You know, it's one thing to disagree about policy, but why is it
liberals not only have to go way overboard with their rhetoric, but
also make up the most outlandish lies, to sell you on their point of
view?

This is the Democrats' stock-in-trade: Republicans are not only wrong, they're stingy, stupid, mean and evil.

I was about to make a Clinton analogy here, regarding discussing troop deployments on the phone, but I'm going to take the high road and pass it up.

"It's as if they suddenly discovered a new trick in the media playbook, and they're going to keep using it until it doesn't work anymore."

I don't really consider this "new." The dems have been demonizing the opposition since at least the time of Reagan. And the hypocrisy of not "respecting the office," as they insisted be done during the Clinton dictatorship (whoops, did I really say that?), surprises me not one whit.

And the media's treatment, while completely shameful and TOTALLY BIASED, is no real surprise either. Maddening, but not surprising.

It's as if they suddenly discovered a new trick in the media playbook, and they're going to keep using it until it doesn't work anymore.

Hey, KC, this is only a brief intensification of a long running strategy that needs to be brought more into the light.  That is where the "new media" and peripheral groups come into play to combat the strategies of the "hard" left.  David Horowitz has a lot of info on the connections of the radical elements that appear to be attempting a takeover of congress.  Stark is just one more stooge in the process.  Check this cut and paste job out, from Frontpage Magazine, Discover the Networks.org: A Guide to the Political Left.  There is a booklet there by James H. Hansen, that is invaluable for it's revealing the connections between many of the individuals involved in the "hard" left tilt that appears to be happening with more intensity at the moment.  (if the editors wish to cut this out, i.e. too much space, that's OK with me.  I had trouble editing it down to what I've got here!)  From the booklet "RADICAL ROAD MAPS: Uncovering the Web of Connections Among Far-Left Groups in America":

"The old institutions of Soviet power included the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and its leadership organizations, the Politburo and Central Committee. The former Committee for State Security (KGB)—the “action arm” of the party that carried out its directives—was supplanted by the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). The party institutions have been gone since 1991, but their legacies live on in the form of the techniques and tactics that they developed and perfected.  Some of the radical groups discussed here practice those same techniques and tactics or variations of them adapted to the present day...

THE LONG MARCH THROUGH THE INSTITUTIONS
This term refers to the long-term plan of Communists, radicals, and their supporters to work their way into vital establishments that shape opinions...Liberals and radicals have captured academia to a far greater extent than any of the other institutions. This control exceeds even that of their influence over the print and broadcast media.  Some former members of the Weather Underground Organization (WUO, or Weathermen) now occupy positions of authority on major campuses. Former domestic terrorists such as Bernardine Dohrn (Northwestern University) or Bill Ayers (University of Illinois at Chicago) come to mind. Besides them, there are thousands of other former activists, radicals, and far leftists who have risen to prominent positions within academia...The “march” began long before many people think, and the leftwing takeover of American universities is not a new story. As early as the 1930s Irving Kristol recalled that City College of New York (CCNY) was so radical that “if there were any Republicans at City—and there must have been some—I never met them, or even heard of their existence.”...there is an organic connection between the political bias of the university and that of the press. “It was not until journalists became routinely trained in university schools of journalism that mainstream media began to mirror the perspectives of the adversary culture"...

But it has not ended with academe.  Academe trains journalists, lawyers and lawmakers.  One thing leads to another and the grand prize is the takeover of the reigns of power without a shot being fired.  Cooking the frog slowly:

...Political groups such as MoveOn and PFAW are
headed by lawyers, and lawyers are numbered among the most notorious, vociferous, and self-important of all the Far-Left radicals: Ramsey Clark, Mark Lane, and Lynne Stewart, to name a few.  In 1946 a group of plaintiffs’ lawyers involved in workers’ compensation litigation founded the National Association of Claimants’ Compensation Attorneys (NACCA). They were devoted to securing strong representation for victims of industrial accidents, and the group soon attracted admiralty, railroad, and personal-injury lawyers. The organization soon included lawyers from all facets of trial advocacy. This group was renamed the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) in 1972.  With its current headquarters in Washington, ATLA describes itself as a
“broad-based international coalition of attorneys, law professors, paralegals, and law students.”24 ATLA is the world’s largest trial bar, with more than fifty-six thousand members worldwide. It has a network of American and Canadian affiliates involved in diverse areas of trial advocacy.  ATLA is heavily Democratic. To illustrate its stance, in 2004 the Kerry-Edwards campaign put in place six thousand lawyers—most of whom were from ATLA—to tap every legal gimmick and Democratappointed judge in the United States to challenge and attempt to overturn the election if President Bush on reelection...

Radicals from the Far Left have infiltrated all U.S. institutions to one degree or another, but the influence of radical groups is most telling in the U.S. Congress...Ron Dellums (D-CA) was perhaps the greatest champion of radical groups to appear in Congress during the last half of the twentieth century. He endorsed the Black Panthers, addressed the World Peace Council meeting in 1970, and supported the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) (my emphasis) in a number of ways. Dellums served from 1971 to 1999...During this era there was also a group in the Senate called the Members
of Congress for Peace Through Law (MCPL). Among others, they
included Senators George McGovern (D-SD), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Walter Mondale (D-MN), and Philip Hart (D-MI).
It is also illuminating to see which congressmen have been backers
of the IPS over the years. In the 1970s and 1980s its staunchest supporters in the House were George Miller (D-CA), Don Edwards (D-CA), Ted Weiss (D-NY), and the ever-present John Conyers. On the Senate side, Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Mark Hatfield (D-OR), and John Kerry (D-MA) were dedicated partisans of the IPS...It is not always easy to tell where party loyalties fall. One example is that several members of Congress are also members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). These include Major Owens (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Danny Davis (D-IL, who has been rumored to be a DSA member). Former Congressman Ron Dellums is also a DSA member. In any event, nearly all of the Democrats named below belong to the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. A key question is to what extent this wing has spread its influence and values to the rest of the Democratic Party.
HOW FAR TO THE LEFT?
The Progressive Caucus is made up of the most Far-Left members of Congress and best represents the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. This group shares a common belief in the “principles of social and economic justice, non-discrimination, and tolerance in America and in our relationships with other countries.” Specifically this group supports curbs on defense spending; it seeks a more progressive tax system that soaks the rich; and it is for social programs that are designed “to extend help to low and middle-income Americans in need.” The Progressive Caucus
has long been allied with the Democratic Socialists of America.  As of 2003, there were some fifty-four members, of whom eight were officers.  The current heads are Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee. (There is no recent data for the 109th Congress, which meets from 2005 to 2006.)...
CONGRESSIONAL AIDES AND STAFF
There are only 100 senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives.  Yet the population of Capitol Hill is about 25,000 persons.  According to data from 1993, a typical House member had 22 personal assistants, and a typical senator had 42. Currently some senators have a staff of 70 or more. This presents unlimited opportunities for ambitious people to be close to lawmakers, to help with their workload, and to influence them in a number of ways..."

Is it any wonder that it is easy to tell that these guys are often spouting lines that they have been spoon fed by sycophantic, manipulating aides?  That they really don't have a clue what is in the bills they are espousing?

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com

Looking for an old comment thread?

The MSM is brilliant at pandering to beggars.

Look at Wahhabism.  The religious leaders have the purposely uneducated masses convinced the world's wealth is finite and their poverty is the result of America's gluttony.

The MSM and the Liberal manipulators tells the same story to a similarly ignorant audience.

~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~

Better yet on a punching bag.

Yeah, right after Ted Kennedy actually drives a girl over a bridge without deciding to go for a swim. Or, with him now, a float.

Republicans oust and denounce their scandalous people. Democrats embrace theirs.

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?

nofate...

Bingo!