Now that Barrack Obama has returned from his victory lap which happened to take him around the world, where he has a considerably higher approval rating than 51%, one thing is certain to last past this campaign is the bitter discord sown by such an abjectly negative campaign. The domestic distrust and loathing of Obama is quite the reverse in the wider world. After all, why wouldn't some nascent despot like Morsi of Egypt enjoy Obama when it leads to a check and more power? Barack Obama may have soundly alienated almost half the country, but division is seen as a good thing by this president and these Democrats. A riven America is seen by the left as easier to distract and control. So control is key, but it can only be done through the Liberal Media Complex, now that the campaign ads have vanished.
I must dine on some crow here. I felt Romney would win and the Liberal Media Complex would be sundered. No such luck. The LMC is now preening like peacock. In their minds, they feel they are responsible for getting Obama across the finish line. In truth, I think they're right. Albert Kesselring, Erwin Rommel's commander in North Africa used think that the Desert Fox's myth, legend, propaganda etc . . . was worth at least two good panzer divisions. There weren't too many other reasons propaganda minister Goebbels lent him a cameraman as a permanent member of his staff during his time in the Afrika Korps. Using this admittedly rough calculation, if the LMC added at least two to three percent to Obama's vote total, then subtracting that would just put Romney ahead of Obama in total votes. If you pull that 1-2 million votes from Obama's total in close states like Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire etc . . . then Romney wins.
I don't want to go down the trail of what ifs' because I think for America, now, there are much bigger issues in the domain of political discourse. The LMC has tremendous power and they used it to secure the outcome they wanted. As an added benefit of fighting the battle against the right, they have a whole set of propaganda weapons for the next four years.
In a radio interview, long before the 2012 campaign, Barack Obama said the goal is to "reward our friends" and "punish our enemies." Because of Solyndra and other boondoggles, we know how the Obama folks are rewarding and will be rewarding their friends. One can almost here the cry, "Government cash for all my friends!" However, more pertinent now is the other side of the coin. Punishing one's enemies reached a crescendo during the recent campaign and looks to continue for the rest of Barack Obama's term as president. The evil rich who won't pay their "fair" share (though Democrats seem always to have shifting definition of fair) has been around for some time.
It first started with Occupy Wall Street. Cleverly started a year before the actual campaign, it was the media created antidote to the Tea Party. The arrests, the Marxism, drugs, vandalism, Anarchism and the smell were all neatly repackaged by the LMC as a viable, reasonable, critique of America that had merit. Also it attacked the underlying premise of capitalism, that some earn more than others. When some asserted the right to make more than others, they were attacked as elitist, arrogant and greedy. The cry of fairness was howled, but specifics were scarce. How dare those people earn more than other members of the community? Where's a community organizer when you need one? As it happened, the President was more than happy to say he "sympathized" with the astro turf rabble. This Marxist backdrop paid dividends during the campaign as Romney was constantly hammered as an elitist, arrogant, greedy member of Bain Captial, which was portrayed in ads as a financial descendant of the SS, laying waste to whole towns and killing people by annihilating local companies.
Today and for the rest of Barrack Obama's term, we will have the war on capitalism. Right now there's a debate about raising taxes on the wealthy. But who's rich? Derek Jeter pulling in $25 million a year. That's wealthy. Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle buying a Hawaiian island. That's wealthy. But that's only an extremely small portion of America, so the definition must be broadened to folks, who don't have private jets or second homes etc. . . Still, punishing anyone with a relative modest amount money helps move the ball toward the Marxist goal. As the father of the Tea Party, Rick Santelli remarked "Everything is political now." Wealth, capital, money whatever you call it has been politicized in an extremely damaging fashion. There is no telling where this will stop, nor how far it will go. Anyway, the LMC has a story of those evil rich people and that is all that matters. The goodness of sharing/Marxism is touted to lead to societal nirvana. That is, at least, until the government needs more money to keep the absurd welfare state afloat, which will be probably in February or March when the debt ceiling is pierced.
Second stop on this tour of the Democrat media arsenal has to be the "war on women." It's opening salvo was delivered by Clinton flack George Staphanoupolous against Mitt Romney during a Republican debate in New Hampshire. The topic was banning contraception and that puzzled Romney, who couldn't fathom the reason for the question. He and America would soon find out. Weeks later, on the scene arrived the flagrantly fabricated Sandra Fluke. The Georgetown law student claimed her sex life would leave her destitute without government funded contraception. A faux congressional hearing, a comforting call from the president, and, of course, huffy-puffy indignant Democrats completed a media tableau that had televised hairdos wringing their hands at the plight of this poor every woman. So a crusade was launched. Suitable male targets were identified. After all, a "war" has to have an enemy. As inevitable Hollywood lovelies showed up, the issue of contraception was dwarfed by the "control of our bodies" theme. Hot bodies can get steamed when some evil right winger wants seize control of their bodies. What escaped these vapid vamps was that Obamacare was and is the biggest grab for "control of our bodies" ever; not some guy on the radio making sex jokes or some fumbling old pol in a debate. Obamacare rips decisions of care away from doctors and patients, shreds the freedom of religion and staggers the balance sheet of a nation teetering on the brink of insolvency. However, to the LMC, the cartoon villains have been found and they are Men! Any criticism of any female in public life now brings the LMC back to the "war on women." See Paula Broadwell or even Susan Rice on this recently. Expect this attack to be around forever or, at least, until another slick Democrat President gets caught with a panting intern in the White House again and the LMC can't hide the fact that the Democrats have their fair share of misogynists.
The third ginned up lambaste would be white racism. I doubt I have to explain this one further. Obama gives his cue usually a marginally subtle quip with "people like me." Then the slobbering zombies of MSNBC commence babbling about codes, dog whistles, Area 51 etc . . . All assertions put forth are usually unprovable, but we should just trust them anyway. This offensive helped Obama throughout his first term for attack and distraction. In the recent campaign, it yielded fresh dividends as the scope of white racism was expanded to include Hispanics by plugging in the immigration issue. Only the government can force whites to stop discriminating was a line that was just below arguments for equal pay, health care and education. This back to the sixties theme was rehashed over and over, though most of the racial ills of the sixties are gone.
When the Democrats spoke of Republicans turning back the clock to the 1950's, it wasn't about Ozzie and Harriet suburban nostalgia. The 1950's is now seen as evil in all senses because it was seen as the last decade of the white slave state. Nobody can or should defend slavery or defacto slavery, but it's curious to see Obama take such a high and mighty stand on such an issue and go to Saudi Arabia and grovel before princes who enslave half their population. I guess it all depends if the issue benefits you politically. According to that slobbering sage of MSNBC Chris Mathews even something completely horrific like Hurricane Sandy can be "good." Over a hundred people can die, lives and businesses ruined, billions of dollars lost and this is "good" because this helped Obama get reelected. So slavery can be bad for us, but good for them. Then we simply go along with Saudi slavery because it's "good" for us. Obama and the left think they can use the LMC to cover up any glaring inconsistency anyway. I don't it's good in the short term or the long term. A moral compass that is never fixed can offer no guidance as it swings wildly from one position to its' polar opposite. This is why the Obama foreign policy seems so slapdash, but it goes deeper.
When you see people as objects to be coddled or squashed on your own whims, this smacks of sadism since friends and enemies are completely interchangeable. Alternately, the friends are whipped and enemies coddled. So the obliteration of the Jersey Shore is celebrated as "good" and the Saudi female en slavers are lauded. Vladimir Putin is schmoozed and Aun Sung Su Ky flipped off. If it's just about the exercise of power over someone, then it matters little who is being crushed good or bad.
There is a soullessness about Barack Obama. Sometimes, he seems like a sadistic little boy squeezing the paw of a kitten named America until it yells. You can't tell me someone who sows such bitter division really cares for this country. After all, what is the grand goal of Obama in a second term. There is none. What were all these vicious attacks for? Everybody I know, Democrat and Republican are heartily sick of the negative attacks. I can't see them being that effective going forward, but if Obama and his allies are political sadists, how could they change? Of course, Obama and the Liberal Media Complex are supremely confident they can use these sadistic tools and come away unscathed. I'm not so sure. Can a man swim in a sea of sadism and step out of it good?
On a larger scale, if all you want to do is "punish your enemies" on a national level, what does that produce in the nation as a whole? Stripping away the soul of a country and inserting a sadistic core can only lead to disaster. Remember that De Sade was a product of the French Revolution, which led to a national bloodbath and then to Napoleon who set the the entire continent on fire for the next two decades. A soulless nation can collapse on itself, consume itself or it can fling itself like a plague on the rest of the world or it could do both like France. Time will tell which way this nation goes.