In less than 24 hours the killing of Bin Laden became an MSNBC anti-Bush/pro Democrat party hate fest. Wow.

In the hours following the taking of Usama (Osama?) Bin Laden we heard all kinds of great pro-American/non-partisan words. Everyone from President Obama to former President George W. Bush. Good Stuff, and it made me proud to hear Americans with such different views on current issues coming together on this one, the taking out of the greatest mass murderer in American history. But now I just sat through most of The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, and the thin-lipped expressionless-one who replaced Olbermann turned his entire show into a partisan pro Democrat/Bush attacking hate fest. Seriously? Where they heck do they get these people?!

He started his show by staring into the camera and stating in his monotone:

President Bush had 2086 days to catch Usama Bin Laden. President Obama got that job done in 831 days.

Yes, he did. Using intelligence taken from operatives captured during Bush’s term and interrogated in the Gitmo prison created by President Bush — possibly with the methods that the Democrats claimed were useless and torture.

Now if one wanted to become partisan on this issue one could legitimately ask why it took until now to get Bin Laden if they’ve known where he . . . → Read More: In less than 24 hours the killing of Bin Laden became an MSNBC anti-Bush/pro Democrat party hate fest. Wow.

How to approach gun owners who don’t understand the politics of gun control (the 2nd amendment “but heads”)

How many gun owners and politicians do you know who say they support the second amendment, then caveat that statement with …

… but I don’t think that means you should be able to own an assault rifle, I’ve never wanted one. … but that doesn’t mean you can carry a gun around with you. … but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have to register it. … but nobody needs more than one gun a month. … but it’s OK for big cities to restrict the right. … but National Parks should be strictly offlimits. … but {ad nauseum}

On this blog I’ve given arguments against gun registration, “Assault Weapon” bans, the anti-gun stance of some mainstream Christian churches, and other self-righteous but logically challenged anti-gun rhetoric. Honestly, the anti-gun groups have little but knee-jerk fear and paranoia to draw upon and their bogus studies and proposed laws are easily debated.

But the anti-gun groups have been successful anyway, because they’ve created so much background noise, eagerly picked up on by the Main Stream Media, that gun owners who don’t pay attention to gun politics — the average Joe/Joanne who owns a firearm for hunting or self defense but for . . . → Read More: How to approach gun owners who don’t understand the politics of gun control (the 2nd amendment “but heads”)

A Quick PC primer for future political/election speak …

Those who would blame TV news pundits for violent acts have demanded that all violent verbiage be removed from political discourse. I’m sure this list will grow, but I propose the following:

Election Campaign: “Campaign” is a military term and may provoke murders. Replace with “Polite request for your vote.” Campaign Headquarters: We’ve already eliminated “campaign,” and “headquarters” can also be construed as a military term. Replace with “centralized office for dispensing of pro-candidate propaganda.” Attack Ads: This term may provoke real attacks. Replace with “polite notification that the other candidate is a less-than-perfect human being.” Targeted districts: This could provoke people to actually target candidates in those districts with guns or WMD’s. Replace with “selected districts.” Bullet points: This common phrase could provoke people to commit mass murders with real bullets or impale people with real “points” on sticks. Replace with “selected items.” Mud Slinging: This could provoke people to sling real mud, maybe with rocks in it, then follow up with bullets. Replace with “blaming everything on the other guy/gal/person-of-unproclaimed-gender-identity.” Election Victory: “Victory” is another military term, and may inspire murderers to seek a military style victory through mass murder. Replace with “Successful Job Application.” In the Political . . . → Read More: A Quick PC primer for future political/election speak …

Public Sector workers and their unions — another group that doesn’t get it

Between the stimulus package and all the help to the various troubled states President Obama has made sure to bolster public spending/government employee benefits at all levels, and he’s reaping the rewards. The public employees union has become the largest Democrat campaign contributor, giving about $55 per member to Dems (for those of you in this Union … how do you feel about this use of your union dues and “emergency” fund? What if they were giving it to Republicans or Libertarians?). And an ongoing strategy is trying to convince government employees there will be massive layoffs if the Republicans take power:

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats’ hold on Congress.

But here’s the deal … if you’re a public sector employee and buying in to this, you . . . → Read More: Public Sector workers and their unions — another group that doesn’t get it

Those extremist TEA party candidate views … that are anything but extremist

We’re now well in to what SFIH calls “The Silly Season” in the election cycle: when desperate candidates try to smear their opponent to convince people s/he is evil.  But as I’ve said … in general there are no truly “evil” politicians who make it onto the final ballot with a major party, though you can try to make them look evil by appealing to some voter’s ignorance on the issues. The Democrats are the desperate party this year, so they and their shill groups are frantically trying to classify the TEA party and conservatives in general as racist extremists who want to destroy everything from Social Security to food stamps … and ultimately leave us a nation of paupers and peasants under big-business corporate overlords. This is the kind of crap you only push if you’re talking to idiots, and the very fact that they offer it up should turn you away from the candidate that does so.

I’ll cover some particulars down below, but the bottom line is … what kind of government do you want?

Do you want the government to support you and make more and more decisions over your life? Maybe even ration your energy . . . → Read More: Those extremist TEA party candidate views … that are anything but extremist

Extremist Politics and smearing the other guy/gal

It just amazes me the kind of idiocy that voters will react to. People … we all need a BS filter to turn on during the months before an election … and we should be offended by these smear ads, not reacting to their message. Because if you believe the more extreme ads (generally posted by the most desperate candidates, and sadly candidates from both camps) everyone running for office is anti-american/anti-business/anti-family/religiously intolerant/religious nut/communist/fascist — or some mix thereof. And while in some cases an extreme label or two is appropriate, in general very few true extremists make it to the ballot, much less in to office.

In this election we constantly see the whole concept of “too extreme for _____” from both sides. And while I would say that the left has gotten some very lefty people in charge the last couple of elections and we are also seeing more conservative conservatives as well because of the TEA party … but too extreme? Not really. It’s not communists vs. fascists out there, friends, at least not yet; it’s those who believe in an expansion of a socialist agenda to make all our lives “easier” and flatten out the economic . . . → Read More: Extremist Politics and smearing the other guy/gal