Gore campaign signals voter disconnect

Oprah Winfrey must be popular among a segment of the American
television viewing audience because the woman has managed to stay on the
air for years now, becoming quite successful in her own right and making
a great living besides.

That is success, by any measure, American style; like
her or not, she earned it the "old fashioned" way, by creating a
"product" that was in demand and better than most other competitors. In
fact, I'm surprised some federal agency hasn't decided to sue her yet or
shut her down because of it.

But Oprah is on during the day -- when most folks are working
-- which is why comments made by a Gore campaign spokesman on Monday
were perplexing to say the least and demonstrable of a huge disconnect
between Democrats and Gore on the one side and traditional American
workers on the other.

Gore spokesman Doug Hattaway, in praising his boss' appearance on
"Oprah" Monday afternoon, said the venue the talk show queen offered was
great for the campaign because "Oprah is one of the most admired women
in television and her show is a great forum for Al Gore to talk about
his fight for working families."

TRENDING: SCOTUS can end big tech tyranny – and should

Huh?

If "Oprah" is on during the day, aren't working
families at work?

Yes, of course they are -- which means they aren't at home watching
any television.

So now that we know Gore wasn't on with Oprah to reach people who
work for a living, why was he there? To bring in the
"stay-at-home-vote?" Why are most of these people at home to
begin with? How are they earning a living?

And herein lies the rub.

Many millions of Americans are at home during the day, watching Oprah
or whomever, because they are living off of tax money via a
number of federal welfare benefits that are paid for by tens of millions
more who are actually out trying to be productive.

I'm not talking about people who are legitimately disabled or
otherwise unable to work or hold a job. I'm talking about the
millions of freeloading Americans who have made shows like
"Oprah" popular precisely because they have nothing else to do and no
ambition to do it.

By the way, it is precisely that wage-earning, non-Oprah-watching
group of productive Americans -- more popularly known as the middle
class -- that Gore has already decided does not need a tax break. After
all, who would pay for the stay-at-homes? Where would Oprah's ratings be
if more people were working and less able to watch her?

The fact that daytime television ratings have soared at all is an
indication of the poor social structure and discipline created by the
kind of federal largess supported by socialists like Gore, Clinton, and
a wealth of other federal bureaucrats. Daytime television would barely
exist if fewer people were around to watch it.

By playing to the most unproductive members of our society, it is
little wonder working Americans are having such a tough time making ends
meet -- they've got multiple federal boondoggles (cleverly named "social
welfare programs") to finance. But Gore is comfortable there because he
needs the lay-abouts to at least go vote in November; so he will appeal
to them, promise them even more, and shun those who have to pay for
unproductive lifestyles.

Perhaps if I was Doug Hattaway and led a sheltered political life, I
too might think that the way to reach "working families" would be for my
campaigning boss to appear on a daytime talk show. Perhaps if I was much
less inclined to be productive, I too would have been at home watching
Gore. It's ironic that Oprah and Gore were at work, attempting to reach
those who don't work at all.

But I didn't catch the program. Neither did scores of other "working
families" who have less and less time to watch any TV because
people like Gore keep insisting we pay more in taxes to support those
who pay nothing.

I personally cannot afford such liberal "compassion" -- even though
I'm just another working stiff.