THE 'BETTER OFF' GAME

New York Post ^ | July 27, 2004 | John Podhoretz

[OESY]

...

"Is our country more united today?" Al Gore asked. "Or more divided? Has the promise of compassionate conservatism been fulfilled? Or do those words now ring hollow? For that matter, are the economic policies really conservative at all? Did you expect, for example, the largest deficits in history? One after another? And the loss of more than a million jobs?"

....

[Alia]

who can forget how the Clinton Admin (phase I) tried to "outlaw" independent contractors, and squash small businesses. Not me..

[eyespysomething]

I'm better offf now, but lost the great paying, great hours and great fun job I had pre 9-11 after 9-11. Seems noone was really interested in buying $5000 outdoor wicker sofas when they thought the world was ending and the stock market would crash.

Of course, now I have a fun job, good pay and benefits, flexible hours and a great boss. So now I/we am/are better off, because I didn't sit around and whine about how I lost my job, I went out and found one.

We have a position open in our office, and have had 1, yes one, person apply. My husband had a terrible time filling a job position at his work. People don't want to work (not all, of course) or they think they "deserve" to start off at $50,000. Hogwash.

[Salamander]

Al Gore divided this country in 2000.
Even the Dems know that, even if they won't publicly admit it.
Otherwise, why isn't Crazy Al running for his so-called "re-election" this time around?
His own party won't touch him because the third-world coup he attempted was political poison and in their black little heart of hearts, they know it.

[Alia]

You're right. Clintons had been doing a stealth move in dividing the country -- until Gore just made it patently obvious. I think dems have mixed "feelings" about Gore. On one hand, they blame him for blowing their chances; but OTOH, they see him as a "brave, remarkable, upfront" manly-man who made the stealth move an obvious act. I think the Dems are terribly conflicted about Gore. So, they buff up his ego and keep him as their ranting Uncle in the attic, just to make them seem "tame" by comparison -- all in order to regain their stealth footing.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Gore was a paid shill of the Kerry campaign and he played the part perfectly. His falling out with the Clintons took place in the summer of 2000 when he distanced himself from Clinton.

Gore has always been to Clintons left. Gore positioned himself to make Kerry look Conservative. Gore even went so far as to endorse Dean.

I know he is a lunatic. He just happens to also know where his bread is buttered.

Whenever Hollywood gets involved I get nervous. They seem to treat this election like a movie and everyone is reading from the same script. Unfortunately, that means Clintons name is on it.

[Alia]

I think Gore represents the "heart" of the Democratic Party. Their true voice. The Clintons just know how to market the package better and more steathly. I think Gore distanced himself from Clinton in an age-old battle: "Be True to Thineself" versus "How can we fool 'em today".

Apparently, Carville is hoping and pressing for Dem Party to adopt's Teresa's "Shove it" attitude.

I know what you mean about Hollywood getting involved.

It doesn't make me nervous, it just makes me feel queasy and revolted. They do see politics (they: dems and Hollywood) as some major "producer's" highest achievement (A LA Wag the Dog). I feel like I'm watching a bunch of kids at a Birthday Party enacting some great game in order to win a party prize. I'm revolted by their treatment of our nation and our nation's concerns so cavalierly. That they think so little of everyone; including the US; they are playing a "clever" little game.

It's High School, All over again. It's just.. revolting to see so-called Adults, so emotionally retarded.

[Salamander]

Fortunately, I'm not a bit conflicted about Gore.

I ofetn wonder just how much the "2000 fiasco" influenced the events of 9/11.
For months we looked weak, disorganized, "polarized" and divided.
What a *perfect* time to attack a country; while its pants are around its knees and the populace is at each other's throats.
And thanks to incessant whining of the Dems, we *still* look weak and divided to the rest of the world.
Iraq may not be "another Viet Nam" but it sure isn't for the lack of trying, on the liberals/Dem's part.
I harbor no illusions that somebody, somewhere isn't watching all of this "anti-war" crap very carefully...and planning to take advantage of the "disunity"...again.
If, God forbid, that ever happens, I will blame the LibRats first and the attackers, second.
I believe that W also understands the "it's now or never" aspects of the whole scenario.

I wish to God that Dems could grasp the "unite to win the war and *then* bicker about it, afterwards" concept.
Too much is on the line for anything less than that.

[Salamander]

Hollywood [and liberals, in general] feel "threatened" by Republican administrations because their "lifestyle choices" are thrown unfavorably into the spotlight during "moral" presidencies.
The "freedoms" they shriek about losing would be considered "vices" or "sins" by most conservatives.
That is why they always support the "liberal" candidate.
"Conservative" candidates force them to self-examine.
They do -not- like that at all.
Much to be preferred is a president who preaches "moral relativism" as the norm.
No greater example can be found than Slick's "I did it because I could" rationalization.

Small wonder that the "beautiful people" sneer at "flyover country".
Those simple, decent folk underscore their own depravities, therefore they must "hate" them in order to continue to be able to love themselves.

[I'll get down off my soapbox now...I'm all ranted out]....;))

[Dilbert56]

Four years ago:

• 9/11 hijackers were plotting with disdain for America's resolve
• Corporations were lying to their shareholders and the public with no consequences.
• The economy was shrinking - yes GDP in 3Q2000 was negative
• The federal government was selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve - jeopardizing national security to help the VP's election.
• Our military was donning berets in lieu of receiving enough pay to get them off food stamps.
• Every Presidential action and utterance was framed against a backdrop of corruption so deep a new term, "scandal fatigue" had to be invented to describe it.

Yes, we are bettter off

[Alia]

I concur with all your points. I watched the Clinton/Gore Appeasement during both terms, and I was horrified. At times shaking in my boots from rage and fear. I smelt we were being set up. I smelt backdoor deals were being worked between Dems and other nations, to the detriment of Joe Citizen in the US. Which is why all this "let's just sit down and talk about it" every single time we were attacked. LA Riots, and after Waco, we were battening down the hatches. Then Twin towers bombings. Then TWA Flight 200.

It just kept coming, and the Dems kept on covering it all up. They used the IRS to threaten citizens. They used their bureacratic arms to threaten citizens.

Their mantra was "just shut up and PAY".

[Alia]

Good rant! :)

What you are saying is that liberals (dems and hollywood) prefer delusion and fractured lives to living whole and peacably.

It is ALL ABOUT protecting their money and their "careers" -- which some call "art". It has nothing to do with anyone, but their own selfish, self-centered "wants" and non-negotiable list of demands. And like 2-year-olds, they shriek when they don't get their way.

And these two year-olds wanna be in charge of the rest of us. right..... NOT!

[Salamander]

One way or another, they're determined to force us into that whole "global community" crap.
They want to weaken us *just* enough that we -have- to
co-operate or be conquered.
They did quite well for a while by simply undermining the military...the very thing that keeps us safe from the rest of this planet in the first place.

I think they went into such a frothing perma-rage in 2000 because "The Global Agenda" was temporarily[?] derailed.

[Salamander]

I certainly don't want to be run by a pack of perverted toddlers, no....:))

I paint/draw/airbrush etc and get paid for it, yet if someone calls me an "artist", I cringe.
It's a pity that no-talent exhibitionist freaks have ruined that word...for me, at least...:)