The Dark Money Blame Game: How the Libs Are Redefining Their Losses

Dark money.  It’s the new favorite catch phrase of the democrats. A hashtag used by the whiners of November 4’s outcome and the latest trend in the progressive blame game.

Instead of viewing the comprehensive losses of the Democrat party as a hint that the American people are tired of Obama and have grown weary of agenda items like the war on women, they throw the phrase “dark money” at the problem.  Rather than admit tweaking of their platform needs to happen before the next election, a shadowy demon is summoned to cast accountability aside.

If you were to ask a liberal just who is dark money, no doubt they would mention the Koch Brothers.  The dark money moniker is just a way to blame the same old people when referencing the name Koch wore out it’s welcome.  I wonder if George Soros is considered dark money to them?  What they don’t realize is that there are very rich entities who give to campaigns–and influence campaigns–every election.  It was the Supreme Court Citizen’s United ruling that allowed  corporations and unions to spend money on political ads, etc.

Republicans are reported to have been a much higher beneficiary of dark money this election cycle.  Wealthy people are often business creators and a good proportion of them can see that the liberal agenda is suffocating businesses.  It’s no wonder they give more readily to Republican candidates to fight off the proverbial pillow being placed over their faces by the left.  So pulling out the dark money card after an embarrassing loss just doesn’t cut it, especially when they have their own providers of dark money by way of Patriot Majority with Harry Reid ties and the State Employee International Union (SEIU), among others. They would like to direct the national conversation in such a way that makes the people believe that every Democrat loss, from Oregon to Maine, could have been prevented if dark money could be sought out like a infestation of mice and terminated, not because their policies suck.

Liberal enterprises have been preparing to use the dark money scapegoat for a while now, or at least since polls suggested election day was going to be a bloodbath.  Here is the LATimes back on October 18, setting up Alison Lundergan Grimes with a built-in excuse in case she (and Bill Clinton for his stumping) lost:

Unprecedented amount of ‘dark money’ fuels midterm races

la-afp-getty-mcconnell-challenger-democrat-alison-20141018 (1)

Kentucky Democratic Senate challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes greets supporters at a campaign rally. She has been forced to respond to attack ads linking her with President Obama that have been funded largely by a Kentucky coalition not required to disclose its donors.(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

Look at that language!  Do you think if the subject was a Republican, LATimes would use the phrase  “forced to respond to attack ads”?  The answer is no.  And they certainly didn’t hold back on the filth when they illustrated McConnell consuming all this dark money:

la-na-tt-dump-mitch-mcconnell-20140827-001

The fact of the matter is, if democrats benefit from hefty union and their own sources dark money, it’s okay because the ends justify the means and they are the gatekeepers of relativism.  If republicans do it, they are evil, corrupt, and only out to make a certain few richer, nevermind the policies on the table.

×

Send this to a friend