As most everyone remembers, one of the signature moments during the 2008 presidential campaign happened when Michele Obama uttered the now-famous line, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.” Change, of course, was the primary slogan for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign.
Well, I now likewise have a signature moment for myself: for the first time in my lifetime, I’m somewhat proud – not “really proud”, because we certainly shouldn’t get rash here – of Arlen Specter, because he actually displayed a singular moment of integrity and common sense on, of all places, MSNBC, or what might be more aptly termed “MSDNC.”
We all know about Arlen Specter, of course, the Pennsylvania senator who apparently experienced a damn-near miracle-level epiphany almost immediately following the 2008 elections, as he suddenly saw the “evil ways” of his brethren in the Republican Party and switched party affiliations. It was “purely coincidental” that his doing so helped to facilitate the Democrats’ taking supermajorities in Congress, but he also unknowingly expedited his own exit from the Washington aristocracy as his blatant act of selling out to the “winning side” led to the Tea Party’s removing him from what was left of his power and influence in the 2010 mid-term elections. It was his decision, in both a literal and figurative sense, that was one of the contributing factors to the awakening of the sleeping giant.
What a lot of people don’t know about Arlen Specter was that it was he who came up with the “magic bullet” theory to explain away the inconsistencies in the assassination of JFK and to help validate the ascendancy of invisible governance in America, which tells you a number of things about the man, if he can actually be called such a thing: he was and continues to be insanely ambitious for power and influence in elitist Washington circles, he is willing to throw anyone under the bus in order to advance his own interests (including a sitting President of the United States), and he has always placed himself on the side of the fascists in our country who endeavor to consolidate as much power as possible in the hands of as few as possible. Liberals may not like to hear this – after all, truth is something to which they are strenuously averse – but if JFK were alive today and still in his political prime, he would, without question, be a Republican (all one has to do is actually take the time to read his words); further, he was taken down by the global elite, a group of people that today we associate with the power of the Left.
I know. It hurts.
All of which brings me back to the immediate in Specter, who in an appearance on NBC’s leftist flank to shamelessly pimp his book (the clip shows you all you need to know there), actually had a moment of reverse Alzheimer’s and seemed to be remarkably honest, common-sensical, and clear-minded. In a Saturday segment with Melissa Harris-Perry – who sells herself as the “moderate” on MSNBC – Specter responded to her analysis of the “extremes” that seem to be driving our nation’s governance during these bitterly-contested times:
There are a number of things that need to be explored here, some of which I find fairly disturbing.
First, while this is certainly not a reason to condemn Mrs. Perry, but in addition to her gig as a pundit for MSNBC, she is also a college professor of political science at Tulane University. Indeed, I’m sure she’s an extremely bright woman and has earned any and all accolades that she may have received. Hearkening back to my piece entitled “Educate Yourself, Volume II”, however, and placing what is seen of her in this clip, it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to deduce what the probable message is in Mrs. Perry’s lecture halls.
Second, Specter called it correctly, perhaps (I’m guessing) for the first time in his life – the “extremes” to which Mrs. Perry is alluding in her segment, a group with which she clearly does not want herself or her other self-styled “intellectual moderates” on her panel identified, have found outlets for themselves on both MSNBC and Fox. Of course, I’m speaking only for what I see in Fox News here, but what I see in mainstream Fox News are actual moderates: Bill O’Reilly, Bernie Goldberg, Megyn Kelly, to name only a few. Certainly, there are others on the network whom I would consider further to the right, such as Sean Hannity and Monica Crowley, but in what sense do they come across as “unhinged”, as in the fashion of Chris Matthews and Ed Shultz? Further, it is on Fox that there are just as many unabashedly liberal pundits (Alan Colmes, Jehmu Greene, Sally Kohn, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel) as there are clearly conservative ones. How many conservative pundits do we see on MSNBC on a regular basis? Specter even had the unmitigated temerity to challenge Mrs. Perry on her own show when she reacted in a rather strong way to his statements, claiming that he “calls them as he sees them.”
About 50 years too late there, big guy, but hey, like I said – credit where credit is due.
Third, if the viewer watches closely, Mrs. Perry’s reaction to what she most likely believed was a like-minded guest challenging her drive to get him to castigate the extremes on the right is one that I can only characterize as silent, seething anger. She clearly stiffens up as she is forced to listen to what Specter has to say, and her face seems almost “squared” for confrontation. Specter, it seems, was the actual moderate, at least in this instance, and she struck me as wanting none of that.
And finally, fourth, and what I deem to be the most disturbing aspect of Mrs. Perry’s segment, are the titles and slogans displayed on the screen, words that so obviously have different levels of suggestive meaning to them, both conscious and unconscious. Worst of all for her, Specter even called her on this, and I’m guessing that he may have even wanted to go further to something along the lines of what I’m about to offer here. He seemed to catch himself and stopped short, though, most likely because he wanted to maintain the safety of his purported political environment and for the sake of his book.
Specter called her on MSNBC’s slogan for the 2012 campaign, “Lean Forward”, when he pointed out that such a slogan can easily be interpreted as “lean left”. True enough. It’s also NBC’s cable outlet’s extension of the Obama campaign’s one-word slogan, “Forward”. If one understands Barack Obama’s Saul Alinsky background and the use of force that is historically at the heart of leftist political philosophy, “Forward” makes complete sense. If you’ll pardon the pun, but when push comes to shove and the political deck is stacked against leftist goals, that’s when the time comes for them to resort to violence if necessary. Taking “no” for an answer in the free market of ideas is simply not and will never be an option for these people.
“Lean Forward”, however, has even more disturbing connotations. Arlen Specter was absolutely correct in his analysis, and I bet he would’ve loved to say that “Lean Forward” also is tantamount to telling your audience to “step forward”…..into the faces of the people standing I your way. How many times have any of the readers experienced that uncomfortable moment when one person, apparently willing to come to blows over a disagreement, steps forward and into another’s face in an attempt to intimidate?
That a network program would display that on its screen in such divisive times is…well…divisive, as well as unconscionable.
The name of Mrs. Perry’s segment, “Down with the Middle”, also reeks of double entendres that are rather troubling. On the surface, I’m sure, Mrs. Perry will claim that the title simply refers to the segment when the viewers of “fashionable intellect” can spend some time with the fashionably intelligent people who occupy the space on the middle part of the political slider. My interpretation, however – one that I think is validated by the torn paper that seems to represent the message that is bandied about their discourse – is that “down with the middle” is analogous to “down with middle America” or “down with the middle class”. In either case, these are also images that suggest violence to either greater or lesser degrees.
There’s absolutely no question that part of the Obama administration’s and the Leftists’ agenda is to degrade the foundation of the culture of white, middle-class America. After all, even Saul Alinsky was astute enough to point out that that is where the real wealth and power lie. What is the typical person like who inhabits white, middle-class America? He or she is simply a person who wants to be left alone to a productive working life and to raise a family. There are obviously other variations, but this is mostly it. Liberals would like nothing better than reduce that foundation to rubble.
The Washington and media elite also have no use for those in the middle class, probably because they don’t understand us and our “simple-minded” values. After all, how can we be happy and content with such meaningless lives? They seem to be completely out-of-touch with the predominant class of people who don’t put all their self-worth into being perceived as “intelligently contrarian” by the rest of the allegedly important world. There’s also the harsh reality that our self-ordained political aristocracy – the country club elite in both political parties – would like nothing better than to have only two classes in this country: the people of titles in the master house and the plantation servants.
So, then – “Down with the Middle”, indeed.
Arlen Specter has nothing left to lose, nowadays, except possible profits on his book, and to that end he is still beholden to someone, this time his publisher. For one fleeting moment, though, he showed me that, much like Macbeth in the last moments of his life, there’s still a spark of the divine left in him. Perhaps his conscience is crying out, trying to save himself before it’s too late.