Following GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, the All Barrack Channel, commonly known as ABC, assumed the form of Amy Walter to administer a spoonful of “progressive” medicine intended to stop the American sugar for going down.
By calling Ryan’s budget plan synonymous with political polarization, then portraying Mitt Romney picking Ryan for VP as guaranteeing an ideological debate, Walter displays nothing short of utter contempt for voters and their ability to research, learn and decide for themselves.
Even if Walter is correct in saying that a debate over the role of government is looming, she is wrong in assuming, presuming, dictating that swing voters do not want that debate. Closer to the truth, “progressives” do not want the debate to take place because it could lead to swing voters learning the distinctions between the differing philosophies. Hence, ABC and other card carrying members of the “progressive” Party Pravda publish “information” that preordains the conclusion to which readers must necessarily arrive: Voters do not want to debate the proper role of government.
Voters are most certainly interested in what their government does, how far it reaches into their lives, and the scope of its power. Voters have interests that surpass simply having a government that works.
For “progressives” and their Pravda lapdogs, it feeds their agenda to determine and present as fact that voters only want a government that works efficiently. Safe to say, “progressives” living in America are highly motivated to be primarily concerned with a government that efficiently rewards them with their “fair share” of food stamps, welfare checks, “free” healthcare and other so-called “entitlement” goodies.
The Nazi government was highly efficient in taking a defeated, bankrupt country to the brink of global domination…and slaughtering millions. When it came to the systematic removal of millions of Chinese, Chairman Mao had a well-oiled government. The Soviet system very effectively created a manmade disaster while committing genocide by starving millions of Ukrainians to death during the Holodomor. Che Rivera was ruthlessly efficient in eliminating Fidel’s political opposition in Cuba.
The silent majority, astonished, alarmed and disgusted by the scale, scope and over-reach of the fringe, radical, anti-American agenda enacted by “progressives” armed with unrestrained, unbridled power, got up off the couch and formed the Tea Party. Contrary to what Walters would have readers believe, the Tea Party is as popular and influential as ever.
The 2010 election that swept Conservatives back in control of the House was indeed a mandate: Do not compromise with those whose negotiating position begins and ends with “what is yours is ours and what is mine is mine.” History repeatedly reveals that whenever those with this negotiating position obtain final grasp of unrestrained, unbridled power, they do not compromise with their political opposition, they eliminate it.
The reason Washington DC is polarized and ineffective is the harsh, uncompromisingly rigid partisan positions taken by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the current Oval Office occupier and their “progressive” collaborators.
The November 2012 election is a decision voters will make between two competing ideologies. Voters will determine what role government plays in the lives of people. Whether “progressives” like it or not, a small government with limited power is the basic construct of the American idea; one “progressives” have long sought to destroy.
Americans want to have the debate “progressives” do not. The simple reason “progressives” do not want that debate and are so eager to convince swing voters they do not want it either is simple. That debate is one “progressives” will lose.