Posted on 05/18/2010 11:48:33 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Solid analysis and I pulled the piece above to highlight something else too. I do not believe what we are seeing as “anit-incumbent” as some are pointing out, but more anti-Obama. Watch all the talking heads to day and all they talk about is this anti-incumbent mood, but what they are afraid to talk about is the fact that the one has lost his charm on the electorate. In PA-12 you had Critz (D) basically running against Obama and the beltway Dem establishment not only tolerated it, they basically endorsed it. That has to be a chilling prospect for Axelrod and the crew.
Or you could LIVE a happy man!!
:0)
People are just doing what my husband has said he will be doing come election time. Only voting to oust incumbents!
You have just described the "republican" nominee for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, Mark Kirk. Add cap and trade and a vote in the U.S. House against the Iraq surge a 100% rating from National Abortion Rights League, An "F" from the N.R.A. He's a slime ball, low life liberal and will never get my vote.
It’s funny how Paul’s win “delivered a significant blow to the Republican establishment”, yet Sestak’s win didn’t “deliver a significant blow to the Democrat establishment”. Bias anyone?
Uh, I think the NY Slimes has it wrong.
BIG GOVERNMENT incumbents are in trouble. Not incumbents necessarily.
Tuesday’s elections were not so much as they were ant-establishment. The establishments of both parties were rejected.
Obama endorsed Snarlin’ Arlen, and Arlen lost.
Mitch endorsed Grayson and Grayson lost.
It was a bad night for both the DSCC and the RSCC.
- JP
The electorate must become wise to these things and to America's Founding princples, which can enable them to recognize which are true ideas of liberty, and which are counterfeit ideas of tyranny. That is not easy.
In 2008, Michael Ledeen, on another subject altogether, wrote of the degree to which Americans have been "dumbed down" on some basic ideas underlying our freedom:
Ledeen said, "Our educational system has long since banished religion from its texts, and an amazing number of Americans are intellectually unprepared for a discussion in which religion is the central organizing principle."
In the Pope's speech in Germany a few years ago, he observed:
"A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures."
Ledeen put his finger on a problem that stifles meaningful dialogue and debate in America. Censors [disguised as "protectors" (the Radical Left's ACLU, NEA, education bureaucracies, etc., etc.)] have imposed their limited understanding of liberty upon generations of school children.
From America's founding to the 1950's, ideas derived from religious literature were included in textbooks, through the poetry and prose used to teach children to read and to identify with their world and their country.
Suddenly, those ideas began to disappear from textbooks, until now, faceless, mindless copy editors sit in cubicles in the nation's textbook publishing companies, instructed by their supervisors to remove mere words that refer to family, to the Divine, and to any of the ancient ideas that have sustained intelligent discourse for centuries.
Now, it is the ACLU which accuses middle Americans of "censorship" if they object to books, films, etc., that offend their sensibilities and undermine the character training of their young. Sadly, many of those books and films are themselves products of the minds that have been robbed of exposure to wisdom literaturein the nation's schools and universities.
Back to the subject at hand:
The Democrats (Progressives) ARE WHO THEY ARE. Sestak, and other Democratic candidates' "distancing" themselves (whatever that might mean) from Pelosi/Obama won't change that.
The Party stands for the right of women to determine who is born and who dies in the womb;
- the Party stands for liberalizing the definition of marriage;
- the Party stands for redistribution of wealth from those who produce it to those who don't (no matter how they label it);
- the Party stands for a belief that the U. S. Constitution is a "living," or as I heard one describe it, a "fluid" Constitution [meaning it can be changed by activist judges (instead of by the ONLY method prescribed within the Constitution itself)];
- the Party leadership at all levels is in "lock-step" on these matters, revealing a totalitarian mindset that does not allow for those of differing ideas to become leaders.
As a result, the Progressives' agendas will be adhered to by elected officials, no matter how much the PR officials of the Party may use semantic trickery to "redefine" it to the citizens described as "red staters."
When it comes down to it, even the Joe Liebermans will fall back to "lock-step" when push comes to shove. Only those like Zell Miller, who are willing to be castigated and ignored, dare speak out.
The same can be said for the "Progressives" within the Republican Party.
That's why voters need to be grounded in enduring ideas in order to recognize tyranny camouflaged in "hope" and "change" and to be able to appropriately enter into what the Pope described as "the dialogue of cultures."
So much for Scottish law....
Not a wave, more like a one-finger salute.
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.