character assassination: any Dem attack on Tea Party candidates.
clearly designed: the real intent of Tea Party policies, not what the Dems claim to be GOP motivation. For example, voting restrictions are “clearly designed” to “protect the integrity of the electoral system,” and not in any way designed to suppress minority voters. In this case, “clearly” is a term of coercion.
crony capitalism: any Dem spending. When Tea Partiers spend money, it’s in the name of “the public good,” “fiscal responsibility” or “market forces.” As the Washington Post puts it,
It has become fashionable lately for conservatives to decry “crony capitalism,” which involves well-connected corporations and rich people using their influence to milk the government for their own benefit. Even the Koch brothers talk about ending welfare for the wealthy, so firmly committed are they to the purity of market forces. But it turns out that Koch Industries benefits from hundreds of millions of dollars in government largesse, like so many other corporations. As Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute explains (in the National Review!), most of the Republican presidential candidates say they oppose crony capitalism despite long records of supporting it in various forms.
What do we learn from all this?
It’s another reminder that the principles of small government and fiscal responsibility that conservative politicians like Walker pledge their fealty to are highly contingent on who’s benefiting and who’s being hurt.
draconian: any Obama admin environmental regulation.
gutter ad hominem: any Dem attack on a Tea party candidate.
ladling: any federal funding. Money flows from the federal bureaucracy like gravy. Sometimes this ladle is referred to as “truckloads of money.”
political pawns: Hillary supporters.
political correctness: common decency
rambling: any Obama speech that connects two or more ideas. aka, “tendentious.”
regulatory overkill: any federal regulation, especially any from the EPA.
special interest groups: all blacks and Hispanics, when it comes to issues surrounding civil rights, voting rights,police brutality, mass incarceration, etc.,
taking sides: criticizing any Tea Party policy or position. Since there can’t be any objective standards for decisive evidence or arguments on any given issue, every Dem argument or point of view is by definition one-sided and distorted.
Washington elites: any influential Dem policy makers.