after November, Kerry chillin out with french bread
Posted on 07/30/2004 6:12:13 AM PDT by SmithPatterson
Why the Dems Will Lose And why they’ll be disconsolate.
You know how Democrats hate Bush now? How will they hate him when they lose to him on November 2 by three or four percentage points?
One of the political commentators I admire most for his astuteness said yesterday that the paroxysm of hatred the Democrats have been indulging for the last six months is the worst American political delusion he has seen in his entire life.
What will it be like — if after all this hatred, all this effort, all those millions upon millions of dollars spent to express disdain, contempt, and hate — Bush wins again, flashes a victory symbol over his head, grins, strides around shaking hands, glows with exuberance and radiance?
For Democrats, losing is much worse than for Republicans. For Democrats, the purpose of democracy is to milk government for ever more abundant benefits. Republicans in principle believe in limited government, and thus in a certain way they do even better out of power than when they must exercise it. Democrats without power suffer much more. Democrats go listless, purposeless.
In a minority, Democrats are fairly useless creatures. In victory, they cultivate grand visions of benefits to be shaken from government largesse; defeat, however, freezes the core of their being. Democratic defeat defies the natural order. For them, history halts. What had been an onward rushing tide swirls round and round, becoming still.
So loss at any time (as in 2000) is almost inadmissible by Democrats. But a loss in 2004, particularly a solid loss, will be for them a disaster beyond imagination. Such recriminations there will be. Some will blame the "centrism" of the Kerry team, and the much-resented repression of the Left. Some will come to see the isolation in which the widespread paroxysms of hatred and contempt for George Bush blindly thrust them. Some will see that the core ideologies of the Left are faultily drawn — in economics, their attraction to a kind of governmental centralization, and their antipathy to capitalism, the market, corporations, and job creators. They claim to love employees while hating their employers, a self-defeating cycle. In matters of culture, others will see that the left-wing's sexual ethic and religious sensibility are too far out of tune with the American people. Nonetheless, one can predict that both in economics and in culture, others will try to drive the party more leftward still.
In any case, it would be wise to get ready for the coming cataclysm.
In 2004, I see six reasons why the Democratic goose is cooked:
1. No one — neither his colleagues nor his wife nor his supporters nor he himself — has anything good to say about John Kerry except that he served bravely in Vietnam. The nearly 30 years since then have generated few boasts on his part, few commendations from others, few successes anyone can seem to remember. 2. The Democratic elite sitting in convention cannot present themselves as they are to the American people, but must stifle their deepest feelings, be silent about their most passionate aims, and hide their turbulent loathing of George Bush Republicans (lest it frighten independents with its ferocity). The Democratic elite is saying as little as possible about same-sex marriage. And guns. And very little about abortion. And not a word about total withdrawal of American troops from Iraq — quite the opposite. Democratic elites do not want the people to know what they really think. On that ground, they fear they will lose. 3. Democrats must hide from the public what they truly think about evangelicals, fundamentalists, and Catholics. They express these thoughts mostly among themselves. 4. John Kerry looks sillier in the pale blue NASA rabbit suit than Michael Dukakis did in a tank. 5. The months of April, May, and June were so heavy with bad news for George Bush — the huge Sorosian expenditures on anti-Bush ads came at him in torrents — and still he held even with Kerry in the polls. It is hard not to believe that there will be at least a slight change in the roaring winds. When it comes (and the change is already underway), it is bound to push Bush's sails steadily ahead as the weeks roll on. 6. The worst lies told by the Democrats about Bush — those of Joe Wilson, Michael Moore, and others, saying that Bush lied about Iraq — have already been proven wrong by the 9/11 Commission (which was supposed to blow Bush out of the water just before the election, but ended up destroying his worst calumniators). These lies were also proven wrong by the British inquiry. Even the Kerry Convention in Boston ended up taking the Bush strategic line in Iraq, except for one thing: Kerry is wistful about the probability of persuading France and Germany to bear some burden on behalf of liberty in Iraq. Good luck! God knows, Bush and Colin Powell tried.
Finally, there is the matter of faith, even of the sort Tom Paine showed in 1776. Paine was no Christian, but he did believe that God had created this vast and splendid universe in order to share His friendship with free women and free men, and for this reason the Creator put freedom at the core of things. Tom Paine had no tolerance for the Bible, and less for Biblical fundamentalists, but he was not so much an atheist, he wrote, as to believe that the Almighty Who made the universe for liberty would allow the cause of people willing to die for it to come to naught. Paine couldn't bring himself to believe that God would favor George III.
In that same spirit, I find it hard to believe that the Creator who gave us liberty will ignore President Bush's willingness to sacrifice his own presidency for the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq — their 50 million citizens, and perhaps their progeny for ages to come. A kind of cosmic justice (which does not always materialize, I recognize) calls for vindication. Especially when the president has been so unfairly calumniated by his foes, domestic and foreign.
In accepting the nomination of his party Thursday night, John Kerry could not quite bring himself to give both the president and the volunteer military who performed so well some credit for this great and significant advance for human liberty. The theme of liberty in the Muslim world belongs to George Bush. It was he who named liberty the only real alternative to terrorism.
"With a firm reliance on Divine Providence," to cite our forebears once again, Bush has publicly held that one cannot fight terrorism merely by killing terrorists. One must provide an alternative of liberty, prosperity, and opportunity — one must labor to build free societies where they do not now exist. Liberty works. I think Bush will win because these are the truths Americans hold.
Bush believes these truths. At this moment, the Democrats (who used to believe them, nobly so) do not even see their relevance. Kerry spoke well about patriotism, the international leadership of America, and liberty — but he seems willfully blind to the relevance of these beautiful ideals to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism. For such ideals and purposes some 900 young Americans of this generation have laid down their lives. They will be thanked by generations yet unborn.
So will their commander-in-chief.
— Michael Novak is the winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize for progress in religion and the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. Novak's own website is www.michaelnovak.net.
Wow. The party without a soul.
I've often said: they sold their soul for Bill Clinton.
Remains sold.
Dan
Wow.
One of your better ones! ;-)
I not only agree with you, I hear the undertones of priming for the "revolution" in the words of Clinton, Rangel and others this summer. I think prayer and vigilance are our only hope after W wins.
The Dems believe that it is their destiny to dispense "government" money. Any time the Rs do it is, by definition, illegitimate.
The Entitlement constituencies are being told that they are being cheated by this administration. Just one example: Bush gave Kennedy the No Child Left Behind money, a huge increase in federal funding for education, but the day after the bill-signing it was not enough for the dems.
As a Veteran it made me ill to see the parade of his "band of brothers", and the major focus on Kerry's tour in Vietnam including showing the film. You would of swore he was the greatest hero of the war. A Rambo. When he approached the podium, and said "I am John Kerry and I am reporting for duty" then saluting the delegates, I nearly lost it. He is a sicko….
It was an impassioned speech that fired up the delegates, but a complete failure in my opinion. I have always said John Kerry is a "ME TOO, BUT I CAN DO IT BETTER" sort of guy, and that speech was just that. He chose to Present himself as a better War President, but gave few details on how he would do that other than increase the military by 40,000 troops (which will be needed to replace those who will leave the military if this jerk becomes their Commander and Chief.) And he would restore our relationships to the countries that were against us going to Iraq. He didn't say he would pull troops out of Iraq or offer an exit strategy which angers the No-War-In-Iraq people. I could hear their anger last night on KIRO radio. It was hilarious.
A failure because - the speech alienated the anti-war democrats, who will have to hold their nose and vote for the non-Bush or go with their convictions and vote Nader. Polls show that people think Bush is a better person for fighting the war in Iraq and on terrorism. Kerry will have to convince those people otherwise, without flip-flopping on what is already on record. Like when he said Bush does not have enough troops in Iraq to do the job, and now he is saying no more should be sent. It's also hard to convince people he is the better war president when most troops support Bush.
The rest of the speech was the normal preaching of the DNC Party lines, that big industry outsourcing jobs, the evil drug companies, richest among us need to be taxed more, we should never go to war alone, women's rights, abortion, etc.
after November, Kerry chillin out with french bread
Yes, since they coined the phrase "Character doesn't matter" back in 92, it has been a complete downward spiral.
Bush will win even though many conservatives are angry with his liberal big govt. expansions(everythig from his generous with our money social policies to increasing police state powers), and his open borders policies.
But Bush understands the Muslim threat.
And Kerry is a foolish man. He is unelectable
The Democrats might as well ran Sharpton.
Small government conservatives and civil libertarians are left with but one choice, and that is to vote for national security...and that means a vote for Bush.
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment,
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action..
If we EXPAND our lead in the Senate, they will go utterly ballistic. (If we had the foresight to run good candidates in IL, NV, AR, and CA, we could have possibly gotten the 60 votes and then, I'm convinced, they would have gotten violent).
Thank you very much. I've sent them a few but to no avail. That one is a little caustic. True but caustic.
Thanks.
Is three or four points nationwide a sufficient margin considering the Democratic vote fraud/refight the election in the courts strategy??
I saw a bit of kerry's speech at the DNC yesterday and he was talking about how he will fight terrorism and really stressing on terrorists and terrorism for a bit.
uhhhh...hate to break it to you johnny boy, but President Bush has already been fighting terrorism and continues to do a great job at doing so.
I have thought about this quite a bit. I have never seen this kind of hatred for the President, and believe me, it sometimes got pretty bad here on FreeRepublic for Clinton. But nowhere near the frenzy that is MAINSTREAM in the Left today. I hate to say this, but I would not be shocked if a Bush win would lead to an assassination attempt on him sometime later.
Anyone who wants to be president as much as Kerry does, is automatically disqualified.
Yeah. Who knew that would have consequences?
Okay, you.
Well, and me.
And most everyone else.
But I mean, besides that.
Dan
I've thought about this as well, and have concluded that what we felt for Clinton was nothing like thier hatred for Bush. The animosity for Clinton was a reaction - to his obvious dishonesty & immorality, to his constant references to his political opponents(me included) as 'the bad guys' responsible for every ill imaginable, etc. Compounding the frustration was the shifting standards of the 'watchdog' press never calling him to account.
Bush has done nothing if not reach out to his opponents. He has never sought to divide as a political ploy, and any mistakes he's made have been out of his desire to do whats right. And the mainstream media have scarcely given him credit for his authentic achievements.
I can understand being opposed to Bush on principle, even to the point of wanting badly to see him beaten in Nov. But I cannot understand the hatred.
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.