We Just Can’t Work With Liberals

Over at Free Beacon, Sonny Bunch notes a recent article by Jonathan Chait wherein Chait demonstrates his abiding hatred of all persons Republican. Meanwhile, we have the Gruber revelations that bald-faced lies were used to enact ObamaCare. The question I ask is: how can we work with people who hate us and will flat-out lie to us? The answer: we can’t.

This is not an argument to start lying, nor an argument to start hating. In fact, it is our duty to be more careful that what we say is true, and that how we say it betrays not the slightest hint of hatred towards the other side. But it is an argument that there is no common ground for us to meet the left upon. And, I think, we all know this – and have known it for a long time. Even on this little blog, we found over the years that we just couldn’t so much as discuss things with liberals, let alone hammer out some mutually acceptable course of action. Any time we got a liberal on here, the discussion would immediately be filled with falsehoods and invective from the left. Didn’t matter what the subject was, it always went that way (to be generous, some liberals spread lies out of ignorance – they might sincerely have thought their falsehoods true, but that still doesn’t change the fact that lies were being spread). This is because liberals hate us, and hold to a view which believes that a lie, if it is allegedly in the service of a greater good, is ok. As we are not liars and we believe that there are some things out of bounds no matter how allegedly worthy the desire, there is just no way to get together with such people. We’re oil and water.

We could endlessly discuss just why the liberals are like this – but it would be a bit pointless. Unless they decide to change, there’s nothing we can do about it. Other than oppose them with all our powers and, hopefully, eventually remove them from any position of influence or authority within our nation.

This won’t be quite a difficult as it might sound. While it appears that our liberals are ubiquitous, their real numbers are somewhere around a mere one in five Americans. They just appear very powerful because they own most of the societal megaphones – especially in the popular culture. But the real basis of their power is, ultimately, government – either directly or indirectly they live and die by government subsidy. Once we cut that out, they will whither and die. Governor Walker – intentionally or not – has shown the way in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has been a very reliably blue State for a long time – it was, after all, one of the States wherein the early 20th century Progressives had some of their greatest successes. But, lo and behold, Walker has won three times in the past four years…and the GOP strength in the State government has increased, to the point where even if Hillary wins in 2016, we might see that State going GOP at the Presidential level. What was the main thing Walker did? He went after the government unions – the primary mechanism whereby taxpayer money (ie, money which mostly belongs to centrists and conservatives) is funneled to liberals. Without that government money, the liberals were just unable to rule the political roost. Do this on a State-by-State level and the federal level, and you’ll see a collapse in liberal power: enough of a collapse, in my view, where we can over time completely rid ourselves of them (as an aside, another line of attack is on the student loan scam – this funnels mostly conservative and centrist money to colleges, almost all of which are completely owned by the left…I’d agree to an annulment of all college debts in return for a cancellation of the student loan program: it’d be worth it in the long run…imagine thousands of “studies” teachers and liberal apparatchiks in college Administrations suddenly out of work, and no longer able to funnel money to the left!).

But we can’t do this if we’re looking to “work across the aisle”. If we do that, we’re just allowing liberals to continue to force centrist and conservative America to fund them to our own detriment. Its not that we’re unwilling to compromise, but that we’re unwilling to commit suicide. Unless liberals change, we can’t work with them – and even if they announce a change, we can’t trust them because we know they lie about everything all the time. Our best course of action is just rigid opposition to whatever they propose combined with a forthright argument in favor of our own cause. Let the voters decide which way to go – but if they choose us, then let us go our way, right down the line. This is, after all, just what liberals do – you might recall the dearth of argument for compromise in late 2008 and early 2009. If liberals have the power, they do as they please; if they don’t have the power, they demand we do as they please. No more of that. If we win, we do our thing – if the people reject us at the next election, so be it. But I don’t think they will – no more than the people of Wisconsin rejected Walker. Most people, as I said, are centrists and conservatives and so a center-right governing philosophy will always command majority support as long as it implemented (when center-right governments start acting liberal, they lose).

We’ll see how the next two years go. I’m hopeful that even our more RINOish Congressional leaders have learned a bit of a lesson. The harsh invective and unconstitutional actions of Obama supported by Reid should have, it is hoped, opened a few eyes. These people on the left are serious – and they are hate filled and dishonest, into the bargain. Keep them at arms length and just keep on pushing a center-right agenda. Maybe we lose – and that is fine; at least we’ll have lost on principal. But I think we’ll win – and in 10 years, we just won’t have these liberals to deal with any longer…they’ll be out; out of government subsidies, out of power, out of any ability to use hatred and lies to advance their agenda. And that will be good for America – and good for them, as well: it might make them start to re-think their views.

25 thoughts on “We Just Can’t Work With Liberals

  1. Retired Spook November 13, 2014 / 8:37 am

    and hold to a view which believes that a lie, if it is allegedly in the service of a greater good, is ok.

    Sounds like another group we know that’s causing death and mayhem around the world.

  2. Cluster November 13, 2014 / 8:40 am

    Conservatives are now firmly in the majority across this country, with a young talented bench and now it is imperative that they focus on results and not the mindless progressives on the other side of the aisle. Who cares what they say or think anymore? They have proven themselves to be over emotional, hyper sensitive and completely incompetent on matters of governance. Conservatives need to focus on the difficult task of stopping the putting the brakes on the Obama agenda and implementing policies and reforms that put people back to work, secure the border, and reassert America’s power throughout the world. Congress needs to send Obama a series of common sense legislation and allow him to become the obstructionist.

    Last night, Christie Matthews was up to his usual antics. Praising Obama for his meaningless climate change agreement with China and ridiculing anyone that was a “science denier”. Liberals will cling to these tired and worn out tactics, but the majority of Americans are no longer listening, so let them flail in the wind on their manufactured issues while we focus on substance and constructive growth.

  3. Retired Spook November 13, 2014 / 9:07 am

    Maybe, just maybe if the Left paid a price for lying beyond just losses at the polls, future generations would be less inclined to use fraud and deceit to get their way. Wayne Allyn Root has some cogent thoughts on the subject.

    Now it’s time to make the people who committed fraud to sell Obamacare pay. I think life in prison is getting off easy for the pain and loss they’ve caused to more than 300 million American victims — and for committing the first trillion-dollar fraud in world history.

    • Amazona November 13, 2014 / 8:16 pm

      I have always felt that the lack of accountability in government has been the root cause of most of our problems.

      As an example: We were once audited by the IRS. We aced the audit, answered every question with proofs, receipts, and so on. There was not a single issue unresolved. I had organized every bill and receipt into a three ring binder, according to category, with photocopies of the fronts and backs of every check on the back of the photocopy of the bill or receipt. The originals were in a box, to be examined if the auditor wanted to see them. She was so impressed by the organization, she repeatedly thanked me for making her job so much easier, and when she left our tax attorney high-fived me. We were later informed that we had passed the audit,or however that is phrased. Then, a couple of months later, the auditor’s supervisor overturned her report. Our tax lawyer furnished the case law supporting the decision of the auditor, and the supervisor stuck to her guns.

      I finally said that our final position was that we were right, they were wrong, and we were so outraged by the attempt to get money out of us that we would take our chances in court, we would sell property if we had to to be able to fight it, but we WOULD fight it. When we proved to not be an easy target, the extortion effort—pay us or risk paying for a court battle and then having to pay us anyway—-went away. But it cost us many thousands in additional legal fees to get to that point. There was no penalty for the supervisor. She had complete freedom to simply choose, at random, taxpayers to harass and bully into settling bogus tax claims, with absolutely no cost to her in job reviews or anything else for being wrong.

      This is just one very very small example of what happens when people who cannot be fired, due to civil service laws, are given power but have no accountability for their mistakes, much less their misconduct. The problem just gets bigger as the office gets bigger and more powerful.

      Our elected officials have to give an oath of office. Do you know what the penalty is for violating the oath of office? There is none. It is an empty promise, with nothing to back it up but the integrity of the individual taking the oath—–and we have seen how well that works out.

      This lack of consequences seems to exist primarily in government. We, the people, are held to a different standard. We are not supposed to run red lights—-but if caught, there is a penalty. We are not supposed to steal, but if caught, there is a penalty. It is only in government that people can do whatever they want, with no consequence.

      OK, an elected official can be sent home at the next election, depending, as Gruber said, on the stupidity of the voter. (Take a look at our last presidential election for an example of how well that works.) But employees of the government can’t be fired, or at least have so many layers and levels of protection their jobs are as good as guaranteed, no matter what they do.

      But back to the oath of office. What would happen if we were to have a law that said violation of the oath of office shall result in removal from that office? It’s not a complicate oath—it pretty much boils down to following the law and defending the nation and the Constitution. Shouldn’t we have a guarantee from every single elected official that he or she will do these three things, or be removed from office? Is that really too much to ask?

  4. Retired Spook November 13, 2014 / 11:21 am

    One of the problems associated with defeating Liberalism is simply human nature. If we could recruit a team of incorruptible angels, it would be easy — well, easy until the Left figured out that they could paint that team of angels as a bunch of religious fanatics. In my adult life, the only 2 times America fully embraced Republican ideas were with Reagan in 1980 and ’84, and with the Contract with America in 1994. In both instances we still had divided legislative and executive branches except for a brief time under Reagan when the GOP controlled the Senate, and even then the Democrats still held the House. During the rest of my life, the GOP has always been the fall-back alternative when the majority of Americans got fed up with the Democrats. If we could get a core of GOP legislators and a Republican President for whom integrity and personal responsibility were over-riding principles, I think we could bring forth such a bright new day in America that it would be a cold day in Hell before the majority would want to take a chance on Progressives again. But I just don’t see that happening, certainly not in my lifetime, and certainly not as long as the agenda media is allowed to continually re-writing history to give Progressives re-do after re-do after re-do.

    • Cluster November 13, 2014 / 12:58 pm

      Conservatives have to think deeper if we are to prevent slipping back into liberalism, which always seems to happen. Conservatives need to immerse themselves into education and into the culture. Conservatives need more professors, more administrators and a larger presence on campuses. We also need more of a presence in entertainment – keep in mind, Faith based movies and books in the last year or two have been huge sellers.

  5. Retired Spook November 13, 2014 / 1:58 pm

    A caller to Rush just confirmed something I’ve been thinking ever since the first Jonathan Gruber video came out last week. Since there was zero Republican support for ObamaCare, the “stupid” Americans he’s referring to, without whom ObamaCare could never have been passed, are, by default, the very low information Democrat voters who put people like Obama and Gruber in positions of power. How’s that for spitting in the face of those who brought you to the dance?

    • Amazona November 13, 2014 / 8:21 pm

      He obviously believed that these people were too stupid to understand what he was saying about them.

      Let’s see how right he is.

      Personally, I think he felt comfortable in coming right out and admitting the truth because he has reason to believe those same sheeple will either not understand what he said, or are so stupid they will believe anyone who tells them they can’t trust their lying ears. I expect a response of “He didn’t say what he said, so just keep moving, folks, nothing to see here, but the line to attack conservatives for refusing to allow the Dem majority to vote in whatever they wanted is around the corner.”

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) November 15, 2014 / 8:48 am

      How’s that for spitting in the face of those who brought you to the dance?

      I don’t know — Democrats have been doing that to blacks for over a half a century, feeding them crumbs in exchange for their votes. That seems to have worked out pretty well for them.

  6. Amazona November 13, 2014 / 8:35 pm

    ” Do this on a State-by-State level and the federal level, and you’ll see a collapse in liberal power:”

    ….which is another argument for basing much of our opposition to Leftist politics not on Identity Politics, or issues but on simple concepts like state sovereignty. Not using that big bad scary word, but the CONCEPT of keeping more and more power and authority closer to home, where we have more control and oversight and can fix problems faster and easier than we can do at the federal level. Not just in fighting union power, but in voting on and administering pretty much every single entitlement program out there.

    I’ve only met one person who argued that all power should be at the federal level because everything “ought to” apply to everyone in the country, to be fair. Most people recognize the benefits of local control, from the economic savings of eliminating a federal agency which bleeds off a lot of money before it ever gets to the state to better understanding of the needs of the state by local administrators to more oversight to more ease of making necessary changes.

    Once people start to focus on that, the federal government is competing with the states for power instead of merely assuming the power that the states should have, and this is a really great start toward shifting the balance of power away from a massive, bloated, frighteningly powerful Central Authority.

    • M. Noonan November 13, 2014 / 11:55 pm

      I have met liberals who do believe that it should be the same everywhere – it has, after all, been a liberal desire since the mid-18th century…just can’t stand local variety, especially if that variety is created by hicks who just don’t know what’s good for ’em.

      This does dovetail into my desire that the GOP go into the blue areas and explain what we want to do…not talking in grand schemes, but just in pointing out to the people in a crappy, liberal-run city that the reason their schools suck is because liberals in the capital city and in DC have dictated that crap shall be the order of the day…meanwhile, we propose to put you, the local people, in charge. It can work. Heck, it has worked – quite stunningly in California just last Tuesday where a GOPer won a heavily Democrat, heavily-Latino district by just getting out there and talking to the people about how he, as a Congressman, will try go get the State and Uncle Sam off their backs…and in this heavily-Latino district he even talked up border security! All ya gotta do, as far as that goes, is explain that open borders means less for those already here; when you’re talking to people already struggling to make ends meet, telling them that if the other guys win, even more people will be here to divvy up resonates.

      • Amazona November 16, 2014 / 11:09 am

        “I have met liberals who do believe that it should be the same everywhere – it has, after all, been a liberal desire since the mid-18th century….”

        It’s been my observation that when a Lib wants “equality” he really wants to take some group down a notch—-usually those with more money——but he always wants the diminishing of resources or status to stop right before it gets to him. There seems to be the impression that this will make things more “fair”—-another favorite Lib theme. “Equality” and “fairness”—-only the very meanest of the Big Meanies (that is, Republicans) could object to these, right?

        But they seem to advocate for these things only in the abstract, and “equality” is a moving target. So someone who made millions in the dot-com boom is fine if he is a raving Lib, but someone who has worked his way up and generated billions of dollars in commerce, employing hundreds directly and thousands downstream in an ever-expanding web of jobs created to meet the needs of his own enterprises should be brought to heel. I have yet to see a Lib complain about the lavish lifestyles of athletes or rappers, but the idea of a car lift in the garage of the house being built by Mitt Romney had them howling at the moon. Having an idea and putting it into practice, at great personal risk and the expenditure of vast amounts of time and energy should not be rewarded, but the same Lib who takes a dump on a police car in the name of income equality has no problem with the millions in graft acquired by Harry Reid, who did no work but merely exploited what was a position of trust as an elected official.

        The same Lib who squeals about the “fairness” of open borders locks his house when he leaves, in spite of the fact that someone else might just “want a better home” and locks his car although many would wistfully love to “have a better ride”.

        I think most Libs believe they will be at the pivot point of change—-those above them will have less, those below them will have more, and “equality” will be achieved without them losing anything. But even then it will be a matter of “all people are equal but some are more equal than others” so the wealthy Lefties like Streisand and Sarandon can keep their millions, athletes can still show off their mansions on TV shows about their “cribs” and rappers can still buy million-dollar Maybachs to tool around in.

      • Cluster November 16, 2014 / 11:47 am

        Unless and until Democrats and Progressives can become honest brokers, I have zero regard for what they say or want to accomplish. They are provable liars on every issue; immigration, health care, foreign policy, the economy, etc.. They have straight up lied to America to advance their agenda on these issues, and therefore deserve no respect or audience. And I think America said as much last Tuesday.

      • dbschmidt November 17, 2014 / 9:38 pm

        Turn a Liberal / Progressive into an “honest broker.” The most fun I have had recently, as you see it in their eyes as the rusty cogs start to move in their brain housing units, is to toss a little nugget like “according to world-wide statistics–you are in the wealthiest 5%. What are you going to do to help them other 95%-ers?”

    • Cluster November 14, 2014 / 9:05 am

      Progressives prefer a central authority primarily because it is easier to elect a handful of people to positions with broad power than it is to elect a multitude of people to positions of limited power. Proving that they prefer the easier route of operating as a collective group rather than individually. A concept that is at the core of this current American struggle.

      • Amazona November 16, 2014 / 11:27 am

        “Progressives prefer a central authority primarily because it is easier to elect a handful of people to positions with broad power than it is to elect a multitude of people to positions of limited power. “

        I agree that this is the goal of the upper levels of Leftism, those who actually have a coherent political ideology, and that this is what motivates them as they engage in the lies and manipulations necessary to make it happen.

        But I am talking about the man in the street, the average Joe who has absolutely no coherent political philosophy, whose vote is for sale to any huckster who promises him movement on one of his pet issues, the doofus who has allowed himself to be convinced that there is some ominous, threatening, evil Other (Republicans, or Conservatives) that mustmustMUST be defeated because it represents greed and hate and RACISM and hates fairness and hates diversity and opposes equality and denies science and really should not even be allowed to exist. The people who actually have a political philosophy coherent enough to understand what you said, and pursue it, are not numerous enough to elect a mayor in a mid-sized American city.

        We shouldn’t even bother with them. They are hard-core ideologues and beyond reason. The tier below them is comprised of people like the trolls who used to pollute this blog—-just as hard-core, just as unreachable, but without any sense of the nature of the system they support with their hate and venom. They are not in the game because of ideology, they are playing because of their pathologies and the fact that the true ideologues have identified these pathologies and played to them, praising them and validating them and sending them out to harass and annoy.

        I contend that the vast majority of those who vote D in our elections do so not because of a true belief in a massive Central Authority with unlimited power, but because they have allowed themselves to be scared so spitless of this menacing and thoroughly distasteful Other that they are panicked into voting for the side that is not only committed to vanquishing the Other with one hand but holds out all sorts of goodies in the other—–promises of Equality and Fairness and Diversity, of international esteem, money and houses and cell phones, and a Get Out Of Racist Jail card for supporting a black president. I think many of these people, if approached in a way that bypasses all these emotional hot buttons but simply asks for consideration of the relative virtues of a federal government which is severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with most authority retained at the state and local levels vs. an infinitely expandable Central Authority with no restrictions on its power and very little state authority, would agree that most programs would be best authorized and administered closer to home.

  7. yourlifefulfillment November 13, 2014 / 10:25 pm


    I am incompatible with liberals. I will not be friends with a liberal, and I will never, ever seek to “agree to disagree”.

    We, the Conservatives, must now become activists. We must promote the simple plan of restoring our Constitutional Republic. I do not believe in being “nice”. We must out-do the liberals’ activism by at least a 10-to-1 ratio.

    We must be relentless in defending our Constitution. It’s the center of everything that we all hold dear.


    • M. Noonan November 13, 2014 / 11:57 pm

      As Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) puts it: punch back, twice as hard. I’ve only got one liberal on the internet that I can still tolerate, and he’s at least pro-life. All the rest I’ve had to disconnect from because I just got tired of being polite to irrational people…rather than start being rude right back at them, I just stopped paying them any mind.

      • Amazona November 16, 2014 / 11:38 am

        Is he a political Liberal or an issues Liberal?

        I think that is where we have to start. An issues Liberal can be a political conservative, a fact we have acknowledged in a clumsy backhanded way by inventing the terms “social-issues Liberal” and “economic Conservative”. So the process is, in a way, already begun.

        The thing is, the term “economic Conservative” is too vague and too imprecise. The whole economy of the country is controlled by the political model in place. I contend that the dichotomy of “social-issues Liberal” vs “economic Conservative” should be changed to incorporate the two real differences between the two models, the differences I constantly describe as the choice between a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power with most authority retained at the state and local levels vs an infinitely expandable Central Authority with very little power left to the states or to the people. As I point out, you can truly believe with all your heart that the word “marriage” has no intrinsic meaning and can and should be expanded to include same-sex couples, and still be a political conservative if you also believe the federal government has no legal role in this issue, that it is up to the people in any individual state to decide how they feel about it.

        Maybe you can ask your friend if he is a political Liberal or an issues Liberal. It is important, because the Big Tent Party has room for issues Liberals as long as they agree that the issues that drive them are not issues that can be decided or enforced at the federal level.

  8. Retired Spook November 14, 2014 / 9:46 am

    For 26 years the Left, in partnership with large foundations and environmental whackos, have spent billions of dollars, much of which was not even their own money, to push the agenda of man-made global warming/climate change. Yet today they are no closer to convincing the general population that it’s a serious problem than they were in 1988. Now one of the other lynch pins of Leftist thought, gun control, is achieving the same dubious status as climate change.

    In case it isn’t quite clear how Americans feel about the Obama administration’s gun policies, consider this: The National Rifle Association is touting the 2014 midterms as its best election in more than a decade.

    The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard pointed out this week that the NRA, based on numbers from the Sunlight Foundation, scored a 91.2 percent success rate with its midterm campaign spending.

    “Our members came out in droves and voted for their rights and their freedom,” Spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told Bedard.

    Overall, the NRA spent about $35 million on the elections; and 229 of the 251 of candidates it endorsed won.

    Anti-gun fanatic and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, meanwhile, spent about $20 million to promote candidates with gun control agendas who “got walloped,” according to Sunlight.

    I tell you, It just warms the cockles of my heart.

    • Amazona November 16, 2014 / 11:52 am

      Bloomberg also dumped a few million dollars into the Colorado effort to impose various aspects of gun control, which all passed. The thing is, the blowback was pretty strong. Two Dem statehouse people were dumped in a recall election, a third tucked tail and ran so Governor Hickenlooper could appoint another Dem who was not tainted by the vote, and if Bob Beaurprez had run a better campaign that focused more on Hick’s being controlled by Bloomberg and his complicity in getting these bills passed I think he would have gotten the votes he needed to beat the Looper. As it was, it was very very close, hardly a mandate for Hickenlooper, and the gun control efforts of the previous Colorado statehouse helped propel the Republicans to a new majority in that statehouse.

  9. Retired Spook November 14, 2014 / 6:53 pm

    Daily Caller has an excellent analysis of 2 of the Gruber videos. Talk about a nightmare for the Donks. Most of the MSM is finally starting to realize that they have to cover it, no matter how damaging it is. They have a choice of damaging Obama and an agenda they support or damaging their credibility, which is already lower than whale sh*t in the ocean, and losing even more readers and viewers than they already have.

    • M. Noonan November 15, 2014 / 2:57 pm

      They sure don’t want to cover it – and, heck, if Gruber had brought them in for a background conference in 2009 and carefully explained to the MSM just how he was going to lie go put this one over on the American people, they would have just nodded their heads and said, “good idea”.

  10. Tim November 15, 2014 / 1:22 am

    How to you self styled “liberals” feel about what Gruber has said about you. Stupid, lazy, ignorant, uniformed….the list probably will get longer in the future.

    Does that not rankle you feathers a bit? I mean you “liberals” usually proclaim how smart you are. Us wayciss, Bible thumpin, gun nuts, knew obarky-oromney care was a scam at the beginning. As James is want to say, you should “educate yourself” on how your betters actually think of you.

    LoLzer 😛

    • M. Noonan November 15, 2014 / 3:01 pm

      Ah, but our liberals all believe they are excluded from the ranks of Stupid-Americans. In their minds, the stupid people who need to be lied to were you and me – but here’s where we really see the obtuseness of the left: even with all the lies, a majority of Americans have always opposed ObamaCare. We never wanted this dog of a law. All the lies ever did was get liberals out there to repeat the lies…and said repetitions are now being joyously revived all over social media. All this “Gruber who?” stuff is immensely entertaining when someone on Twitter diligently digs up the “Gruber is the smartest guy, ever” stuff from the same liberals back in 2009.

      Here’s the final kicker: if these nimrods had just sat down with the GOP – as Obama promised he would – and hammered out a compromise giving the GOP 10%, they would have got this thru with a bi-partisan vote and opposition to it would have remained muted.

Comments are closed.