Posted on 11/21/2010 1:08:09 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
This will come as a shock to the devoted socialists of the east and west coasts, but the most provincial areas of this country are not located in the Midwest, the Southwest, or even the Bible belt of the Deep South. Quite the contrary: These areas respect diversity of thought in ways east- and west-coast liberals cannot fathom. It is within the big cities that liberalism has become almost a religion. There, in the ivory towers of Washington, D.C., Manhattan, and Hollywood, intellectually inbred elitists have become backward caricatures of themselves.
So it is not hard to understand how The New York Times, for example, gets it so wrong so often. Isolated in their fashionable bubbles, reassuring each other that the country surely must be (or at least should be) as left wing as they are, Times editors, reporters and columnists continue to call to mind the inane cry of critic Pauline Kael, who famously said after the 1972 presidential election, “How could Richard Nixon have been re-elected? No one I know voted for Richard Nixon!” (Nixon, of course, carried the state of New York along with 48 others that year, which should give you some clue as to the remote nature of Ms. Kael’s existence. I’m sure she had the same reaction a dozen years later when Ronald Reagan swept all but one state.)
Times columnist Bob Herbert’s post-election opinion piece is a perfect example of advanced missing the point. What Herbert apparently gleaned from the midterm election, which purged 60-plus Democrats from the U.S. House of Representatives and came very close to turning control of the Senate over to the GOP as well, is this: “We're getting mind-numbing chatter about balanced budgets and smaller government and whether Mitch McConnell and his gang can chase President Obama out of the White House in 2012,” and “What voters want is leadership that will help them through an economic nightmare and fix a country that has been pitched into a state of sharp decline. They long for leaders with a clear and compelling vision of a better America and a road map for getting there.”
Apparently, Herbert is as tone-deaf as the left wing politicians he defends. That “mind-numbing chatter” he hears is the sound of millions of Tea Party activists who are, to quote a clichéd phrase from a 1970s-era movie, “mad as hell and not gonna take this anymore!” He erroneously assumes that because of what happened at the polls, voters want politicians to “do something.” What we, the people, were saying was, “Stop! You've done enough! Too much, in fact!”
Likewise, lame duck Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi believes that she is still doing the people’s business. In an arrogant attempt to cling to power, Pelosi is insisting on remaining in the position of Leader of the House Democrats. From all indications, no House Dem has the guts to stop her, which should make every conservative in the nation happy. After all, one can scarcely imagine a more polarizing spokesperson for the liberal cause.
Similarly, the divas (male and female) of the entertainment industry continue to spout their collectivist tripe from their multimillion dollar mansions. Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Leonardo DiCaprio, Sean Penn, Rob Reiner—the whole left coast brain trust—can always be counted on to take sides against America and her people.
The elites of Hollywood, government, media and academia will never read the tea leaves that the people are dumping into the harbor. Our concern must be the Republican leadership. They misread the Tea Party over the last year and during the midterm election campaign. Time will tell whether they will get it right before the next presidential campaign.
Early indications are they get it, I question for how long. I'm pretty shocked at McConnell's statements, he needs to impress on the rest of the RHINO’s in the senate that if they don't fall in line, it's the end of the line.
Perfect!
The elites have it all figured out. The electorate wants the republicans to ‘compromise’.
They believe that if they say it enough times we will forget why we threw the bums out.
Much like Obamao telling us how well the stimulus worked. He believes we’ll believe it’s full employment now. That millions of people are still not out of work and they don’t know that if they are over 50 they most likely will never have a high paying job ever again.
"Inbred pseudo-intellectual elists." would be even better
Apparently, there is no record of her having said that, something of an urban legend. She was, however, a liberal dipwad..
Think Joy Behar.
He said cutting government spending was impossible because the only good in America comes from the government and the only solution to cutting the deficit is raising taxes on the wealthy.
When I asked him if he knew and understood the difference between raising tax rates and actually raising tax revenues, he looked at me like I was from a different planet.
When I explained to him how cutting tax rates had the effect of increasing tax revenues in much the same way that raising sales commissions would often increase sales, a light came on. For a brief shining moment, it made sense. I explained that for the government to increase tax revenues, it had to nurture business (particularly small business, which produces most of the jobs). He nodded. I went on to explain that the best way for the government to "invest" in business is to cut tax rates, his quizzical look began to waver.
Then when I explained that, just as in business, the government needed to have it's waste and inefficiency cut away, he returned to his stupidity with the statement, "so, are you okay with companies dumping PCP's in rivers and streams and are you willing to give up your Medicare and Social Security when you retire?"
Mr Patton (author) if you cannot accurately apply the definitions and meanings of your terms then you are not an effective spokesman, and are part of the problem:
How can the term "liberalism" be used as an antithesis of "respect for diversity?"
How can the term "liberalism" be used as a surrogate for "a religion"?
When YOU use "liberalism" you really mean LEFTISM - the bigoted imposition of agenda onto others. The term "liberalism" can and is interpreted in different ways, like in "libertarianism" as a political movement of anything goes, or like "liberal" meaning tolerant, or like "liberal" meaning (as so often misused) leftist.
This is not a minor point, for the misused term "liberalism" is widely mistakenly applied versus conservatism, and confuses the entire concept of the latter, both consciously (spin) and subconsciously. Rush Limbaugh has in the past, although I think getting better, regularly spread the misuse of the term.
In the struggle for the souls and weltanschaung of humans, even intelligent ones, one cannot just assume others know what you mean. I think Diderot was imprisoned during the French Revolution for insisting on accurate definitions. And given the sinister manipulation of the Media human dignity cannot be left to degenerate explication.
There is Leftism, the agenda ridden manipulation and control of others far beyond any "liberal" intentions, and there is Conservatism, such high respect and regard for others that they are trusted with the responsibility for their own decisions.
Johnny Suntrade
I had a "mind-numbing" chat with a liberal Methodist minister at my health club yesterday and came to the conclusion that the Left is both crazy and stupid.
I have had similar experience with both Methodist and Presbyterian ministers. As I consider myself a Christian it is really weird, like they have foregone the issue of personal responsibility and self honesty (which certainly Christ's teachings were about) and assumed the government is above it all.
Really, really naive and misguided.
I am a devout Christian and as such mentioned to my minister acquaintance that socialism (he did not wince at my accusation) was anti-Christian and could he explain to me how he reconciled the two (presuming him to be a Christian as well). Again, he just gave me a blank stare.
The he utter a strange word...he said "charity."
I asked him how it was charity for the government to take what was mine and give it to the needy (as opposed to my giving it out of the goodness of my heart) and he said, "most people wouldn't give to charity and it was necessary for government to force it upon them."
It was my turn for a blank stare.
I think he had it fixed in his mind that it was his Christian duty to take (by theft) what was not his and redistribute it. I went so far as to ask him for Scriptural reference and he mentioned the parable of the young rich ruler in Luke 18.
As Professor Harold Hill says in The Music Man, we got trouble right here in River City and that starts with a capital "T"...
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.