Sandra Fluke and the Narrative

 Posted by at 11:28 pm
Mar 052012

One of the big things we hopefully learned from the late great Andrew Breitbart is the power of the narrative. The left and their PR firm, the Democrat Media Complex (as Andrew would called it), always try to control the narrative. The pathetic shame is that those of us on the right always seem to take the bait. It is as if we are perpetually Charlie Brown and the MSM/Democrats are Lucy Van Pelt, yanking the football away again and again.  And we never learn.

Here’s how it plays out: Democrats invent an issue that really isn’t one like, say . . . Republicans wanting to restrict birth control (Note: Republicans like myself are very much in favor of Democrats restricting their births).  They find one weird example that doesn’t represent 99.999% of the population like,  say . . .  a woman who spends more on birth control than many will spend on a car payment, and they will use that to justify a law that will affect the rest of us 99.999%.  So, many of us point out the absurdity of the example and some like Rush Limbaugh go too far and call her a “slut.” Now, we are forced to fight the issue on the defensive entirely on their court and using their terms of engagement.

The other recent example of this involved Warren Buffet’s secretary who apparently pays a higher marginal rate than her boss, one of the richest people on the planet. The next thing we know, the President proposes the Buffet Rule where, in case of ties, duplicate prizes are awarded.

I am sorry I didn’t pay enough attention to Obama’s explanation because I zone out the moment he says, “Let me make this perfectly clear.” Usually what follows is something that is so confusing and opaque that I wonder if Obama thinks that “Let me make this perfectly clear” is a magic phrase, like “hocus pocus,” that makes things clear.  But I digress . . .

Anyway, the Buffet Rule would soak the rich, a recurring theme by the President. Even if Buffet’s secretary pays a higher rate than Buffet, which is doubtful unless his secretary makes half a million a year, it is only because Buffet’s income is from capital gains and dividends. Capital gains tax rates are lower because we want to encourage investment and because capital gains taxes are a second taxation of the same money. For example, say you earn $1000 and pay $300 in taxes on that leaving you $700. You invest that $700 and it gains back the $300 when you sell it. That gain is from money that you were already taxed on and put at risk. You could have lost the entire $700 too. In that case, you are out of luck, unless your name is General Motors, a solar company or any other wealthy contributor to the President.

Bill Clinton lowered capital gains tax rates to encourage investment. Obama on the other hand, wants to raise the capital gains rate even though it would result in less revenue for the treasury.  He is primarily concerned about “fairness,” you see. The secretary story came up four years ago in a debate with Hillary Clinton.

This is their playbook. They change the narrative from the appropriate amount of taxation to a debate on “fairness;” from whether taxpayers should pay for a 3o-year-old woman’s birth control to Rush Limbaugh said “slut.”  They keep going back to it again and again and we keep getting derailed off our message and find ourselves defending ourselves from their attacks. The issue isn’t what language Rush should have used. The issue is whether the government has any business getting involved and subsidizing this area of it’s citizen’s lives. Rush shouldn’t have called Sandra Fluke a slut. I would have called her another f word: fluke.  She is a fluke and should be treated as such.

WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera