I was going to write something up yesterday about Elizabeth “I have high cheekbones like all the Indians do” Warren’s and Bill Clinton’s DNC speeches, but I figured I could only really stomach one DNC post. And as President 0’s speech was last night, well, I just waited a day.
Up first, Elizabeth Fauxcohantas Warren
If you haven’t seen this video from Legal Insurrection, watch it to get a feel for this person who is running for Senate against Scott Brown in MA:
I honestly didn’t think that Scott Brown stood a chance in you-know-where of being reelected. It was my position that he’d won under the most unique “perfect storm” of circumstances–it was a special election, so people were paying more attention, had more resources to put into his election; that was when we believed that the “41st vote” mattered, that we could stop the 0CareTax by breaking the Dem supermajority (instead, as we all remember, too well and painfully, they passed it by “reconciliation,” yet again ignoring the will of the people). That misconception, of course, resulted in massive–perhaps unprecedented–national support for Brown; and Martha Coakley was singularly horrible as a candidate–and that his win was a one-off that would not, could not be replicated in 2012.
As it turns out, I have to rethink the definition of “singularly”: Warren is equally horrible, and in many of the same ways as well as some shiny new ones. She may well lose to Scott Brown. Professor Jacobson has the scoop on her horribleness and her potential failed bid for what Brown dubbed “the people’s seat” (aka Ted Kennedy’s seat), so I’ll just get on to her DNC speech. Yes, I managed to listen to it all, and I did take note of one thing that she said (and that Dems, including 0, say):
But for many years now, our middle class has been chipped, squeezed, and hammered. Talk to the construction worker I met from Malden, Massachusetts, who went nine months without finding work. Talk to the head of a manufacturing company in Franklin trying to protect jobs but worried about rising costs. Talk to the student in Worcester who worked hard to finish his college degree, and now he’s drowning in debt. Their fight is my fight, and it’s Barack Obama’s fight too. [source]
Here’s the thing–well, another thing–leftists just don’t understand. Government should not be “fighting” for the middle class, blue collar workers, students . . . that’s not government’s job. Their responsibility is to protect our freedoms and to ensure that we are a safe and sovereign nation. The government should not be “fighting” for any sort of justice but equal justice.
This idea that the government, or the Democrat Party, has a role in “fighting” for certain groups of Americans makes my skin crawl. If they are fighting for certain groups, with whom are they in combat? Yep, other “groups” (i.e. the evil “rich” slash 1%, big corporations, and apparently, Israel and Christianity–though “God” was reinstated, it was much to the party’s chagrin). No thanks. Government needs to protect individual rights (all Americans’, not just pet groups aka voting blocs), our inalienable rights–granted by our Creator, not government, in other words. And it cannot do that if it’s busy deciding which special interests are worth fighting for and whom should be fought against.
I found her “accent” annoying and her manner cloying when it wasn’t “gratingly smug.”
Up second, Bill Clinton
Okay, I admit it, I didn’t hate his speech. When it was all over, all I could think was “Thank God, he’s not running for president.” The reason for this is not that he was telling the truth, he wasn’t. Not that he has a great plan for the future, he doesn’t. It was that he’s that darned good at the spin, the speech, the oozing of “I understand you” and “I not only fixed it before but can do so again.” No. I didn’t buy it, but there are millions of Americans who would have, who did. Will that rub off on 0? Doubtful. Where Clinton seems sincere (even when he’s not), 0 just sounds whiny and needy. Where Clinton sounds competent and in control of issues and facts, 0 just sounds out of his depth and/or like he’s reading from Cliff Notes. Where Clinton sounds like he really “gets” the average American, 0 sounds sneering, arrogant, and condescending.
[aside: I don’t think that a president has to be middle class or “average”–indeed, I’d prefer a distinctly above average person as president, but it does seem to matter to others. I guess that’s why Dems–and Republicans for that matter–keep trying to establish their “I’m just like you” cred. I don’t want a president just like me, I want a president who is presidential and capable of the job. I’m neither. And I suspect that few people are. Teh Won certainly is neither.]
Now Clinton, I thought, hammered a particular point that I found interesting. Yes, yes, I know I was hoping he’d undermine 0, was listening for it, so take this part with a grain of salt. Buuuutt . . . wasn’t it interesting how he hammered and hammered the part about 0 laying the foundation for the “new” American economy, the economy of the 21st century? He comes back to that a few times, and at one point he even practically shouts that he believes in this 0-laid foundation for a remade American economy with all his heart (I’d insert the full text, but he, being Bill Clinton, ad-libbed a lot, and ultimately, I think, changed the emphasis a great deal from the prepared version.).
Speaking about a “modern, well-balanced” economy and a new “shared 21st version of the American Dream,” Clinton was enthusiastic. Me? Not so much. Considering the audience and what we know of what 0 has done with regards to foundation-laying, I’d say that we are on the path to a complete collapse of our free market capitalist economy (Cloward-Piven, anyone?). So what is the “new” and “modern” economy that 0 hopes to replace that with? Oh, it’s one based on the word, “shared”: as in “shared opportunities, shared responsibilities, shared prosperity, a shared sense community.”
Which brings me to Clinton’s statement that “we believe we’re all in this together is a far better philosophy than you’re on your own.” Two things are wrong with this, however. One, “we’re all this together” is a great philosophy for Americans to have, it’s not a great philosophy for the American government to have (when the government acts on this philosophy, we call it Marxism or Communism); and Two, no conservative believes “you’re on your own” is a great philosophy for either Americans or for government. The Constitution clearly lays out exactly what the role of government should be, and that’s what we support. Americans, we the people, in our neighborhoods, communities, cities, towns, states, as a nation pull together; it’s who we are (actually are, not whom 0 insists we are or should be in his unicorn-pooping fantasies).
The whole “it takes a village” versus “you’re on your own” dichotomy is an absolute fallacy, it always was. Perhaps leftists believe it because they are not the type to do anything on their own or even in their own neighborhood or through charities? Leftists think that paying taxes is and should be the extent of their “help” for their fellow Americans, that when something goes wrong, the government will fix it. That’s not “we’re all in this together,” that’s I kicked in my “fair share,” now go handle it so I can get on with my life. Which is really the selfish, detached, “you’re on own” philosophy?
And yes, I agree with Clinton that 0 is “burning for America on the inside.” Just not in the way he (probably) meant it.
Up last, erm, 0
Full disclosure: I couldn’t watch 0’s speech last night. I’m just sick of him, sick of the sight of him, sick of the sound of him. After how many millions of speeches in ’09 and into ’10, I just got burnt out. I also find him annoying and horrible, so that doesn’t help me stomach his speeches. I forced myself to read it today for this post. Don’t say I never do anything for you. heh