Skip to comments.Post-Election Depression: aka Liberal Lunacy (Good Read)
Posted on 11/08/2004 10:43:03 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
Liberal blogger Big Blue Marble recently wrote: ''I have lived 61 years, lost my parents and my sister plus many many pets, and this [election] is the darkest day of my life.''
Zulchzulu wrote: '''We can only hope that Bush doesn't make it through four years. The day Bush is no longer president before the term ends will be a national week-long holiday in my World.''
Such are the laments of liberal bloggers in our nation as a result of President Bush winning on Tuesday. In fact, according to Nathan Burchfiel of CNS News, 71% of those polled at the ''Democratic Underground'' website felt that this Election Day was worse than 9/11. Imagine that.
However, its not just the bloggers and their guests who have lost their minds over this result. Some of the most respected, left-leaning members of the press have fallen into the deep end since Mr. Kerry conceded on Wednesday:
Thomas Friedman, columnist for The New York Times, wrote: ''But what troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do--they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.''
Columnist Paul Krugman wrote: ''President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical--the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.''
Liberal writer Jane Smiley wrote: ''The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. The architects of this strategy knew perfectly well that they were exploiting, among other unsavory qualities, a long American habit of virulent racism, but they did it anyway, and we see the outcome now--Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is the religious arm. They know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire them because lots of Americans, even those who don't share those same qualities, don't know which end is up.''
Okay. So, let me get this straight. According to the left, the roughly 60 million Americans that voted for Mr. Bush are either ignorant, unintelligent, overly religious, greedy, amoral, homophobic, racist, or a thoroughly atrocious mixture thereof. Really? And these people think WERE dumb?
Lets look at some of the facts--although I quite realize that bringing such things into the discussion always infuriates our significantly more intelligent brethren on the opposite side of the aisle. First off, one of Kerrys largest voting blocs was the folks in our nation who make $30,000 or less per year. To be more precise, extrapolating from the exit poll data, the senator received 15.68 million votes from this demographic, or 28% of his total. Now, without falling into the lefts elitist trap, one would imagine that our lowest wage earners do not monopolize the intellect and enlightened thought in our country.
Taking this a step further, a higher percentage of high school dropouts voted for Kerry than Bush. Also, with the exception of post-graduate degrees, more high school and college graduates voted for Bush than Kerry. And, even in the most highly educated segment of our country--which only comprises 16% of the electorate, mind you--Kerrys margin of victory was merely 55% to 44%. Yes, folks, 44% of those with post-graduate degrees voted for President Bush. As such, how does one make the case that the Bushies are any less intelligent than the Kerryatistas?
The leftists also seems to be misreading these exit polls with regard to religion. In particular, they are assuming that the 22% of the electorate that placed ''Moral Values'' as their number one priority view morals exclusively from a religious perspective. Unfortunately, this is not only not the case, but also not supported by the data. For instance, only 8% of those polled suggested that ''Religious Faith'' was the most important quality in a candidate; this is likely 1/3 of the Moral Values component. What makes up the other 2/3? Well, 11% stated that being ''Honest and Trustworthy'' was the key; Mr. Bush won this segment of the population 70% to 29%.
Additionally, those who felt that having a ''Clear Stand on the Issues'' was their top priority--17% of those polled--supported Mr. Bush at a 79% to 20% clip. Though not as clearly a component of moral values as being honest and trustworthy, I would strongly suggest that Kerrys continual flip-flopping indicated a lack of moral character to some of the electorate.
Now, lets not overlook all of our apparent homophobia that lead us to foolishly vote for Mr. Bush. Is it possible that there is polling data that will also refute this blind stupidity? You bet. For instance, there were eleven states that had ballot initiatives to ban same-sex marriages that all passed by an average margin of 2 to 1. Oddly, President Bush only received 51% of the votes nationally. As a result, this means that at least 23% ([67-51]/67) of the Yeas for these initiatives came from folks who did not vote for Mr. Bush. Moreover, as only 37% of those who voted claimed that they were Republican, at least 45% of the folks who supported these bans were either Democrats or Independents ([67-37]/67). Somehow, this arithmetic mysteriously eludes the oh-so-intelligent leftists.
In fact, if you look at each states results, this contradiction is even more glaring. In particular, John Kerry won Oregon by a margin of 52% to 48%. However, the ballot measure in question passed 57% to 43%. If the people who voted for Mr. Kerry were so much more enlightened than those voting for Mr. Bush, why didnt this measure fail in Oregon? The same can be said of Michigan where Kerry took 51% of the state while 59% voted to ban same-sex marriages. It seems somewhat logical that if folks voted for Bush because of his position on this issue, the two states that Kerry won that had such an initiative should have defeated it. I guess I must be using conservative logic.
Moreover, in ten of these eleven states, this initiative received considerably more ''Yea'' votes than President Bush did. The most flagrant example is Mississippi where Bush received 60% of the votes, but this measure won with 86% in favor. That means that at least 30% ([86-60]/86) of the folks in Mississippi who voted for this ban didnt vote for Mr. Bush. In Arkansas, this figure was 28%. So, contrary to what leftists are practically frothing about, this is not only a bipartisan position, but also one that many more Kerry voters hold than the Democrats would care to admit. Maybe this is why former President Clinton strongly advised Mr. Kerry to come out against same-sex marriages months ago.
What is this telling us? Well, the current Democrat and media blathering is about as honest an assessment of what transpired on Election Day as their reporting on all of the pertinent issues and events leading up to it. Or, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson, ''They Cant Handle the Truth!''
Rather than trying to identify what the Kerry campaign did wrong, and, maybe more important, why their message isnt resonating with a majority of the American people, the leftists and the media that supports them are instead choosing to condemn the electorate for not understanding what they believe to be important in this country, and for being ignorant, homophobic, and blinded by religious beliefs. In virtually the same breath, they have the audacity to blame the divisiveness in our nation on these very same people that they are so accusing.
With that in mind, it seems that if the members of the media want to truly understand what is going on in our nation, and what happened last Tuesday, maybe they ought to take a long walk around the heartland rather than just flying over it. There are a lot of things that actually occur in this country outside of Manhattan, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and, frankly, most American journalists today are totally oblivious.
News divisions place foreign correspondents in the nations they cover so that theyll get a better understanding of the society and the people they are reporting about. Maybe its high time that our liberal media begin applying this same philosophy right here in the good old USA.
About the Writer: Noel Sheppard is a business owner, economist, and writer residing in Northern California. Noel receives e-mail at email@example.com.
These statements PROVE the mental illness these people have.
I don't have to imagine, its just obvious. Liberals didn't act this upset after 9-11; they just searched for ways to describe how much we deserved it, and how we needed to 'engage' the world.
I hope they stay feeling this bad for a long time, for when they don't feel good they stay home sick and don't do any damage.
WTF is wrong with these people??
Rush was ON A ROLL today! He was commenting on an article a Boston Globe columnist wrote, and gave a perfect rebuttal of liberalism in one rant. It was great.
Hey they FINALLY "GOT IT" we do favor a whole different kind of America.
Pity them! NOT!
Bump for hilarity
he he he...
Also, we must all work diligently in the coming months to convince progressives that the Democratic Party has let them down. They must abandon the party. Their only recourse is to join and work for the Green Party moving forward. I may even register as a Green Party member to swell their voter registration rolls. Divide and conquer.
Begin with putting all known progressives in your sphere of influence on the Green Party mail list from their website. Great fun. Start inundating them with information now.
Big Blue Moron BTTT (giggle)
"Yes, folks, 44% of those with post-graduate degrees voted for President Bush."
This is an excellent article, but I think the above figure might be wrong.
A writer in one of the British papers cited this same 44% number, but he said it represented people who had either completed or *attempted* a post-graduate degree -- not who had completed one. And I think I've read that those who actually hold a post-graduate degree identify themselves as Democrats 2 to 1 over Republicans.
Does anyone know the story on this? I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
I tried this with my liberal family. And while they are not this extreme in thier lamenting, they are sullen, pining for the "good old Clinton days". I can't even gloat. We have a reunion every summer and while some of my family members need to wake up, I'd also like to stay on speaking terms with them.
No..most sane people agree on what America has become (degenerates influencing polititcs, media bias etc)...they just want to return to traditional American values of patriotism, strong families, great public education, and all the other things liberals have destroyed.
Thomas Friedman, columnist for The New York Times, wrote: ''But what troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do--they think I am a pompous ass. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on my significance in the universe.''
When I clicked on exit poll data, I noticed something interesting. The south had the biggest voting block at 32%. And the northeast elitists think they don't need the south to win. Until they change their ignorance and stereotypes toward the south and their immoral beliefs, they will never get the south.
I am very pleased that Mr. Friedman realizes that I regard him as an insignificant little grease speck in the larger universe bloviating away with no one listening to his pompous crap!
"You know, he should. I hope he does!"
At this point, I shook my head, picked up my things and started to walk away. The other person wanted to take this as a victory for herself, but couldn't leave the moment as it was and had to add, "Aha, you have no answer for that. You know I'm right." etc.
I stopped, turned, and quietly replied, "You have just condemned 150 million people to death. You said you hoped that they died and you agreed that they should die. And I'm supposed to have a rational debate about this?"
She remained speechless until I reached the doorway. Frankly, I don't care what the others in the room said after I left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.