" I'm the titular head of the Dims. Demonizing religion is at the top
of my agenda, " said Hillary as she flew off to her Senate office.
Posted on 12/07/2004 3:43:24 AM PST by kattracks
Democrats and other liberal backers of John Kerry's presidential campaign are at it again in Ohio, demanding a recount. That these people would again seek to "interpret the will" of the voter in hopes of changing the legal outcome of an election is not shocking, but the hypocrisy is and it continues to harm the Democratic Party.
While many like to talk about the election being won by religious voters motivated by the loosely defined "moral values," it is much simpler than that. Kerry lost the election because he and his party don't really seem to stand for anything anymore - except, of course, themselves.
This is not to suggest that Democrats don't "care" about people. I believe they do, as deeply as any Republican. But, unfortunately for them, we have seen a sizable gap between rhetoric and action from the party and the men they nominate for high office.
During the post-election hysteria of 2000, Democrats protested that Al Gore was denied the presidency despite winning the popular vote, and thus the "will of the people" was being ignored. Yet here we are today with President Bush winning by more than 3,000,000 popular votes and some in the Democratic Party are planning to sue to force a recount in Ohio.
Gore railed about representing the "people versus the powerful" but we later found that he doesn't give any money to charity. John Kerry told us that we shouldn't drive gas-guzzling SUV's - but he owns three of them. He talked about his distinguished military service, but we learned that he threw away his medals after accusing his fellow soldiers of genocide and other war crimes.
Hypocrisy like this is routinely dismissed by the Democrats, as when Bill Clinton looked into the camera and lied about having an affair in the White House with an intern. Recall we were told that such acts and the lies that followed were no real reflection on his character.
If your married neighbor had an affair with your daughter would you really believe that it wasn't a reflection on his character and ability to be trusted? If I berated you routinely about not doing enough for the powerless and then you found out I didn't do a thing for them either, would you still listen?
Because the secular portion of the Democratic Party has so demonized religion in any form other than witchcraft, it is easy for them to now refer to the Red States as "Jesusland" and suggest that 60 million voters must have been ignorant or blinded by religious zeal in re-electing President Bush. Feeling superior, even in defeat, is very important to them, but they are kidding themselves.
They similarly kid themselves in deciphering the meaning of "moral values." The moral values vote was not about religion; it was about belief. Belief that there is right and wrong in this world, not just glib shades of gray; belief that there is a higher power in the universe, no matter what form you might believe it takes; the belief that sometimes, sacrifices must be made, even if they can never be reciprocated.
Moral values voters are parents who realize that raising their children in a world devoid of rules and constraints is impossible; citizens who believe that you do not punish our military because you wish the world was more peaceful. Moral values voters understand that differences in religion and culture are welcome and to be embraced, so long as those beliefs are not used to justify the slaughter of people guilty of nothing more than going to work.
Moral values voters want inclusion and prosperity and peace just as sincerely as those who throw rocks and over-turn cars to show how peace-loving they really are. They respect the rule of law and the separation of church and state while respecting the oft-forgotten second half of the opening sentence in our Bill of Rights; that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Moral issues voters want the truth because there can be no morality without it. For President Bush the truth is not always happy, and it's not always pretty, and it doesn't always make him look good. But there it is.
This makes him abhorrent to those who have become enamored of style over substance, and believe that truth itself lies in the eye of the beholder. Seen through this prism, no wrong is ever really wrong, no right is ever really right, and no election is ever really over.
Copyright 2004, Sterling Rome 2004
but we learned that he threw away his medals after accusing his fellow soldiers of genocide and other war crimes.
What's even funnier is the medals he threw away supposedly weren't even his.
Most Democrats are not practicing Christians or Jews, they are secular humanists who hate the Almighty.
Good read but....
Why do people keep trying to analyze the dumblecrats and tell them how they can win?
Why don't we let them stew in their own juices and become even more irrelevant?
Because the republican party isn't about to let the democrat party implode. They need them too much. They aren't about to allow another party to rise to replace the democrats.
"Because the republican party isn't about to let the democrat party implode. They need them too much. They aren't about to allow another party to rise to replace the democrats."
True, the Republicans could not have gotten a more lame opposition had Santa Delivered it himself.
The Republicans will keep the Dems on life-support for ever if they can.
"True, the Republicans could not have gotten a more lame opposition had Santa Delivered it himself."
Then that doesn't speak too well about our party if the best we could do was to eke out a win against a lame opposition.
Seems like we should be writing/reading articles about how we can improve OUR standing.
"Because the secular portion of the Democratic Party has so demonized religion in any form other than witchcraft, it is easy for them to now refer to the Red States as "Jesusland" and suggest that 60 million voters must have been ignorant or blinded by religious zeal in re-electing President Bush. Feeling superior, even in defeat, is very important to them, but they are kidding themselves."
This line just about sums it up perfectly.
"Then that doesn't speak too well about our party if the best we could do was to eke out a win against a lame opposition.
Seems like we should be writing/reading articles about how we can improve OUR standing."
Adder, did ever occur to you that maybe a lot of Republican top leaders, like Sen John Warner of Virginia, simply do not want to have the power to deliver on every one of their perenial compaign promises or party platform planks?
I think that scares them almost as much as being out of power does.
The majority of these positions are never meant to be fullfilled and they know that the Dems having some miniscule ability to block them is key to keeping their constituents happy thinking that deliverance lies just over the next hill, while they do deliver to the corporations evertyhing those guys demand on the spot.
How many tax-cuts have we seen passed over theyears and we are still waiting for rollback on school prayer, illegal immigration, criminal justice obstructionism, leftist control of public education, abortion on demand, etc, etc, all conservative positions on social issues that the majority of the Republican elite do not want any more than Pelosi does.
If the Dems fall totally out of power, and filibuster in the Senate is all they have left, then the Republicans will expect their leades to actually deliver on their constant promises, and that is a day they dread more than Judgement.
Heard a Democratic Pol from Tenn. on the radio --said most
Democrats are like him -Go to church, and do not agree with
the Washington D.C. Party Line. Said he is on his third read of "the Purpose driven life." Finds something new each time. Said Republicans use the Bible to condemn
others and to exclude others.I guess Democrats read books
by people who have read the Bible-- and Republicans use the
bible as their guid to a better world.
Guess I am not that sophisticated or Machiavellian to think up such a strategy so sorry and cynical.
Lemme try: Perhaps if they did pass the social issues, they would lose power for many years to come. Maybe thats what scares them?
"interpret the will"
This is the "Kreskin" method of counting votes. In this procedure, the local chair"person" of the rat party, holds the ballot up to her head and says" I see a ( fill in the rat candidate's name) vote."
The rats like this one because even though the ratmedia refused to use it in Florida, it was the only counting formula that showed algore winning.
It's hard to parody Kerry using the "He said this, then did that" template, because it misses 87 crucial steps. To catalogue the various position on the medal toss alone would take five pages, single spaced.
Democratically endorsed religions:
Islam
Global Warming
Homosexuality
Atheism
One Worldism
Affirmative Action
Diversity
Anti-Americanism
" I'm the titular head of the Dims. Demonizing religion is at the top
of my agenda, " said Hillary as she flew off to her Senate office.
You could add Pro-Choice to the list.
"Perhaps if they did pass the social issues, they would lose power for many years to come. Maybe thats what scares them?"
Is there even ONE example of them doing this?
I see a whole lot of the other.
The Republican Party is really a coalition of two parties: they both believe in a strong defense, and relatively weak Federal Government (compared to the socialists), and have been winning elections on that basis. They contrast in their social outlook, though. When the day comes that the Demodogs are neutered and go the way of the Whigs, and our security is somewhat assured, those two factions will splinter into the "RINO" Republican party and the Conservative Republican party.
Huh, when does a person with a screename of JFK_Lib become a Reagan conservative all of the sudden and use the royal "we".
A tax cut was passed in 01, a partial birth abortion ban passed and signed, only to be blocked in the courts by liberal appointees(etc.etc).
Nice try at trying to divide and conquer, but your ruse is seen for what it is, IMO, a ruse.
"Huh, when does a person with a screename of JFK_Lib become a Reagan conservative all of the sudden and use the royal "we". "
I think John F Kennedy had a whole lot more in common with Reagan (who had also been a Democrat at one time) then he would have with his little fat brother or the Pelosi gang.
Besides, I like to remind people that at one time liberalism stood for good things before the neoMarxists hijacked the progressive movement.
Besides, I like to remind people that at one time liberalism stood for good things before the neoMarxists hijacked the progressive movement
Your second paragraph tells the truth, with your calling yourself a progressive.
A political progressive, is a progressive, a progressive. And the progressive movement includes such political points as abortion on demand, universal public schooling in govt. schools, gun control(etc.etc).
Also there is no such thing as a "neomarxist", a marxist is a marxist, is a marxist.
Must be before my time. When did liberalism ever stand for something good? (1800's maybe? must have been defined quite differently)
Liberal used to mean thatone trusted the average man to do well if he was educated and given opportunity. After the neoMarxists (gripe to Horrowitz if you dont like the term) took over the Democratic Party in 1972, the 'liberal' establishment took on nanny mentality and began to view the common average man with contempt.
William Shirer was a big time liberal and he was one of the many liberals who opposed abortion and regarded it as barbaric.
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.