Type 1 liberals are the greatest hope to destroy America

If any of you are reading this blog, you may remember my post on the three types of liberals: Type 1) the ones who say they don't really care about but consistently vote Democrat, Type 2) The kind that are liberal, and know it, but don't know why and Type 3) Capital-L liberals who know exactly what they are and are proud of it.

I also said Type 1 liberals were the most common. I still say that. Type 2 are common enough, but most of them are the way they are because they're recent college grads who've had their heads filled with the stupidity of their professors, or parents of flower children who really believe the kind of hippie nonsense their parents preach (or perhaps they are the aging flower children themselves), or maybe they're celebrities who love all the adulation they get for their "brave" stances in favor of liberal causes, or they're single-issue activists who are supportive of causes they believe all conservatives oppose (gay marriage, abortion, atheism, etc.). They're out there, yes, but they make up a relatively small portion of our society. Even smaller are the Type 3's; the George Soros's, John Podesta's, Ezra Klein's or David Brock's of this world, just to name a few examples. These people are very few; less than 30% of America. They just know how to talk the loudest and how to make sure more people hear them. Conservatives number greater than these people ever thought about, but we suck at getting our message out. Or, we did, but we're learning.

The problem is that we take the fight to the Type 2's and Type 3's and challenge statements they make directly, while making no attempt whatsoever to reach the Type 1's. Liberals know this, and it's Type 1's they target most specifically. Remember that Type 1's, while each may be a bit different, don't really know they're liberal, or at least, what being liberal really means. Politics are boring to them, but they do have stances on a few issues. Why? Because someone made an emotional argument that resonated with them; usually a liberal friend or relative, or a character on a TV show (I'm not kidding). Everybody watches TV, and when they do, they see Saturday Night Live, or the local news (watched because they want to see what's going in in their city, but you can't avoid political coverage on news programs), or late-night talk shows, or even just normal TV shows, all of which never fail to portray conservatives as buffoons or evil people.

If this is your only exposure to politics, of course you're going to mostly believe liberals are good and conservatives are bad. And the Obama campaign knows this. Why else would they bother propogating the Seamus the Dog story, or even weirder, the Romney high school prank/bullying story? And why ISN'T the media picking up the Obama eats dogs meme or the admitted bullying Obama was guilty of as a high-school kid (not to mention his cocaine use)? The media went in depth about George W. Bush's alcoholism (which he had beaten years before he took office) or his supposed cocaine addiction (which was never proven or admitted to), and now they're asking us to believe it matters what Romney did to other kids as a 16-year old or as a young family man...but Obama's past is completely off-limits. We can't talk about his being raised in a muslim school by an America-hating "uncle" who may have sexually abused him, that he spent most of his formative childhood years in Indonesia, that he did indeed eat dog meat, that in college he was an ardent student and follower of radical critical race theory propogator Prof. Derek Bell, or that in high school and college he was a regular cocaine user.

What's more, I don't even want to talk about those things, and we shouldn't have to. But the left wants to focus on stuff from nearly 50 years ago where Romney is concerned, so why should we treat Obama's past with kid gloves? It's because the left wants to win those Type 1 liberals. They want to make sure they stay at least liberal enough to keep voting Democrat. Oh, they're not worried about whether Type 1's continue to go to church, or if their personal stance on abortion is that they would never have one, or anything like that. They just want the vote. They want the Type 1 liberal's mind, when they go to the polls, to be full of Obama the warm, knowing, fatherly leader and Romney the bullying dog-hater. Talk about the issues? Type 1 liberals don't want to talk about politics, so let's not, okay? Debbie Wasserman-Schultz even went as far as to say most Americans "don't care" about the budget process. In saying that, she let the mask slip a bit, because what she meant was "Type 1 liberals, whom we have to sway, don't care about the budget process, or the economy in general, as long as they personally aren't suffering too much."

Romney can hype the budget process, the economy, or joblessness, or debt as long as he wants, but those Type 1 liberals just simply don't care. That's politics. That's boring. It's much more exciting to them what the latest celebrity gossip is. And the "Romney was a bully" and "Romney tied his dog to the roof of his car" stories are far more like celebrity gossip, and that's what the Type 1 liberal will remember on his or her way to the voting booth. And that's why they are the greatest hope for the Democrats to win again and continue destroying America. They may "not care" about politics, but they still vote, and since they do have to pick one or the other, they'll pick the one that they've been told is the better guy. We've got to improve our message to these voters that don't care, because believe it or not, there's a lot of them, and they are one of the big reasons we keep losing the court of public opinion, and a big reason why we lose elections.