Posted on 11/08/2004 9:29:53 PM PST by goldstategop
Many liberals are beside themselves. Things were bearable when they could delude themselves into blaming their loss of power on a "stolen" election. But with this decisive defeat, they're thinking, "It's not our America anymore."
As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote, "But what troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do -- they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is."
Liberals can live with their belief that nearly half the people are stupid. It was even tolerable to be out of power because they knew it would only be a matter of time before they recaptured power following a proper tutorial of the unwashed masses.
But now that they feel that America has truly slipped out of their grasp, they are even angrier than they were in 2000. Their angst proceeds from an arrogant feeling of superiority and entitlement that tells them they alone should be in power and that conservatives should keep their intolerant, bigoted views to themselves.
They are incredulous that they're not just under moronic rule but in a moronic nation. Yet, there's also that nagging doubt, that ray of hope that if they had just packaged themselves properly, they would have won the election, which would mean that a majority of Americans aren't Neanderthals after all and they wouldn't have to move to Canada.
So in their post-election analysis, we're seeing this conflict. In one paragraph we see a rage born of hopeless defeatism, and in the next, an expression that all is not yet lost and that they can still salvage a better America, "our America." If we just put forward the right candidate with the right zipcode, who will say the right things and with proper emotion we'll be back -- with a vengeance.
Concerning moral issues, for example, they are bashing conservatives for promoting values while simultaneously beating themselves up for not promoting their own. On the one hand, they're saying, "How dare those holy rolling do-gooders inject morals and religion into the campaign?" As columnist Susanna Rodell puts it, "The religious bigots, who think it's Christian to hate gay people … are winning the ideological battle in this country."
On the other hand, they're saying, "Hey, they don't have a monopoly on religion, morals or values." As Rodell puts it, "We're going to have to put our values (you remember the ones: charity, love, that sort of thing) back into the public eye, and we're going to have to be loud about it."
But it is in their proposed solutions to regaining power that they reveal they simply don't get the "morals" issue. To them it's more about appearances and the packaging of values than about the core beliefs supporting them.
As Margaret Carlson wrote of Kerry, "Always religious, he didn't frame what he stood for in Bush's language of good and evil, right and wrong. A Catholic, he lost Catholics, for God's sake."
Always religious? Most people knew better. Kerry could not successfully pass himself off as a devout Catholic just because he said he was -- as an obligatory afterthought, no less.
And Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote, "If you set out to create the perfect Democratic presidential candidate, you would probably choose someone from the South or the border states… and someone who is comfortable talking the language of religion and values, since John Kerry was not."
No, Margaret. No, Richard. It's not about pious appearances, it's not about talking the religious talk. It's about actually believing it. It's about walking the walk, even against the intimidating forces of secular political correctness.
These liberals ought to go with their first instinct: that they do idealize a different America than do most Americans, which are decidedly conservative, and not just on values. (The liberals are so convinced that President Bush botched Iraq, they are attributing their defeat primarily to moral issues, which is partially true. But I happen to believe the main reason the president won is because he has been an effective wartime president, and the people trust that he will continue to be.)
I've been saying for some time now that the idea of an equally divided America is a myth. (If the Old Media hadn't been in the tank for Kerry, there's no telling what the scope of Bush's victory would have been.)
For the liberals to regain authority -- absent external circumstances, which there could easily be, or a major realignment in the electorate, they're going to have to do more than find a candidate who merely pays lip-service to the "right" things but who means them.
Many of these leftists are spoiled brats, who lived a sheltered life. Many never have been spanked and are raised by Dr. Spock.
"(If the Old Media hadn't been in the tank for Kerry, there's no telling what the scope of Bush's victory would have been.)"
This was the most important line in the essay. Bush would have won by 60% if the media were behind him.
How are they suppose to do that?
If they find a candidate who will "do the right thing" he certainly won't be a Liberal.
The fact is, the Democratic Liberals have no one in their party who can appeal to main stream conservative values. All they can do is run a "ringer" and hope he wins.
Yep. On our side, we believe in personal freedom and responsibility. On their side, they believe that America should be a socialist utopia, devoid of either.
He'd have won 57-43 if the media had just subjected Kerry to the same anal exams they did him. IOW, fairness.
Either that, or what I think they will do: just get another Ross Perot to run some cockamamie 3rd-party from the right, and they get to go on, business as usual, and revert to their tried/true methods -- demagoguery, class warfare, race-baiting and lies, preaching to their university-dominated choir. It's obvious; by doing that one thing (egging on a third party), they could avoid doing the unthinkable: getting an actual platform...
There were several reasons I voted for the Pres and one of them was that I'm not a proponent of Socialism and Kery and the current Dems are. I've not seen Socialism mentioned as an issue, only touched on as national healthcare. But even THAT wasn't called what it really is. It seems people are afraid to be honest about what the Dems goal really is.
"Their angst proceeds from an arrogant feeling of superiority and entitlement that tells them they alone should be in power"
That line says everything about the liberal democrats. They are really convinced they are superior and entitled. It is THEIR country and THEY KNOW BEST how to govern and manage it.
How can we dare not see they and their positions are so superior? But remember when they had a slick salesman like Bill they were able to convince more than half the electorate they were right.
We must never forget that. It is only that 5% that they need to convince. An educated electorate is all that will prevent that. Who doubts that Bush won because more people where learning for themselves instead of taking the MSM spoon feed?
When that 5% thinks for themselves we will continue to win. When they don't, the candidate that seems to "feel their pain the best will."
This is exactly correct. The liberals are off on a tangent. Fine by me, let them go wrong.
I heard some Dem politico on TV this morning quoting scripture on "to whom more has been given more will be required" and calling Republicans "greedy." I have seen other hints of this elsewhere. I am not sure it will work like they think it will given that they think moral values is the reason Bush won and not his leadership in the war on terror. Still I hope our side can outflank them early on this greed and morals thing that they are trying on for size.
"Liberals" don't just face a disconnect from America, they are disconnected from reality. The reality is that the Islamofascists are going to try and kill every single one of us. As soon as they can get a working nuclear weapon they will use it on us.
That's why I voted for Bush. At least he's trying to preserve our security and safety and freedom. The "liberals"? We wouldn't last a year with them in charge. If millions of us weren't dead, the economy would be in the toilet. The entire world economy.
The Dems are going to make a moral issue of taxes. I see it coming. They are starting to say that it is immoral and greedy to not tax the rich and give it to the poor.
Can anyone here one other President, besides Nixon who had to endure three years of daily jabs and sneers from not just the news, but the media as a whole?
Plus Bush-bashing books?
George Soros funded 527s?
MoveOn's sick, disgusting and peruile ads?
Michael Moore's constant spewing streams of lies and garbage?
The constant references to the president being AWOL and a Draft Dodger?
Joe Wilson?
Yellowcake?
The Jobless Recovery?
Richard Clarke?
The entire 911 Commission and its Report?
Faked, forged ANG Memos?
The Return Of The Draft?
Guantanimo Bay?
Abu Grahib?
Missing explosives from Al Qa Qaa?
You would think that ANY of the above would have scuttled President Bush's bid for re-election.
And in the time of Nixon. They would have.
The Blogosphere was front and center on most of those topics. Spreading the word and linking articles to Conservative Radio, Drudge and FNC. Denying the DNC the "traction" needed to connect and frighten or disgust the voting populous on any single or multiple topic.
So, now the Old Media is scuttled. Taking on water. With its featured Taling heads/Editors clueless as to the cause.
The fact that very same Talking Heads (Rather, Brokaw, Jennings) live in their own sterile world. Shuttling between LA, NYC and the Hamptons. Completely oblivious to the day-to-day life in those pesky "Fly-over States".
The left does not know us. And does not want to know us. And until the do. They will continue to lose.
Obliviously.
Jack.
Hey! My parents raised me according to Dr. Spock. And I turned out to be a great conservative Republican.
...
Maybe it's just good genes?
:-)
Plus Bush-bashing books?
George Soros funded 527s?
MoveOn's sick, disgusting and peruile ads?
Michael Moore's constant spewing streams of lies and garbage?
The constant references to the president being AWOL and a Draft Dodger?
Joe Wilson?
Yellowcake?
The Jobless Recovery?
Richard Clarke?
The entire 911 Commission and its Report?
Faked, forged ANG Memos?
The Return Of The Draft?
Guantanimo Bay?
Abu Grahib?
Missing explosives from Al Qa Qaa?
The fact that very same Talking Heads (Rather, Brokaw, Jennings) live in their own sterile world. Shuttling between LA, NYC and the Hamptons. Completely oblivious to the day-to-day life in those pesky "Fly-over States".
All true. I was a daily unrelenting attack on the President by the 7 million a year boys. They wouldn't know a middle class voter if they tripped over one. Great post!!
THe DMC is still powerful enough to threaten us with a traitorous, hard core left winger.
In short, the Democrats must put forth a candidate that mirrors the electorate... Which scares the begeezies out of them. Oh how entertaining their crumbling is...
I believe an effective business plan for the old media to recast themselves in this new era would be to adopt a distributed information model similar to the Net.
In other words, rather than utilizing centralized locations for their news readers, take advantage of various regional perspectives throughout the red states (and counties within blue states).
Ironically, CNN adopted a version of this model years ago, but of course elected to adopt a liberal spin. Since the old media are really the media arm of the DNC, perhaps the Dems could pay for a pilot study to figure out the lost constituency.
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.