Vile 'Liberals'.
One of my guilty pleasures is lurking around Democratic Underground. I often go there when I need to feel intellectually superior (and my goal is met or exceeded each and every time I go there) or when I need a good laugh - DU is one of the unintentionally funniest sites there is on the web. Post-election, it has gotten even better, because now I can also go there to delight in the fact that the good people of america have rejected their agenda, and that, well, the DUers aren't handling it well. I mean they really aren't handling it well.
In a topic called 'An Explanation Of A Vote For Kerry', DU reprints a letter making the rounds in which a New Yorker attempts to 'introduce' herself to the red-staters because 'I don't think we know each other'.
Sounds friendly enough!
Ah, but frequent DU readers know that the party line there ABSOLUTELY forbids any language or comments that even hint at accomodation with or comity towards republicans ('repugs' as they call them, short for 'repugnant', I am guessing? Does it get any classier than that?) So my first thought is, when does the required name-calling, invective and muddled thinking start?? Why, the very next paragraph, of course! Whew! And you thought the standards at 'ol DU were beginning to slip!
Our liberal writer states "You think I am some anti-American anarchist because I dislike George W. Bush. You think that I am immoral and anti-family, because I support women's reproductive freedom and gay rights. You think that I am dangerous, and even evil, because I do not abide by your religious beliefs."
Well no, I was thinking that you vote with your emotions and not with your head, and that you are unintentionally dangerous and maybe even evil for that very reason. I am quite sure that I could be wrong about her, but our writer is convinced that if I voted for Bush I must, therefore, be religious (and bigoted, or am I just being redundant here?)
I have neither the time nor space here to elucidate the 1,182 reasons why an atheist-libertarian-pro-choice-anti-death-penalty voter such as myself would choose to vote for Bush over the creeping mediocrity that is the democratic party. The point is, that the writer here makes some very crass assumptions about who the people are that voted for Bush. She must make these assumptions, because in her mind there simply cannot be any reasons to vote for Bush that do not spring from the blackest, foulest places of the human heart.
But, speaking of the blackest foulest places of the human heart, the capper of this posting is this comment from 'angrydemocrat':
This letter says it all. It is sad and chilling but is is also so true. But I understand what she is saying because I get so angry to even see someone who voted for Bush much less have to speak to them. I try to avoid anyone that I know who voted for Bush because of all the anger and rage it brings out in me. All though I have had many encounters with these people and it ends up being such bitter ugly remarks that almost have come to blows a few times. Including some in my own family. I can't get over how stupid so many people could be. I don't know how to get over the anger to be honest with you I don't know that I can. It is best for me to avoid these people as if they are the enemy. Truth is if you come down to reality they are the enemy or they would have never done what they did.I just found this appalling, and vile to its core. This person, who claims to be a 'democrat', believes that millions of fellow americans, who love democracy, the constitution and our republic every bit as much as she does, are 'enemies'. For this person, democracy is no longer possible, because the other side is not an opposing party, but an enemy. Do you work with your enemies to make a better world? No, you destroy them. I can only assume that this person would destroy the Bush voters, if she had the power to do so. This person is either guilty of bad faith, or emotionally unstable. No rational reflective person could arrive at this disturbing place. |
One Cold And Furious Rant.
Heh, I read this a few days ago and went 'wow, this is how you rant.' I read it again last night and decided, dammit, it needs a linking here.
|
Michael Kinsley Speaks The Truth.
I was struck by the wisdom of this:
It's true that people on my side of the divide want to live in a society where women are free to choose abortion and where gay relationships have full civil equality with straight ones. And you want to live in a society where the opposite is true. These are some of those conflicting values everyone is talking about. But at least my values -- as deplorable as I'm sure they are -- don't involve any direct imposition on you. We don't want to force you to have an abortion or to marry someone of the same gender, whereas you do want to close out those possibilities for us. Which is more arrogant? |
The Vets Attack.
This just kills me.
From Newsweek, an article called The Vets Attack:
"The cheers were premature. The Swift Boat ads - a first round charging that Kerry had lied to win his medals, then a second batch accusing him of betraying his mates by calling them war criminals -were misleading [italics mine], but they were very effective."Please, someone, explain to me exactly how these ads were misleading? How was it misleading to charge that Kerry's medals were earned under questionable circumstances, charges that have never been debunked nor answered? How is it misleading to say that some vets feel that Kerry betrayed them? The latter point in fact is beyond dispute, how on earth could someone be misled by a brazen fact? Will the MSM ever admit that there might have been something to that little Swift Boat Vets story after all? Now you can finally admit it . . . |
Wake Up, Democrats.
Let's see if the democrats really want to get power back.
If the democratic party continues on its present course, they will go the way of the Whigs. If they blame their losses on Karl Rove, Diebold voting machines, stupid duped american voters, etcetera, then they can expect more crushing failures.
What do they need to win again?
They need a complete and utter ideological overhaul. They need to come up with a platform other than 'republicans suck'. Their stance on homosexuality needs to be revised, for starters. No doubt many democrats will blame 'rampant homophobia' and the anti-gay marriage amendments in the battleground states for their loss. This does not demonstrate enlightenment on the part of the democrats, it demonstrates bigotry and flawed assumptions. Perhaps, just perhaps, opposition to gay marriage comes from a place in the human heart other prejudice. I, for one, an atheist, an anti-christian, and a person with no grudge against homosexuality, am also opposed to gay marriage. Marriage is an ancient human institution, older than law and government itself. Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, period. It has always been so in every culture, and should remain so. The point of this diatribe is that democrats constantly ascribe the worst possible motives to the republicans on this and on many other issues, and then act upon those assumptions. As a result, the dems cannot capitalize on these issues effectively and pull the electorate away from the republicans.
They need to stop whining. It is just so unattractive. Rather than constantly, constantly, focussing on the negatives, the democrats need to develop a sunny optimism. The democrats used to be the happy ones, fearing nothing but fear itself.
They need to drain the fever swamps. "Cheney and Halliburton made Bush kill Iraqi babies and american teens to get oil." This kind of crap just needs to stop. No one in flyover country buys it. The democrats need to bundle up the Michael Moore wing of the party and send them to the Green Party. The sooner the better.
I am an unapologetic republitarian, and keeping the neo-socialist democrats completely out of power for the next several generations will be just fine with me.
Why then would I even deign to offer them advice on how to win?
Because, I want an opposition that sharpens the issues, not one that just hurls invective. I want an opposition that offers candidates that even I might be tempted to vote for. Scoop Jackson, where is your heir? I want an opposition that fights for this country, not one that merely fights for power.
|
Bush Wins, And I Pat Myself On The Back.
Fox calls Ohio for Bush, and Drudge goes out on a very fat limb and calls the election for Bush.
And who, may I ask, said this election would be 51% Bush and 48% Kerry, Bush less than 300 electoral college votes??
Hmm????
You gotta understand, I immersed myself in the polls for the last few months. I clung to Real Clear Politics like a sicilian grandmother to her rosary. I knew it would be close, but my gut told me that americans are not capitulationists, and that reading the MSM was like reading Pravda in the Soviet Union - the opposite of what they were saying was more nearly the truth.
Adieu, Monsieur Nuance.
|
Been There, Done That.
Kiss me, I voted!
My polling place, Lester School in my hometown of Downers Grove, Illinois was not packed (it was 6 a.m.) but there were many more people there than last time I voted. I parked in the nurse's parking space, as I figured she wouldn't be in for a while yet.
I felt really really good about voting, and it should carry me through the week no matter what happens.
I remembered reading about the Afghani women who cleansed themselves and said prayers for the dead before standing in line to vote . . . while my biggest worry was whether or not Jim Oberweis is giving out free ice cream this year again.
|
Can The Weather Make A Difference?
If Michigan, Ohio and Pennsy get the cold rain we had all day yesterday here in Chicagoland, it actually could make a difference for turnout.
It was actually quite unpleasant outside, and the rain just did not let up. It was the type of day where you sit at home with your hands wrapped around some nice hot chocolate.
It is supposed to rain all day again here today. Why oh why does it ALWAYS seem to rain when we vote here? The rain gods always inflict this upon the Cubs opener also.
|
Why Kerry Lost Tomorrow.
I have great confidence in a Bush victory, confidence enough to elucidate here the reasons Why Kerry Lost Tomorrow.
1. Over-the-top Bush hatred. I think even alot of liberals got tired of this after a while. Bush just is not unlikable enough for most of this stuff to stick, and it made the democrats look like juveniles, unworthy of the privilege of serving in office.
2. Kerry himself. The man has no humor, no principles and no spine. Plus, he is not nearly as intelligent as he and his campaign would like you to believe - Exhibit A: the most inept campaign in several generations. Kerry ran this campaign, and nearly ran it into the ground.
3. Kerry's history. How a man who sold out his veteran brothers, met overseas with the enemy, and voted against the first Gulf War got nominated to run for president is a riddle wrapped inside an enigma. This demonstrates how corroded and rudderless the democratic party has become.
4. Kerry's gaffes. Kerry stuck his foot in his mouth so many times, it is amazing this election is still close. Kerry insulted our allies, insulted our would-be allies, insulted the Iraqi government, insulted veterans . . . and on and on and on. Here is a smattering of Kerry's greatest hits: global test, Mary Cheney, 'sensitive' war on terror, 'nuisance' war on terror. . .
My favorite was Kerry's response to a debate question about stem-cell research, where he literally had a Ralph Cramden hominahominahomina moment. It was a textbook example of brainlock, right before our eyes. If this had happened to Bush, I would not have bothered to buy victory cigars today.
5. No positive message. The democratic party stands for two things, and two things only: hate Bush, and get power at any cost. FDR, Truman and the real JFK are rolling in their graves.
6. Teh-RAY-zah. They should have locked this crazy aunt in the attic after the Democratic Convention.
7. The Mainstream Media. With friends like these, who needs opponents. The backlash against the outrages of CBS, NYTimes, et. al., is responsible for a good 2-3% of Bush's support in my estimation. Evan Thomas, I think your theory of 5-15% support for Kerry was really a wash, all things considered.
|
FetishesStewardess UniformsEpilogue Gallery Previous PostsGuest Blogging At WILLisms.com! Carnival Of Revolutions Hamas Facing Reality? The Case For Permanent Bases In Iraq North Korea Says 'No Nukes' Palestinian Troglodytes In Action The Liberal Tolerance Myth Corruption Killed New Orleans? Fixing The Katrina Memes ArchivesNovember 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005
|
||||||||||||
recently updated
