Liberal Outrage Is All About Getting Votes

© 2017 Steve Feinstein. All rights reserved.

The Vegas shooting has brought the topic of gun control front and center once again. Within mere hours after the event took place, countless liberal politicians and celebrities were prattling on in their best sanctimoniously outraged voices about the evil of guns and the need for more gun control laws. We need to do “something,” they said. Disgraced former NBC anchorperson Tom Brokaw said, “It’s time for a national dialogue on guns,” and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel opined that the “GOP should be praying to G-d for forgiveness” (at the 4:59 mark) for basing their national policy on the wants and needs of the NRA.

There were lots of vague statements from these same liberal sources about the U.S. having more mass shootings than other countries, with the thinly-veiled implication that they are all the fault of white male conservatives. (Historical facts need not apply. Disregard the Asian Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, or the Muslim shooters at Fort Hood [Nidal Hasan], San Bernardino [Syed Rizwan Farook] or the Orlando nightclub [Omar Mateen]. We have a political narrative to put forth here and we’re not about to let any random facts stand in our way.)

There is also widespread liberal praise for the gun buy-back programs that have supposedly been effected in Britain and Australia. The lower proportional numbers of mass gun violence in these countries is presented by the anti-gun lobby as an evidentiary component of the value of having an unarmed civil populace. It’s a risibly-simplistic, unprovable causality, but it’s unquestionably a convenient statistic for them, to be sure.

No one—absolutely no one—is saying or implying that any normal, rational person doesn’t and shouldn’t feel genuine sorrow and compassion for the victims of gun violence. But…as Rahm Emanuel once said in his early days in the Obama administration, “[Liberals should] Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Indeed, they never do. The entire liberal community—the liberal mainstream media, politicians and celebrities—has been quick to paint this as just the latest in a string of disastrous shootings brought about by conservatives’ unwarranted, blind, inhumane support of the NRA-led gun-owner’s lobby. The liberal message is clear: Don’t vote for them! Conservatives support policies that kill your children.

When pressed for details to define the “something” that must be done, liberal pundits and politicians come up heavy on clichéd platitudes but very short on specifics. Private ownership of fully automatic weapons is illegal, as is the conversion of a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic version. So, the weapons that the Vegas gunman used were already illegal. A new law would not have prevented Stephen Paddock’s action. He was not on any Federal, State or Local watchlist or database. He had no history of mental illness nor any noteworthy criminal background or prior convictions. He had no known association with terror groups, nor any documented travel to terror hotspots. Paddock didn’t espouse allegiance or belong to any extremist organizations. There were no missed red flags. His inner thoughts are apparently to blame, and it doesn’t appear that there is a specific law or pre-emptive action that is opposed by conservatives that could have prevented it.

So what, specifically, should be done? Liberals usually only say “something,” but then they cover up their lack of specific proposals by implying that conservatives are fine with occasional mass shootings, because they (conservatives) consider such shootings to be the “price of freedom.” Yet when asked to recommend actual new laws and policies that would have prevented this—or any other—mass shooting and to specify how the new law would have done so, liberals get often just get mad at the questioner and resort to the “something” line. Or is it the “now’s the time” line? Or the “we’ve had enough” line?

Nonetheless, while the entire country mourns the senseless loss of life and is justifiably angered by the heinous actions of a madman, half the country—the liberal half—is concurrently scheming and strategizing to co-opt a national tragedy and turn it into political advantage by explicitly blaming conservatives for creating the circumstances and conditions that enabled the event to take place.

Brokaw, Kimmel, Chuck Todd, Hillary, Bernie, Chris Matthews, Chris Cuomo, Whoopie, Ellen. All the usual liberal talking heads are seemingly more concerned with pinning fault on conservatives—thus rendering them unworthy of election by any intelligent, lucid, humane individual—then they are understanding the motives and reasons for the crime itself.

This is yet another example of liberals’ mastery of media manipulation when it comes to influencing public opinion. It may be distasteful to attempt to ply a domestic tragedy into tactical political leverage, but the liberal side knows its strengths. They know they’ll be afforded cover by the mainstream media when they use a grievous national heartbreak and attempt to court naked political advantage.

It may not work. Many people will be repulsed by liberals taking blatant advantage of an appalling occurrence. But in some instances, with some people, it will work. Liberals are gambling they’ll win more supporters by blaming conservatives than they’ll lose from appearing crass and distasteful. For liberals, it’s always about the votes.



Entertaining stroll back around the 2012 track.

This piece – Promise vs. Reality in Newark on Mayor’s Watch – is worth your time today. And if you’ve ever wondered if the NYT was capable of shredding a liberal, wonder no more.

Protests in the general vicinity of presidential campaigns are nothing new. Some are genuine – made up of people with a legitimate beef with the candidate. Many are ginned up by the opposing camp in hopes of embarrassing the candidate with a barrage of questions designed to throw said candidate off message an hopefully make the evening news or at least a memorable YouTube moment.

Then you have “one of the most sizable shows of force from protestors seen on the campaign trail in weeks” which organically grew outside Mitt Romney’s Sunday fundraiser held in the Hamptons. One would think such a “sizable show of force” would consist of at thousands of angry protestors waving signs, yelling obscenities, and chanting something that rhymes with “one-two-three four”.

Ok. Maybe not a crowd of thousands. It was, after all, a holiday weekend. Even protestors take holidays, right? Then at least a few hundred die-hard activists? Surely that’s the threshold for a “sizable show of force”? Perhaps a hundred?
Read more

Rick Santorum has come out with an endorsement of Barack Obama, if the other choice is Mitt Romney. Is this the beginning of the end? Are the campaign pressures getting to Rick or is he right?

The Emergency Committee for Israel has released a trailer for the soon to be released 30 minutes video: Daylight: The Story of Obama and Israel.

According to Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy, The Washington Post) the video “cuts together clips of Obama quotes and outside commentary to put forth the narrative that Obama has made statements and taken actions as president that have put him out of step with the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his supporters.”

Will this deepen the crack in Obama’s DNC-Jewish voter alliance?

Apologies for the odd audio problems.

ABC’s Brian Ross spoke to the Morning Majority about his interview with Newt Gingrich’s second ex-wife. Ross told WMAL Marianne defended Gingrich against the controversies that defined his tenure as Speaker of the House. The interview will air on “Nightline” tonight.


Newt’s PAC has released their Romney hit piece: “When Mitt Romney Came To Town.” Will it be Armageddon? Or is this just more political back in forth?

A kinder, gentler Newt?

Herman Cain should have released this video back when he was in first place in most polls. It is a great, simple explanation of 9-9-9. Well, other than when the narrator mentioned the “marginal cost of production”.

Call me crazy, but maybe Cain should have had his team focusing on explaining his hallmark 9-9-9 in a video like this rather than recording Mark Block smoking.

Cain supporters will cry bias, but clearly this clip deserves its own post. PD would love to hear from Cainiacs spin this.

On Monday, Herman Cain made light of the most recent harassment allegations against him on the Jimmy Kimmel Show. I’m pretty sure this tact does not adhere to the Karl Rove School of Crisis Management. Cain doesn’t have the appearance of a defeated man. Didn’t he get the memo?

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Ron Paul isn’t quite as effective in this ad as he is in this video, but let’s rate this ad regardless.

Also, did you catch who speaks at 0:36?