Gay Patriot Header Image

Is Its Smear Campaign a Sign of Democratic Disarray?

Democrats and their allies in the legacy media keep telling us that the GOP is in dire straits.  And I’ll grant that my party has work to do.  But, I do wonder if the president’s party is not in straits even more dire than that of is political rival, its problems papered over by the strong support Barack Obama enjoys in some segments of society (especially in the various newsrooms that dot America’s coasts).

If the Democrats have such an appeal with the American people — and are so confident in their message, why must they regularly resort to dishonest demagoguery, misrepresenting Republican stands on issues and regularly calling their partisan rivals “extreme.” Bear in mind that Barack Obama did not win reelection running on his record but by demonizing Mitt Romney, airing over a quarter-billion dollars of attacks ads — before the party conventions.

Saw two examples of this yesterday on Facebook:

Screen shot 2013-06-20 at 7.18.58 PM

Ms. Gillibrand is trying to advance her own cause by misrepresenting her partisan rivals — and stirring up fears among African-Americans.

Look  likes Ms. Gillibrand’s dishonest, mean-spirited rhetoric has earned her an interesting admirer:

Screen shot 2013-06-20 at 7.20.13 PM

And here the junior Senator from the First State does what he accuses the Tea Party of doing in the very image where he levels his accusation:

Screen shot 2013-06-20 at 7.31.29 PM

Interesting how so many Democrats have decided to smear their adversaries as “extreme.” Were Mr. Coons familiar with the issues the Tea Party actually champions, he would realize that its views were in line with the general views of the American people; polls show (far) more Americans favor smaller government with fewer services than those who favor bigger government with more services.

(Note that both of these Democrats come from “blue” states, Ms. Gillibrand from New York and Mr. Coons from Delaware, but we can probably attribute the latter’s inability to understand Tea Party ideas to his inferior undergraduate education.)

This is what passes for Democratic discourse in the Age of Obama.  Instead of taking issue with Republican ideas, the president’s fellow partisans just misrepresent their political opponents — and distort their policies.  Heck, it worked for Mr. Obama in 2012.

Share

264 Comments

  1. Comment by heliotrope — June 27, 2013 @ 12:26 pm

    Without using a search engine to run the quotes through, is this……….Alice in Wonderland?

    How about some Jabberwocky?:

    Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe…..

    Back in 7th grade, one of my teachers started a late in the day game of ‘Telephone’ by whispering this into my ear.
    I still laugh remembering how all of my classmates said that my eyes nearly popped out of my head as she was reciting this line for me to pass on to my friend on my left.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 12:39 pm - June 27, 2013

  2. Well, I waded through a great deal of this thread and its pretty typical of “discussions” Northdallas 30 is involved in. As SCSwampfox said “Everyone is on to NDT’s schtick” and providing some hilarity was Jman1961 who nonsensically asked “Who are the people you refer to as everyone?” and “What is this schtick you refer to?”. Everyone is everyone Jman, including you. Everyone who has read a thread NDT comments on is familiar with the biggest liar the internet has ever seen, who’s schtick has included for me alone falsely claiming I demand to have sex in public, support gays with AIDS intenitonally infecting others, and that I have kicked, punched, shot and stabbed many christians. The other part of his tiresome schtick is bringing up isolated incidents of bad behavior by gays and liberals and blaming all gays and liberals for that wrondoing by claiming they “fully support and endorse” such behavior. Yes, everyone (look it up in the dictionary Jman) is familiar with NDT’s dishonest schtick which he sums up with the philosophy “We have a choice, be destroyed or punch back twice as hard.” and “punching back twice as hard” means ignoring the validity of the criticisms made against you and discarding the truth because its far more important to attack with as much force as possible than it is to be honest.

    But for me the biggest loser on this thread was “I love capitalism” who made the bizarre comment that its no worse to slander someone than it is to call for them to be banned per the commenting rules for telling outrageous lies to attack people. “I love capitalism” demonstrated his lack of integrity by absurdly asserting that “NDT has integrity by the truckloads”. Everyone and I mean EVERYONE including “Ilovecapitalism”, “Jman1961”, and NDT himself is well aware that NDT hasn’t a shred of integrity, he was thrilled to sacrifice it all in the name of “punching back twice as hard” in the face of valid criticism (and now of course he’ll quote some liberal or gay saying something terrible and dishonestly assert that’s what I mean by valid criticism”.

    NDT unchecked posions every blog he participates in. He needn’t be banned from here, what would be best is to treat him like the rotten child he is and demand that he stop telling outrageous lies about people and falsely asserting that the people who disagree with him “fully support and endorse” people who’ve done terrible things just because the people he disagrees with and those terrible people both happen to be gays or voted for Obama, or are both women and so on. If he won’t consistently behave in at least a halfway honest and civil manner then he should be banned, as he has been on many many other blogs (including conservative blogs) before this one. Don’t let NDT poison your blog and drive away all the honest people leaving nothing but the riff-raff almost as devoid of ethics and detached from reality as he is.

    Comment by Priya Lynn — June 27, 2013 @ 2:03 pm - June 27, 2013

  3. And as a nice capoff to the day, to no one’s surprise, Obama supporters overwhelmingly consider Tea Partiers to be a greater terrorist threat than al-Qaeda.

    This is how the sick and delusional Barack Obama and his Barack Obama Party justify their IRS, their FBI, their EPA, and all these other agencies targeting, harassing, and punishing conservatives, Republicans, and Tea Partiers.

    This is why Pat’s beloved Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama himself are constantly screaming that the Tea Party and Republicans are evil, vicious, horrible extremists and terrorists. This is why the Obama Party bureaucracy and government workers target Tea Partiers, conservatives, and Republicans for violence, abuse, and harassment.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2013 @ 2:05 pm - June 27, 2013

  4. LOL.

    And once again Priya Lynn shows up with the usual screaming rant of all liberals that I be banned because she is always right and how anyone who ever criticizes her is wrong.

    She must be under the impression that anyone believes she thinks or reasons objectively when it comes to gay conservatives.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2013 @ 2:15 pm - June 27, 2013

  5. “punching back twice as hard”

    We’re simply taking to heart the advice that your hero, our closeted gay leftist Prez, has offered to others in the past.

    And we thought you might appreciate the gesture, Priya History of Emotional Breakdowns.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 2:31 pm - June 27, 2013

  6. …is familiar with the biggest liar the internet has ever seen,…

    Comment by Priya Lynn Roseanne Barr knockoff after smoking a ton of meth — June 27, 2013 @ 2:03 pm

    It’s anybody’s race…with Lori FrankenstHeine on the rail, followed by Cas….Serenity…Levi….liitlelettermike…Auntie Dogma…and coming up on the inside…..Priya (on board number 00, Head Trauma)…
    And DOWN the stretch they come!!!…….Priya Restraint is coming on strong! They’re coming down to the wire! It’s gonna be close!!

    Giddy-up, Priya. you can make it!

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 2:41 pm - June 27, 2013

  7. You’ve just heard the call of the running of the ‘Biggest Liar the Internet Has Ever Seen’ Handicap (and in Priya’s case, a MAJOR handicap: devoid of sanity).

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 2:47 pm - June 27, 2013

  8. This remarkable ‘180’ comes from the last paragraph of the stultifying schizophrenic blather posted by Priya Bad Acts just a short time ago

    He needn’t be banned from here

    And then, in the very next sentence:

    If he won’t consistently behave in at least a halfway honest and civil manner then he should be banned

    Oh, dear.
    What should we make of this?

    I think Priya Record of Involuntary Institutionalization (aka: Sybil) needs to have her dosage increased dramatically and be kept as calm as possible in a small room with padded walls and striped sunlight.

    The poor thing.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 3:13 pm - June 27, 2013

  9. For the record, I have been fired by one well known church organization. The church hierarchy had a major congregational revolt on its hands as parishioners, vestry and clergy of several historic churches left the fold and reestablished themselves under the hierarchy of the traditional wing of the church.

    I was hired by the lawsuit crowd to help guide their ethic arguments in seizing the buildings and the lands from the dissenters. Short version, they had no ethical grounds to stand on. It was correct of them to fire me, because I would not play the game of finding the outcome they hired me to find.

    heliotrope – Kudos, that’s character!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 28, 2013 @ 10:20 am - June 28, 2013

  10. “I love capitalism” who made the bizarre comment that its no worse to slander someone than it is to call for them to be banned

    No PL, that’s not what I said.

    What I said is that, in terms of attacking someone personally, calling for their future contributions (their person) to be eliminated from the blog is pretty incivil, about as incivil as it gets short of threatening them. That’s my philosophy, and everyone here should understand that I’ll be sticking to it in any future threads that I may author (which this thread is not; so I have not presumed to delete any comments here), regardless of whether people agree with me on it.

    Reading comprehension, PL- It matters. And, by the way, your comment contains several violations in terms of attacking other commentors personally, of the narrower kind that perhaps even you would recognize as violations.

    And that’s something which kind of amazes me in all this (not just meaning you, now): that certain of NDT’s critics fault his incivility and his rule violations…while also repeatedly flaunting their own incivility and committing their own rule violations. It would be a lot easier to sympathize with certain people’s complaints, if their hands were a little cleaner.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 28, 2013 @ 1:57 pm - June 28, 2013

  11. Here’s what ILC wrote above:

    Called for NDT to be banned. (The ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks. Only the making of threats would be more of an attack.)

    ILC is saying that calling for someone’s comments to no longer appear at this blog is the very worst kind of personal attack. Since a nuclear weapon is the worst, most destructive kind of weapon, then banning someone’s comments is, among personal attacks on another person, the very worst kind.

    He then rather inconsistently writes that the making of threats (physical, for example, such as when NDT advocates punching people in the face, in the context of addressing someone who disagrees with him) would be ‘more of an attack’, i.e. worse than ‘nuclear’.

    If someone were witnessing a rape in-progress and called 911 in order that the perpetrator be arrested/charged/sentenced/jailed (removed from society for a time), is the caller guilty of a ‘personal attack’ (‘nuclear’, I assume) worse than the reported rape?

    **Reading comprehension moment: The above is called an analogy.**

    Also, if an analysis of who has violated rules worse than whom is necessary, there are years’ worth of posts in which I’m willing to bet I can find many examples of ILC’s own record of abuse. The issue isn’t whether anyone’s hands are perfectly clean (i.e. set up a standard that very few can absolutely meet, thus exonerating NDT) but whether 1) a pattern of consistently abusive behavior exists; 2) whether the nature of the attacks is personal in nature; 3) whether the abuse is harming the community.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 28, 2013 @ 2:58 pm - June 28, 2013

  12. ILC is saying that calling for someone’s comments to no longer appear at this blog is the very worst kind of personal attack.

    No actually; in the very sentence you quote, I state that making threats would be a greater attack.

    Reading comprehension, Iggy – It matters.

    I can find many examples of ILC’s own record of abuse

    As I could, for yours. Having said that: The occasions when I have name-called in comments exist, but are fewer than many others. The occasions when I called for people to be banned, have to be even fewer (I’m not going to say there were absolutely none, but I can’t remember one at this time). And the occasions when I have made threats (in the sense meant above) are none.

    And now, Iggy: If I am truly *not* important to *you*, then you won’t spend the next hour searching the archives to prove me wrong; the more so because at no point in this thread have I held myself up as a paragon. (The sentences immediately above, are meant to be descriptive only.)

    As to whether I exercise my option to ignore your comments, as often as I should: clearly I didn’t skip this one, but I may the next one; there was one earlier, that I did simply skip. (Still don’t know or care what it said.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 28, 2013 @ 3:17 pm - June 28, 2013

  13. No actually; in the very sentence you quote, I state that making threats would be a greater attack.

    Actually, I quote (roughly) three of your ‘sentences’:

    #1:

    Called for NDT to be banned.

    This is an incomplete sentence followed by a period stating that someone or some others had called for NDT to be banned.

    #2:

    The ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks.

    Another incomplete sentence followed by a period. This ‘sentence’ likens calling someone to be banned the ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks, likening it both to an actual nuclear weapon (the most destructive kind of attack) and what is known as the ‘nuclear option’, used in the vernacular to imply the final option or the option of last resort.

    #3:

    Only the making of threats would be more of an attack.

    This is an actual sentence. After discussing ‘nuclear attack’ above, I then pointed out your inconsistency because you then stated that making threats would be worse:

    (From my post above:)

    He then rather inconsistently writes that the making of threats … would be ‘more of an attack’, i.e. worse than ‘nuclear’.

    So no, ILC, I didn’t miss anything you wrote. I pointed out the inconsistency in stating that calling for the ban of a participant is the ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks (meaning the very worst), but that physical threats are (according to you) even worse. Worse than the worst, in other words.

    Reading comprehension, ILC. It matters.

    …at no point in this thread have I held myself up as a paragon.

    Yes, there are some statements even you would concede are too ridiculous. But I believe what you’re attempting is to throw up some nearly impossible standard so that NDT can be considered just like someone who makes the occasional snide remark. I recognize it for what it is, that’s all. As I wrote above, a ban should consider whether:

    1) a pattern of consistently abusive behavior exists; 2) whether the nature of the attacks is personal in nature; 3) whether the abuse is harming the community.

    Meh. Whatever.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 28, 2013 @ 5:18 pm - June 28, 2013

  14. This just in:

    The Internet Supreme Court has just handed down their verdict in the case of Ignatius vs. ILC.
    In an extremely rare 9-0 ruling, the justices have stated unambiguously, in a terse, one paragraph decision, the justices ruled that it is painfully obvious to all but the least sentient among us that Ignatius does, in fact, have a raging hard-on for ILC and looks for the thinnest of excuses upon which to conduct his endless harangues aimed at the most recent addition to the GayPatriot administrative team.

    We now return you to our regular programming, already in progress…

    Since some of my comments in this thread (and the sentiments contained therein) got the “Soviet Air Brush” treatment yesterday, I’d like to repeat one of them:

    Didn’t your parents teach you not to whine like a little girl, and don’t you have enough self respect to stop doing it?

    STOP your effing whining!

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 28, 2013 @ 7:27 pm - June 28, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.