Some items caught my eye this morning. While everyone has been watching the ‘Pub debates, the left has been preparing their attacks too. I saw these item on the ‘net.
|...Occupy Wall Street “is an inchoate, leaderless manifestation of protest,” but it will grow. It has “put on the agenda issues that the institutional left has failed to put on the agenda for a quarter of a century.” He reaches for analysis, produced by the political blog ThinkProgress.org, that shows how the Occupy movement has pushed issues of unemployment up the agenda of major news organizations, including MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. It reveals that in one week in July of last year the word “debt” was mentioned more than 7,000 times on major U.S. TV news networks. By October, mentions of the word “debt” had dropped to 398 over the course of a week, while “occupy” was mentioned 1,278 times, “Wall Street” 2,378 times, and “jobs” 2,738 times. You can’t keep a financier away from his metrics.
As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. “Yes, yes, yes,” he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. “It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”
The article is a standard fluff-piece that attempts to show the greatness of George Soros. It conveniently leaves out the fact that the “Occupy New York” movement was funded by Soros. Given that, the statement by Soros above isn’t a prediction of possible events. No, it is nothing more than a threat to the nation by one of Obama’s cronies.
In another planned attack by the left comes this from Indianapolis.
Indiana unions’ latest tactic
in their protests of
is a threat to borrow
tactics from Occupy Wall
Street and make a public
scene at next month’s
Super Bowl in Indianapolis.
Indiana unions, opposed to becoming the first right-to-work state in the Rust Belt, may disrupt Super Bowl XLVI in Indianapolis. Their unnecessary roughness will cost the Hoosiers needed jobs.
On Friday, as the Indiana Senate was scheduled to take up legislation supported by Gov. Mitch Daniels to make Indiana the 23rd right-to-work state, Indiana unions considered copying the disruptive and coercive tactics of Occupy Wall Street to disrupt arguably America’s premier sporting event, the Super Bowl, to be held in Indianapolis on Feb. 5. …
If the bill passes before Feb. 5, some Indiana labor activists are considering protests before a nationwide audience. These protests would include Teamsters clogging city streets with trucks, and electricians staging a slowdown at the convention center site of the NFL village. Read the original article at Investor’s Business Daily
I’m sure that disrupting the Super Bowl will endear the unions in the hearts of all the football fans around the globe.
In this third case, public service unions have entered the GOP candidate selection process. They’re broadcasting anti-Romney ads.
An unlikely combatant has jumped into the big-money battle between independent groups running ads weighing in on the Republican presidential primary: a national union representing public employees. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) spent $1 million Friday on an ad accusing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney of greed, Federal Election Commission records show.The liberal group’s intent is to sway the outcome of the Republican primary in Florida, with ads running there before the state’s party elections Jan. 31. The strategy seems to indicate that the union views Mr. Romney as the most realistic threat to President Obama and would much prefer to see Republicans field another candidate, such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, against Mr. Obama in the general election.The piling-on of a liberal group on top of the Republican organizations attacking Mr. Romney highlights an irony to the 2010 Supreme Court decision that injected massive independent expenditures into politics with a ruling cheered by many conservatives: The majority of the spending thus far has been used to demonize Republicans.…Now, in addition to the Republican ads comes the union’s buy, by far the largest from a Democratic-leaning group. AFSCME did not return a call for comment.The large-scale, full-frontal meddling in an opposing party’s primary is rare. The most recent prominent example may be the expenditure that triggered a series of court rulings dramatically expanding the ability of outside groups including corporations to spend on politics: In the Supreme Court case bearing its name, the conservative group Citizens United sought to air a biting, lengthy attack on Hillary Rodham Clinton in the days before she appeared on ballots as a Democratic presidential candidate facing off against Mr. Obama.Although that film was fueled by genuine opposition to Mrs. Clinton, the AFSCME ad could be an attempt by a liberal group to push Republicans further to the right as part of a forward-thinking strategy.
I suppose if the dems can’t get enough line-crossers to affect the ‘Pub selection process, they’ll try to poison the well. Typical, I suppose.
The left and the ‘Pub establishment of Bill Krystol, Charles Krauthammer, Karl Rove, Brit Hume and Ann Coulter, still don’t understand why Newt has risen in the polls and his appeal to the country—conservatives, evangelicals, and the Tea Party. The answer is simple but the establishment will never understand. The time for leadership by wimps has passed. What we need to turn this country around, to re-establish our relations with our allies, to preserve our national security and our borders, is a leader. An aggressive leader with a vision who understands the complexity of the world as it is—not as the establishment wants it to be.
Thomas Sowell wrote the article below in the Investor’s Business Daily. The left understands, the ‘Pub establishment doesn’t.
Just days before the South Carolina primary, polls showed Mitt Romney leading Newt Gingrich. Then came the debates and the question about Gingrich’s private life, which brought a devastating response from the former speaker of the House — and a standing ovation from the audience.Apparently the television audience felt the same way, judging by the huge turnaround in the support for Gingrich. The stunning victory in South Carolina brought Newt’s candidacy back to life.But the message from South Carolina was about more than a reaction to how Gingrich dealt with a cheap-shot question from the media. Nor was it simply the Republican voters’ response to Newt’s mastery as a debater.The more fundamental message is that the Republican primary voters do not want Mitt Romney, even if the Republican establishment does — and it is just a question of which particular conservative alternative voters prefer.The successive boomlets for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain showed the Republican voter’s constant search for somebody — anybody — as an alternative to Romney. The splintering of the conservative vote among numerous conservative candidates allowed Romney to be the “front-runner,” but he never ran far enough in front to get a majority.Mitt Romney’s supposed “electability” — his acceptability to moderates and independents — has been his biggest selling point. Moreover, he is just the kind of candidate that the Republican establishment has preferred for years: a nice, bland moderate who offends nobody.This is the kind of candidate that is supposed to be the key to victory, no matter how many such candidates have gone down to defeat. If the bland and inoffensive moderate was in fact the key to victory, Dewey would have won a landslide victory over Truman in 1948, and John McCain would have beaten Barack Obama in 2008.Whomever the Republicans choose as their candidate is going to have to run against both Barack Obama and the pro-Obama media. Newt Gingrich has shown that he can do that. Romney? Not so much.