Love him or loathe him, but Fox News’s Sean Hannity recently had this to say about the repeated manipulation of the American media (emphases mine):
Obama acts as if his words are actual reality, and they mean nothing to him. And I’m going to tell you something — all you liberals out there, all you people in the media. I’m telling you, Obama in private is just laughing … at all of you because you are so dumb, so gullible, so easily manipulated. And all he has to do is tell you that there is a doughnut in the sky and you’ll report there’s a doughnut in the sky. And behind the scenes, he knows he is advancing his radical agenda and that you’re helping him do it. And he knows what fools you all are. And he knows that you have basically drunk the Kool-Aid and that you’re out there and you will say and do whatever he tells you to say and do.
Yes, it’s the same everywhere in the West.
However, I do hope that everyone who thinks they are above it all in following the media’s words then voting ‘their conscience’ for meaningless third parties — spoiler parties — thinks again, whether in the United States in November 2012 or elsewhere in future. How many times do you have to see conservatives — imperfect ones — lose because you essentially spoiled your ballot by voting for an unknown, unquantifiable nobody who cannot do and has no intention of doing anything for your nation?
Enjoy the gnostic political sophistication while it lasts.
It’s because of ‘sophisticated’ voters like this that conservative candidates lose elections. Funny, isn’t it, that the Left rarely criticise their man or woman?
As for the Left? Yes, they are laughing — at third-party folly.
7 comments
October 15, 2012 at 7:21 am
The dilemma of the right | Orphans of Liberty
[...] dilemma of the right October 15, 2012 1 CommentBy James HighamChurchmouse is a Tory churchman and I know where that’s at because I was both a Tory voter and a Church [...]
October 15, 2012 at 10:52 am
Woman on a Raft
How many times do you have to see conservatives — imperfect ones — lose
That’s up to them. The day they start behaving like Conservatives, they may start winning again. I cast my vote – as I am entitled and intended to – for the party which offers the best policies for the wellbeing of the country in my estimation.
You seem to be saying I should vote for someone who would be bad for the country when I believe there is a better option available, in order to stop the worst party getting in.
I think you should stop voting for a bad party and start voting for a better one, but that is your choice.
October 15, 2012 at 11:09 am
churchmouse
Thanks, WoR, for stopping by.
Every vote for a third party candidate helps the Democrats, Labour, Parti Socialiste, etc.
October 15, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Jay
With apologies, I’m not going to pretend I’m an expert at politics, because I’m not even remotely expert. And my honest-to-god feeling about politicians is that “anyone who would want to run for president (prime minister / leader of a country) is not someone you want running your country.”
This bias or rather this opinion I hold makes me incredibly suspect of all politicians’ motivations. I do not trust any of them. I mean that sincerely.
And in my view, I truly believe that the only way we’re ever going to fix our western democracies is by ensuring that no-one ever can be a career politician. In the case of US politics, you get one term as a senator or representative; you get one term as president or vice-president. You could also be a rep first, senator second, vice-president third, and president fourth, limiting the amount of corruption and damage you can possibly inflict to 16 years max. Although, ideally, that would never happen.
A similar construct could be worked out for the UK. You get one term as an MP, and each new term a new prime minister is chosen by the elected majority party (although it would be better, in my opinion, if people got to vote for the PM, but this is unlikely to happen given how politics work here).
Although I hold these views, I also know it’s an unworkable pipe dream; nothing like the above will ever happen, because those that are in public office now will never let it happen. And really, would we be any better or worse off if people were chosen to be leaders by random lottery (given some necessary criteria in order to be selected for said lottery).
I just cannot get worked up over any candidate, because I know deep down they will all screw us over, given the chance.
October 15, 2012 at 9:25 pm
churchmouse
Hi there, Jay — many thanks for your comment!
I agree with term limits — maybe two, though, as a maximum. One for some won’t be enough if a new administration has to undo the ‘work’ of the previous one. Any more than that — and nothing like the many terms that Ted Kennedy served as US Senator for Massachusetts — and people are largely sunk. (Apologies to Kennedy’s many admirers but he had been in office much too long.)
Agree that we should be able to vote directly for a PM and, although I have heard many arguments against it from sensible people, these arguments didn’t seem to make sense to me; maybe I understand the US system too well. The Americans seem to have a much more flexible voting ticket. You can split a vote for Democrats and Republicans; in some election years it is very useful.
As far as the US is concerned, this is really a crucial moment for them. Four more years of Obama will lead to something unimaginable in terms of left-wing politics. A lot of this is a leftover from the late 1960s — radicalism (the Democratic National Convention in 1968 and other events from then through the early 1970s).
The UK and much of the other European media have left this out of their presentations to the public on this side of the Atlantic. Hillary Clinton’s fan base had good reason to object to Obama: his campaign team’s intimidation of her delegates in the 2008 caucus votes. Furthermore, there was a sudden refusal to allow the counting of Hillary’s candidate’s votes at the Democratic National Convention in 2008. Good sportsmanship or just — well, some sort of backroom agreement between Hillary and Obama. Everything became shadowy and shady. It turned some of Hillary’s supporters off for good, not all against her personally (although that happened, too) but in a questioning of the direction of the Democrat Party. There’s a multi-part video on YouTube about Clinton delegates’ intimidation on the part of the Obama team.
All of this was exacerbated once Hillary became SOS and former President Bill was — and is — still going around campaigning for Obama, who might soon throw Hillary under the bus for the Benghazi affair and the deaths that resulted. No one really knows what happened that night on September 11, 2012. It will probably take ages for the truth to come out. It is certainly unlikely to be dry and dusted before the November elections.
I realise this is getting off-topic somewhat, but what I wrote is not only a) against the Democrats (anything but democratic, as they have radicalised their party with a community organiser meme since 2008 [e.g. Obama's 'Organizing for America', and he was mainly a community organiser in Chicago]) but also b) a warning to Republicans to stop chewing up and spitting out their own candidates. John McCain — despite American media bias — would have made a much better President than Obama.
There are many qualified minority candidates for President. Among conservatives, Col Allen West (Florida) and former SOS Condi Rice come to mind.
If change is going to come, it has to come within party ranks. History shows — at least in the US — that no third party ever won, even Teddy Roosevelt’s populist ‘Bull Moose’ Progressive Party which he ran under for re-election in 1912.
There was a huge populist movement a century ago with concerns not unlike those of the present day. Roosevelt, who included minority conservatives in his party ranks and addressed a wide range of public concerns, couldn’t even get that grand idea to work as am incumbent. This rump of Republicans effectively split the party, resulting in Woodrow Wilson’s resounding victory. And students of history will remember Wilson for … bringing in (the ever-increasing) federal income tax and the federal reserve banks which we read so much about today.
Apologies for the lengthy reply, but there is much more to this, at least in American history, than meets the eye.
If we transform ourselves personally (and spiritually, too), we will once again end up with the political candidates and statesmen we deserve. I enjoy reading your blog — another bright light in the online news/opinion sphere.
October 16, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Jay
Briefly, I tend to think that the most qualified leaders are those who are smart enough to avoid politics. I not so sure that I agree with the sentiment that we “deserve” any sort of statesmen. Perhaps this is the problem — we’ve grown accustomed to politicians, leaders and such that we are presently incapable of realising a society that can function without any sort of heads of State. Do we really need an omnipresent government to take care of every aspect of our lives and then some? I do not think we do, but clearly I have a minority opinion on this subject.
And thanks for the kind comment — I had no idea you’ve been at my blog. That’s very cool.
I’ve got a post in mind that I need to write, which covers a variety of things including politics, so I plan to link over here to yours. Might be another day or two. Stand by! 
October 16, 2012 at 4:06 pm
churchmouse
On ‘deserve’, I was referring to the old saying, ‘A country gets the leaders it deserves’. So, a corrupt or lax citizenry will get similar (awful) leadership.
I agree fully that we need minimal — certainly much less — government. I test just to the right of centre in the libertarian grid (see my About page). Like you, I’m fed up with omnipresent government. However, I think we still need a head of state and some representation (legislators) at various levels.
I’ve read every post of yours since you started. Really enjoy your site but haven’t commented. I have ‘liked’ some of the comments, though, and if you have (or had) it switched on ‘liked’ the posts very much — and still do. Thank you for having added me to your blogroll — greatly appreciated!
Shall look forward to tuning in again at your place soon!