Posted on 10/25/2004 7:14:35 AM PDT by Lucretia Borgia
So I'm in the local Blockbuster the other night, returning some DVDs. It was a slow night, and the clerks were ignoring me and talking with each other while I was popping open cases and making sure my kids had put the right discs back in the right boxes. As I snapped the last case shut and dropped it down the return chute, I began to pay some minor attention to the clerks' conversation, and that is when I heard one of them utter the most absolutely amazing statement:
"No, dude, I cannot vote for George Bush, 'cause, like, I am so much smarter than him."This, I must admit, caused a moment of sheer stunned silence on my part. I wondered: should I just shake my head and go off to look at the new releases? Bite my tongue and quietly leave the store? Or should I slap that little turd down without the slightest hint of mercy?
"Ah, I see. You're smarter than a Harvard MBA. That must be why you're a fat, pimply guy with a greasy pony-tail who works for minimum wage at Blockbuster."Maybe I should have done that. Maybe it was a teachable moment. But I've worked in education, and I've been a TA, and I have found that the Socratic method is completely wasted on people who are beyond irony. So, at that moment, I chose to take a deep breath, shake my head, and wander off, to mind my own business.
But the moment has stayed with me, for several days now, and I've continued to wonder: just why do liberals insist on characterizing President Bush as being stupid? After all, the man flew supersonic jet fighters for the Texas Air National Guard. He received an MBA from Harvard. While I've met a few arrogant gonzo lunatic fighter jocks, and more than a few ethically repellent MBAs, I have yet to meet one of either group that I would consider "stupid."
No, the more I think about it, the more firmly I come to believe that the real problem lies in the nature of modern liberalism. It must be hard to be a liberal these days; there is so little ammunition left in the can. You see, as nearly as I can determine it, the key reason why liberals insist on calling President Bush "stupid" is that that is the only insult they have left. Any other perjorative term they might use could offend an important liberal constituency. I mean, before they could even start to think about calling him, say --
-- an amoral skirt-chasing, commie-loving, draft-dodging, race-baiting, baby-killing, bribe-taking, pill-popping, coke-snorting, pot-smoking, crack-smoking, pole-smoking, boy-buggering, lesbian-licking, sheep-sodomizing, promiscuity-promoting, ambulance-chasing, morbidly obese America-hating alcoholic traitor --
-- why, they'd have to repudiate John Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Barney Frank, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, NARAL, NOW, PETA, and NAMBLA, just for starters.
So, like I said, the painfully circumscribed vocabulary for invective that is permitted to modern liberals --
Why, it's almost enough to make you feel sorry for the poor dumb bastards.
Don't worry, this type of loser won't vote. Ask him where his polling place is- I bet he has no clue.
I'm sure this gentleman will be first in line to vote on November 3rd.
Almost.
Reminds me of the clerk I met in a MD lingerie shop. She chimed (for customers to over-hear) that she was voting Kerry b/c she felt he would do more do protect women's rights and gay rights.
I responded that I believe Women and Gays have a right to LIFE, and that Bush would do a better job of protecting them from Wahhabi Islam.
"I will admit I am a liberal."
So, who are you voting for?
Exactly. Half of these idiots who are so vocally anti-Bush don’t vote and never have.
Here locally I heard a story on the radio about some idiot, middle-aged, Vietnam vet who was complaining about Bush. He was spewing the typical Dim-ocrat/Kerry BS. At the end of the rant, the reporter asked him who he had voted for in the past and who he was voting for this time. The clown said he has never voted!
Not really. The problem with modern liberalism is that it does not tolerate dissent -- since their "progressive" way is best for everyone, people who disagree with that are either stupid or willfully evil. (Note that the more schizoprhenic liberals will alternate which epithet to trow at the President, and in extreme cases will hold both views simultaneously.)
"I responded that I believe Women and Gays have a right to LIFE, and that Bush would do a better job of protecting them from Wahhabi Islam."
I like that response. Good job.
Welcome to FR....
What empirical evidence to you have to substantiate that claim? You mean that Bush relies more on Colin Powell than Clinton did on Albright? Or Condi Rice than Clinton did on Sandy Berger? What does that say about the liberals and the quality of their advisors?
If you are referring to Reagan and Bush "relying" on advisors, I think you are wrong. Reagan was and Bush is a delegator - they are "big picture people" if you will - grand visions. They are not micromanagers - as in Clinton and Carter. Reagan and Bush trust their advisors to make it happen - Clinton had his finger in every pie (and other things).
Zot!!!!!!
ZOT!
Why are you a member of a web site that's for and about conservatism?
Niiiiiiiice :)
"Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web."
How did you miss this? It's on the main page. Go back to DU.
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.