Thursday, April 26, 2007

The "New DemocratSpeak," Part II


In Part I of this thread, (here), I documented some of the many ways in which leading Democrats are employing their own version of "NewSpeak," straight out of George Orwell's "1984," to simultaneously disguise and advance their nefarious agenda to weaken America, and subvert our vital national security interests.

Yesterday, the Democratic National Committee's Nutjob-In-Chief, Howard Dean, took the leftists' loonbattery to an entirely new level.

When asked at the Mortgage Bankers Association conference what can be done about politicians who speak only in pre-digested, poll-tested sound bites, Dean reportedly responded with the folllowing (HT: Drudge):

"I suggest you have candidates in to meetings like this and bar the press,"Dean said.

The Democratic National Committee chairman criticized media coverage, arguing that networks such as CBS used to put content first and didn't mind losing money for the prestige of delivering a quality news report. [JQ.: I have a feeling CBS shareholders had a different opinion] Dean said the days of Walter Cronkite are gone and the corporatization of the media has led to a desire to boost profits.

"The media has been reduced to info-tainment," Dean said. "Info-tainment sells, the problem is they reach the lowest common denominator instead of forcing a little education down our throats, which we are probably in need of from time to time."

"Politicians are incredibly careful not to say anything if they can possibly help it, except if it is exactly scripted. And if you want to hear anybody's true views, you cannot do it in the same room as the press," Dean said.

"If you want to hear the truth from them, you have to exclude the press."

Let's see if we have this straight:

For the American people to hear (the/Dean's) "truth," the medium that is dedicated to documenting that "truth" and disseminating it to the American people --- the news media --- must be barred from entering the room in which that "truth" is espoused and debated. Because if our actual and aspiring public servants, and those who advise them, had to face cameras and microphones, why, then, they couldn't tell "the truth."

Tylenol, anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

Maxwell Smart and the "Cone of Silence"

Following this "thinking" to its logical conclusion, why have elections at all? I mean, if all we're going to hear are sound-bite politics, and thus are separated from the "truth" that a rational citizen would rely upon to cast an informed vote, then why not just coronate Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the subvert-America leftist loonbat brigade as our perpetual leaders, and be done with it?

Newsflash, Chairman Dean:

Yesterday, USA Today published an important editorial(here)which described some of the non-military threats to our national security, if not our very survival as a free country: The cultural and financial train wreck that is rushing our way if we do not fundamentally reform our welfare-state programs (I would argue that they need to be killed off altogether, but we'll save that for another thread).

How are we going to address, let alone solve, this impending catastrophe? Oh, right: After generations of Americans have been indoctrinated by Dean-like propagandists to turn to the state for whatever they need or feel they are "entitled to," now we are essentially being asked to "trust" that the very politicians and political institutions that created this catastrophe will solve it, if only we'd lock them away in a hermetically-sealed room. And, of course, to trust that whatever "solution" they arrive at will actually solve the problem, and not be talking points to merely get them through the next election.

The 2008 presidential elections are still 19 months away. There's still time to deep-six the "New DemocratSpeak," Chairman Dean, and start being up-front and honest with the American people.

Even --- especially --- in front of the news media's cameras and microphones.




10 seconds that illustrate Dean's lunatic point, in a way that nothing else can --- HERE. In this brief slice of time, the list of even marginally credible Democratic candidates for president just got a looooottttt shorter.

Keep those cameras rolling!

I'll make the popcorn, as the remaining contenders tear each other to shreds over which will commit to raising a white flag over the White House the fastest.


Well, who could have possibly anticipated that Mrs. Bill Clinton would ever stoop to being a shameless political chameleon, let alone twice in one week? Me, for one.

Issue 1: Hillary uses a shameless, manufactured Aunt Jemima/Mammy drawl (listen here) to appeal to a black southern audience. Then consider the following purely loonbatted explanation, here, about how America could benefit from a "multi-lingual" president. (Hint: We already have one) Racism, anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

Issue 2: Hillary metamorphosizes from a poll-appeasing dove, to impersonating a tough, Iran-threatening hawk, in a matter of hours. Why? Because she was speaking to a Jewish audience. Read the whole sordid mess here.
Thinking readers (this excludes you, HuffPosters and DailyKossaks), I ask: What makes her act like this, thinking she can get away with this kind of psychiatric-hospital schizophrenic behavior? Could it have something to do with the fact that over the past 15 years, her fawning worshippers in the MSM and the entertainment industry will go to any length to cover for her and deflect criticism against her, no matter what?

Naw, I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the cloak of immunity she believes she's wrapped in.

Hm, what are those goopy stains on that cloak? Ummm... let's not go there...



Come with me now on a little journey through time:

January 26, 2007: Harry Reid votes with a unanimous Senate to confirm General David Petraeus as new top commander in Iraq, and for him to pursue a new strategy for victory, here. Then, less than 90 days later...

April 19, 2007: Harry Reid declares that "the war in Iraq is lost,"

April 24, 2007: Nancy Pelosi refuses to attend briefing by General Petraeus,

April 24, 2007: Harry Reid says he won't believe a word that General Petraeus says re the situation or progress in Iraq, here.

April 26, 2007: Senate joins House in narrowly approving bill to de-fund war in Iraq, also known on JonQuixoteWorld as the "Democratic Pork and Military Surrender Bill of 2007," which they know President Bush is going to veto, here.

April 26, 2007: Extended discussion with General Petraeus on Charlie Rose, in which he discusses the present and anticipated future progress in Iraq,


Keep those cameras rolling...

On the bright side, it's only a matter of time before the American people begin to truly realize just how badly the Democrats are betraying our nation, its vital interests, and our soldiers.

Heck, even a leading Democrat is already starting to say that,
(Whoops, almost forgot: The Democrats threw him under the bus as soon as he began to break away from their militant, America-subverting groupthink)

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to



Anonymous said...


Excellent points. Once again, we see the Democrats telling us exactly what they think:

1. We are far too stupid to run the country without them.
2. The Democratic leadership has no plan, no values, and no stomach for leadership.

Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him?

Well done.

Andy W.

JonQuixote said...


Thanks, Andy. Coming from you that means a lot.

To me, though, the problem is that they are so Hollywood-ized, they have become so fluent in coloring their language, concealing their true agenda (aside from when a moron like Reid says we've lost the war), that no one can actually identify what exactly it is they are for.

It's all like a thick fog soup; it's kind of there, you sort of sense something, and when you get a grasp of it, they'll scream, "Oh, but we didn't mean THAT... don't be such a reactionary extremist!!!"

But this is what we've been reduced to.