Posted on 11/11/2004 2:44:26 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- One of the reasons I can say with the utmost confidence that the liberal Democrats are going to be out in the cold for a very long time has to do with a sociological observation. Almost no liberal Democrat knows a conservative Republican of whom he is not contemptuous.
To be sure, liberals in their think tanks, their universities, their corporate offices or government bureaucracies encounter the occasional conservative. Doubtless over at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, many of the resident liberals knew that amiable moderate conservative former, Sen. Al Simpson. Many probably even liked him. Simpson is not easy to dislike. But did they respect his political values? The thing for a liberal is impossible.
In fact, did the liberals at the Kennedy School even recognize the amiable old senator's political values? As I say, Al is a "moderate conservative." If memory serves, he was pro-choice. He was not a ferocious tax-cutter or a very vigilant proponent of limited government. Yet loosely defined, the Al Simpson I knew was conservative, which means that the liberals who knew him probably suspected him to be down deep a bigot and stupid.
Liberals believe that even the most amiable conservative is predisposed toward old-fashioned prejudice against all their approved minorities: gays, blacks, poor people, feminists, the disabled. Moreover, American liberals have been convinced for generations that John Stuart Mill was right on the money when he adjudged conservatives as being members of "the stupid party," notwithstanding that Mill was talking about a different country and a different kind of conservative.
To American liberals, almost all conservatives are a little stupid, even conservative presidents. The only exception to this rule is a conservative who is obviously intelligent, for instance Richard Nixon or Henry Kissinger. These rare conservatives of intellect, every liberal knows, are immoral and usually in the pay of evil powers -- for instance, corporations.
The liberal Democrats' contempt for those who just won the Nov. 2 elections explains their amazing anger. Couple their contempt with their ignorance -- often studied ignorance -- of the people who just beat them, and you will understand why I say liberals are, politically speaking, finished.
In all the soul-searching I have read since the election, only one Democrat has demonstrated the insight to move on with the rebuilding of his party. That is Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, who told a New York Times reporter: "We need to be a party that stands for more than the sum of our resentments. In the heartland, where I am from, there are doubts. Too often, we're caricatured as a bicoastal cultural elite that is condescending at best and contemptuous at worst to the values that Americans hold in their daily lives."
Yes, the good senator said "condescending" and "contemptuous." He also talks as though the citizenry in the heartland has legitimate values. Those are basically the values of moral accountability, hard work, personal freedom, limited government and equality before the law, and then you can throw in many of the so-called liberal values: tolerance, compassion, some sort of egalitarianism. Those values are not unique to liberals, though liberals think they are
It is when one gets off into "gay marriage," affirmative action and the campaign against religion, and in favor of whatever it is that liberals now say they want to do with the United Nations that liberals lose touch with the American people. Of liberalism it can be said that when it does take up a good principle or fine value, it eventually takes it to an extreme that is at first preposterous then repellent.
What will Bayh and his more sensible Democrats have to do to make the Democratic Party competitive with the Republicans? First, they will have to recognize the legitimacy of the Republicans. They will have to identify the legitimacy of the Republicans' values.
Then, the Democrats will have to adopt those values with their own twist, be it populist or statist or whatever. But first I suggest that the well-intentioned Democrat take a Republican to dinner. Try to comprehend that your dinner companion is neither a bigot nor a dolt.
I suggest they keep doing it exactly as they have been.
At least when they are baying at the moon like a bunch of ravening wolves they are being honest.
Republicans took away their issues, as long as we deliver, the dims will not regain power. They may elect a president in 2008, but the Senate and House belong to us. There is much hope in the next four years. It will depend on Bush and the new Congress. We may not agree with everything he does, the majority of his decisions will be good ones. It's the Congress I worry about.
Liberalism is not finished. They will simply mask their positions with a false front of religious terminology. In the coming years, look for libs to claim that socialism, tolerance, diversity, welfare, and all other positions they hold are mandated by the Bible. You will see libs quoting more scriptures that a freshly minted Bible school preacher. Remember, they do not have to fool the "religious right" but merely peel off a few million of the ignorant in order to win presidential elections.
The Dems might want to start rebuilding their dismal, pathetic party by ridding themselves of the Clintonistas for a start:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41102-2004Nov10?language=printer
FBI Probes Theft at Democratic Fund
Checks for $350,000 Were Diverted From Senatorial Group
By Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 11, 2004; Page B01
The FBI is investigating the suspected theft of about $350,000 from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the midst of the 2004 campaign, officials said.
The committee's compliance division, which monitors donations, discovered in early October that about $350,000 in donor checks -- many made out to "DSCC" -- had been diverted to a private bank account for DSCAMPCO, according to officials familiar with the case. The contributions were supposed to go into the committee's general fund, officials said.
The committee immediately notified the U.S. Capitol Police, which launched a probe that soon included the FBI and U.S. attorney's office. All but about $10,000 of the money was recovered from the DSCAMPCO account, and that was insured, officials said.
Roger Chiang, the senatorial committee's director of constituency outreach, was the person who opened the DSCAMPCO account, according to bank records that included his Social Security number and home address, officials said.
Chiang's duties included fundraising. He assumed his post in June 2003 and was fired last month after the committee discovered that the money was missing, officials said.
Chiang, 32, a District resident, did not respond to several messages left on his home voice mail.
In response to inquiries, Brad Woodhouse, a committee spokesman, confirmed yesterday that the U.S. attorney's office is investigating the case, adding that the committee is cooperating fully.
"It is disappointing that while Democratic senators, candidates, staff and donors were working hard to build a better America in this election, an individual put greed and self-interest ahead of the efforts of so many others," Woodhouse said.
Most of the diverted funds "were recovered in time to be used on the campaign," Woodhouse added.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's Web site describes the organization as "a tremendous potential source of campaign funds." The site depicts the committee as "a nerve center" that tracks the latest information about political issues and trends. It provided funding this year for numerous Senate campaigns, including hotly contested races in South Dakota, Kentucky, North Carolina, Colorado and Florida.
During the Clinton administration, Chiang, a presidential appointee, was the highest-ranking Asian American at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
He joined the Democratic National Committee in June 2001 as director of Asian and Pacific Island American outreach before going to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Chiang waged a public campaign in 1999 to pressure D.C. police to fully investigate the death of his sister, Joyce Chiang, a government immigration lawyer. Joyce Chiang, 28, disappeared in January 1999 after being dropped off by a friend in Dupont Circle. Her body was found nearly three months later, washed up on the Potomac riverbank in Fairfax County. The body was too decomposed to determine the cause of death, officials said.
Investigators have raised the possibility that Joyce Chiang committed suicide, a theory that Roger Chiang has publicly rejected.
It's interesting; I was watching the Dem's "post mortem" the other day (clips of it), and speaker after idiotic speaker did little more than relive Rush Limbaugh's old saw about the Clinton administration: "How can we fool them today?" This time, it all boiled down to "How can we fool them next time?"
These people HAVE no core values, so they're struggling to figure out what they ought to be. Donna Brazille mumbled about how they need to be able to state their position in ONE sentence.......then in the same breath talked about how these "values" need to be put forward strongly, etc. (which is it, Donna? one sentence, or a list of 'beliefs', or....???).
This is why they'll get their butts kicked. Thanks to Fox News, talk radio, a few newspapers (damned few), and the Internet, the Dems can't lay their B.S. on us unchallenged any longer. They have nothing to offer, they have no center, they don't know who or what they really are.
We do.
The Dems' core values can indeed be stated in one sentence: "We're smarter and know better than you, so shut up and obey us!"
I've also noticed that among white Dems, they merely tolerate their poster children in public in order to gain votes.
Liberalism, i.e., socialism, is a hydra. It's not dead. It's not even sleeping. This election should never have been so tight, and Bush was helped by a bad opponent and the headwind of fear of terrorism.
The vast electorate out there still does not understand the economy or the utter failure of socialism to give what it promises. Believe me, I've talked to enough of them this election. They just keep hearing how Europe has "free health care" and works only "32 hours a week". We must educate, educate, educate.
It's the Rats who are promoting and excusing fanatical religious over-zealotry in the Islamofascists all the while they turn up their noses at decent, hard-working Americans who seek God for strength and insight to lead good lives.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1275830/posts
Yes, but Tyrrell wrote a book called the "Liberal Crack-Up" some 20 years ago, and he also predicted Clinton would be convicted. His predictive powers aren't very good.
The dims problem is one of image. They are now reaping what they have sowed and are perceived as a party without moral guidance and common decency. During the last twelve years the party has been represented by those who have not hesitated to bend or distort the truth and have repeatedly demonstrated an unwilling to cooperate even when it was in the best interest of the country. What little credibility their party once had was carelessly squandered and wasted by loud mouth pundits in an attempted to defend Clinton. Today they are not trusted or respected by the majority of voters. Even with change they will remain a party of losers as the damage they have done to themselves will require much time to repair.
Stay the same...Hateful and Mean...don't change..please.
"They have nothing to offer, they have no center, they don't know who or what they really are. We do."
I'll do you one better. Their core belief is that not knowing who they are - is who they are!!
A Democrat IS someone who believes in nothing! Not God (or at best agnostic), or family (gender neutral), or honor (cut and run from Vietnam and Iraq). Moral relativity.
Consequently, by definition they don't know who they are, and are doomed to a slow political suicide. That doesn't mean they are going to go quietly, their caterwhaling screams as the whirlpool sucks them in, is already deafening.
Rush has said for years that the GOP is a party that has firm principles which people rally behind (primarily foreign affairs, lower taxes and less government regulations) and that the DEM is a party of loosely allied, disparate special interest groups sometimes at odds with each other as they vie for the most powerful spot at the DEM table. Keeping all those groups happy enough that they'll stay under the tent is a challenge, one they're having a harder and harder time meeting.
I think we may be closer than ever, but it is not imminent. Had Bush won an overwhelming landslide victory, I think the Dems may have split into a "Greens" and a "Sensible Dems" party.
All this has done is to give them just enough hope that they hang on for four more years. They remind me in all ways of the Whigs in the 1830s-1850s, winning just enough elections to fool them into thinking they have a chance.
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.