Unliberal Left (Burt Prelutsky Chides Rich Democrats For Political Uncle Scrooge Miserliness Alert)

I keep asking myself why, in spite of the encouraging reports out of Iraq, people such as Rep. Murtha want us to beat a hasty retreat, making the same sort of shameful exit we made out of Southeast Asia three decades ago, leaving our allies to the less than tender mercies of Pol Pot and the North Vietnamese.

Why do these people seem to salivate every time an American soldier is killed doing his duty, as if hoping that when some magical number – 2,500? 3,000? – is reached, the American people will rise up and insist that we pull out, thus guaranteeing that not only will the terrorists win, but ensuring that our young warriors will have died in vain?

It can only be that they hate the president more than they love liberty, hate Bush more than they hate the Islamic butchers. Why else would they insist that on a specific date we wave the white flag, turn tail, and run?

To me, the miracle is that even after a war has been waged and after all these months of terrorist attacks, the total of fatalities is still less than the number we lost on 9-11. And whereas we have nothing to show for the loss of those 3,000 lives aside from grief, 25 million Iraqis have been rescued from a bloody tyrant and have actually held a free election. A pox on those who insist that our soldiers have been sacrificed for no good reason. It's the same reason that good people have died at Bunker Hill and Gettysburg and Iwo Jima.

I happen to live in a town filled with people who speak about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove, with the same sort of vituperation that used to be directed at the likes of Hitler, Goebbels, Goering and Eichmann.

In Hollywood, where liberals rule the roost – and cause sane people to give thanks that these knuckleheads only make movies, not national policy – one could get the idea that they would move heaven and earth to elect a Democrat. But, recently, I experienced an epiphany. It occurred to me that, for all their garment-rending when Republicans win elections, after all is said and done, they are really only actors. And, for all their carrying on, each of them is merely playing the role of a concerned citizen.

What happened is that I read that, in preparation to make her presidential run in 2008, Sen. Clinton left Hollywood, after being guest of honor at three fund-raising events hosted and attended by all the usual suspects, with about an extra $750,000 in her war chest.

That may sound like a lot of money just for showing up at a few parties and having a bunch of smarmy pea-brains tell you you're every bit as wonderful as you think you are. But for these people, that's chump change. Assuming there were, say, 300 people at these gigs, it works out to just $2,500-a-head. That's less than these folks spend on a sofa. Heck, it's less than they spend on lunch!

But, lest it seem that I'm just picking on well-meaning amateurs, and mere millionaires at that, let us consider George Soros. As you may recall, back in 2004, Mr. Soros would start foaming at the mouth at the mere thought that President Bush might be re-elected.

How much does George Soros hate George Bush? What price did he place on driving this evil creature from the Oval Office? I believe the figure I most often saw bandied about was roughly $30 million. A tidy sum, I'll acknowledge. But rumor has it that the man could cash out at about $1.2 billion. Which means that even after the election, he was a long way from pauperhood with $1.17 billion left for food, rent and any incidentals that might arise, such as purchasing Rhode Island.

Now if you had $1.2 billion at your disposal and you honestly believed that George Bush was really Adolf Hitler without the Chaplin moustache, wouldn't you think you might be willing to spend slightly more than 2 percent of your net worth to send him scurrying back to Crawford?

So the next time you run into any of these dunderheads carrying on about the fascists running America, tell them it's all their fault – that if only they weren't such penny-pinching cheapskates, John Kerry would be president today.

George Soros may be a billionaire but like his fellow rich Democrats, he's a political Uncle Scrooge. He spent just 2% of his vast fortune to unseat the man he believed was Hitler without the Charlie Chaplin moustache. And we have his political brilliance to thank for the result. As Burt Prelutsky notes tongue in cheek, their penny-pinching in the 2004 election is exactly why conservatives shouldn't hesitate to shake their hands.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

In another life, I was friends with 2 of the ultra rich progressives who between them and their families donated at least another $30M to Dean and Kerry. Neither of them will deign to speak to me since their attempt to defeat W failed.

Both have stated at various times that "Money is just a tool." Both truly believe that possession of vast unearned, inherited wealth means they must do all they can to destroy capitalism. Both harbor deep seated insecurities over their own abilities to survive and thrive on their own, without the support of their millions or billions. Neither would feel the loss of that amount of money in their personal lives.

I have thought a lot about their unwillingness to face up to their failure. Obviously, it has stung a lot, or else why would they retreat into their very progressive circles after loudly proclaiming that they hated Bush and would do all in their considerable economic power to destroy him politically....and there was the unspoken promise that they would try to destroy him personally, if at all possible.

But the truth is that their millions of dollars in the end still only accounted for a handful of votes: theirs, that of their parents, siblings, spouses and children...in these instances, perhaps 25 votes in all between them. We, on the other hand, have more votes per dollar and many of us worked to actually get that vote to the polls, rather than just writing a check to organizations dedicated to publishing slander, lies and hyperbole.

Both of my former friends are very sensitive to their own failures and subscribe to "When at first you don't succeed, hide all the evidence." That isn't possible in today's world. Donations of that magnitude are published and even when one went to great lengths to attempt to hide her personal involvement, the media found her out. That same media she thought she could purchase to influence the rest of us working dolts probably intended to praise the donations, but ended up making her look like a loon. I know nothing could make her more angry.

I bet that they have continued to write those checks, even after three stunning electoral defeats. I wonder if it keeps them awake at night, knowing they have no place else to go in this world to be safe, no matter how much they hate George W Bush? How do such people manage to keep from acknowledging that they are, in effect, paying for their own eventual demise and are protected from it by the very working folks they secretly despise? I suspect it takes some extreme form of self delusion.

I hope that one day, I can put Burt's advice into practice and thank them in person.

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.