Posted on 08/28/2002 4:21:46 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Battered Republican Syndrome
For my escapist summer reading at the beach this week, I've been flipping through Sean Hannity's fabulous new book, "Let Freedom Ring." It's a fine book, with many excellent illustrations of how consistently wrong liberals have been for half a century, give or take a few years. But I must take issue with Sean on one point.
Perplexingly, he writes: "The vast majority of liberals are good, sincere, well-meaning people." This cheery bonhomie is beginning to sound like the mantra about the "vast majority" of Muslims being peaceful and has produced the same good results. I think it's time to drop the infernal nonsense about liberals being well-intentioned but misguided. In the spirit of Hannityesque magnanimity, I will say that there is only one thing wrong with liberals: They're no good.
As Hannity notes, liberals never reciprocate the love conservatives keep sending their way. They don't like us. They don't even think we're human. Of this, I am eternally grateful.
Some of the other things liberals believe are:
to move beyond discrimination, we must discriminate;
girls would make excellent Marines;
running gay marriage announcements in the wedding pages will lead to greater acceptance of homosexuality.
They are wrong about everything. Why would anyone want to be liked by these people?
It's sort of cute when Sean's hail-fellow-well-met approach toward liberals is greeted with dismissive grunts. For one thing, I think well enough of Sean to believe he doesn't really mean it. But how many times must we endure a Republican politician droning on about what a fine human being some heinous Democrat is and what a pleasure it was to work with him, only to have the heinous Democrat grudgingly issue some backhanded compliment about the Republican finally seeing the light on this "one issue"?
In the 1996 vice presidential debates, for example, Al Gore said of his opponent Jack Kemp: "Now I want to congratulate Mr. Kemp for being a lonely voice in the Republican Party over the years on this question" of racism and affirmative action. Kemp responded to this demagogic and baseless slander of the Republican Party by saying: "Affirmative action should be predicated upon need, not equality of reward, blah, blah, blah." Gee, thanks, Jack.
President Bush, too, has repeatedly set himself up as the test case of what happens when you try to play nice with a Democrat. After the dignified staff of the dignified former president trashed the White House on their dignified exit, Bush downplayed the property damage, saying: "There might have been a prank or two. Maybe somebody put a cartoon on the wall, but that's OK."
Anyone who knew anyone moving into the Bush White House knew that it was more than a "prank or two." But instead of stopping while they were ahead, pocketing Bush's gracefulness and moving on, the Democrats aggressively attacked Republicans for having falsely accused the Clinton staff of trashing the White House. They cited Bush's magnanimity as evidence that this was a lie. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., demanded an apology from the White House. USA Today ran a snippy article titled "Ex-Clinton staffers on vandalism: Got proof?" Former Clinton press secretary Jake Siewert insinuatingly asked why there were no records of the alleged damage.
And then the full GAO report came back: The Party of the People had done $15,000 worth of property damage to the People's House. Extend an olive branch to Democrats and they bite your hand off.
Bush has invited Sen. Teddy Kennedy to the White House for movie night (to watch the Kennedy hagiography "Thirteen Days"), brought him over to discuss education several times, named a federal building after one brother and gushingly praised the other.
The adulterous drunk who cheated at Harvard and killed a girl at Chappaquiddick responded to these overtures by attacking Bush. "It takes more than good intentions to make a difference," Kennedy said. Asked about Bush's intelligence (a meaningless concept in college admissions but a scientifically provable quality in the cases of Republican presidents and death-row inmates), Kennedy pointedly said only that he found Bush, "engaging and personable."
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., dismissed Bush's overtures toward Kennedy as calculated political gamesmanship.
(Pop quiz: Did a Republican or Democrat say this about a member of the opposing party – "Your thoughtfulness truly amazes me. ... Thank you, my friend, for your many courtesies. If the world only knew." Answer: That was Sen. Trent Lott on Teddy Kennedy.)
When Bush named the Department of Justice building after Robert Kennedy, Kerry Kennedy Cuomo displayed the renowned Kennedy graciousness by viciously attacking the Bush administration at a pre-dedication ceremony. Noting that her daughter was in the audience, Kennedy Cuomo said: "Kara, if anyone tries to tell you this is the type of justice system your grandpa embraced, you just don't believe it."
This is as we have come to expect from a family of heroin addicts, statutory rapists, convicted and unconvicted female-killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks known as "Camelot." Why would anyone want such people as their "good friends"?
You are all aware of the map that depicts Bush Country.
I believe it was Limbaugh that mentioned a researches endeavor to break down the crime stats and other data related to those same counties.
Can somebody please direct me to that article/report/comment?
Thanks in advance.
I'm doing this to only the top 2 most currently active threads, that's all...I promise!
You're right, Ann totally gets it.
That's EXACTLY what it means. I don't associate with vermin. It's a good way to get fleas.
Even if your mom, dad, son, wife, etc. were a liberal.
My parents are both deceased, but I can assure you, neither were liberals. If my son adopted that philosophy, I would disown him. And I certainly wouldn't MARRY a liberal! I'd rather shack up with Hillary Clinton!
Ann Coulter is very correct. It is doesnt matter that the liberals are like brainwashed masses with good intentions. Liberals usually have more than false political ideas that make them liberal. They have personal belief systems that reject individual responsibility. Their negativity of the individual enforces their leftist view points and makes them blind to anything outside their worldview. It takes hard lessons to change that. We cant "fix" them by simply being nice and giving our advice about things. We cant stand around taking abuse from them without hurting our own cause. So would you say that a battered woman should stay with her abuser and try to work out his problems?
We could say that soviet communists are brainwashed masses with good intentions but that wont stop them from throwing you and your family into a gulag and watching you die.
I don't believe that they are good, either. The leftists who control the party aren't interested in "goodness," they're interested in political power.
Take as an example the poor in America and ask yourself if the goal of liberalism has been to help them or to destroy them. We can clearly see the results. The question is whether or not it was simply a matter of "bad policy" or something much more sinister.
Lenin and Marx understood the importance of turning the proletariat against capitalism by using every means available. The leftists have been very successful at destroying the nuclear family, culturally impoverishing the underclass and radicalizing them in opposition to the culture at large. All of those things are key aspects of socialist class warfare. There is nothing "good" or benevolent about any of it.
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.