Skip to comments.PONDERING THEIR LOSS: DEMOCRATS LOOK BACK (they still don't get it?)
Posted on 11/13/2004 3:16:13 AM PST by Liz
Peter Beinart was even more hysterical than usual this week ("The Right Way out of the Wilderness," Opinion, Nov. 6). He alleged that there was "conservative anti-Americanism" following the failure to impeach Bill Clinton. What is he talking about? Whatever you think of the impeachment, it was not "anti-American." It was merely holding a lying, degenerate scoundrel to account. When that becomes anti-American, we are doomed. Joe Santora Manhattan
John Kerry's stances on the issues were strictly out of the past. His economic policies were Keynesian. His foreign-policy solutions were a product of 1960s thinking. His trade policies were a pre-Depression relic. And his solutions to social problems were from the New Deal mentality that looks to government first to solve every problem. In his 1996 re-election campaign, Clinton spoke of building a bridge to the 21st century. Kerry's policies would have brought us back to the 20th century. Albert Paparesta Brookfield, Conn.
Where were these astute critiques and pearls of wisdom before Kerry's stunning defeat last Tuesday? Most of Beinart's columns, with regard to the race for president, as I recall, consisted of not much more than strident, liberal Bush-bashing. Only now does he want to offer thoughtful advice to his candidate. Wednesday morning quarterback, anyone? Tommy Drennan Jersey City, N.J.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Some liberal twit at work said instead of free healthcare, everyone should get a free college education, so they wouldnt vote for conservatives..
"Wednesday morning quarterback, anyone?"
Yep, the folks at The New Republic are freaking out. Martin Peretz, whom I normally like, wrote a piece about Kerry (it's around here somewhere) that was just plain mean.
So, if he didn't like him so much, they shouldn't have endorsed him.
When you are actually making me feel sorry for Kerry, what's up with that?
As put by a Liberal talkshow host on a latenight radio KGO here, "Ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what YOUR COUNTRY can DO FOR YOU!" Big government here!
Problem for the libs there is, Bush won a majority of votes among college graduates, people with some college and high school graduates. The only educational groups Kerry won were high school dropouts and people with graduate school degrees.
So, if you're not a dropout or an academic, you probably voted for Bush.
The other problem is, there is no such thing as a "free" college education - or anything else for that matter.
Clinton was their high-water mark. A full-fledged Mozart of BS-production. A freak talent for making nonsense sound like wisdom. Exactly what the left needed, because their entire philosophy is a creaking Rube Goldberg machine of internal contradiction, superstition, and mythology. Clinton was possible because of a unique confluence of historical trends: post-cold-war "readiness fatigue," the conversion of the mass media to an ideological mouthpiece of the left, and one individual with an extradorinary talent for lying. Oh, yeah, and Ross Perot.
Some of those factors may come along again, but others never will. For example, I don't see another Clinton-level talent among the Democrat's current crop of mediocrity. They seem to be trying mightily to anoint Barak Obama into this role, but I doubt it. Physics has been waiting a long time for another Einstein; I think the Democrats will have to wait just as long for another Clinton. And even when he (or she) finally emerges, the media will have morphed into something much more difficult to spoof. And, the constant pressure of terror and chaos from the Islamic world will keep people's instinct for self-preservation at a high level.
Could be the post-election "Uriah Heep Factor." We need to be aware that the "Uriah Heeps" are out there plotting and planning to co-opt the 2004 conservative victory for their own hidden agendas.
The Uriah Heeps of the world would manhandle the social conservative victory----and dilute the presidential mandate conferred by proto-conservatives----for their own self-serving agendas.
Uriah Heep is notorious for wielding undue influence, a bounder who was always planning and plotting, ingratiating himself into the confidence of others. Uriah is obsequious, manipulative, and wormed his way into positions of influence. Uriah was a consummate con man, and not to be trusted.
Translated into the language of the popular culture, the Uriah Heeps position themselves as amenable to conservative qualities of faith and compassion, but are insincere in these feelings, using people only to advance their own agendas and ambiitons.
They've smelled the power of conservatives, and now the Uriah Heeps grow in their desire to exercise control over the Bush agenda and over conservatives. The Uriah Heeps of the world with their sense of entitlement feed on the victories of others. They become more and more power-hungry and will deploy their self-serviing strategies to selfish purposes.
We need to watch out, for they will bring more harm to conservative interests in the rights of the unborn, religious freedom, restoration of American culture, and so on.
At their very core----the Uriah Heeps evince an elitist, unmitigated contempt for Christan conservatives, and all we stand for, but are willing to hold their noses, and work with the conservatives they loathe, in order to co-opt conservatives for self-serving purposes.
Nice deconstruction, replete with all kinds of gratifying mental pics......"Rube Goldberg Democrats" is a keeper. Somebody oughta photoshop that.
I don't think Obama can carry the heay water for the Dumbos. He's a flash in the pan, and was used by the Dims strictly for convention PR.
Clinton was enabled by Perot, not by anything earth-shaking he had to say. The Moanica blowout and impeachment are his legacy, and things Americans of all stripes would not want to go through again.
Good God, what an awful thought.
Correct, Im already deep in debt and still have two years to go..
That is one of the best descrpitions of the dems philosophy that I have ever heard.They cling to tenets of socialism,marxism when they have been proven an abject failure when tried at any level.They want to save the life of every deranged,evil maniac that murders someone but will sacrifice an unborn baby for any cause.They believe minorities can`t get anywhere without them but must enslave minorites to a permanent underclass in order to maintain their political power.It gives you a headache to try to understand them.
Bubba was impeached ... the role of the House of Representatives. [Think of it as an indictment.]
The failure of the Senate to find Bubba guilty and thereby remove him from office ... is another matter. The senators, allowing politics to trump justice, failed completely and very publicly to perform their sworn duty.
What amazes me in all the post election anal analysis that has gone on, is that no one has said that the reason Kerry lost is because he was a lousy candidate. It's all about the "nutso Christian right", or "not relating to the red states", but not a word about the fact that the dumos could not have chosen a worse candidate to challenge an arguably, pretty weak sitting president.
Seems like Obama revealed himself for a typical leftist class warfare artist when he opened his mouth at the convention. He's no moderate, he's a fire-breather, a divider. A hater, not a helper.
Webster's should use that for defining Democrats.
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.
Try to understand that Dumbos can't "feel good" about themselves unless they're in the throes of "vicimization."
On February 19, 1999 all but one Democrat Senators violated their oath to uphold the Constitution by voting "Not Guilty" on Impeachment Articles I and II and then voting to Censure Clinton for the exact same offenses!!
Only Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-West Virginia) cast both not guilty votes and voted to not adopt the Censure Resolution.
The following is a statement from the Senate Byrd's closed deliberations on the articles of impeachment against President Clinton, excerpts of which senators were allowed to publish in the Congressional Record for Friday, Feb. 12, 1999:
"All of the institutions of government--the presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the system of justice and law, yes, even the media--all have been damaged by this unhappy and sorry chapter in our nation's history....
"Hamilton observed that impeachable offenses `are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust . . . to injuries done immediately to the society itself.' Hamilton also observed that the impeachment court could not be `tied down' by strict rules, `either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors (the House of Representatives) or in the construction of it by the judges (the Senate)...
"Mr. Clinton's offenses do, in my judgment, constitute an `abuse or violation of some public trust....the evidence against Mr. Clinton shows that he willfully and knowingly and repeatedly gave false testimony under oath in judicial proceedings.
"When the President of the United States, who has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to see to it that the laws be faithfully executed, breaks the law himself by lying under oath, he undermines the system of justice and law on which this Republic--not this `democracy'--this Republic has its foundation.
"In so doing, has the President not committed an offense in violation of the public trust? Does not this misconduct constitute an injury to the society and its political character? Does not such injury to the institutions of Government constitute an impeachable offense, a political high crime or high misdemeanor against the state? How would Washington vote? How would Hamilton vote? How would Madison or Mason or Gerry vote? My head and my heart tell me that their answer to these questions would be, `Yes.'
But the matter does not end there. The Constitution states, without equivocation, that the President, Vice President or any civil officer, when impeached and convicted, shall be removed from office. Hence, one cannot convict the President without removing him from office.
Should Mr. Clinton be removed from office for these impeachable offenses? This question gives me great pause. The answer is, as it was intended to be by the framers, a difficult calculus. This is without question the most difficult, wrenching and soul-searching vote that I have ever, ever cast in my 46 years in Congress. A vote to convict carries with it an automatic removal of the President from office. It is not a two-step process. Senators can't vote maybe. The only vote that the Senator can cast, under the rules, as written, is a vote either to convict and remove or a vote to acquit.
So should I vote `Guilty' when my name is called, believing that President Clinton's offenses constitute high misdemeanors?
Should I vote guilty and vote to remove him from office? Some critics may say--some of my colleagues may say--they may ask, if you believe he is guilty, how can you not vote to remove him from office?
There is some logic to the question, but simple logic can point one way while wisdom may be in quite a different direction. It is not a popularity contest, of course. But remember our English forbears, who, on June 20, 1604, submitted to King James I the Apology of the Commons, in which they declared that their rights were not derived from kings, and that, `The voice of the people in things of their knowledge is [as] the voice of God.' `Vox populi, vox Dei.'"
Senator Byrd voted as he perceived the public polls dictated so as to not remove a 'popular' President from office, despite knowing that President Clinton was, in fact, guilty as charged.
For me February 19, 1999 was a defining moment for the Democrats ~ with their actions that day it became crystal clear that, when it suited their political purpose, our nation's laws, indeed our Constitution, were dispensable to the leaders of this party.
Teddy Roosevelt said: "My power vanishes into thin air the instant that my fellow citizens, who are straight and honest, cease to believe that I represent them and fight for what is straight and honest. That is all the strength that I have."
Teddy was so right! Millions of us (getting close to 61 million I read) have totally ceased to believe that Democrats represent this nation and fight for what is straight and honest!
The quest for misunderstanding continues.
Sounds familiar... Kerry was the wrong candidate for the wrong country at the wrong time. Unamed liberal candidate could have done everything better and smarter and would have had a better plan.
This is a great description of Richard Clarke. Very good post, BTW. Thanks.
Let's hope they never figure it out.
Some of those factors may come along again, but others never will.
and ... They cling to tenets of socialism,marxism when they have been proven an abject failure when tried at any level.They want to save the life of every deranged,evil maniac that murders someone but will sacrifice an unborn baby for any cause.They believe minorities can`t get anywhere without them but must enslave minorities to a permanent underclass in order to maintain their political power.It gives you a headache to try to understand them.
Great description of the present state of the demagogue Demodogs. That they have been able to keep this contraption of a political party intact is a feat beyond human power, almost. It seems doomed to a spectacular disintegration at some time in the near future.
What always amazes me about liberal thinking is their idea of "free".....Free to them is OPM (other peoples money)..if they fund their beliefs themselves its not "free" anymore!!!
THE LIBERAL CREDO
1. Capitalism creates oppression; government creates opportunity.
2. Traditional gender roles are artificial but feminism and homosexuality are government-protected lifestyles.
3. Self-esteem is paramount; government must undertake to guarantee each citizen-victim self-esteem no matter the cost.
4. The ACLU is good, because destroying religion and silencing believers are protected by the Constitution and the First Amendment; The NRA is bad because it defends the Constitution.
5. Standardized IQ tests are racist; racial quotas and affirmative action
6. Conservatives are racists; everybody knows that Black people can't make it on their own without big-buck government assistance programs and Hollyweirdos to proselytize the message 24/7.
7. Normal sex is perverted. Threesomes, bestiality, necrophilia, homosexuality are just new ways to get a thrill.
8. Moral indignation is a liberal's standard strategy for endowing our output with superiority.
9. Victimization is our basic belief by which we blame and find others responsible for our own personal failures, then expect taxpayers, deep-pocketed individuals, or the courts to bail us out. It feels good to be in the throes of "victimization" and either A) causing victims, B) concocting victims, C) playing victim, D) commiserating over victims, or E) creating another class of victims to bleed over.
10. It's a liberal's duty to treat Middle America in the manner of raising mushrooms, that is to say, keep them in the dark and feed them lots of horse manure.
That sounds just about right. Good summary.
Einstein is credited with saying that:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
That seems to be what the Demokrauts are doing. Every election cycle, they think that there is something wrong with the VOTERS, and keep moving farther and farther left, thinking they aren't far enough left yet.
I think Einstein was right.
The lunatic lefties are mentally ill, and proof of that has been how they have reacted to the Death of Arafat a mass murdering Islamofacist.
To the lunatic lefties, he was a hero, a god and a great man. GW is a terrible man in the minds of these mentally ill.
That sums up the status of their mental illness for me.
The majority of those that vote democrat do not have a college education.
Re #6: I really admire your prose-writing abilites.
Einstein said it and psychiatrists use it.
Another key psychiatric clue is how well one fits into society and, considering the left's childish, lying, miscreant behavior, they should all be sent far away for 30 days observation...I vote the south pole.
Just call her a bigot and watch her face.
..... they should all be sent far away for 30 days observation...I vote the south pole.
hahaaaa! Works for me! :^D
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Just send them to Canada, Cuba, China or France. Don't spoil the South Pole.
Yeahbut, they don't want our Rats.
Send them anyway.
Canada just doesn't want anyone with a work ethic and a moral core value system.
As long as they insist on looking back, they cannot possibly go forward and heal the rift in our nation.
What the Democratic Pols and Officials and voters did reminds me of a story.
Elderly Husband and wife, out for a drive.
Wife, looking out window, starts wistfully chiding her husband about the good old days.
When they rode in the car, shoulder to shoulder, sitting right next to each other. My how she longs for that again.
Her husband looks over and says, "I'm not the one who moved."
We had 101 reasons that justified taking out Saddam's brutal dictatorship.
Everyone in the nation, both Dems and Repubs and other, all sided with President Bush after 9/11 and said, "Whatever you want, you got it. Take care of this."
And he has. But along the way, the Dems 'moved to the window'.
too late. She already started. She saw the influence , according to the media, and she ain't no dummy.
However, it wasn't the religious Christians who made the difference, from what I learned.
It was the concern over 9/11 happening again with Kerry vs. Bush, and the fact that Kerry was unable to state ANYTHING CLEARLY about any issue. Even athiests want a President to whom YES means YES and NO means NO.
It won't bother them.