Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

144 Views

One of the most striking elements to Leftist ideology is how strident you have to be to follow it. Any deviation from the hivemind turns you into an evil right-winger. Just ask Kanye West. On second thought, don’t. That would require talking and listening to him, and I believe that may be against the Geneva Convention or, at the very least, any concept of sanity.

The latest victim of this stridency is Tim Alberta, a man who is not only named after a Canadian province I’ve visited, but also was tapped to be a moderator for an upcoming Democratic Presidential debate. At least, until it was found out Alberta worked for National Review, a…conservative magazine! DUN DUN DUNNNNNNN! The reason the DNC gave for their objection is they didn’t feel Alberta had the right “ideological credentials” to moderate the debate.

Yep, that’s a new one on me, but at least it gives me a topic for this week’s Lexicon!

ideological credentials

What the Left thinks it means – certification of one’s beliefs and whether they correspond with the right beliefs

What it really means – non-ironic discrimination to protect Leftist fee-fees

If anyone wants to debate the media don’t lean Left, ask them to explain this bullshit. The fact the DNC could even make this complaint in the first place tells us they’re waaaaaay too comfy with the media. But that’s a blog for another time.

The entire concept of ideological credentials is absurd because it sets a requirement that shouldn’t even be in question…because it shouldn’t be there. Journalists and reporters used to be taught to hide any biases they have on a subject in an attempt to achieve a balanced accounting of what happened. That went out the window decades ago when the journalism profession started being DNC stenographers and the higher-ups allowed it.

Being a debate moderator is different than being a reporter, though. There are additional responsibilities, like…asking questions concerning issues? Totes different!

Seriously, a biased debate moderator can be detrimental to a candidate. That reminds me, where is Candy Crowley these days? I haven’t seen her since she…conducted an erroneous fact check against Mitt Romney…during a Presidential debate in 2012. But I’m sure it was okay because ideological credentials.

The problem with this line of thinking is Alberta was tapped to be a moderator at a debate for Democrat candidates only. These are men and women who want to be the President of the United States, so they might have to deal with opinions and positions other than their own. And, now hear me out, they might have to make tough decisions as President. If you’re afraid of a question from someone outside your ideological bubble, you really aren’t ready for being the leader of the free world.

But the ideological credentials argument isn’t about fitness for office; it’s about protecting the ideology from being exposed on issues that matter to Americans. On the surface, the Left’s positions seem reasonable, but a little critical thought makes those positions seem as reasonable as making Charlie Sheen our Drug Czar. That’s why the Left has to hide their policy endgames. Once people do a little bit of digging, their perfect plans to fix everything from healthcare to the common cold wind up getting ruined.

And here’s the greatest irony of all. By invoking ideological credentials against Alberta, the Left has created a political precedent that will come back to bite them. First, the Democrat candidates by and large are trying to show voters how they’re different from President Donald Trump. And what is a common knock against Trump? He’s too thin-skinned and can’t take being challenged. So, what does that say about the candidates who go along with the DNC’s ideological credentials argument? It tells your humble correspondent they’re not that different from Trump after all.

Second, it gives the President and the RNC the perfect excuse to exclude the Left’s media foot soldiers when it comes to Presidential debates. After all, by excluding a moderator with one notable conservative credential in his past, the DNC has made it okay to raise Hell about any of the potential debate moderators for their ideological biases. Well, there goes, say, 99% of the available talking heads out there. Then again, would that necessarily be a loss?

The biggest knock on the ideological credentials idea is it presumes one cannot change his or her political leanings over time. That is short-sighted and wrong. Over time, people can and do change their minds about issues and even entire ways of thinking. (I’m one of them. As is Leftist favorite David Brock.) To be fair, I haven’t read much of Alberta’s work, so I can’t tell where he is on the ideological teeter-totter. Having said that, contributing to National Review shouldn’t be a determining factor of how good or fair of a moderator he will be, let alone the sole determining factor.

So, let’s not pretend the DNC’s complaint about ideological credentials has any weight. Let’s just call it for what it is: an excuse to avoid having potential Presidential candidates answer questions tougher than “What’s your favorite ice cream flavor?”




Isn’t It Ironic? Donchathink?

79 Views

I was talking with a conservative friend of mine about the upcoming Presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Although we both agreed the moderators would help Hillary because, let’s face it, she’s Hillary Clinton. But where we disagreed was how well Trump would do. He’s staunchly in the NeverTrump camp and believes he won’t perform well, but I didn’t count him out yet because, let’s face it, she’s Hillary Clinton.

Then, I had a thought. (First time for everything, I guess.) The more I thought about it, the more I saw the potential for the first Presidential debate as Kennedy/Nixon 2.0. For those who aren’t seeing the connection, let me help a bit.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon held a televised debate. Even though Nixon may have won on substance, he was done in by looking like crap as compared to the youthful, energetic Kennedy. Nixon would eventually bounce back, but not without trying to put his previous visual dumpster fire in the past.

Which brings us back to Hillary.

To say Mrs. Clinton has had a rough couple of weeks imagewise is to say the Titanic was a minor boating accident. Not only has she been dogged by scandal (because, well, it’s Hillary), but she’s had to battle everything from heat exhaustion (in 79 degree heat!) to pneumonia, all within a matter of hours! The millennial voters who came out in droves to vote for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 aren’t flocking to Hillary. And, if that wasn’t bad enough, Trump is gaining and in some polls surpassing her. Although Trump has a ways to go and a short time to get there, it’s not looking good for Hillary.

And I see the first Presidential debate being make-or-break for her. If she comes off as she has the past couple of weeks, Trump could blow bubbles out of his ass and win. If she looks more energetic than Trump, however, she could make a major statement and put the past behind her.

Now, at this point you may be wondering what the title of this blog has to do with the discussion of the debates. One of Hillary’s big moments in legal history was serving on the Watergate committee. Now, it appears the two will “meet” again in a few weeks.

Isn’t it ironic? Donchathink?

Last 2015 Debate

97 Views

Last night was the last Republican presidential debate of 2015. And the last before the Iowa Caucus ends up casting the first vote in the nation on choosing who will be the Republican nominee.

In the first debate of the evening we had Graham, Huckabee, Santorum, and Pataki. Graham doesn’t listen to anyone. Most of his answers are naive at best and dangerous to our national security. He is a fool. Pataki likewise just doesn’t have it in him to be President, he was a little better than Graham. Between Santorum and Huckabee, I believe Huckabee won the day and the debate. He would be a good VP choice for whomever gets the nomination.

During the main event. Trump was attacked, just as he was attacked during the first debate. But Trump defended and clarified his positions. He has come a long way since entering the field of being an active voice in politics. He even defended Jeb. But Jed still openly attacked him and shared some of the same lack of listening skills shown by Graham in the first debate.

The Gov of Ohio, I keep forgetting his name, is just a blowhard. He likes to talk but really doesn’t say much of anything.

Rand and Jeb’s idea about not using ground troops in the Middle East is absolutely absurd. Rand will not make the US safe at all from Islamic or other terrorists.

Cruz, who seems to think he is leading in Iowa, based on a poll conducted by the Des Moines Register, also is a blowhard. He talks, he talks over the moderators. And he keeps on talking well after his time has expired. It shows lapses in his character. His father would be a better candidate but unfortunately his father was not a natural born citizen.

Rubio has a few issues as well. He has no executive experience. He is in full time campaign mode. Reminds me of Obama, who was always campaigning. Rubio was sent to the Senate to vote but misses most of them because he is out running for President. What happens if he gets to be President, will he do his job then?

Ben Carson and Trump seem to have patched things up as Trump had good things to say about Ben during the debate. And like usual, Ben didn’t have many speaking opportunities.

Carly is dangerous when it comes to freedom. She would trade freedom and several of our Bill of Rights for safety. This cannot be allowed. The NSA spying on Americans and the collection of metadata and other data needs to stop.

Trump has the right ideas when it comes to national security issues. With the right Congress and the right advisors in place. His ideas would be implemented with great care and ease.