Sunday, November 07, 2004

Reality Check

I would like to make clear that I am not a frothing-at-the-mouth monster. I like many Democrats personally, but politically I disagree with them. I have an extremely low regard for the message of the Democratic Party and complete disgust for the party leadership. I have several neighbors who are very good people and are also Democrats. I don’t check party affiliation before befriending people, nor does their being a Democrat affect my relationship with them. It is just not an issue. On the other hand, some have been surprised to learn my party affiliation and have lamented that I ‘haven’t got a clue.’ One neighbor told me he wished I “understood how Reaganomics have hurt my family”. That appalled me, because it would never occur to me to tell him I wished he understood how Carter and Clintonomics hurt his. Another neighbor was talking politics with me and when I gave him the facts that bolstered my point of view he responded, “well, I know where you get your information” as if that refuted my position or supported his. I have great respect for Zell Miller, a man who stood up to the leadership of his party knowing full well that he would be denigrated and demonized for calling attention to what he calls “the theft of the Democratic Party by extremists.” Miller realizes that the Democratic Party has problems and won’t fix them by looking outward.

I had the misfortune to park behind someone at the Springfield Recycling Center over the weekend who was grousing about the front-loaded voting machines and resurrecting the foolish notion that Bush stole the election. I noticed this fellow (and those like him) didn’t mention the 2000+ front-loaded votes for Kerry on those machines in Philadelphia, and those are only the ones we know about! Nor do they talk about the 58,000+ Republican registrations that ACORN ‘misplaced’, Milwaukee schools releasing hundreds of children from classes to canvass for new registrants, or the NAACP paying people in crack-cocaine to register the dead, Disney characters, and fake people.

Last week several Democrat groups protested the election results. They weren’t marching against disenfranchisement, because African-American support for Bush increased by 2%. Al Sharpton was quick to point out that it wasn’t the doubling Karl Rove had predicted, but failed to note that the increase was significant when balanced against the disenfranchisement-myth terror campaign the Democratic Party waged these past four years. Many protesters marched in opposition to the war in Iraq. I’ll remind you of a few things: the military in Iraq voted to re-elect Bush in excess of 73% (what do they know that we don’t?); people living in Ireland, a country all too familiar with terrorism, were polled at 94% support of Bush; and most importantly, the Iraqi people’s prayers were answered by a Bush re-election.

Tom Tomorrow wrote for that “Republicans don’t let something so inconsequential as reality get in their way - George Bush is already proclaiming a mandate”. If re-taking the Presidency with the largest popular vote margin in history (which includes the power to fill vacating seats on the Supreme Court bench), reinforcing the conservative hold on the Senate (including the first defeat of a Senate Minority Leader in fifty years), and taking control of the House, all in spite of a criminally partisan press, is not tantamount to a mandate, I really can’t imagine what would be.

Jane Smiley also wrote for Her opinion is that “the election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry.” She points to a history of “ignorance and bloodlust...especially in red states” and traces that history to before the Civil War when “red forces [were] known then as slave-power”. “Blue state citizens [think] humans are essentially good”, she notes, but Republicans “are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant [people who] have sold their souls for power.” Ms. Smiley is so divorced from reality it is scary. The Republican Party was organized just previous to the Civil War by abolitionists to fight the slave-holding Democratic Party. Smiley also overlooks the strangle-hold of the liberal NEA on our education system. It was not Republicans who replaced the study of history with the multi-culturalistic experience of Social Studies.

Some pundits think that moral issues like gay marriage and abortion decided this election. Others say it was terrorism. I put to you that the issue deciding this election was simply character as defined by honesty and integrity. I have yet to meet or hear a single person who can make a compelling case that “Bush lied”. He took the same position that most world leaders took at the time (including John Kerry), based on the best information available from a variety of independent international sources. Spin it how you like, but to arrive at a different point of view is to be swayed by a partisan drive. To oppose Bush, the Democratic Party put up a house of cards so internally conflicted it could not stand. They would have been better served by Howard Dean. Instead they settled on a lawyer, who claimed to be a hero from a war they detested, who would have gotten more traction running on his protest of that war, and paired him with an opponent who said of his running mate, “To really understand John Kerry, you have to listen to those who served with him in Vietnam.” Throughout the campaign, despite the millions of advertising dollars, Bush presented himself as himself while Kerry floundered around “re-inventing himself”. Bush spoke to people and Kerry “tried to connect”. Where Bush faced the issues, Kerry had several different faces for each issue depending on which special interest group he faced. When current events impinged on the campaign, like al-Qaqaa, Bush “waited to get all the facts” and Kerry ran to the nearest camera to denigrate our allies, question our country, castigate our troops, and malign his opponent. Character matters.

The Democratic Party seems to see it’s best chance of winning back power by running Hillary Clinton in ‘08. It matters to me not a whit who their nominee is, but it is interesting to note that her qualifications are not an issue, only her electability, and her qualifications are sketchy at best. Post-college, her every success has been tied directly to her husband and her every failure hidden in a closet like her Rose Law Firm files. The frightening thing about a Hillary For President campaign is that it will be more favorably covered than the parade the press gave Kerry (and if you don’t believe in liberal media bias or that Kerry got a pass on everything, check out Evan Thomas’ recent expose reports).

Contrary to Ms. Smiley, Republicans are more interested in governance than power, so we rally behind someone of quality and moral integrity. It is the Democratic Party that has power as it’s sole concern. In an almost uninterrupted reign of forty-plus years, the Democratic Party has never changed their platform of liberal spending, social reform, and government solutions to the problems of everyday life. After those forty-plus years, the problems the Great Society was instituted to solve are more vexing now than they were then, even after untold trillions of tax dollars were lavished upon them. Republicans are described as reactionary, but we are not the party hanging onto a system that has failed and shows no prospect of success. Republicans do not hate the poor, we love them and pray and work to help them climb out of poverty. It is the Democratic Party that requires there to be poor for them to ‘help’!


At 7:25 AM, Blogger Fyste said...

I agree with the majority of your premise. However, I do not believe this is a mandate. I am a Republican and a U.S. service member, but I still held my nose while I voted for Bush. As much as the 48% of the people voting ABB (anyone but Bush) don't reflect support for John Kerry, the 52% of the vote that Bush won doesn't reflect overwhelming support for George Bush. It just that John Kerry was the lesser of two evils, that's all. The great centrist America may allow the Religious Right to claim this as a victory, but they will never allow the Christian Fundamentalist's to radically affect the premise of American culture, that being tolerance for all. That means that Roe v. Wade may be slightly eroded but will stand, and that moderate judges will be appointed by Congress. That means that the great majority of Americans that re-elected George Bush are not right wing extremists or tree-hugging radicals. Except for the few whacko extremists and goofball bloggers, we're all somewhere in the middle...


Post a Comment

<< Home