The Pondering AmericanPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting

An average American that has some thoughts on politics, culture, and society with a conservative and Catholic twist.

Name:
Location: Louisiana, United States
Email me!

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Irrational Bush Hatred AND Arrogance of the Elite Left

The Anchoress has a great post deal with how again the liberal elites are treating with disdain the President of the United States. Is this over economic policy? Is this over his vision of where America should be going as to our trade relations? Perhaps a issue of foreign policy? No , they are attacking the President over what is on his reading list this summer. Actaully they think the President might be getting over his head. What arrogance. Please go read It’s really petty to resent what a man reads… by the Anchoress. She hits it right on the head and points out the stunning reality of what they really are.

However there is more to it than just a extreme dislike toward Bush. It is typical of a viewpoint that many of this mindset have toward countless numbers of their own countrymen. That view is that since these people are conservatives and Republicans , then they must be all poor uncultured and uneducated idiots. At times I wonder if these people every travel anywhere in this Country outside places where they can live in the safety of their cocoons.

We have seen this before on display. The 2004 Republican Convention is case study number 1. I often don't get my feeling hurt in campaigns. But I will admit, I personally was hurt by how some New Yorkers viewed us. This changed though after some of the Louisiana delegates came back from that convention. They told me in no certain terms that tons of New Yorkers came up to them and told them that this was not how the average citizen of that great city viewed their fellow citizens. Lets take a trip down memory lane.

The 2004 Republican Convention-
The New York Magazine was offender number in many cases. There articles that even tried to have a tone of fairness in it also was sure to have tons of righteous ridicule for the us poor rubes. Here is there Convention Coverage. New York magazine also was famous for the running all the pictures of the Republicans. Except they took the worst pictures that were shot and put them in the magazine. That sort of set the tone. It was mean spirted and petty. The question is why did they even think this was funny? A left Blogger of course knew the joke:
Apparently, some feel New York didn't use the most flattering pictures of GOPers in the magazine's special convention issue....why doesn't anyone realize that the Republicans are ugly no matter how you present them?-

Yep hahah. Why does this make me think of those horrid days that all of us kids went through when were made fun of because of our looks and thus had no self worth and were stupid. However that was one of many high browed things that were coming out of New York liberal elite press. I often wondered during that time if they were aware the rest of the country has something called the "internet" and that we were reading it also.

Of course during the election it got worse and after the election the same people in DC, New York, and other Liberal enclaves had a temper tantrum. Remember all that stuff on made up electoral maps about "jesusland". I thought Kaus at Slate had it right when he noted:
Friday, November 5, 2004
Like Marlon Perkins, Tim Russert explains President Bush's appeal in the "so-called red states" to Tom Brokaw and the Bo-Wash corridor:
They can see him in his jeans and his swagger and his belt buckle, a lot of things a lot of people in--in the Northeast would laugh at. But they identify with it. And, Tom, they will say that their i--their connection with him on the issue of values and as a man of faith was much more important to them than the state of the economy or the war in Iraq. [Emphasis added]

1) Not the most condescending thing that has been said about the red states. But pretty condescending! Doesn't Russert have to get, you know, ratings? Do red state viewers (or Bush voters generally) actually like watching Tim Russert? Hard to believe.

2) Would these mystifying red people actually "say" that their connection with Bush on faith and values is more important than the major issues facing the country? Russert suggests they're so blinded by faith they'd vote for Bush even if everything was manifestly going to hell. ... Wouldn't "they" maybe "say" that the economy isn't in such bad shape--as is, in fact, true--and maybe the war in Iraq isn't in such irrevocably bad shape either? Haven't they, in fact, just said that? 11:38 P.M.

Of course this was just a small taste. People that write the columns attacking George Bush's reading list and making snide comments hate the fact that the "common folk" in the country actually get a say in things. So they cover that up by making more self revealing comments than they know about the smarts of the rest of us. Especially conservatives.

Just a little trip down memory lane again, to show what is behind all this. From the National Review Back in Novemember 2004.
Today's American Left is largely responsible for the division they so loudly condemn. They have every right to chide President Bush's policies, lament his reelection, and propose better ideas. Instead, the Left throws parched logs onto the national political bonfire, then curses the ensuing flames.Consider just a few things the Bush haters have said since Election Day:

"F#$@ the South. F#$@ 'em," reads a widely circulated on-line screed posted at f#$@thesouth.com. (The actual web address contains letters rather than symbols.) "We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. But no, we had to kill half a million people so they'd stay part of our special Union. Fighting for the right to keep slaves—yeah, those are states we want to keep.""Take your liberal-bashing, federal-tax-leaching, confederate-flag-waving, holier-than-thou, hypocritical bull*?<+ and shove it up your a%&.And no, you can't have your f#$@ing convention in New York next time. F#$@ off." Is this how tolerant liberals celebrate diversity?
The November 5 Wall Street Journal cited these deep thoughts from a weblog called "Punk Voter:" "Senator Kerry said [November 3] that now we need to come together and heal as a nation. F*** that. There's no f****** way I am going to come together with these homophobic, flag-waving, god-fearing, gun-toting, uneducated, isolationist, ethnocentric REDNECKS."

An "adoption notice" e-mailed around the country shows the Democratic blue states beside the headline "Free to a good country." The mock ad continues, "Educated and intelligent population. Gets along well with others. Pretty. Wants to get out of an abusive relationship with current owner and inbreeding red cousins. Open to all sane democracies."Another Internet graphic shows the blue states linked to our northerly neighbor in the "United States of Canada." The red states in between are described as "Jesusland."While these vulgar, secessionist sentiments could be dismissed as the bile-fueled grumbling of disgruntled College Democrats, listen to veteran Democratic political consultant Bob Beckel. -"I think now that slavery is taken care of, I'm for letting the South form its own nation," Beckel recently declared on Fox News Channel's Fox and Friends. "Really, I think they ought to have their own confederacy."-MSNBC commentator

Lawrence O'Donnell—a former staffer to the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D., N.Y.) and co-creator of NBC's The West Wing—told The McLaughlin Group this on the weekend after the election: "The segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don't pay for the federal government...Some would say, 'Oh, poor Alabama. It's cut off from the wealth infusion that it gets from New York and California'...But the more this political condition goes on at the presidential level of the red and blue states, the more you're testing the inclination of the blue states to say, 'So what?'"The November 9 Washington Times reported that Canada's immigration information website usually gets 20,000 U.S. hits daily. The day John Kerry conceded, that number rocketed to 115,016 before easing back to 65,803 November 4, still triple the normal figure. If a democratic election's losers ponder emigration, does that make the winners divisive? Does anyone truly believe that if John Kerry had prevailed, Republicans would advocate seceding from blue America? How many Republicans would consider moving say, to the low-tax, relatively pro-life Republic of Ireland?

Another theme of the divisive Left is the supposed idiocy of red states and their inhabitants. It starts, naturally, with President Bush. The Left depicts him as a doddering fool. Yet, somehow, this airheaded cowboy has defeated them in two elections. This hardly demonstrates the Left's brilliance.One Internet posting ranks the 50 states by IQ. The higher-IQ states supported Kerry, starting with Connecticut (average IQ 113). These figures plunge to pro-Bush Mississippi, with its 85 average intelligence quotient.If these numbers are legitimate, they raise interesting questions:Were Louisiana and South Carolina, both blue states, dumb over the last six years when they elected Democrats John Breaux, Mary Landrieu (in 2002), and Ernest Hollings to the U.S. Senate, or did they suddenly grow stupid this year?And how about Colorado's pro-Bush voters? They also elected Democrat Ken Salazar to the U.S. Senate on November 2, rather than Republican Peter Coors. So, were they simultaneously sharp and dimwitted?"South Dakota's IQ must have dropped for them to stop voting for Democrat Tom Daschle and switch to Republican John Thune," says Mitch Baxter, an Arlington, Virginia attorney and member of the Republican Jewish Coalition "They were in the bottom 10 this time. There was no massive immigration of dodos or emigration of geniuses, so there must be some kind of environmental toxin that caused brain damage. Quick, get the EPA!"Hollywood acted divisively, too. Whoopi Goldberg regaled a July 8 Kerry fundraiser with gynecological double entendres involving the president's surname. Julia Roberts said "'Republican' comes in the dictionary just after 'reptile' and just above 'repugnant.'" Cameron Diaz announced on Oprah September 29 that if Bush were reelected, "we could lose the right to our bodies.... If you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote."

Few things divide more quickly than invoking the Nazis. Yet the Left repeatedly detonated this rhetorical A-bomb. MoveOn.org, for instance, famously displayed an online ad comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler.-The August 30 Time magazine quoted Ithaca College assistant professor Charles Venator Santiago. He complained that when he explains conservative philosophy to his introductory political-science class, I am teaching Hitler.

"-For two years now, bumper stickers have spelled the president's name "B-U-[swastika]-H."-NAACP president Julian Bond doubled down last June 23 when he compared Republicans to both the old South and National Socialism. He said, "Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side."Perhaps worse than "Nazi" are the other N-words.-A blogger named the Rude Pundit, who boasts about "proudly lowering the level of political discourse," called your humble commentator National Review's "house negro." Imagine the justifiable outrage if I or any other center-right commentator called Alan Colmes "the Fox News Channel's resident Jew?"

-Leftist cartoonist Ted Rall created a July 5 illustration which shows Secretary of State Designate Condoleezza Rice at an "inner-city racial re-education camp." She says, "I was Bush's beard! His house n*gga..."-As the black free-market organization,

Project 21, has documented, "Doonesbury" cartoonist Garry Trudeau recently referred to Rice as "Brown Sugar." The mainstream Universal Press Syndicate distributes Rall and Trudeau.

-On November 17, WTDY (Madison, Wisconsin) radio host John "Sly" Sylvester called Rice "Aunt Jemima" and (current) Secretary of State Powell "Uncle Tom." He also complained about "the illusion of inclusion," as if Bush's appointment of two consecutive black Americans to the nation's oldest and most prestigious Cabinet agency were no big whoop.-"There are those house slaves who lived on the plantation, and there were those slaves who lived in the house," Left-wing calypso singer
Harry Belafonte explained in October 2002. "Colin Powell was permitted to come into the house of the master."To count beans briefly—combining Powell, Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson, and (outgoing) Education Secretary Rod Paige—Bush's Cabinet is a fifth black, exceeding by one half America's 13-percent black population. For this, black liberals give Bush zero credit. But if he had no minority secretaries, these exact, same people would slam Bush for having a lily-white Cabinet.Disgusting name-calling aside, Democrats pursued policies over the last four years that were at least as divisive as Bush's.

You see when we are dealing with people that take time out to ridicule the President for the ten thousandth time this must be remembered. They don't realize that Martin Sheen isn't the President. He just played one on TV. Also the way that Republicans and Conservatives and well just plain political life that was portrayed on the West Wing is that way because it is marketed toward their demographic.

I remember this post from the blogger MaxedoutMamma back in Nov 2004. The Anchoress post makes me think this is just as revelant as it was back then:

Nor were the slams, the extreme allegations, and the rage confined to the sideline organizations and chat groups. No. In the south, we're talking about people like Madelaine Albright, who speculated that Bush had Osama Bin Laden stashed away somewhere and would produce him right before the elections. We're talking about all the rumors that capturing Saddam Hussein was a fake - that the US had had him for months and had produced him when it was politically convenient to do so. We're talking about Senator Joe Biden announcing that Bush was brain dead, and Edwards remarking that you had to be an idiot to vote for Bush. We're talking about various editorials and commentary observing that fundamentalists in the US were essentially the same as Islamic fundamentalists, and claiming that the real war on terror should include stamping out certain religious beliefs in this country.We're talking about the fact that independent recounts in Florida showed that the 2000 election there was truly close, but not stolen or illegitimate - yet it somehow became McAuliffe gospel that Bush was an illegitimate president who had stolen the presidency and subverted the Supreme Court.

Do you know what all this looks like to the people I work with, shop with, and talk with? They think the national Democratic leadership has gone insane. They think their local Democratic politicians are just fine. Unfortunately, if this sort of rhetoric continues their local Democratic politicians are going to switch parties.Some of my neighbors may have high school educations, but they read newspapers on the internet. The days when an article or editorial written in the New York Times denigrating their religious beliefs (which don't include killing gay people, by the way, or shunning them, or excluding them from their churches) would not be read and understood in the small town where I live are OVER. Long past. Ancient history. If the Democratic party decides in the wake of the 2004 election that it must turn its despair upon religious believers, it is doomed as a national party.

So yes as Republicans and Conservatives even though we have problems we can be thankful for this. It appears that the Liberals and Democrats have not learned their lesson since 2004.




Technorati Tags:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


FREE Hit Counters!