The Liberal Gloat

New York Times ^

[gotribe]

Read the comments, no one seems to agree with this guy.

So...buy more guns.

[fivecatsandadog]

Our country, under the Obama admin, hasn’t been this divided since the Civil War. How can this be considered stability?

[q_an_a]

The problem with our society at this time can be found in some of the facts of this story and a small underling FACT of human nature...most people would rather LOOK GOOD and be Effective. So, we have both parties trying to look good rather than triming government to it's most effective funtctions. Many conservatives may soon find what Johan Goldberg realized this week - compasionate conservative is not such a bad idea. It would work better if government worked better. Helping people to be educated in schools, charter or public, the services we provide are limited to needs and that the other services like "investing in companies" is left to the private sector. That goes for defense ideas too.

In the 50's military contractorss built products, like airplanes on spec and went into competition to win a longer contract. Then the Democratic party decided to take that burden off the workers and the employer. We may not return to that but we sure could work out some of the cost over run crap.

[WashingtonSource]

The comments from typical leftists readers of the New York Times is mind-boggling. The extraordinary hyper-rationalization of the facts and arguments shows yet again that liberalism, socialism and Communism are forever a mental and emotional process of self-delusion.

[amishman]

It is rather remarkable isn’t it? Just one monolithic string of agreement and put downs of this guy who happens to mildly criticize their “god.” Just reading those comments tells you all you need to know about what’s wrong and what’s happened to this country.

[amishman]

Not only that, they call him a wingnut. Good grief, what a mess these people are, calling for outright socialism and blaming Bain for killing Hostess. Straight talking points.

[motor_racer]

Typical of liberal rags to publish something like this right after the election, in which they actively took the liberal side. It’s as if thye are trying to wash themselves somehow, ask for absolution of their bias, or somehow make the scales balance so they can lay some (however tenuous) claim to neutrality.

Sorry, we have seen this movie before. Not buying it.

[youthphil]

In my family, we are actually finding more stability in the midst of economic struggles. I’m sure that is due to the foundation of faith in God as provider. I have observed that during times of prosperity, we tend to forget that.

[erlayman]

It is a sloppy analysis to blame a group like Latinos for the loss, who have never been a Republican voting bloc. Voter Cutting welfare wasn’t even a particularly big issue during the campaign. Obama did as well among that group as Clinton did. Romney lost the election because he did not make the sale on the economy and fixing the finances of the federal government, even to conservatives, not because of changing demographics.

[Excellence]

srbfl

[Sherman Logan]

Quite true. Liberals have for many decades passed laws mandating that things happen, leaving it up to others to figure out how to “make it so.”

The presently mandated automobile mpg requirements are a classic example. Even if (slightly) possible physically, meeting them will require the cost going up by a significant multiple.

Liberals’ response will be to provide waivers to car companies, who can then compete for political favors rather than by meeting customers’ wants.

This “leave it up to others” approach has (sorta) worked for quite a while, but at some point the drag on the system will bring it to a halt. We may be approaching that point.

[MayflowerMadam]

“Republicans are now Radio Shack to their Apple store, “The Waltons” to their “Modern Family,” a mediocre Norman Rockwell to their digital-age mosaic”

In all three comparisons, I prefer the former to the latter.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"There is no talk of an economic engine in the new world order. It’s because money comes from somewhere unknown, like an allowance from your parents.” - Thebaddog

I agree. We get to prove that liberalism won't work.
It will be painful for almost everybody.

We "get to" live through the proof that liberalism socialism still doesn’t work, any more now than in Plymouth Bay colony, or than it did in the church of Jerusalem in the days of St. Paul.

At most, the experience will cause socialists to coopt another word, they way they did with “liberalism” in the 1920s (reference: Safire’s New Political Dictionary) and progressive (The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries - “progress" did not originally mean socialism).

I consider it obvious that the meaning of “liberalism” could not have been inverted within a decade without the active support of wire service journalism. When I’m writing, I want to have “liberalism” in scare quotes when the actual meaning is socialism.