Thus goes the old joke.  But in this case, we must look closely at not only the lips, but the results of the actions, and not the words.

This was inspired by a question from Pads (DiseasedHumanity) on another blog.  That blog was how the Fillibuster has been used to deprive minorities, not minority parties, of their rights for the last 100 years.

And the question was, "They say they are doing XY and Z because of AB and C.  Ho can we say they were not acting nobly?"  That is a paraphrase but in essence the question.

And the answer is, look at the end results.  Now, we know that all politicians - ALL - will not truly state what it is they want to do.  Why?  Because they have one purpose and one purpose only.  The acquisition of power and its growth.  All else they say and do is just a smoke screen to fool the public into thinking their ownership of power is better than the other guys.

So now we look at who is the power base of the liberals and conservatives.  I think most people will agree that the power base for the left falls into 2 stated groups, majoritatively - poor and minorities.

How do they maintain their power base?  If they actually went out and helped the poor and minorities, what happens?  Those people would move up on the economic scale and no longer need their help.  And thus be ripe for the pickings of the conservatives.  So they must appear to help their power base, but at the same time making sure that they do not leave the reservation.  And how do they do that?  By keeping the poor poor and using the victimization card on the minorities.

Shocking?  To some.  But if you look at who has been keeping the blacks down for the last 100 years, you do not find conservatives in the forefront.  No, it is the liberals that barred an anti-lynching law for 100 years, liberals that filibustered 2 blacks and an hispanic to the second highest court in the land. Liberals who play the race card year after year after year (did you know that the Willie Horton ad that sunk Dukakis was played not by Bush I originally, but by Al Gore?).

Yet, if we listen to the liberals, we hear they are for the poor and for the minorities.  And yet in the 40 years they had absolute power over the legislative branch of the government, the only time the lots of poor and minorities were improved was when the conservatives did something to help them.

So the way to look at what a politician means is to look at the end result of their actions.  Something the liberals hate for you to do since they only want you to look at the INTENTIONS, not the RESULTS.  But in looking at the results, we see it is the liberals that stymied civil rights for decades.  It is the liberals that pushed blacks to the back of the bus (Wallace, Fulbright, Hollings and Byrd are not conservatives).  It is liberals that give hand outs to poor with no hope of a hand up. And it is liberals that are so afraid when a minority is allowed to make it on their own, without the patronage of the liberals (the 3 judges and Rice being the most recent).

Looking back over my life time, and a review of the history before my lifetime will only confirm the same, every time a minority was castigated and trashed, it was the liberals doing it.  Did any liberal praise a daughter of an Alabama Sharecropper who has reached the pinnacle of her profession? 

What about that war on poverty?  After trillions of dollars, how does the poverty rate compare to 40 years ago? 

Quite simply, liberals will do and say anything to stay in power.  And for the less attentive and feeble minded, their words are like Grima's to King Theoden.  They are sugar to the ear, but have the same nutritional value.

Now this is not to brand liberals as uncaring monsters.  Many I am sure do care.  Nor are they alone in trying to protect their power base as conservatives do it as well.  But conservatives try to lift all boats, not lower the lake.  so in that, their self interest is in line with most of the rest of the populace.  They all want to be better off.  And so the conservatives in doing what they need to to preserve their base, actually make a positive difference in the lives of all people.  Liberals like to scream that conservatives are the party of the rich elite.  Yet even a fool can see that the rich elite only compromises 5% of the electorate, and no one is going to win elections with those numbers.  So conservatives need to bring more into their fold and do so by helping all.

Liberals objectives are just the opposite.  For if they truly helped their constituency, they would lose some of them.  So to preserve their base, they must say they care, and do everything they can to keep the poor and blacks on the reservations.  And they have suceeded to a degree.

But in the last dozen years, something has happened.  Many of their constituency has escaped the reservation and now are voting conservative.  Why?  Some got smarter. Some got richer.  And then the liberals let slip their true intentions (thank you Howard Dean).

So before using empty rhetoric that Snowball and Napolean have fed you, perhaps the constituency of the liberals should look at the results of their leadership's actions.  After all, it was not Farmer John who sold the old gray mare to the glue factory