Posted on 08/03/2004 4:59:07 AM PDT by rhema
After spending the week at the Democratic National Convention broadcasting my radio show, it was not easy to choose which aspect of the convention I would devote my column to. Would it be the discussions I had with delegates, nearly all of whom I liked and none of whom thought clearly about our nation's issues? Or about the Potemkin Village the Democrats erected — a convention where almost nothing the Democrats really believe was on display?
I decided on the speech given during prime time by a 12-year-old girl from the San Francisco Bay Area. In my view, this talk was typically and uniquely Democratic.
To understand modern liberalism and its political party, it is vital to understand Democrats' desire to blur any distinctions between child and adult. Ever since the 1960s, liberalism has been largely a movement dominated by children (of every age). I enjoyed meeting Democrats last week. Many are people I would be happy to have as neighbors. But compared to Republicans, liberals and Democrats are often adults who do not wish to grow up. When George W. Bush was elected, I felt as if adults would now run the country after the adolescent-like President Clinton.
Liberals and Democrats are not comfortable with adult-child distinctions. They therefore frequently treat and regard children as adults and frequently treat and regard adults as children.
That is why liberals do not generally want children to call adults "Mr." or "Mrs." Such titles render adults distinct from children.
That is why liberal teachers often dress and talk similarly to their students and ask to be called by their first names.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Good article, great comments. Thanks for the ping.
Rather than wanting children to take on adult responsibilities, Democrats are people who want to revert to a child's level of irresponsibility.
I agree, but then I get criticized when I say I stopped reading World Net Daily when they started hawking Kyle Williams.
Better?
Considering their filthy hatefill rhetoric at Radio City Music Hall, the hypocracy is breathtaking.
I'm not sure if I would call it child abuse, although the liberals are always labeling any activity a parent requires his child to do a form of child abuse, such as the beauty pagents that Jon Bennet Ramsey was in. My primary objection is that a 12 year old's opinions are irrelevant in a Presidential race, particularly when they are the result of liberal indoctrination. In this case, they are especially irrelevant given that they had nothing to do with the issues, but were merely an attempt by the Dems to bash Bush without leaving fingerprints. They scripted their entire convention to avoid any direct negative reference to Bush in an effort to hide their hate. Then they blew it by having this child attack Cheney in a way that was inspired not by the issues, but rather by blind hate. Of course, I am sure the child does not hate Cheney. The words were put into her mouth by others who do--or more precisely, others who hate Bush. They put up a 12 year old to do it because they thought it would be less likely to appear hateful coming out of the mouth of a child. What they did not count on, though, is that your average guy understands that this girl did not just get up there and do this all by herself. She was coached, and her speech shows more about what is going through the minds of Democrats than it does about what is going through her mind.
The Apostle Paul
I stopped reading it then too.
I stopped reading it then too.
I guess he was cute enough, but I didn't think a 12 year old had any insight that was better than mine.
After all, the reason I read things is to learn stuff I don't know.
Great article!
They are also predictably idealistic and immature. Just as one can count on kids to prefer a diet of chocolate and Coke, one can count on kids to espouse an agenda of pacifism and innocent ignorance of reality.
Baby-kissing is pretty much a given in politics. Babies as foreign policy advisors is...not advisable.
What they wound up with was the spectacle of a little smart-aleck 12 year old lecturing the Vice-President of the United States about using a bad word in a private interchange. It was ugly, very ugly. Yes, it was obvious that the words were put in her mouth. And the disrespect behind it for the office and the officer was obvious.
That is why liberal teachers often dress and talk similarly to their students and ask to be called by their first names.
A few years ago (OK, maybe 30 or so, who's counting) I "accidently" called my PE teacher by his first name. I still vividly remember the wooden paddle with his name (Rudy)on it. My high school forbid teachers to allow students to address them by their first name. Thanks for the lesson Mr Montalvo.
There's a saying that goes something like if you're not a liberal when you are young then you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative by the time you're an adult, then you have no brain. I agree with the second part but not necessarily the first.
That girl was an ugly, annoying little brat...a perfect choice for the Democrat Party of Whining Ugly Nasty Brats.
WUN-B's !!
Down in the Deep South where I live, children call me Mr. S4T, or they'll be hell to pay. The weeping willow tree is only a short walk out the back door.
You cannot require that, and s/he as a matter ofBetter?policydisdain does not do so. S/he is important and you are not.
Well, it certainly fits but. If they are self-consciously manipulative they would do it even if they knew how it reflected on their character - it would fall under, "never give a sucker an even break." They might for instance intuit that they would be discomfited if they were a guest on a talk show and I called in and asked for a distinction between "objectivity," which journalists claim, and "wisdom," which it would be embarassing to have to claim and defend.If OTOH the journalist sincerely believes that he is the sharpest knife in any drawer there ever was, he would disdain to be questioned rather than being insecure about it.
"There's a saying that goes something like if you're not a liberal when you are young then you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative by the time you're an adult, then you have no brain. I agree with the second part but not necessarily the first."
I'm same as you. I was never a liberal. I grew into adulthood loving Ronald Reagan when loving Reagan wasn't cool. RWR was the first President I voted for and I did not even hesitate. I joined the VRWC as soon as I was eligible. :)
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.