|
The US is now transfixed by a rural New York congressional district. The "narrative" from the GOP leadership — besides their ongoing "Reaganite conservatism is now utterly unpopular with voters" — that was that conservative and Republican voters should support Scozzafava — even though she was objectively far left of many centrist Democrats — because she would be loyal to the party. Of course, now that Scozzafava has endorsed her Democrat opponent, and is apparently even robo-calling for the DNC, that argument was shown to be a so much wishful thinking. Voters are lucky to have discovered this somewhat unusual definition of, ahem, loyalty before the election. (And her conservative challenger's poll numbers punctures the other GOP narrative about the unpalatability of politically conservative stances.) And thus, speaking of "narratives" centering around "wishful thinking":
Let's review: the national Republican leadership thoroughly backed Dede, who had zero discernible "Republican" stances: in favor of wealth redistribution, pro-choice on abortion, in favor of bigger and more powerful government, in favor of redefining "marriage", in bed with the unions, etc. And for this they are "extreme"? Well, yes, arguably, but certainly not in a rightward direction. It is actually the NY-23 voters who are the flies in Ms Jarrett's favored statist ointment. And never mind that Scozzafava's major challenger wasn't even from the GOP. I guess in Jarrett's mind, the GOP must have secretly backed Hoffman, even while they publicly called for unity around Scozzafava! But the left's narrative must not be "the voters disagree with us" — it must be: "these easily-led sheeplike creatures are only responding to the extremists on high" — never mind that the national Republican leadership takes to fiscal and social conservativism only a bit more enthusiastically than Superman does to Kryptonite. How's the narrative going? NPR's on board already:
Ah, yes, that's what did it! She had "sympathy for the unemployed." Well, we ring-wingers certainly can't tolerate any of that around here, can we? We demand our candidates stick out their tongues and make "nya-nya-nya" sounds at the unemployed. And Bush, Cheney, and Gingrich, who, only moments ago it seems, were defined by NPR as evil far-right fanatics, are now suddenly the long-lost voices of "moderation" itself! Apparently they'd always been in favor of... what was that list again? Oh yes: bigger government, unions, unrestricted abortion, redefining marriage etc. All those "moderate" and non-radical things. Yes, we all remember Gingrich's and Bush's unwavering and vocal support for such issues. How we miss their "moderation" in the wonderful "moderate" days of yore. This, boys, and girls, passes as *serious* *factual* reporting at NPR. Not to worry, though: my liberal friends will be repeating it verbatim, right on cue, before the month is through. Add your two cents...
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once. |