A long overdue rant about "No Labels" and the Arizona shooting

The concept of "no labels" as a viable third party alternative to the "hyperpartisanship" of the right and left is nothing more than a transparent ruse being orchestrated by spineless, power thirsty invertebrates (ie. career politicians) and their bottom feeding political consultants. In typically delusional fashion, the left remains steadfast in its refusal to acknowledge that the 2010 midterm elections were just deserts for a political establishment that had abandoned the will of the American people. In its typically smug and sanctimonious tone, the main stream media has followed suit. Mindless allegations that run the gamut from the meddling of multinational corporations to contrived and largely imaginary charges of racism, nativism, sexism, religious intolerance and hillbilly ignorance have been hurled at the Tea Party since its inception. Mocked, ridiculed, minimized by the press and demonized by pundits and political pantywaists alike, the Tea Party movement has thus far stood its ground, maintained its dignity and enacted its revenge at the polls instead of engaging the endless spaghetti parade of parasitic media worms and left wing fringe groups that are obsessed with its demise. Now the loosely affiliated organic political movement that managed to strike a resounding chord in the hearts and minds of voters across the country faces a new threat. The seemingly benign “No Labels” crowd is looking to latch onto the Tea Party’s success and ride the next wave of discontent into the 2012 presidential election and beyond.
Completely impervious to reality, the mainstream media and the leftist trolls that feed from its bosom of agenda driven disinformation cannot fathom the fact that the 2010 midterm elections were the result of a raw and spontaneous movement; a child that was conceived and actualized by America's reawakened Silent Majority. Under the deluded misconception that the Tea Party movement is merely a fad that shall soon be indiscriminately displaced by the fickle mood of the populous, the “no labels” crowd is dead on arrival in terms of transforming into any viable political force beyond a punch line for conservative talk radio.
Unlike the Tea Party, the no labels movement is unspontaneous and artificial; the bastard child of two separate but equally nauseating factions that hail from the left and right wing. On the one hand you have the “No” group. The ogres in this corner are comprised of gutless hacks with no political principles or convictions of any serious merit. Devoid of any tangible ability to connect with the American people (besides alienation), this half of the neutered and proud crowd only seems to feel passionate about one thing; a mindless and incessant pride in the fact that they aren’t afflicted with those pesky partisan” labels”. Take empty suit Charlie Crist for instance. After completely abandoning his principles as a Republican he decided not to run for Governor of Florida and genuinely believed he would coast to election in the U.S. Senate. When it became obvious that Marco Rubio was a serious candidate in the Republican primary, Crist attempted to switch parties only to switch back again. Shortly thereafter, he got his ass handed to him in the midterm elections. Of course, this sequence of events coincides with his history of oscillating on every key issue likely to influence voters and resonate with the public. When it was all said and done, Crist exposed himself as nothing more than a disingenuous used car salesman. A proper label for Crist would be “no balls”.
On the “labels” side of the coin, there are extravagantly wealthy liberals and their political consultants. These sleaze balls are political chameleons that tend to label everything and everyone so that they can devise a strategy of control while masquerading as heroic vanguards of good government. Mayor for life Michael Bloomberg seems to be the diminutive dictator that sits at the head of the “No Labels” table. A convenient Republican, Independent and “No Labeler”, Hizzoner is really just a wealthy, nanny state liberal with a lot of money and clearly too much free time on his hands. Between his idiotic trans-fat and smoking bans and equally moronic quality of life decrees that have had no discernable impact on anyone’s life beyond making driving in New York City more difficult and stressful, Bloomberg has clearly defined his political aptitude. He is extremely adept at fixing problems that don’t exist, doubling down on inefficient policies and adding layer upon layer of bureaucracy. Unfortunately, he can’t govern worth a damn or connect with average, every day people. That is of course unless he’s taking time from his busy schedule for a photo-op or to call opponents of the overwhelmingly unpopular Ground Zero mosque racists. Menial tasks that are essential to the sustained success of any major metropolitan city such as snow removal, trash pick-up and road repair are beneath Hizzoner. Several more important tasks are within the stratosphere of his intelligence. These include the creation of additional bike lanes sprawled out across the city coupled with traffic regulations that eliminate turns across dozens of blocks in Manhattan, eliminating public parking spaces, property tax hikes as well as fare hikes on bridges/ tunnels/ the MTA, firehouse closures and really going the extra mile to eliminate pesky curbside merchants and gypsy cabs. Bloomberg’s ineptitude is only surpassed by his lack of self-awareness. Labeling the caloric content of every menu item in every restaurant in New York City seems a tad bit hypocritical for the leader of a political movement that is supposedly dead set against labels, wouldn’t you say?

The chorus of label removal is nothing more than a loud distraction from the perilous condition of this country. To be precise, this entire farce of a movement is designed to drown out voices of dissent and silence the exceedingly rare politician that is able to exhibit principle beyond the specter of campaign promises and overreaching pledges to accomplish the impossible. Furthermore, “No Labels” is a poorly conceived attempt to snuff out the raging forest fire of conservatism that has once again captured the imagination of the American public. Americans don’t want politicians to tone down the rhetoric, nor do they want democrats and republicans to morph into Republicrats and Demolicans. Left and Right have mutually exclusive goals on practically every issue of importance. For the most part, the only thing that bipartisanship ever accomplished is the steady decline of the American way of life. Now, bipartisanship is the surest way to make sure that being reelected is next to impossible. And thank God for that.
As proof that the entire concept of “no labels” is predicated on a lie, look no further than Joe Lieberman. After reaching across the aisle on only a handful of key issues such as Iraq and National Security, Liebermann was treated by the Democratic Party like the bastard child of Benedict Arnold suffering from the Ebola virus. Every liberal of stature turned on him and attacked him like a rabid dog. Lieberman then switched his political affiliation to Independent and won reelection despite the fact that an extremely wealthy challenger with the backing of the entire liberal establishment ran against him. However, his win proved to be a pyric victory at best. Although Liebermann had served in the Senate for several years and is one of the most liberal politicians in all of Washington D.C., he remains to this day an object of contempt and derision among Democratic Party leadership. So after almost five years of abuse, Liebermann announced this week that he would not be seeking reelection for his seat in the Senate. Liebermann was stabbed in the back by his own party because he abandoned the toxicity and divisiveness of “hyper-partisanship”. See, the key difference between Liebermann and “No Labels” is that Liebermann actually made some decisions based on his conscience. “No Labels” is about discrediting conservatism and advancing the indoctrination of manufactured groupthink for the Democratic Party’s agenda; personal convictions be damned.
On the heels of the massacre in Tucson where Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords nearly perished, the media cockroaches crawled their way into the light and exposed their hideous nature. Without facts, evidence, objectivity or even common decency, the mainstream media blamed right wing political rhetoric and sternly called for an end to “hyperpartisanship” and “divisiveness”. It’s funny that after eight years of disgustingly hateful rhetoric from the left directed toward the entire Bush cabinet and Republicans at large, the left wing intelligista is suffering from its characteristic bouts of hypocrisy, amnesia and a staunch resolve to insult the intelligence of the American people. As the ceaselessly baseless, unimaginative and ugly attacks continue against the left wings enemies list, the liberal establishment insists that no retribution be enacted in return and that civility be maintained at all costs. The public sees right through this silly façade of false outrage and recognizes the truth. The vitriolic tone that politics has taken in this country originates from the left. “No Labels” is only supposed to cut one way.
I’m not going highlight the obvious and overwhelming evidence to the contrary that Jared Loughner was not a Republican including the fact that he did not listen to talk radio and has been obsessed with Giffords since 2007. I’m also not going to discuss the fact that Loughner suffered from mental illness, used drugs, had been expelled from school and was an avid fan of left wing conspiracy theory documentaries about 911 and the United States monetary system. For all the evidence that you need to come to the conclusion that Loughner was not a right winger obsessed with politics, one need only listen to the dozens of media appearances by scrotum faced liberal incompetent Sherriff Dupnick. Before the dead bodies had been collected from the sidewalk, Dupnick was on television blaming Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin for the massacre and referring to Arizona as the “Mecca of hate” because residents oppose illegal immigration. As facts became known about Loughners background, an interesting theme began to unfold. As it seems, Sheriff Douchenick neglected to mention that there had been several complaints made about Loughner spanning several years to the local authorities, including some that suggested Loughner would become violent. Now, Sheriff Douchenick refuses to release the police file on Loughner citing privacy concerns. Really Sheriff? I mean, honestly? This pathetic weasel bungles the investigation before it begins, several people die as a result and instead of doing police work, this piece of excrement is on cable news blaming Conservatives.
Covering your own ass while providing a convenient scapegoat isn’t a tactic limited to liberals, but it sure is used by the left a lot these days. Crime? Racism and not enough government programs—the result of Republican policy. Terrorism? U.S. foreign policy spearheaded by Neo Cons. A poor economy? Lack of government regulation, free trade and Wall Street bonuses—all unfortunate by products of Republican policies and capitalism. An educational system that is falling behind other developed nations? Not enough money or government oversight—again, Republicans should have cut military spending and put it all into inner city school. In all of these aforementioned situations, liberals have toiled and tinkered with the system and have either failed miserably or made matters irreparably worse. Any excuse to spend money that doesn’t exist, blame conservatism or debase America will suffice for the continuation of asinine and unsustainable policy measures. For example, on education America spends more per pupil than any developed country besides Luxemburg. What do we have to show for it? Piss poor test scores and a scholastic atmosphere that is more concerned with “feelings” than results or accomplishments. What’s the liberal solution? More money and cut the defense budget (or raise taxes).
So now, at a time when the country has stood up and cut the legs off of liberalism, democrats don’t do any soul searching nor do they reevaluate their destructive policies. The rationale behind the American people turning on the blue state brand? Divisiveness and angry rhetoric, talk radio, the chicken pox, Wall Street, Fox News and blue M&M’s.

And so, the liberals attempt to grasp toward one final straw of relevancy. “No labels”- A neutral government of neutered bipartisan hermaphrodites bidding for the support of humans, animals, insects and other carbon based life forms. Feeling strongly about not feeling strongly so America can heal toward the center of nowhere and feel good about itself. In this humble bloggers opinion, “No Labels” should be euthanized and relegated to “No Oxygen”--- its bike lanes crowded with tractor-trailers unleashing ozone killing smog into the nostrils of its shape shifting adherents and flattening its shiny, unisex, green friendly Vespa scooters with impunity.

Long Lay off- Before I could even finish writing...

I had been working on my latest blog entry when the Tuscon shooting occurred. Consequently, the Tuscon shooting fit neatly into my narrative of disgust with the "no labels" buffoons. Before I post what I have written (hopefully by the weekend), I have to pay homage to the best (Krauthammer is still my favorite) political journalist on the planet. Of course it helps that I tend to agree with every article that he writes, but my respect and admiration for George Will goes beyond politics. His brilliance as a writer is so above and beyond everyone else in print media (right or left) that I believe it is fair to say Will has no peers, no equals and no competition in terms of pure writing ability. Wills skill set is simply on another level. His ability to weave history, politics and current events into profound and spectacular commentary within the parameters of predetermined word count constraints is nothing short of genius.

Here is Wills commentary on the media response to the Tuscon tragedy:

By George F. Will
Tuesday, January 11, 2011

It would be merciful if, when tragedies such as Tucson's occur, there were a moratorium on sociology. But respites from half-baked explanations, often serving political opportunism, are impossible because of a timeless human craving and a characteristic of many modern minds.

The craving is for banishing randomness and the inexplicable from human experience. Time was, the gods were useful. What is thunder? The gods are angry. Polytheism was explanatory. People postulated causations.

And still do. Hence: The Tucson shooter was (pick your verb) provoked, triggered, unhinged by today's (pick your noun) rhetoric, vitriol, extremism, "climate of hate."

Demystification of the world opened the way for real science, including the social sciences. And for a modern characteristic. And for charlatans.

A characteristic of many contemporary minds is susceptibility to the superstition that all behavior can be traced to some diagnosable frame of mind that is a product of promptings from the social environment. From which flows a political doctrine: Given clever social engineering, society and people can be perfected. This supposedly is the path to progress. It actually is the crux of progressivism. And it is why there is a reflex to blame conservatives first.

Instead, imagine a continuum from the rampages at Columbine and Virginia Tech - the results of individuals' insanities - to the assassinations of Lincoln and the Kennedy brothers, which were clearly connected to the politics of John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan, respectively. The two other presidential assassinations also had political colorations.

On July 2, 1881, after four months in office, President James Garfield, who had survived the Civil War battles of Shiloh and Chickamauga, needed a vacation. He was vexed by warring Republican factions - the Stalwarts, who waved the bloody shirt of Civil War memories, and the Half-Breeds, who stressed the emerging issues of industrialization. Walking to Washington's train station, Garfield by chance encountered a disappointed job-seeker. Charles Guiteau drew a pistol, fired two shots and shouted, "I am a Stalwart and Arthur will be president!" On Sept. 19, Garfield died, making Vice President Chester Arthur president. Guiteau was executed, not explained.

On Sept. 6, 1901, President William McKinley, who had survived the battle of Antietam, was shaking hands at a Buffalo exposition when Leon Czolgosz approached, a handkerchief wrapped around his right hand, concealing a gun. Czolgosz, an anarchist, fired two shots. Czolgosz ("I killed the president because he was the enemy of the good people - the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime.") was executed, not explained.

Now we have explainers. They came into vogue with the murder of President Kennedy. They explained why the "real" culprit was not a self-described Marxist who had moved to Moscow, then returned to support Castro. No, the culprit was a "climate of hate" in conservative Dallas, the "paranoid style" of American (conservative) politics or some other national sickness resulting from insufficient liberalism.

Last year, New York Times columnist Charles Blow explained that "the optics must be irritating" to conservatives: Barack Obama is black, Nancy Pelosi is female, Rep. Barney Frank is gay, Rep. Anthony Weiner (an unimportant Democrat, listed to serve Blow's purposes) is Jewish. "It's enough," Blow said, "to make a good old boy go crazy." The Times, which after the Tucson shooting said that "many on the right" are guilty of "demonizing" people and of exploiting "arguments of division," apparently was comfortable with Blow's insinuation that conservatives are misogynistic, homophobic, racist anti-Semites.

On Sunday, the Times explained Tucson: "It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But . . ." The "directly" is priceless.

Three days before Tucson, Howard Dean explained that the Tea Party movement is "the last gasp of the generation that has trouble with diversity." Rising to the challenge of lowering his reputation and the tone of public discourse, Dean smeared Tea Partyers as racists: They oppose Obama's agenda, Obama is African American, ergo . . .

Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation of liberals whose default position in any argument is to indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left - devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data - is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral weakness and bad sociology.

georgewill@washpost.com