The left still doesn't get it
By Patricj J. Buchanan
Posted: November 10, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
With the exit polls projecting an electoral landslide for John Kerry, the
shocking night of Nov. 2-3 appears to have unhinged much of the American Left.
In a post-election essay, "The Unteachable Ignorance of the Red States,"
novelist Jane Smiley rants:
Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially
in the red states ... The history of the last four years shows that red state
types ... prefer to be ignorant ... They are virtually unteachable.
Yet, Smiley assures us, the ignoramuses of the Right will get it all back:
[W]e have to remember that threats to democracy from the right always collapse.
Whatever their short-term appeal, they are borne of hubris and hatred, and will
destroy their purveyors in the end.
Here is Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne:
We are aghast at the success of a campaign based on vicious personal attacks,
the exploitation of strong religious feelings ... And we are disgusted that an
effort consciously designed to divide the country did exactly that.
Here is The Nation:
The checks and balances on presidential powers contemplated by the country's
Founders are in tatters ... Roe v. Wade and a host of other protections of
basic human rights are at risk. Bush is bound to try to assist the Christian
right in its fantastical efforts to "Christianize" public institutions.
In these passages one detects a fear and loathing, a culture of contempt on the
Left that their opponents are all blinkered and brutal bigots. But if liberals,
reincarnated as "progressives," so despise the Right, they need to understand
why the Right is rejoicing every bit as much in their humiliation as it is in
Bush's victory. As Jimmy Breslin titled his book on Watergate, this election
was "When the Good Guys Finally Won."
Smiley says the appeal of the Right is rooted in "hatred." But hatred of Bush
was the most powerful animus of 2004. The Windsurfer – whether on his
snowboard or his $5,000 bike, or out killing poor geese in his "camos" –
evoked not hatred, but derisory laughter.
Dionne says conservatives sought to "divide the country." But is that not what
an election is about, dividing the country?
"A division of the house," as it is called at the Oxford Union, takes place
after each debate. One side leaves the room, the other remains, the votes are
counted.
E.J. talks about the Right's exploitation of religious feelings. But it was not
the Right that put gay marriage on the agenda. That honor goes to the kooky
jurist in Kerry's home state, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who ordered the
legislature and governor to hand out marriage licenses to homosexuals. Marshall
inspired Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco to hand out licenses to lesbians
and gays in violation of a law that had passed 2-to-1 in a state referendum.
Even Barney Frank urged Newsom not to break the law.
To defend their society from a Supreme Court that had just declared sodomy a
constitutional right – and might impose Marshall's opinion on us all –
conservatives petitioned voters to put on the ballots of a dozen states laws or
amendments to ban gay marriage. Then, they went to the polls to approve them in
landslides.
How many thrashings will it take to convince the Left that people do not want
homosexual couplings treated like traditional marriage?
The Nation talks of the "basic human rights" involved in Roe v. Wade. But what
about the basic human right to life of the 43 million unborn who have perished
in the womb since Roe v. Wade?
Is that of no consequence or concern to liberals and leftists?
The Nation wails that the "checks and balances on presidential powers
contemplated by the country's Founders are in tatters," as Republicans now
control the White House and both houses of Congress. But Democrats controlled
the White House and both houses of Congress from 1933 to 1947, from 1949 to
1953, from 1961 to 1969, from 1977 to 1981 and from 1993 to 1995.
Was The Nation fearful, then, for our democracy?
The Nation notwithstanding, it is not conservatives but the Left that has
relied upon the least democratic of our governmental institutions – the
judiciary – to impose its ideology.
It was an unelected Supreme Court – answerable to no one – that legalized
pornography, declared nude dancing protected freedom of expression, expelled
God and the Ten Commandments from public schools, declared abortion and sodomy
to be constitutional rights, outlawed the death penalty and imposed the idiocy
of forced busing for racial balance on entire cities. No legislature would have
dared vote for all this.
The Right does not demand that the children of atheists be made to recite
prayers or pledge allegiance to the flag in public schools. They only ask that
their children be allowed to do so.
Whether Bush deserved re-election may be debatable, but last Tuesday, our
"progressives" certainly got what they deserved.
.
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The left still doesn't get it |
10 Nov 2004 10:09:59 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041110105650.12369.00000397@mb-m28.aol.com...
The left still doesn't get it
By Patricj J. Buchanan
Posting the words of an anti-semite eh? tut tut...
<snip>
Here's what else pat has said during his foul, worthless existance:
http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/buchanan.html
In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and
genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage...Hitler's
success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an
intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness
masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood
in his path." (The Guardian, 1/14/92)
In his September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan
declared: "Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our
religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free." (ADL
Report, 1994)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: The left still doesn't get it |
10 Nov 2004 07:02:47 PM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:cmte9v$jau$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
<snip>
In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic
and
genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage...Hitler's
success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an
intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness
masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood
in his path." (The Guardian, 1/14/92)
Frankly, that's probably a reasonable description. Short of a few neo nazis
that are short on grey matter, the verdict of history is that Hitler was an
evil
*****. No argument. He was in some respects a genius at manipulating
people and public opinion. It didn't always work and his impatience made
him boldly act before he should have at times, (The Beer Hall Putsch that
landed him
in jail for instance). He also had the advantage of a particular time,
place
and political/economic/social situation that benefited his brand of
politics.
So he was (iniitally anyway) also a bit lucky in some respects. Courage?
Well,
again his history suggests that he did in fact have personal courage, he was
wounded in action in WW1 and was in the front of the march in Munich
that lead to a firefight in which 26 Nazis and 3 Police were killed, Hitler
had his shoulder dislocated, apparently when a wounded man crashed
into him. In view of this, it's not unreasonable to state he had courage.
He blew it badly further down the track, starting with changing his tactics
during the Battle of Britain which made it possible for RAF Fighter Command
to retain Air Superiority, which Germany needed for the Operation Sea Lion,
the invasion of Britain, to succeed and compounded that by starting
Operation
Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia shortly after. Despite some initial
gains, this
was a serious mistake and he make numerous others from that point, in many
cases overruling his military and scientific advisors, which accelerated the
loss
of the war. So it's fair to say his genius did not extend to military
matters, the
innovations of Blitzkrieg and other successes were the result of his
military
not Hitler personally.
But if someone was to say he was a brave, but evil genius, which
is basically what is being stated by Mr. Buchanan (whoever he is/was)
it's pretty close to the truth.
That Hitler was an evil arsehole and the world would have been better off
without him is not disputed.
The CO
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tadapope" |
|
| Title: Re: The left still doesn't get it |
12 Nov 2004 08:04:50 PM |
|
|
That's because they don't eat enough chicken.
Tangents are infinite in all of nature in
all universes constantly and at random.
Oh Joy!
Tom
The Psychedelic Pope
Patron Saint of the Internet
http://www.apple2.org.za/gswv/me/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: The left still doesn't get it |
12 Nov 2004 01:22:30 PM |
|
|
TonyZ2001 wrote:
The left still doesn't get it
By Patricj J. Buchanan
Posted: November 10, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
With the exit polls projecting an electoral landslide for John Kerry, the
shocking night of Nov. 2-3 appears to have unhinged much of the American Left.
In a post-election essay, "The Unteachable Ignorance of the Red States,"
novelist Jane Smiley rants:
Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially
in the red states ... The history of the last four years shows that red state
types ... prefer to be ignorant ... They are virtually unteachable.
Yet, Smiley assures us, the ignoramuses of the Right will get it all back:
[W]e have to remember that threats to democracy from the right always collapse.
Whatever their short-term appeal, they are borne of hubris and hatred, and will
destroy their purveyors in the end.
Here is Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne:
We are aghast at the success of a campaign based on vicious personal attacks,
the exploitation of strong religious feelings ... And we are disgusted that an
effort consciously designed to divide the country did exactly that.
Here is The Nation:
The checks and balances on presidential powers contemplated by the country's
Founders are in tatters ... Roe v. Wade and a host of other protections of
basic human rights are at risk. Bush is bound to try to assist the Christian
right in its fantastical efforts to "Christianize" public institutions.
In these passages one detects a fear and loathing, a culture of contempt on the
Left that their opponents are all blinkered and brutal bigots. But if liberals,
reincarnated as "progressives," so despise the Right, they need to understand
why the Right is rejoicing every bit as much in their humiliation as it is in
Bush's victory. As Jimmy Breslin titled his book on Watergate, this election
was "When the Good Guys Finally Won."
Smiley says the appeal of the Right is rooted in "hatred." But hatred of Bush
was the most powerful animus of 2004. The Windsurfer – whether on his
snowboard or his $5,000 bike, or out killing poor geese in his "camos" –
evoked not hatred, but derisory laughter.
Dionne says conservatives sought to "divide the country." But is that not what
an election is about, dividing the country?
"A division of the house," as it is called at the Oxford Union, takes place
after each debate. One side leaves the room, the other remains, the votes are
counted.
E.J. talks about the Right's exploitation of religious feelings. But it was not
the Right that put gay marriage on the agenda. That honor goes to the kooky
jurist in Kerry's home state, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who ordered the
legislature and governor to hand out marriage licenses to homosexuals. Marshall
inspired Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco to hand out licenses to lesbians
and gays in violation of a law that had passed 2-to-1 in a state referendum.
Even Barney Frank urged Newsom not to break the law.
To defend their society from a Supreme Court that had just declared sodomy a
constitutional right – and might impose Marshall's opinion on us all –
conservatives petitioned voters to put on the ballots of a dozen states laws or
amendments to ban gay marriage. Then, they went to the polls to approve them in
landslides.
How many thrashings will it take to convince the Left that people do not want
homosexual couplings treated like traditional marriage?
The Nation talks of the "basic human rights" involved in Roe v. Wade. But what
about the basic human right to life of the 43 million unborn who have perished
in the womb since Roe v. Wade?
Is that of no consequence or concern to liberals and leftists?
The Nation wails that the "checks and balances on presidential powers
contemplated by the country's Founders are in tatters," as Republicans now
control the White House and both houses of Congress. But Democrats controlled
the White House and both houses of Congress from 1933 to 1947, from 1949 to
1953, from 1961 to 1969, from 1977 to 1981 and from 1993 to 1995.
Was The Nation fearful, then, for our democracy?
The Nation notwithstanding, it is not conservatives but the Left that has
relied upon the least democratic of our governmental institutions – the
judiciary – to impose its ideology.
It was an unelected Supreme Court – answerable to no one – that legalized
pornography, declared nude dancing protected freedom of expression, expelled
God and the Ten Commandments from public schools, declared abortion and sodomy
to be constitutional rights, outlawed the death penalty and imposed the idiocy
of forced busing for racial balance on entire cities. No legislature would have
dared vote for all this.
The Right does not demand that the children of atheists be made to recite
prayers or pledge allegiance to the flag in public schools. They only ask that
their children be allowed to do so.
Whether Bush deserved re-election may be debatable, but last Tuesday, our
"progressives" certainly got what they deserved.
The Right doesn't get it. They just re-elected the Antichrist, and next spring,
they'll all be damn sorry they did. Watch 22 FEB 2005, that's 1260 days from 9/11.
you might be surprized what happens.
Charly
Cassandra's problem, she saw the future, she knew the truth, but no one believed a
word of it, until it was too late.
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: The left still doesn't get it |
13 Nov 2004 07:53:38 AM |
|
|
"Charly the *****" <nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:41950D77.47D4FA45@worldnet.att.net...
The Right doesn't get it. They just re-elected the Antichrist, and next
spring,
they'll all be damn sorry they did. Watch 22 FEB 2005, that's 1260 days
from 9/11.
you might be surprized what happens.
Charly
Cassandra's problem, she saw the future, she knew the truth, but no one
believed a
word of it, until it was too late.
Hey, Charly, just for the heck of it, have you seen "Eyes Wide Shut" yet?
Mr. Kubricks last fine gift to us?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Su Zanadu" |
|
| Title: Re: The left still doesn't get it |
14 Nov 2004 12:13:19 AM |
|
|
John wrote:
Hey, Charly, just for the heck of it, have
you seen "Eyes Wide Shut" yet? Mr.
Kubricks last fine gift to us?
I did!
That darn piano music was stuck in my head for weeks after! It still
comes back into my head at the mere mentioning of the movie.
Thanks John!
dun-dun-dun-dun-dun.......dun-dun
;)
SuZanne
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: The left still doesn't get it |
13 Nov 2004 02:21:47 AM |
|
|
Charly the ***** <nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> Spat the Words
The Right doesn't get it. They just re-elected the Antichrist, and next
spring, they'll all be damn sorry they did. Watch 22 FEB 2005, that's
1260 days from 9/11. you might be surprized what happens.
What's going to happen? Is GWBush going to slaughter a pig
in the Jewish holy place, or what?
Charly
Cassandra's problem, she saw the future, she knew the truth, but no one
believed a word of it, until it was too late.
.
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|