Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Look Back at Anger (Why the "vast left-wing conspiracy" failed to unseat President Bush)
Wall Street Journal ^ | Tuesday, April 5, 2005 | JACOB LAKSIN

Posted on 04/05/2005 9:16:25 PM PDT by presidio9

It was several months before Election Day. George W. Bush and John Kerry had pulled to a statistical dead heat, and the pundits were poring over the polls in an effort to divine the reasons for the latest shift in public opinion. But MoveOn.org had more pressing concerns. It was moved to ask its network of true believers: "Why aren't we talking about a landslide in November?"

Such groundless conviction "was not at all unusual in the world of MoveOn," writes Byron York in "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy." The triumphalism flowed, he notes, from a deceptively simple rationale. Feeling a passionate contempt for the president and his policies, the MoveOn rank-and-file labored under the illusion that they represented the majority of the American people.

They weren't the only ones. In the months following the 9/11 attacks, there emerged an activist movement of left-wing loyalists, Democratic operatives and deep-pocketed financiers all united under one aim--to defeat President Bush--and all confident that history was turning in their direction. Mr. York, the White House correspondent for National Review, gives us an engaging account of the partisan passions that made this "the biggest, richest, and best organized movement in American political history" and that ultimately proved its undoing.

All the usual suspects are here: Bush-bashing billionaire George Soros; politicos like Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean; squadrons of Democratic strategists and spin-men; left-wing luminaries like Michael Moore and Al Franken. There are new players, too, like the so-called 527s, ostensibly nonpartisan lobbying groups that massaged campaign-finance laws in the service of the Democratic cause. (The Republicans had their versions, too, of course.) Mr. York even takes us inside the brain trust of the anti-Bush network, the new Center for American Progress. "Our goal is to win," announces John Podesta, the center's founder and head.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bushbashers; election2004; georgesoros; leftwingconspiracy; moveonorg

1 posted on 04/05/2005 9:16:25 PM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9
All the usual suspects are here: Bush-bashing billionaire George Soros; politicos like Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean; squadrons of Democratic strategists and spin-men; left-wing luminaries like Michael Moore and Al Franken. There are new players, too, like the so-called 527s, ostensibly nonpartisan lobbying groups that massaged campaign-finance laws in the service of the Democratic cause.

And yet the article asks why the Democrats failed?!?!?!!!! TO me it is quite obvious why, and the article clearly states it as well (at least several of the reasons why).

2 posted on 04/05/2005 9:19:08 PM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear tipped ICBMs: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: presidio9
NRO did a piece on this today. Byron York's whole thrust is that we can't just laugh at the loony left... we need to pay attention to what they're doing, and to take them seriously, because of the enormous money interests that they command.

He's right. Look, I love to laugh at these guys, but that's like a snake handler laughing at a rattler. Laughing at that rattler is dangerous, and stupid. That's because the rattler, like the Left, is dangerous, and... well, you know.

4 posted on 04/05/2005 9:23:00 PM PDT by Starve The Beast (I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Well said!


5 posted on 04/05/2005 9:23:56 PM PDT by Starve The Beast (I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Hillary is too slick for her own good. Bubba used to slip up every now and then, even though he was as slick as molasses, and that unbelievably garnered him 'sympathy' votes. Particularly from women. Hillary however is too self-cohesive for her own good. She has all the slickness of Bubba, but without the flaws. Making her seem inhuman (which i guess is pretty accurate when it comes to her). She would have great difficulties becoming president.


6 posted on 04/05/2005 9:24:31 PM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear tipped ICBMs: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
John Kerry had no message. He was an insincere, self indulgent fraud and a blatant user of people and the government to pamper himself. It showed. He was perpetually inconsistent and made a fool of himself at every turn.

You forgot 'major league wussy.'

7 posted on 04/05/2005 9:28:29 PM PDT by Angry Enough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

You're absolutely right. He was an utter nothing who offered nothing. Even the Dems I spoke to could not articulate what he was supposed to stand for; if you can even use that phrase referring to him. Other than being the non-Bush. Frankly, the Dems made a serious tactical and strategic mistake picking him as their candidate. Who else they might have come with is of course an open question, but Kerry was lackluster personified.


8 posted on 04/05/2005 9:28:46 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (You get more with a gun and a smile than just a smile itself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

But at the end President Bush and the Republican party utterly crushed them.


9 posted on 04/05/2005 9:32:06 PM PDT by jveritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starve The Beast
Mr. York records that 92% of contributions of $1 million or more went to Democrats.

They were dangerous last year, they will be dangerous in 2008.

10 posted on 04/05/2005 9:32:27 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
How Bush Won: 11Mb Flash File, click here, let it load, speakers on.
11 posted on 04/05/2005 9:33:08 PM PDT by Capn TrVth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

Hillary is also lacking in Bill's charm. I don't know how she's going to master stumping without sounding like nails on a chalkboard.


12 posted on 04/05/2005 9:34:21 PM PDT by Galactic Overlord-In-Chief (Any Freepers who enjoy fantasy, I welcome to look at my FR homepage to take a look at my new book)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Starve The Beast

This piece doesn't even mention the dem voter fraud that they were counting on as insurance to win the election.....we KNOW it occurred because the dems made only feints at investigating/exposing alleged Rep voter fraud. Because of this, they are acutely aware that Bush's re-election was really a true landslide.


13 posted on 04/05/2005 9:38:13 PM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68
This piece doesn't even mention the dem voter fraud...

York wasn't going into this area, but you are certainly right. Also, prominent Dems (including a former First Lady) are lobbying for a federal law to allow convicted felons to vote. They say they're just trying to compensate for bias in the system, but do you think it just might be that they're trying to compensate for the fact that Democrats can't win the votes of law-abiding citizens?

14 posted on 04/05/2005 9:44:01 PM PDT by Starve The Beast (I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The Democrats truly believed they could sell "Anybody But Bush" and with Karl Rove's leadership, it almost worked. A president with Bush's growing economy, high approvals and defensible war record *should* have slaughtered a lightweight like Kerry. If they had showed any real stomach for taking the fight to the Democrats, they could have won 35 states.

The Democrats' big error may have been that they believed their own lies. They truly believed nobody liked Bush because, well, they didn't *know* anybody who liked Bush. Amongst their conclaves of Bush haters, this was probably true. They just didn't realize there was a whole big flyover country out there that didn't agree with them.


15 posted on 04/05/2005 9:45:31 PM PDT by Tall_Texan (If you can think 180-degrees apart from reality, you might be a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
It was only a half-vast left-wing conspiracy.
16 posted on 04/05/2005 9:52:16 PM PDT by SmithL (Proud Submariner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: presidio9

My own view is that if the reporting of the 2004 campaign was even remotely unbiased, Bush would have gotten close to sixty percent of the vote. If the mainstream media was as biased towards Bush and Republicans as they were for Kerry and Dems, Bush might have gotten two-thirds. I don't care about contributions, however large, made by advocacy organizations of whatever political bent. I'm far more concerned about the still overwhelmingly liberal bias in the media and the culture. Those are two areas that are changing but are still powerful assets for liberals.


19 posted on 04/06/2005 1:45:02 AM PDT by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
Mr. York records that 92% of contributions of $1 million or more went to Democrats.

Top three billionaires in the US, Gates, Allen and Buffet all contributed to Kerry. Also, 23 out of the top 25 contributors to the 527s went Democrat.

Since the Democrats claim the Evil Rich back those who help them at the expense of the poor, who is the Evil Party again? DEMOCRATS!

Also, the average contribution is larger for the Democrats.

If political money is evil, Democrats are evil.

20 posted on 04/06/2005 3:15:49 AM PDT by Doctor Raoul (Support Our Troops, Spit On A Reporter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

I'm with you. Hillary will be much better than Kerry, but she has huge baggage, and it ain't just her thighs.


21 posted on 04/06/2005 4:35:23 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

guess it's too much to hope that hillary will try to throw a football . . . or is she being coached on that, too?


22 posted on 04/06/2005 5:50:56 AM PDT by cyn (it's sarcasm, but jim king really said it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: Attention Surplus Disorder
Kerry was lackluster personified

He was Dukakis with a lot more money, a lot more arrogance, and a lot less charisma.

24 posted on 04/06/2005 6:07:59 AM PDT by Sicon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

funny you should mention fraud >> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1378288/posts

it's these 'little' things', the 'little foxes', that add up to the later big awful thing, as I've recently seen. the seemingly little things must be opposed all along to ensure victory in the end.


25 posted on 04/06/2005 6:12:39 AM PDT by cyn (it's sarcasm, but jim king really said it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson