Presidential candidates do?

  11. Actually, Stogie…

    There are many “birthers” who aren’t even questioning whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii, and don’t care whether the long-form certificate is released or not.

    There is no “conspiracy” theory, rather they are “originalists” or “Constitutionalists” in that they believe that the “natural born citizen” clause of Article 2 of the Constitution means a pure, naturally-attained citizenship, which would preclude dual citizenship.

    Obama’s father was not an immigrant. He was never a US citizen. He was Kenyan and a British citizen, and Obama’s own Fight the Smears campaign website admitted that Obama junior was also a British citizen when he was born. He did not have “pure US Citizenship” at birth.

    Without even going into the various documents and cases that support a definition of “natural born citizen” meaning born in the country to US citizen parents, it would be hard to imagine that the founding fathers would ever have thought that a British citizen (other than themselves, who actually fought in the Revolution, and were “grandfathered” in the clause in Article 2) would ever be allowed to hold the title of Commander in Chief. I imagine they are now rolling in their graves.

    It is also interesting to note that those who questioned McCain’s natural born citizenship (because he was born in Panama, even though to two US citizen parents), were not labeled as “birthers.” Only those who question whether Obama, who although born on US soil, had a foreign father, lived abroad for a number of years, and perhaps traveled with a foreign passport, combined with the knowledge that we have never had a US President (knowingly, that is—Chester Arthur was recently discovered to be an exception), who was not “grandfathered” or born on US soil, to two parents who were US citizens at the time of his birth.

    To label these “birthers” as extremists is quite a stretch. Personally, I would consider those who desire to closely follow the Constitution, “patriots.”

  12. Boy is this post on target.
    I have just done a post that complements this:

    A VENGEFUL RETURN TO OBAMA THE ENFORCER. I trace the tactics used in 2008 to create the cult of personality and ways of diverting public attention from his "scary friends." But I also point to the bottom line: He ran as a centrist then made a sharp left turn. His people could not cover that up. No wonder there was an outcry about his legislation and his proposals - he had lost public trust and voters were waiting for the next thing to pop us out of the floorboards.
    I suggest that response to the opposition will be more readily acceptable if it instructs rather than ridicules.

  13. Responses to those ideologically opposed to you are hardly ever "accepted," readily or otherwise. The battle is not for the minds and hearts of those who will never admit the ultimate illogic of the extreme left. It is for those who sometimes lose sight of the purpose of the struggle in the first instance. All governance is agreed to at the price of some sacrifice of some individual freedom. Less is almost always better. Every attempt at soverignty at the price of over-taxing the free will of those who would have been governed, has failed. I believe, contrary to the opinion of our present, democratically elected leader, we are an exceptional nation. If you look at those periods in which we performed exceptionally, as a nation, they correlate to a lowering or minimization of governmental intrusion into the freedom of our populace to exploit our land, our collective intellect and our business savvy. Our nation was born out of over-taxing the free will of the colonists. We, as a nation, spilled a lot of our own blood, establishing that slavery was such an over-taxation of individual freedom; and, more yet has been, and continues to be shed to free those of other nations of the shackles of oppressive governance. Those who view those sacrifices as a basis for apology to the rest of the world, are free to do so, only because of the heavy price paid by those more high minded than themselves. Pardon me, but I believe the appropriate response to those who smear mud over substance is to point out the attempt and trivialize the effort for what it is.

  14. Regarding the "birthers":

    If anyone is interested in further reading on the Article 2 “natural born” citizenship controversy, Mario Apuzzo’s “Appellant’s Opening Brief” filed with the Third Circuit US Court of Appeals on January 19, 2010, is a very comprehensive document covering all of the background and issues:


  15. You are on to it, Sallyven.

    I, too, often post references to the Kerchner case as there are still paid obotrolls out there trying disinformation.

    Paid bots/lefties just want to try and discredit, smear however they can with the SAME playbook they always use. It is so tiresome now.

    Great crazy post! :)

  16. You are correct to say that the latest leftie meme appears to be as follows: "Crazy" is the new "Republican."

    And, it appears the apparatchiks in the opinion press have received copies of, and are referencing the newest edition of the ad hominem formulary. And, they are giddily plugging in this latest didacticism, regardless of whether it fits.

    Just check the Saturday Frank Rich column in the New York Times addressing the current Obama proposal for doing away with "don't ask, don't tell" in which Rich immediately singled out John McCain -- who has spoken up against the proposed change -- by tagging him "the crazy man in Washington’s attic."