Posted on 06/01/2004 9:23:06 AM PDT by Warhammer
There's a backlash underway in America and it's not unexpected. It's in direct response to the overwhelming level of bile being spewed at President George W.Bush and his administration by the arrogant Left-wingers - and I'm specifically referencing the Democratic politicos, the news media crowd, the New York/Hollywood elites and the halls of academia. Bush-bashing is not limited to news programming and university campuses. It's now cropping up in the popular culture of America as well - I'll get to that later. More importantly, a little more than half of the American populace has dug in its heels and made clear that it refuses to eat the garbage that the so-called "liberal intelligencia" is attempting to force-feed it.
Despite the relentless barrage of attacks by the Leftists (or liberals or neo-socialists or whatever you wish to call them), President Bush's polling numbers are on the upswing. According to the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll released on May 31st, Bush's job approval rating has jumped to 52 percent, and if the presidential election were held today, he would garner 45 percent of the vote as opposed to Senator John Kerry at 44 percent. It's a virtual dead-heat. On the surface, this seems counter-intuitive considering the unparalleled pounding that Bush has taken in recent months.
What's happening here? It's not complicated -- The heartland of America has only come to further revile the march-in-lockstep liberals, which have saturated the American public with their repugnant propaganda. The Left never knows when to let up. Does the term "overkill" ring a bell? In fact, thanks to the antics of the Left-leaning crowd, the Republicans are now poised to pick up some independents that are virtually inoculated by the unmitigated gobbledygook being lobbed at the GOP. Ah yes, the proverbial silver-lining to the dark cloud.
Interestingly, signs of a backlash against the Left are beginning to even manifest on university campuses, with liberal stalwarts such as Senator Joe Biden, EL Doctorow, Ted Sorensen, and Tom Brokaw getting booed and hissed. Americans that support President Bush and his Iraq policy have had enough of the outright lies and revisionist history of the Left, which not only insists there was never any kind of Saddam/al-Qaeda nexus, but no real terrorist presence in Saddam's Iraq at all! This is the drivel Americans get to hear from the mainstream press. Moreover, the liberals are absolutely audacious in their twisting of truth, which is source of considerable consternation to many in this nation. The bottom line is that conservatives and liberals are not only embracing significantly different perspectives, they are drawing from different reservoirs of information.
For starters, Saddam's Iraq was one of the State Department's designated "rogue states" for years precisely because it aided and abetted terror organizations such as Hamas, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, the Kurdistan Worker's Party, the PLO, the Arab Liberation Front and Islamic Jihad, in addition to harboring Abu Nidal who was the pointman in charge of the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, just outside of Baghdad. Moreover, Saddam Hussein was also harboring Khala Khadr al-Salahat, who was involved in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and Abu Abbas who hijacked the Achille Lauro. Furthermore, terror operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (Nick Berg's reported assassin) has had strong links to al-Qaeda for quite some time, and was permitted by Saddam's regime to travel from Iran up through northern Iraq to al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar-al-Islam. This is just a sampling of Saddam Hussein's past involvement with the Mid-East terror network -- vital information that the news media chooses to ignore. For more on intelligence that ties Saddam's Iraq to al-Qaeda, the article "Case Closed" by journalist Stephen Hayes at The Weekly Standard website is very informative.
It's really amazing - The ratings of CNN, CNBC and MSNBC are in the toilet largely because of their obsession with Bush-bashing, but yet these Leftists can't seem to stifle themselves. Hello, cable news, your niche audience is disproportionately conservative and, other than the Fox News Channel, you're chasing conservatives away in droves. Last year, fellow conservatives advised me that various television series were participating in Bush-bashing, a phenomenon that really wasn't on my radar screen simple because I generally stick with cable news, particularly Fox News. However, as someone who thoroughly enjoys science fiction, I do occasional switch to the SciFi Channel for some entertainment - It's largely mindless fare such as "Boa versus Python" and monstrous alligators eating up townspeople, but it's a good diversion from the tedium of endless war news and politics.
In any event, a few months back I watched the season finale of "Stargate SG 1", and I noticed the use of some liberal anti-Bush buzz words - The character Jack O'Neill said he would never vote for those "two shrubs" now in the White House, which was followed-up by a creepy remark about the presidential election in Florida. Moreover, the newly elected vice-president was portrayed as an incredibly evil man with his own agenda, aligning himself with a rogue faction of a super-secret intelligence organization that was bent on selling "alien" devices for big bucks in tandem with major corporations. (Please, this is SciFi screwball stuff, so here "alien" is from another planet, not another country).
It was apparently a veiled reference, albeit from the typical liberal viewpoint, to Vice-President Cheney as an unethical man who was selling out his nation for contracts with big-business (Halliburton). Yeah, yeah they'll say I'm reading things into the episode that weren't there, but given the overall context of the dialog, I think my impressions are right on target. Frankly, I resent these types of manipulations, which clearly should not have been incorporated into a popular TV series during an election year. But again, these liberal activists in the entertainment field think that it's their right to engage in improprieties when they're taking potshots at conservatives. It's certainly a producer's right to voice their creative expression. Likewise, it's the prerogative of conservatives to actively reject programming that is hostile to our national leaders. Most of the nation understands that Vice-President Cheney is doing a fine job, but it's very unfortunate that Cheney has become a punching bag for the Left.
By UCMJ, I cannot man a protest line, attend a FReep, or any of the other fun and exciting thigns you and other FReepers get to do.
However, that Lieutenant who gave the Democrat rebuttal amybe set a good precedent for insubordinate soldiers, wouldn't you say?
I depend so much on my fellow FReepers, to do what I'm not permitted to do. Hell, in the 200 Election, I couldn't even get my vote counted.
Forgive the typos - I'm back on Active Duty, and typing in between training...
THis is an example of where the left is spending its money now that McCain-Feingold is on the books. ie. The day after tomorrow. I've also seen several episodes of prime time where dialog between characters say things like 'no WMD' ...
Well .. the West Wing tried it .. The Practice tried it .. Whoopi Goldberg tried it .. THEY'RE ALL CANCELLED SHOWS.
I don't think it's working .. but they will continue to try and then end up overplaying their hand - thus more cancelled shows may result. I don't know how long it will take for them to get the clue.
When I see that stuff .. I change channel. I also send a message to the program saying how their bashing of the President is out of line. But .. be sure you tell them you don't care who they vote for, but you wish to make your own choice.
A year and a half ago they were going to be consensual on the war but run against Bush on the economy. But the economy is responding to the tax cuts and recovering from the 9-11 shock, weathering high oil prices, and still growing strongly. That game plan clearly failed.
Dean dragged them to their whacko left on the war. All their professional pols were reluctant to go there, considering it political suicide to run against a popular president conducting a successful and necessary war against a deeply unsympathetic enemy, on the specific issue of that war, and on a platform of defeatism and pacifism and retreat. To get the nomination, their pols had to run hard left. They still knew enough to dump Dean, but they saddled themselves with hatred of Bush over the war.
And so this year they are trying to turn that into a self fufilling prophecy, using nothing but wind. The activists stumping for Dean who knew he was unelectable just three months ago, are not salivating over the prison photos and their chance to righteously hate Americans in uniform. As they hoped for "quagmire" a year ago, they hoped for a national uprising and Tet II from Fallujah and Sadr. They are openly calling for US defeat and retreat. And excoriating the men who won two wars in as many years against foes so evil they could have come straight out of central casting.
They aren't going to get a US defeat on the ground in Iraq. They are betting on hopelessly weak foreign allies. The Iraqi people are going to follow their own government to pro-US policies. Only tiny minorities are going to oppose this, as it becomes clear they really have achieved sovereignty and their own government, and don't need to fire a single shot to get it. Those minorities are going to get it in the neck from all sides. Indeed, they already are. They aren't going to crescendo through the summer and fall. They've already peaked, in April.
By the time the fall arrives, the administration is going to be standing on two large wins and a roaring economy. All the left is going to have done for 3 solid years of war is moan and bitch and carp and scream that the sky is falling. And the sky isn't going to fall. Right now, the press is so loud they have some in the broad public actually scared that it might, and that is the reason for wavering in support for Bush. But it is noise, not substance. It cannot possibly compete with substance and last.
Kerry already knows this. Watch his positioning. He is trying to portray himself - laughably - as tougher on terrorism and more effective. He is running right as fast as he can. He cannot possible make it all the way from Dean to Bush in 9 months, amid the cacophony of defeatism the left is emitting. Nobody will believe a word of the repositioning. Only some outright disaster can save Kerry now. Not on spin, on substance. And Bush is pretty well positioned against that, on the ground. Even a disaster has to come in a particular shape, if it is to help Kerry, rather than just reminding people they really want a serious commander in chief, not top spun by a defeatist press.
yet another admiring bump
It isn't whining, nor defeatism, to express a sense of concern about the wisdom of the American electorate. I hope with all my heart that the electorate makes the only sane decision open to it this November. But that hope doesn't blind me to the fact that several tens of millions of my fellow Americans will mark their ballots for Kerry and the Dems. In addition, some percentage of eligible voters who consider themselves Republican or conservative will either stay home or vote for a minority party.
Let me put it to you another way: When I went home for lunch a little while ago, I quickly checked the TV cable news channels. On one of them (MSNBC, I think), there was a report on the new Medicare prescription drug card/benefit that takes effect today. Sure enough, the report took a negative spin. To make the negative point, the reporter interviewed some woman-in-the-street who complained that the 20% to 25% savings seniors would realize on their drug costs simply wasn't enough. Dontcha know that when you pay $800 a year for prescription drugs (according to the woman), that 20% to 25% is "nothing"?!
With selfish thinking like that rampant in the land, tell me again how being cynical about the American electorate is "whining."
"Sense of concern"? For me, it's open doubt. I have no trust or confidence in the ability of The Sheep to make an informed decision.
People in my civilian job are utterly clueless and unconcerned about The War. They get all their information from the nightly infotainment - just before they shut their minds down for "Friends" and "Jepoardy".
What was the quote? "No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American people."
I can only hope you're right. Until then, I can only watch the downward spiral.
I also have grave doubts. Just phrased it in a soft-soap way.
Exactly. I have all 6 of the previous seasons, and only "Kinsey" shows himself to be a badass. He is always portrayed, however, as a Bible-spouting bigot, so I guess that means he must be a "Republican."
That's "with two "L's," remember?
i went into barnes & noble sunday and found a dozen hate-bush books prominently displayed on a center table across from the store entrance.
sean hannity's book was on the other side.
it's obvious where barnes & noble's interests reside--with the left.
i did not buy anything and continue to patronize internet book sellers.
The media promoted the righteousness of WWII because FDR was a socialist and it was his war. And Stalin was on our side for that one.
It's like the media cheerleading during all of Clinton's "wars."
From the close of the 19th Century and the Spanish American War, until his death in 1951, the United States had a singular media mongol that dwarfed all his competitors. William Randolph Hearst was not a socialist, yet his support of United States war efforts during WWI and WWII never took partisan form despite the presence of Democrat presidents. Hearst would never have supported WWII if it had been FDR's war. Hearst supported the war because it was America's war. Hearst and the first President Roosevelt, Theodore, shared an imperialistic vision for the future of the United States that was far from socialistic.
Further, in 1939 in opposition to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Republican Presidential nominee Wendell Willkie campaigned against the government's lack of military preparedness. During the election, Roosevelt preempted the military issue by expanding military contracts. For this, Willkie changed tactics and accused Roosevelt of warmongering. After the election, Willkie called for greater national support for controversial Roosevelt initiatives such as the Lend-Lease Act and embarked on a new campaign to awaken America from its isolationist slumber. On July 23, 1941, he urged unlimited aid to the United Kingdom in its struggle against Nazi Germany.
No, Americans did not fight this war because it was FDR's war, or because FDR was a socialist. My own father, a disabled WWII veteran of German decent and a lifelong Republican, was very opposed to FDR, yet served our country. He, and millions of other Republican veterans would turn in thier graves to hear WWII was FDR's war, and they supported it.
Also, the ties between the USA and the USSR did not begin with the wartime relationship between FDR and Stalin. They were rooted much earlier in the 1920's before the rise of Stalin. Americans of all political persuasions were intrigued with the events of post czar Russia. This initial interest led to the depression era migration of US citizens to the USSR (1930-1932). These were the only years in our history where the number of migrants out of the country outpaced immigration. Without this drain of intellectual and technological talent, it is questionable if the USSR could have produced the wartime industries necessary to fight Germany, or later challenge the USA. The migration of American citizens to Soviet Russia was viewed as relieving the impact of the depression here in the USA, and received tacit government approval. It is due to this experience, that the United States has worked with post communist Russia to prevent a similar "brain drain" to potential future adversaries.
What America needs to win wars is America, all of America. GWB has the capacity to unite the entire nation in this effort. When he chides Kerry and Democrats for trying to politicize our war efforts, he must also chide Republicans politicizing the war. As Commander-in-Chief, he must bring all political factions to understand America is greatest when united.
I believe President Bush can do this, and handily win reelection. I further believe his efforts in bringing all political factions into the War on Terrorism will translate into other political victories that now seem unattainable.
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.