Posted on 10/28/2004 7:06:46 PM PDT by wagglebee
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to share a couple things here with you from National Review Online today because I think a lot of this is going to dovetail with what a lot of you are thinking. Can I just run a thought by you, run a hypothetical by you? How many of you hold the following basic view as something that you think is an inherent truth of America; that after two years of the most vocal, the most piercing, the most shocking you've ever heard, seething rage and hatred directed at a totally decent and upstanding man, George W. Bush, how many of you are of the belief that you live in a country that will not reward the people who are the source of this irrational seething rage and hatred?
How many of you are of the belief that this irrational seething rage and hatred that emanates from all corners of the Democratic Party, aimed at this totally decent and likable man, George W. Bush, has to backfire, in a country you know, in the United States of America. It has to backfire, decent people are not going to sit around and let this kind of stuff go on in the midst of either a presidential campaign or the normal ebb and flow of politics. It's not going to be rewarded, no matter what the polls say, no matter how close the polls say it is, you don't believe it because you don't think that the vast majority of people in this country that are going to vote are going to put up with this kind of stuff and that there is a backlash, and a backfire for these Democrats just waiting to show up on Election Day that's going to shock and surprise the pollsters and the Democrats like they never have been shocked before. How many of you think that is going to happen? How many of you hope that it's going to happen? Well, National Review Online today, Jim Geraghty has a piece. He runs the Kerry Spot section of the National Review Online website. He has a piece today entitled, "Do you know the USA?"
"It's time to pass on to Kerry Spot readers the highlights of another conversation with one of my favorite sources, a longtime GOP operative who has been around politics longer than I have been alive. (I've nicknamed him 'Obi-Wan Kenobi,' which brought the response, 'He's not the funny looking one, is he?' I promptly assured the operative that I was not comparing his appearance to Yoda's.) Specifically, I want to focus on two topics of the conversation. The first was on the polls. We had been discussing certain members of the media's irrepressible desire to write the 'Kerry is great closer' story, regardless of whether the facts were there to support it. We had concluded earlier that two weeks before the election, the race would have to be close, and that during the final week of the election, Kerry would have to be pulling ahead for the perfect dramatization of that 'storyline.'" They're going to write this story no matter what the truth is, because it's the story they want.
"Obi-Wan pointed out that last week, Gallup had Bush ahead by eight, ABC had Bush ahead by five, Fox had Bush ahead by seven, Time had Bush ahead by five, Battleground had Bush ahead by four, he was ahead in the ABC/Washington Post tracking poll by five points or so much of the week... 'And they still wrote that the race is tied!' Obi-Wan said with a laugh. 'They don't need supporting evidence to go with the storyline!" In fact, they have to reject the supporting evidence to go with the storyline.
"Then he made the case that Kerry just isn't going to win on Election Night. He may or may not be proven right next Tuesday night, but for now, his confidence is tempered steel. A paraphrase of his comments:
"If Kerry wins on Election Night, what is the storyline going to be, the economy? No way. The story is going to be the war in Iraq, and the American people's reaction to terrorism. Bush has made this election a referendum on how he's combating terrorism by taking the fight to them in Iraq. The anchors are going to say, 'Americans sent a message to the president that they weren't happy with Iraq. They want to get back to the world before President Bush, before 9/11, before terror alerts and security lines and Fallujah and all of this fear and stress and drama. They want a return to normalcy.'
"Does that sound like the America you know, Jim? In 1952, Harry Truman hadn't been aggressive enough in fighting the Korean War; the American people felt he was holding MacArthur back; and they were so angry with Truman that he didn't run. They had a choice between Adlai Stevenson or World War II hero Dwight Eisenhower. They picked Eisenhower — because they wanted to win the war — instead of the guy who could negotiate it.
"In 1972, the last wartime election, Americans had a choice between the candidate of the peace movement, Mr. George 'Come home, America' McGovern, and Richard Nixon. Nixon won in a landslide.
"In 1984, America again had a clear choice. On one hand, there was Walter Mondale: the embodiment of the Democratic foreign-policy establishment, Jimmy Carter's vice president — the man who was determined to learn how to coexist with the Soviet Union. On the other hand, they had the policies of Ronald Reagan, who was seeking to defeat the Soviets through strength. Again, they chose the fighter in a landslide. Now, does that sound like the American people you know?"
Which version sound like the America you know? The ones that want to cut and run from Iraq, get out of there, and put Kerry in charge of it, or the ones that have elected Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan?
"Then Obi-Wan and I discussed the American mood and sensibility after 9/11. In those first horrific and shocking days, America had the chance to react by calling for the policies of John Kerry and the Democratic party's foreign-policy establishment — multilateralism, global tests, summits, treaties, looking at the threat as an intelligence and law-enforcement problem. But calls for that approach were few and far between. The overwhelming sentiment was to unleash hell. One of the more interesting things Andrew Sullivan ever wrote was a critique of the pre-9/11 Right — contending that conservatives were too pessimistic about Americans' character during the Clinton years. Sure, the American people seemed materialistic, hedonistic, lazy, obsessed with making money during the dot-com boom, and uninterested in the world beyond their borders. But in a fight, when the chips are down, the essential American character shines through."
"Obi-Wan said, 'Remember Reagan's farewell letter. He never lost faith in the American people.' I won't go quite so far as to say that I currently agree with Obi-Wan's views 100 percent. But readers ought to hear this voice, quietly making the case for the plausibility of a Bush landslide."
This guy, whoever this Obi-Wan is, a Republican operative, is as confident as anything that that's going to happen. So naturally at National Review Online there is a slightly opposing view. How many you agree with this view that I just shared with you? Basically I stated it before I read the piece, but, you know, we're at war. We want to cream these people that did it. We haven't done the thoroughly enough yet and we're on the right track to do it, we're going to stay there, and these people that want to replace Bush are just the epitome of trash. They are the epitome of just low brow, insult, and their barbs are aimed at a totally decent man.
The America we all know does not reward that kind of attack unless it's made against somebody deserves it, and Bush doesn't deserve any of the stuff that's said about him. None of it's true. The response to this, a cautious response is from Stanley Kurtz, also an NRO contributor. He says, "I'm afraid I have a more pessimistic take on Geraghty's piece today. It's not that I think America won't ultimately reelect Bush. I think we will, and for just the reasons Geraghty says, but what does it say about the changes in this country that the battle is so close? It's true that historically Americans don't walk away from a fight but if that's so, why is this election such a nail-biter? Why didn't Joe Lieberman or a Democrat with similar views do better in the primaries?
"Why is the mainstream media backing McGovernite policies? I think the reason for all this is that conservative pessimists like Robert Bork, slouching to Gomorrah, have a point. The fact that a candidate who called America's soldiers war criminals and threw away his medals could get this close to the White House shows that something has changed in this country for the worse, and the reason is that even cultural leaders like the owner and publisher of the New York Times were once radical anti-war activists." I happen to agree with this if I may interrupt here briefly. I think the 60s, anti-war Baby Boomers have come home to roost and they do control a large number of our institutions, hence we get this distortion. Remember what Victor Davis Hanson said yesterday: This is not the average Joe that has these views. It's the liberal intelligentsia, these liberal intellectuals, these media types: the arts, professors, the people in Hollywood, the entertainers.
The people who think they're smarter than everybody else but they control a lot of media dissemination. Cultural leaders like the owner and publisher of the New York Times were once radical anti-war activists. I don't know Mr. Kurtz's source for this, but listen to this: "Recall that after Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.'s second arrest for anti-war protesters, he was asked by his father, Punch Sulzberger, what his son called, 'the dumbest question I ever heard in my life.' What was the dumbest question Pinch Sulzberger ever heard in his life? It was this, asked by his father: 'If a young American soldier comes upon a young North Vietnamese soldier, which one do you want to see get shot?' Pinch said that's the stupidest question he's ever been asked. His answer? 'I would want to see the American get shot. It's the other guy's country.'"
Now, Mr. Kurtz is quoting Pinch here. I don't know the source for this, but he's quoting him, that Pinch Sulzberger when asked by his father: American soldier; North Vietnamese soldier, who do you hope gets killed? "The American soldier. It's the other guy's country." (Kurtz:) "The reason John Kerry and his global test have even a ghost of a chance in this election is because Sulzberger and the folks who thought like him are now in charge of the establishment media and much of the rest of our culture. I still think Geraghty's wise old head is right, that Americans with the more traditional view will win in the end, but it would be blindness not to see that something's changed. The rise of the boomer left has put traditional American cultural views in doubt in a way that has never happened before, and that's what this election is really all about." That's Stanley Kurtz.
I wanted to share this exchange with you because I think it pretty much nails what a lot of us are sitting here are thinking. We were in utter disbelief that anybody would consider voting for this guy, Kerry. Before you even get to this week where he's running around criticizing the military, adopting a lie story from the New York Times, with what he has said about the UN and American soldiers do not die with honor if under the American flag, they only die with honor if part of a UN mission. That he said in 1994. He's been totally consistent that the United States must pass a global test, and that global test is administered by the UN, and if we don't pass what the UN says we must pass, we don't defend ourselves. How can anybody, how can anybody consider voting for this guy?
And then you take my little hypothetical bet and you add this to it, take Kerry off the ticket, there's no liberal Democrat running for Bush, and nobody on the ticket's going to get the same amount of votes that Kerry's going to get. What does it say about who those people are? What has happened to them? Nothing. They've just grown up. They think that what they did in their anti-war days and in their young years, the late teens and early twenties must constantly be validated as they go through their lives. Any time there is a war -- this is the real nub of it. If you've wondered how they separate Afghanistan and Iraq, and why they continually say, "Well, what we did in Afghanistan is fine, but Iraq, we had no cause," go back to Sulzberger. If this quote is accurate: the American soldier ought to die in Vietnam. It's the other guy's country. Well, Iraq didn't attack us. These people were totally against America. We shouldn't have gone into Iraq. It's none of our business. We deserve to die there, or Bush does. That's how they think.
The Kerry Campaign, aka, The El Caca Dump.
I heard Rush, too, and I found myself praying he is right. Unfortunately, I think the baby-boomer analysis is correct--these burned out hippies who now control the MSM are a huge (make that hugh) segment of the population. They have anti-Americanism seared (like Cambodia) into them from their 20's...it was the only time in their lives they felt alive. Now they can feel it again, and nostalgically reenergize themselves with those feelings of anger and hatred. They feel young again, and alive! I see these people all the time down in Bloomington, Indiana--a bunch of academic ex-hippies, driving around in their beaters, with horrid anti-Bush bumper stickers and self-righteousness billowing after them in a noxious cloud.
I've also noticed many "I'm a Christian, and a Democrat" stickers, as if they are trying to convince themselves, and everyone else.
Thanks for the post. I heard only the second paragraph before I lost the signal driving today - but it was a good paragraph. Irrational seething rage and hatred just about captures it well, doesn't it?
"How many of you are of the belief that this irrational seething rage and hatred that emanates from all corners of the Democratic Party, ..."
BUMP
I heard this today and thought it was good.
He has a way of putting things to make me say,
YEAH... YEAH... YEAH!!!
I've thought along theses same lines.
That's why I hate to see the wringing of hands and whinning on this forum.
Most of the people of these United States are not dumb.
The 9/11 terror attacks are still on their minds.
They know President Bush is the right man.
I believe this!
I heard Rush with this today too. Somehow I feel a real psychic connect with Rush..as if he's reading my mind. I've felt this way for some time now.
I felt not only did Clinton hurt the Presidency during the impeachment proceedings but he also damaged the credibility of dignity and honor in the highest office in the land...as well as the American Culture.
I felt Al Gore treated the most precious priviledge we have in this country--the right to vote and hold free and honest elections...like some frivilous law suit--all validated by the Liberal Florida Supreme Court.
I felt an immense hatred for a good and decent man who only wants a strong, free and secure America. The liberals have attacked Bush for waking up in the morning and resting in the evening. He can do no right and they can do better.
I see a corrupt and treasonous press operating under the protection of the first amendment. PROPAGANDA is now mode of operation among the main stream media. Create the news if you have no news that will penetrate the skin of your opponent. Fabricate memos to bring down a President you are not politically alligned with.
I pray with all my heart that Bush can get through all these obstacles put before him by enemies--foreign and domestic. Maybe God gave him these obstacles to make him, as well as our nation stronger. On November 2nd the Decision on how to keep America safe is no longer in the hands of our President. It is in the hand of the people--the people attacked by foreign enemies...and the people who fail to unite behind the desire of our president to win the war on terror. I pray there are more of those with the President....than there are people doing whatever they can to bring the President down--even if it means giving the terrorists a victory.
The fact of the matter is that this country is increasingly liberal because liberals long ago captured the newspapers, television networks, movie studios, universities, and public schools. Nothing else could explain how America lacks the poltiical will to stop this lunacy called illegal immigration.
You're exactly right.
What do you think Ward and June Cleaver would say to The Beave if he said, "You know Dad, I've been thinkin'. I kind of like Larry Mondello. Someday I want to marry him."
As we progress with times it appears we've done so by throwing out morals and "right and wrong" is just too darn absolute for us to accept.
Let me add a postscript to my previous post. Gallup got the Minnesota Senate race right in 2002 when almost no one else did. I'm expecting to see a Gallup poll on the race in Minnesota sometime between tomorrow and Monday. Just wait and see -- Gallup knows how to poll Minnesota.
I work in Bloomington and you are right. I work with a lesbian co-worker who is very supportive of the troops. She had her support the troops ribbon torn off her car, and ripped into pieces, then re-stuck on the bumper. They interviewed her on channel 13. These "tolerant" liberals are brain dead automatons. They show their tolerance by "letting us live" when they shoot guns into republican headquarters.
Thanks for the optimistic post.
Isn't it something how people's emotions are running hot and cold..high and low in a matter of minutes during these last few days?
I do have faith in the American people to do the right thing!
I too watched the pollsters fall on their faces in '02, particullary the Florida Governors election where they predicted a rousing defeat of Jeb Bush.
They wanted a repudiation of Jeb to atone for what they considered the illegal elevation of brother George to the Presidency.
Didn't happen then and it won't happen in 2004 either. As much as these pollsters and media whores want it to happen, wanting and wishing won't make it so.
I was wondering today if I was going to get vandalized. Fortunately, I park in the lots of doctors' offices, which seem to be relatively safe.
From what I saw today, there is a good chance it will be.
That's what this election is all about, whether the decay is a cyclical low cycle or a trend. Whether the 60s were an aberration or a slippery slope. Whether Reagan marked the end of a movement, or a new beginning.
I think there are a lot of positive signs, and many who think the Democratic party itself is self-destructing.
The election will say a lot. Electing Kerry would be out of character for the American people, and his election would mark a new national character, and if it's anything like Kerry's character, that's a problem.
I keep thinking of the passage in the bible. And I believe it will hold true for President Bush because he is so faithful and decent.
"No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. Isaiah 54:17
You are absolutely correct. What is occurring is no accident and the seeds were meticiously planted over 60 years ago. Read Antonio Gramsci...it's all there and goes by the name of cultural Marxism.
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.