Going Under

To follow up on yesterday’s Alan Grayson item, Ace notes the latest poll showing Grayson down 7:

Grayson’s whole schtick, of course, is that toxic Democratic idea that the way to be “tough” is simply to be obnoxiously dishonest. “Republicans win that way,” they tell themselves, and “tough Democrats” fight fire with fire.
Meanwhile they make monsters of themselves. But that’s “tough.”

This is what I refer to as cargo-cult politics: the Left creates a caricature of the Right and then seeks to pattern itself after the caricature. And then wonders why people find this distasteful.
OK, Grayson is the kind of guy who thinks you’re a moron and like the Taliban if you, say, voted for George W. Bush. But George W. Bush carried Grayson’s district in 2004. You can sustain this sort of thing for years in a district like Pete Stark’s or Nancy Pelosi’s, but in a swing district in the South, it’s a perilous path.
UPDATE: James Richardson notes that the poll in question was taken before the “Taliban Dan” ad aired, but of course after years of Grayson’s similar antics.

18 thoughts on “Going Under”

  1. don’t you know Crank-anyone who votes Republican is an idiot and probably a racist and fascist also-so sayeth the people that congratulate themselves as being the most tolerant people and open minded people on the planet. They never see the irony in their statements. If you ever listen to a typical liberal description of a conservative -its the most funny sterotypical thing you can imagine. Of course, to make their ” arguments” work they alternate between portraying conservatives as being either rich plutocrats or idiot bible thumping hayseeds-sort of odd. These are people that represent less than 20% of the American electorate who simply don’t understand they are in the minority. The reason is because they live an insular existence in their ideological ghettos. If you are a liberal in a big city, its possible to spend your entire life totally coccooned in liberalism.

  2. Just curious – have we seen anybody on the Left side denounce the Grayson ad? Any Leftie media types or bloggers?
    Just a few months ago, we saw someone on the Right side publicize a tape that was edited in a manner to falsely suggest the opposite of what the person actually said (the Bretibart / Shirley Sherrod incident). I certainly recall all sorts of Right-siders state that the tape false portrayed Ms Sherrod and that the charge should be retracted.
    So where is the equivalent in this case? Have any Lefties denounced the Grayson ad, or is it simply IOKIYAD?

  3. I believe MSNBC might have upbraided. Re: The Breitbart Tape, where the whole incident erupted in a day or 2 before most people knew what was going on-the target was not Sherrod, the target was the NAACP, who had just falsely accused the Tea Party people of racism. The part that was played showed them laughing and thinking it was funny with what she initially thought of the white farmers seeking help. The media focus however went to Sherrod’s statements not how the people at the NAACP were reacting to her statements.

  4. Brother Crank, I believe you have coined a lasting term. “Cargo Cult Politics,” indeed.
    Of course a term is only as useful as the idea behind it, which is why I expect this one to have legs.

  5. While I’m at it let me indulge in a smattering of politics of personal destruction:
    Have you noticed that Grayson closely resembles that dog from the Hanna Barbera cartoons of the 1960’s? I believe his name was Chumley or something like that.
    Chumley was the comic bad guy in those catroons, of course.

  6. dch,
    They cheered on Cheney’s unitary executive theory, but they are against big government.
    Morons, liars, other?
    I’ll be making popcorn while I await your (surely entertaining) explanation.

  7. They cheered on Cheney’s unitary executive theory, but they are against big government.

    Berto, if you are stupid enough to see hypocrisy there, no amount of explanation will help you.
    Why do you guys keep trying to change the subject?

  8. Few things are more diagnostic of idiocy than left-wingers citing the Unitary Executive Theory, almost invariably with no idea what it means, let alone that it acts primarily as a limitation on federal power. I quote Chief Justice Roberts, who largely embraced the theory in the PCAOB case back in June:

    No one doubts Congress’s power to create a vast and varied federal bureaucracy. But where, in all this, is the role for oversight by an elected President? The Constitution requires that a President chosen by the entire Nation oversee the execution of the laws. And the fact that a given law or procedure is efficient, convenient, and useful in facilitating functions of government, standing alone, will not save it if it is contrary to the Constitution, for convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives-or the hallmarks-of democratic government.
    One can have a government that functions without being ruled by functionaries, and a government that benefits from expertise without being ruled by experts. Our Constitution was adopted to enable the people to govern themselves, through their elected leaders. The growth of the Executive Branch, which now wields vast power and touches almost every aspect of daily life, heightens the concern that it may slip from the Executive’s control, and thus from that of the people. This concern is largely absent from the dissent’s paean to the administrative state.

    (Quotations and citations omitted).

  9. The Chief Justice might want to refresh his memory of the necessary and proper clause.
    As one of the founding fathers, who surely knew the “original intent” once held: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”

  10. Since AssOfSpadesHQ blocks me (from a number of worthwhile sites, because he (she?) can), can you tell me where he (she?) cribbed that from so I can go look at it?
    (I was blocked because I continued to complain about his (her) continuing to drive traffic to his paramours which offend me.)

  11. Crank,
    The Unitary Executive Theory was used as a means to allow the federal government to spy on American citizens without a warrant (i.e. illegally). How does that limit the federal government?

  12. spongeworthy, you have an unparalleled ability to demonstrate the complete lack of intelligence. Congratulations.

  13. No response, Crank? What happened? Did you, like me, decide to believe your lying eyes over the word of Roberts, who thought only about how he could protect the guy who gave him his job before putting pen to paper?
    Re; The Tea Party
    Liars and morons make up a much bigger share of them than do racists. But that doesn’t mean they are mutually exclusive.

  14. Not sure how a post on a sleazy and reprehensible campaign ad by a congressman got to the unitary executive theory. The unitary executive theory simply states that, under the constitution, all executive power vests with the president. Seems pretty simple. It’s a limitation on Congress trying to usurp the executive role by passing statutes that encroach on the executive’s authority. In short, executive power does not come from Congress, it comes from the Constitution. So it does serve to limit the role of the federal government, b/c it prevents limits the federal government’s ability to grant Congress ultra vires authority and confounding executive oversight and accountability.

  15. TANSTAAFLunch,
    Let’s just agree that the Unitary Executive “Theory” limits the role of the federal government, and the Unitary Executive “Practice” expands the role of the federal government.
    Conservative ideology works only in “theory” as well.

Comments are closed.