Posted on 08/14/2006 6:50:45 PM PDT by neverdem
|
|
Don't you love it?
The Poohbahs of the Media have Spoken. "CONNECTICUT'S MESSAGE" proclaims the editorial page of the New York Times that endorsed peacenik Ned Lamont over Senator Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary. There are two problems here, both ironic and hilarious. Number One: In their bones, the generational peers of the editorial writers and videotape editors of the mainstream media get the game. Number Two: Those of us who once agreed have seen the light...and disagree. Franklin Roosevelt, scion of the Eastern Establishment's upper class, was frequently called a "traitor" to his class, his class being defined at the time as an economic class. One of the reasons George W. Bush is so hated by the Left is that like FDR he is perceived as a "traitor" to his class...in this case class being defined as a class of liberal sensibility. It is a sensibility for which Bush has a well-recorded contempt. Rich American sons who go to Yale and Harvard are just not supposed to think the way Bush does -- and if they do...heaven forbid that they actually say anything!!!!! As FDR sided with working- and middle-class Americans, so too has Bush. What Bush possesses, as does anyone who spent time in life as a liberal in the 1960s, is a genuine knee-slapping laugh at the self-righteousness of those liberal classmates who just refused to grow up. Which brings us to the hilarious New York Times editorial on the results of the Lieberman-Lamont primary. I know, lobster and champagne doesn't serve up as well, but try and control yourself. You, dear Spectator readers, can surely imagine the editorial staff of the Times sharing a bite... |
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The author seems to be suggesting that we should view the Times' editorial board as composed of a bunch of adolescent Commie queers.
Not a bad way of looking at it. Not bad, at all...
Actually, this guy has the same insight that a conservative editorial board editor I exchange emails with shares.
He said liberals try to shoehorn the square pegs of all modern events into one of four round holes. The civil rights movement, Vietnam, Watergate, and much later, Florida in 2000.
And his assessment of the situation was blunt. In his opinion, the only cure for the Vietnam-era liberal who had not grown up was death. They will carry these views to the grave and we cannot do anything to change them.
And quite frankly, I have tried on liberal boards to talk sense to them, and I have to agree. The younger liberals are actually open to reason. But the older ones, furgeddaboutit. Their views are impervious to facts and common sense. They will keep pounding on those square pegs to make them fit - and when the pounding fails, instead of learning from such, they will just go to the next square peg and pound on it.
The big problem with liberals is the fact that they all think they're centrists.
My sister is one of them. And that is exactly the case with her. I love her dearly, but she has absolutely no political sense -- totally misconstrues conservatism and is reflexively supportive of anything deemed liberal.
And we are supposed to be the uneducated and intolerant ones...
This is my own thinking. I think we have a lot of people who have either never reformed or have not made amends in denial. They cannot admit that they goofed up their own lives and seek absolution on the false basis that "everybody does it." They have been divorced, passed over for promotions in affirmative action enviornments and otherwise deprived of their due. Like Hilary they feel entitled to wealth and power because they got high SAT scores. I know someone like that, my ex.
Why should we even try to stop them?
My parents were very liberal anti war types during the Vietnam war but today are quite conservative. My mother says that the anti war equation just didn't add up any more and she had nothing to show for past protests aside from a gap in her education and career.
He said liberals try to shoehorn the square pegs of all modern events into one of four round holes. The civil rights movement, Vietnam, Watergate, and much later, Florida in 2000.
i believe vietnam, civil rights, etc. is the order, jfk was the start of the problems we are having today...
In a way, she is correct. Facts and logic are quite unyielding things. Like I said, they TRY to pound the square pegs into the round holes. And fail continually.
Well, a part of me wants to have a viable opposition party. Look at the GOP. The lack of competition has made it flabby. They spend money as bad as a tweaking Democrat.
But as much as I try to encourage them to have a clue, the left no longer offers a viable alternative. Cripes, the Dems aren't even a labor party any more. They are a lifestyle party. Abortion. Gay rights. That's all that matters to them. Look at how they perverted V for Vendetta.
Heck, the author of that comic would have nothing to do with the movie. In the movie, Islam is a thing of beauty. Christians are oppressors. And terrorism is the only answer. If you want to understnad the complete derangement of the modern liberal, suck down a bottle of Pepto and watch that movie.
They had a brain. And common sense. You should be grateful every day for that - having parents who are willing to learn from their mistakes. Most Vietnam-era liberals never did.
Yep. And you needn't look a lot further than that movie to understand how much the progressives have retired from the real world - they have what they've always wanted, a fanatical religious fascism to fight, but it doesn't fit their ideology and they prefer to indulge in fantasies about Christian theocracies instead. It drives old-school lefties like Christopher Hitchens nuts.
That's a good roundup.
FDR was Alger Hiss's boss...
Problem is, liberals WON basically everything they fought for in the 60's. Civil Rights, Vietnam, environmentalism, abortion,etc. They don't really have a reason to exist in the 00's. Everything they supposedly "stand" for now is a perversion of what were once "principled" stances. I was taught from childhood to judge a person by their character, not their skin. Now liberals want a persons skin color to be the ONLY thing I judge a person by when it comes to things like college admissions. They have become the establishment and they don't like it when I ask questions about their hypocrisy
In his opinion, the only cure for the Vietnam-era liberal who had not grown up was death. They will carry these views to the grave and we cannot do anything to change them.
Some of us grew up.
Yes?
I agree, "They have become the establishment." Actually, they are reactionaries devoted to defending their perogatives. I have some sympathy, though, part of their ideology always included stiffing white males. Apparently, they are the ones who are so mad, old,rich, white men.
I find some of the preceding statement to be rather harsh.
May I suggest that you use "cadre" in place of "bunch"? ;)
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.