How Can Obama and the Democrats Deflect Blame? Let Me Count the Ways.
How many ways can Obama and the Democrats deflect blame away from their own ineptitude, utter incompetence and blatant corruption and cronyism? Well, let's look at a few of the Top 40 Democratic hits of the past three years.
"Republicans are only saying these things because they are racist and the President is a Black man."
"Republicans are leveling these charges because they think it will hurt the President politically."
"The Tea Parties are Astroturf, not a 'real' grass-roots movement." Ergo, they have no credibility, so anything they say about anyone can be dismissed.
"The Tea Parties are racist, and they are only motivated by the fact that they don't like a black man in the White House."
Underlying each of these attempts lays a chronic mental disorder...denial. Democrats are so utterly convinced that their ideas and ideology are so completely unassailable in terms of rational thought that they are projecting their own obsessive behaviors onto their opponents.
It's as if they believe so strongly in their weltanschauung, that they cannot comprehend how anyone could reasonably disagree with it, so any disagreement is deflected by attributing base motives to the speaker. It's not possible (for them, anyway) to see that honest disagreement over policy is not equivalent to an ad hominem attack on them, so they respond with their own ad hominem retaliation.
If anyone mentions that we are spending too much money and are creating a level of debt that will crush the nation, the speaker is declared to be racist because he or she (a) opposes, (b) fears or is (c) too stupid to understand the President.
Or he or she is racist or heartless because they want to hurt (a) the poor, (b) minorities, (c) the elderly, and/or (d) the safety of our citizens by reducing the police and fire departments.
And best of all, the claim that if we control spending, children will suffer by eroding the educational excellence that they currently enjoy in union dominated schools, that they will die from enforced anorexia when school breakfast, lunch and dinner programs are reduced, that their spirits will shrivel because they won't be able to create art, play music or engage in sports (where we don't keep score since that might damage the child's self-esteem). In the shorthand of the left: "We have to do it for the children."
So what is a critic of the Democratic Party, the Obama administration, the Senate Majority leader, the House Minority leader, the chair of the DNC to do when Jay Carney, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz begin to spout this nonsense?
The correct response should be: Think like Saul Alinsky. Ol' Saul would have isolated any or all of them, and began a campaign of ridicule. Ask, for instance, how anyone in such a position could possible be that shallow, or clueless, or unable to answer sincere criticism. They're the brightest, right? They should be able to respond substantively, with nuance, with persuasive arguments.
Of course they are. I can just see a calm rational disputation of fact coming out of the mouths of any one of them, can't you?
A good response, although not quite as good as brutal ridicule (always a personal favorite) would simply be to laugh uncontrollably when questioned by the main stream media, and briefly ask "Did they really say something that uninformed?" and then walk away. Feel free to substitute any of the following terms for uninformed: bird-brained, cretinous, imbecilic, mindless, moronic, obtuse, shallow, thick, uneducated, or witless. No, no, please don't thank me for the alternatives. It's just one more thing in our full service repertoire.