Tag Archives: Chellie Pingree

The Bipartisan Love Train

Originally posted at American Thinker

Once again, an endeavor to manipulate public opinion is gaining momentum.  The effort is being initiated by Democrat Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) who, in the name of bipartisan unity, challenged Republicans to forfeit party identification and blur the clearly cut line between left and right by proposing a “symbolic gesture of unity.”
Senator Udall proposed that at the upcoming State of the Union address, House leaders shuffle the Democrat/Republican seating deck and, in a show of unified camaraderie, “head across the aisle.”

Following the shooting in Arizona, the right was accused of instigating the tragedy with uncivil discourse.  Now the left is employing the tactic of inviting Republicans to surrender clear-cut party delineation in an attempt to send a message that those they falsely accused of inspiring violence have agreed to join hands in an effort to reassure the nation that amity, not dissension, reigns.  Talk about a setup.

After a hard-fought and hard-won election where Republicans distinguished themselves as the antithesis to Barack Obama, his policies, and the direction in which the left wanted to take the country, it’s amazing that Udall’s request is gaining momentum on the right.

It’s just two months and two weeks after a rancorous election, and “two dozen members of Congress publicly endorse the idea” to share the peace pipe in full view of the entire nation during the State of the Union address?

Maybe Udall can also suggest ending the evening on a high note with a concord/conga line executed in time to “Love Train” by the O’Jays.

Now that the election is over, does the anchor of conservatism intend to forfeit core convictions to coalesce in unanimity with the morally relativistic flotsam and jetsam of politics called liberalism?  Moreover, if the right identifies with the political wreckage on the left, aren’t conservatives living out the very philosophy America elected them to refute?

Nevertheless, Udall’s office says several of his Senate Democratic colleagues are aboard that love train, some of whom include California Sen. Barbara Boxer, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, and Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman.
A few Democrats in the House also jumped aboard, including Chellie Pingree (D-ME), who, in an effort to distance herself from uncivil discourse, proposed expunging the word “killing” from the name of the “Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Act.”

On the right, the usual suspects — Snowe, Collins, and McCain — have already signed on, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) announced she is now “co-leader” of the plunk-down-in-a-seat-next-to-a-political-nemesis initiative.

Murkowski is of the opinion that when President Obama addresses a joint session, “[c]ongressional reaction to the president’s State of the Union address has increasingly come to symbolize the sharp partisan divide in Congress.  So we think a good first step towards greater civility would be for senators and congressmen, Republicans and Democrats, to sit together in the House chamber.”

Lukewarm legislators Snowe’s and Collins’ interests in Udall’s proposal are predictable, but what is Majority Leader Eric Cantor thinking, saying he’d be “happy to sit with any of his colleagues during the State of the Union address”?  So is the idea that if Cantor is lost in the crowd, look for lefty Sherrod Brown (D-OH)?

Do conservatives who support the proposal to play musical chairs with Democrats think that presenting animage where the nation cannot differentiate between the left and the right will somehow heal the crises liberals have inflicted on the nation?  Maybe Jim DeMint (R-SC) should remind his conservative colleagues that in addition to reading the Constitution, they should also read the Bible, which clearly states in Psalm 1: “Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked … or sit in the company of mockers.”

At least one House member has unwavering conviction and a backbone when it comes to “bad company corrupting the reputation of a political party.”  Unfortunately, that person is on the left.  Unlike Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) has not warmed up to Mr. Unison Udall’s idea and maintains that “[t]he president’s speech on economic rights for the American people should bring us together, not the seating chart.”

Republicans could learn a thing or two from Jesse Jackson, Jr. about refusing to compromise, even if only symbolically.  The seating at the State of the Union address, be it partisan or bipartisan, should hinge directly on liberals admitting to a wrongheaded philosophy that has saturated American society with lawlessness and godlessness and an ideology whose damage no amount of seat-shuffling could ever rectify.

In fact, prior to the State of the Union, the Republicans have a unique opportunity to get Democrats to agree to a few seating arrangement concessions.  To earn a seat next to Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Republicans could demand that Steny Hoyer (D-MD) start by admitting Democrat culpability for economic irresponsibility, progressive ideas rooted in socialism and communism, and personally participating in the demise of 60 million unborn children.  While he’s at it, as a representative of his party, Steny could also accept responsibility for undermining national security, bankrupting America, admitting to wrongly pushing health care down the throats of the resistant, destroying the American education system, and an obsession with political correctness to the detriment of American society.

Republicans are making a mistake if, in the name of peace, they choose to show bipartisan spirit by wearing the same jersey as the opposing team.  The public could interpret linking arms with the left as Republicans moderating their stance against much of what they claimed to reject during the campaign.

Furthermore, a conservative sitting next to an exuberant Democrat will accomplish the goal of the left by highlighting the right’s lack of bipartisanship, and it will do so while simultaneously emasculating a strong Republican identity.  Without uttering one word, every time a Democrat jumps to his or her feet, wildly clapping in agreement with what the president proposes or promotes, and a Republican remains sitting, the visual image will emphasize the right’s refusal to work together with an amicable party seeking only to further the greater good of the nation.

Pick-pocketing the Dead

In Tucson, Arizona, Democrat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was gravely injured in a horrific shooting that seriously injured 12 and killed six, including a nine year-old child. “Shocked and saddened lawmakers” are now grappling with the idea that “new laws and regulations are needed to curb incendiary speech.”

Although despondent and disgusted over the bloodbath, Americans should not be fooled. Compassionate concern from the left has little to do with protection for politicians and everything to do with reining in freedom of speech.  If inflammatory words – not politics – were the real issue, “Allahu Akbar” would be relegated along with “targeted…crosshairs…kill the bill…the ‘N’ word and Hawaiian Punch” to the no-no column of the vocabulary list. The last time I checked, the terrorist battle cry “Allahu Akbar” was not on that list.

It’s safe to say that it’s not beneath liberal logic to tie together fire/arson/shouting/panic and Rush Limbaugh if the result accomplishes the curtailing of First Amendment rights. Democrats would love to apply to unrelated circumstances the 1919 US Supreme Court case of Schenck v. United States where Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Using legislative duct tape, the left can seal the mouths of anyone who disagrees with liberalism and promote it as prevention of political violence ignited by the use of combustible words.

In 2007, a tow truck driver was convicted of stealing from a victim “in a double-fatal car crash.”  As the crumpled casualties lay in the road, Ronald Forget of Pawtucket, Massachusetts “took the wallet of one of the victims and used credit cards from the wallet to pay his cell phone bill and to buy gasoline.”

The truck driver’s actions, cold as they seem, are eerily similar to the response of liberal politicians and left-wing media types to the carnage brought about by the psychotic madman in Tucson, Arizona.   The left smells blood from miles away and will pull up alongside any convenient casualty.  In this case, liberals all but politically picked the pockets of the deceased in hopes of furthering a freedom-stifling agenda.

Granted, caution should be used when accusing anyone of heartlessly exploiting tragedy.  However, following the horrendous shooting, and based on the left’s ghoulish behavior, the only conclusion that seems reasonable is that the crisis provided a prime opening for liberal government bureaucrats to look for another excuse to further restrict the Constitutional rights and freedoms of US citizens, and to do it on the backs of those who suffered and died.

Based on public disapproval of healthcare reform and reeling from stinging defeat, Democrats came across a pileup in Arizona that has provided a liberal Thought Police scenario with the potential to justify a “warning against a return to [what they call] the divisive rhetoric of last year’s healthcare debate.”

Misfortune provided post-election Democrats the perfect storm.  The situation culminated in an impeccably timed critical mass, where politics, guns, conservatism, the healthcare reform debate, and the Tea Party could be directly tied to a massacre.  Rather than focus on truth, the left chose to manipulate terror to quash telltale condemnation of an out-of-control left-wing ideologue President, an ousted Congress, and a Democrat-controlled Senate hell-bent on placing a yoke of socialism on the back of a resistant nation.

After the fact, in a pseudo-display of false solidarity, the shooting is now being described as a “rare moment of unity on Capitol Hill.”  That is pure political spin. What transpired was the Democrat ambuscade hit pay dirt.  The left patiently laid in wait for an excuse to blame unrelated violence on “inflammatory rhetoric,” Fox News, conservative talk radio, and popular politicians, and in the process are using a self-righteous demeanor to chide anyone who dares disparage liberal/Democrat policies or politicians.

Rhetoric-reaction to the shooting has been so bizarre that Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree proposed expunging the word “killing” from the name of the “Repeal the Job-Killing Healthcare Law Act.”

Phantom Democrats are parsing words and pointing fingers at the innocent, making ridiculous statements such as Pingree saying “I’m not suggesting that the name of that one piece of legislation somehow led to the horror of this weekend — but is it really necessary to put the word ‘killing’ in the title of a major piece of legislation?”

Hey Chellie, do we really need the word “punch” in punch line? How about bullet proof, gun shy, slaphappy, choke hold, and shoot off your mouth?  The words kilt and kiln sound too much like “kill,” which poses a potential problem in a heated political environment. How about cutting the rug, loaded for bear or pipe down?

So far, despite the highly charged atmosphere surrounding the shootings, the left has yet to acknowledge the multitudinous examples of provocative language used by Democrats. For example, for twenty years, Barack Obama was mentored by a racist, anti-Semite, anti-American deranged preacher whose revolting rhetoric far exceeded use of the word “target,” or the metaphoric placement of benign symbols on a map.

There is still not one scintilla of evidence that the Arizona shooter was motivated by political rhetoric.  Nevertheless, even before the police and ambulance arrive the left continues to cruise the Arizona crash site by censuring crosshairs, touting the merits of the Fairness Doctrine, and blaming Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle for influencing a person who was unbalanced long before either woman showed up on the national scene.

So as Gabrielle Giffords heals and six innocent murder victims, including nine year-old Christina-Taylor Green, are laid to rest, it appears the left will continue to pick-pocket the dead by taking advantage of heartbreak, feigning righteous indignation over nothing more than hyperbole, and looking for obscure excuses to muzzle political opposition in the name of moderating incendiary rhetoric.

%d bloggers like this: