Why Kerry Failed

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
The majority do NOT oppose abortion. 60% say they support the ability of a woman to chose to have an abortion (certainly early on, support declines as time goes on) even if they don't feel confortable with doing it.

That is a nuanced position- not the my way or you are going to hell moralizing of the right.
.

GePap, to the right, Kerry's support of partial birth abortions for essentially full term babies who are murdered centimeters from being outside the mother is the extreme position. No amount of "explaining" that this is a constitutional right is going to wash. Anyone approving of this practice appears to the right as being some sort of inhuman monster.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
As opposed to "the Right" that labels liberals traitors. It never occurs to "the Right" that "the Left" might be right either. So much better

Pot/Kettle.

I agree that calling people bigots will not win votes (not that Aggie cares, he's up in Canada and is a commie to boot).

-Arrian

People who wave the flags of the enemy during a time of war, who call our own army barbarian pillagers in the manner of Ghenghis Kahn, who meet with the enemy while still serving in the US armed forces ---

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin
Kerry failed because Rove got out the Christian fundy vote better than Kerry could get out the young vote.

Some truth here. I think the issues mattered a lot more than the candidates this time. Kerry proved himself in the debates. The reason Kerry lost was not Kerry, but the issues.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


Because socialism became equated with Athiesm.

Marx had something to do with that.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ned


People who wave the flags of the enemy during a time of war, who call our own army barbarian pillagers in the manner of Ghenghis Kahn, who meet with the enemy while still serving in the US armed forces ---

... are right.

[Ned]

Originally posted by General Ludd

Originally posted by Ned


People who wave the flags of the enemy during a time of war, who call our own army barbarian pillagers in the manner of Ghenghis Kahn, who meet with the enemy while still serving in the US armed forces ---

... are right.

Pehaps Benedict Arnold was "right." He was still hanged.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ned

Pehaps Benedict Arnold was "right." He was still hanged.

Ah, there's that republican death penalty stance. "he may of been right/innocent, but who cares, the noose has been fit."

[Ned]

Originally posted by General Ludd


Ah, there's that republican death penalty stance. "he may of been right/innocent, but who cares, the noose has been fit."

General Ludd, so now the Democrat party is officially against the Death Penalty?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ned


General Ludd, so now the Democrat party is officially against the Death Penalty?

I assumed they where. if they aren't replace 'republican' with 'american' or 'rightwing'.

Same difference, anyways.

[Ned]

Originally posted by General Ludd


I assumed they where. if they aren't replace 'republican' with 'american' or 'rightwing'.

Same difference, anyways.

Really? The Dems are 100% in favor of murder, so long as the person murdered is innocent.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ned


Really? The Dems are 100% in favor of murder, so long as the person is innocent.

Like I said - dems, repubs, americans, same difference.

[Ned]

I assume then, General Ludd, that you are not an American and that in your land, whereever that may be, most everyone respects life?

[General Ludd]

You assume correctly.

[Ned]

Originally posted by General Ludd
You assume correctly.

OK, then. I can support that. Where do you live?

[Ned]

Limbaugh on the left's delusions:

"All right. It's a tossup here as to which column is the most outrageously hilarious. Paul Krugman, in the New York Times today, or Jane Smiley in Slate MSN.com yesterday. My vote -- it's a tossup, but I have to say that it is Jane Smiley at Slate MSN.com. She's a novelist of some repute, although I've never heard of her, but she has written a couple novels out there. What Slate MSN.com has been asking some of their key writers to do, is to tackle the question of why the Democratic Party keeps losing elections, and so they've had William Saletan, Timothy Noah, a couple of others. Today or yesterday, the piece cleared at 6:24 eastern time, Jane Smiley weighed in -- and brace yourselves, folks, because I'll just tell you up front, this is 180 degrees out of phase.

This is 180 degrees wrong. This is parallel universe wrong, but I think it's typical. You know, the left out there -- and I told you this would be the case -- they're hardening. They're not softening. They're not becoming introspective. They're not taking a look at themselves. They're not asking themselves what they need to do to change. Some of them are. Carville is making some noises, but it's not serious, and it could well be that they're still in a state of shock. We may need to give them a couple weeks, a month to reassess. We got some audio sound bites of Peter Fenn yesterday arguing about what the election results mean in a C-SPAN conference at George Washington University. We have it all covered here.

So let me just give you some excerpts from Jane Smiley at Slate MSN.com. She says: "I say forget introspection. It's time to be honest about our antagonists. My predecessors in this conversation are thoughtful men, and I honor their ideas, but let's try something else. I grew up in Missouri and most of my family voted for Bush, so I am going to be the one to say it: The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry."

So in this esteemed liberal's mind, programs like this and others, and the entire conservative movement, is designed to make you stupid and ignorant. Now, this is the first example of the parallel universe that we're all in here, or that these libs are in, because the simple fact of the matter is, they're the ones that control the public education system. They're the ones that have created an education system where so many graduates can't even read their diplomas, can't fill out a job applications form. They're the one that are writing textbooks that have a paragraph devoted to Abraham Lincoln in American history and three or four chapters devoted to Bill Clinton. They are the ones that purposely keep their citizens dumb so as to keep them unaware of just how harmful liberalism is. It's just the exact opposite. They're the ones that promote ignorance. They're the ones with the condescending, arrogant attitude toward everybody. They're the ones that think people instinctively are too stupid to learn, too stupid to be as sophisticated as liberals are, too stupid to learn the way to do things right and, according to liberal definitions, so they have to do everything for them, and that's the purpose of liberalism, to create this massive state and government that takes care of people because they're so inept and they're so incompetent. I mean, liberalism by its very definition derives its power from creating more and more ignorant people and keeping them that way.

The reason conservatives are winning in the arena of ideas is because for 40 years conservatives have been educating people about two things -- well, three: about the Constitution, about liberalism, and about conservatism. There's a massive education program that's gone on in America for 30 or 40 years. It's called conservatism. It's the left that's dumbing down. It's the left. How about outcome-based education? Two-plus-two is five, if you think it is. We're not going to correct you because we don't want to hurt your feelings and we don't want the dumb people in the class to be offended when they don't get it as quickly as the smart people do, getting two plus two is four. We're not making this up. Outcome-based education: whatever you think is right, because we're more interested in self-esteem. These are people that are very happy you can't read your diploma, if you are in that sad circumstance. Ms. Smiley continues: "I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. (Well, almost 58 million—my relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority.)"

Once again, it is the exact opposite. The elites and the superiority are tied together and they are all on the left: the left coast, and in the leftist hangouts of the East Coast. They are truly superiorists. It all ties in together. They are superiorists and they want to remain that way. They're the ones that create two sets of rules: One for the dumb and the uninformed and the ignorant to live by, and a separate set of rules for them, the elites and the rulers, to live by. They will tax your income but not their wealth. They will tax your income so that you don't accrue any wealth, but they will not tax their wealth after they get theirs.

That's why they don't care about increasing income tax. Do you think Teresa Heinz Kerry cares a whit about whether the marginal tax rates go up? She doesn't pay. She doesn't earn any income. She has income that comes from her asset management portfolio and so forth, but she's already got her stash of wealth. There's no tax on that. And John Kerry, of course, by marriage, has his hands in that pie, so he doesn't care. No liberal pays. All these people that run around, and you probably ask yourself, "How come liberals, you know, how come they want to tax themselves?" They're not taxing themselves, folks, but they've even got some of their people saying, "Oh, yeah, I'd be happy to pay more taxes. If it would help the government, why, damn right. If they need another hundred dollars from me, or whatever, I'll be glad to pay." Well, why don't you write the check yourself and then let others of us who don't want to be facing confiscatory taxes not have to pay them?


They've got their own people buffaloed, those who pay taxes, into thinking it's a honorable thing to do and to pay even more than what the law says. "Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States," writes Ms. Smiley, "There used to be a kind of hand-to-hand fight on the frontier called a 'knock-down-drag-out,' where any kind of gouging, biting, or maiming was considered fair. The ancestors of today's red-state voters used to stand around cheering and betting on these fights. When the forces of red and blue encountered one another head-on for the first time in Kansas Territory in 1856, the red forces from Missouri, who had been coveting Indian land across the Missouri River since 1820, entered Kansas and stole the territorial election. The red news media of the day made a practice of inflammatory lying—declaring that the blue folks had shot and killed red folks whom everyone knew were walking around. The worst civilian massacre in American history took place in Lawrence, Kan., in 1862 -- Quantrill's raid. The red forces, known then as the slave-power, pulled 265 unarmed men from their beds on a Sunday morning and slaughtered them in front of their wives and children. The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence. The blue state citizens make the Rousseauvian mistake of thinking humans are essentially good, and so they never realize when they are about to be slugged from behind."

This is incredible. She's assigning red state/blue state characteristics back all the way to Quantrill's raid in 1862. Now she is saying that blue state people -- California, Washington, Oregon, New York, New Hampshire, all the northeast and Illinois -- make the mistake of thinking that humans are essentially good and so they never realize when they're about to be slugged from behind by those of us that live in the red states. Again, it is the exact opposite. It is the people in the blue states who think humanity sucks! "Humanity sucks! It's the spotted owl that is supreme! It's the Kyoto agreement that is supreme." It's all these other people: "Humanity is destroying the earth! Humanity is polluting the earth! Humanity is destroying decent and innocent peoples. Humanity cannot be trusted. Humanity must be placed under ever-increasingly tight controls, such as from the United Nations."

They don't trust human beings. They don't trust their own voters to do what's right. That's why they engage in vote fraud. That's why they attempt to stack the deck every time they can because they can't trust people who are thinking to do the things that the liberals want them to do. These are the people that have to hide who they really are to have even a half a ghost of a chance of winning an election. They don't even like the term "liberal" which is a quite perfect description of them. They say even that's an attack. I mean, these are the people that are arrogantly condescending to every one of their fellow men, other than their fellow elites. They don't trust people to have the brains to do the right things in life. They have to do everything for people because people are too stupid and too inept. To them, everybody goes to Wal-Mart. They hate Wal-Mart! They despise Wal-Mart. You know they do.

They try to run Wal-Mart out of town, wherever Wal-Mart comes into town. They despise Wal-Mart and they make fun of people who go there. They make fun of people that go to K-mart. They make fun of people that go to Costco. They make fun of people that go to all these discount places. They make fun of all these people. They have a sneering, sniveling, condescending attitude and yet it is those of us in the blue states who are inspiring people, lifting them up, motivating, being optimistic and positive, and expecting the best from people. We're the ones who have great expectations for our country. We're the ones who have all the high hopes. We're the ones with all the positive attitude. We understand how great this country can be if people are just unshackled and turned loose to pursue excellence as they see fit, using their talents, using their ambition, using their desire. We're the ones of free markets. We're the ones that want to get as many obstacles as possible out of people's way and turn them loose and, "Katie bar the door!"

These are the people that don't trust that, and the reason they don't trust it is because if that happens in full-fledged speed they are going to lose even more power because they aren't needed in that quest, because they don't trust people to do things on their own in the right way, which is the liberal way. They do not assume that humans are essentially good. They assume humans are essentially flawed, particularly American humans. It's American humans that cause war. It's American humans that pollute. It's American humans that destruct and destroy. It's American humans that imprison. It's American humans that consume things that aren't theirs. It's American humans who are committing all the evil in the world. It's American humans that are responsible for terrorist acts against us. They're the ones. This is so hilarious, it is unbelievable, and this woman's considered a brilliant novelist, ladies and gentlemen, by her co-patriots on the left. I got two more pages of this stuff to go, if you care.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

We're looking currently at Jane Smiley's piece. It's Slate MSN.com. Other excerpts: "Next, they tell you that you are the best of a bad lot (humans, that is) and that as bad as you are, if you stick with them, you are among the chosen. This is flattering and reassuring, and also encourages you to imagine the terrible fates of those you envy and resent. American politicians ALWAYS operate by a similar sort of flattery, and so Americans are never induced to question themselves. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter—he asked Americans to take responsibility for their profligate ways, and promptly lost to Ronald Reagan, who told them once again that they could do anything they wanted. The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable."


Do you not love this? You people are ignorant. You are unteachable. It's the exact opposite. It is the left supporters that continue to remain ignorant, getting more and more ignorant by the day. It is the conservative opposition that's growing wiser and more informed on a daily basis, and to have this wrong about Reagan is striking. Reagan didn't tell people they could do anything they wanted. Reagan said you can accomplish whatever you want, that this country's greatness is yet to be harnessed, that the better days of this country are tomorrow and the day after and the day after and the month after and the year after. This woman simply resents optimism. She is totally imbued with a pessimism that has now revealed itself in a 100% anger hysterical rant.

"Third, and most important, when life grows difficult or fearsome, they (politicians, preachers, pundits) encourage you to cling to your ignorance with even more fervor. But by this time you don't need much encouragement—you've put all your eggs into the ignorance basket, and really, some kind of miraculous fruition is your only hope. If you are sufficiently ignorant, you won't even know how dangerous your policies are until they have destroyed you, and then you can always blame others. The reason the Democrats have lost five of the last seven presidential elections is simple: A generation ago, the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we know, decided to make use of the religious right in their class war against the middle class and against the regulations that were protecting those whom they considered to be their rightful prey—workers and consumers. The architects of this strategy knew perfectly well that they were exploiting, among other unsavory qualities, a long American habit of virulent racism, but they did it anyway, and we see the outcome now—Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is the religious arm. They know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire them because lots of Americans, even those who don't share those same qualities, don't know which end is up. Can the Democrats appeal to such voters? Do they want to? The Republicans have sold their souls for power. Must everyone?

"[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." Jane Smiley, the author of many novels and essays. She lives in California. Paul Krugman today in the New York Times is even better. Well, it's hard to say "better." But it's just as bad, ladies and gentlemen. It's just symptomatic of the depths to which these people have sunk after this election, and the idea that they're going to reassess themselves and come out, they're not. They're going to continue to be delusional, continue to be defiant, continue to blame the stupidity of America for their problems. Their problems have nothing to do with them. You are just too stupid to see the brilliance that surrounds you. You have been persuaded and caught up by a bunch of capitalist pigs and racists who are using you through the churches of America to advance their own sordid, destructive path through this country, and the liberals just can't fight it, and the reason they can't fight it is because you're too stupid to understand the sophistication of their ways. This is only going to continue and get worse.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

I just finished this Jane Smiley piece. I didn't read the whole thing. I just read excerpts to you. Slate.msn.com. Paul Krugman, I've got that here today. I may go through a little bit of that. But the thing that strikes me about this is these liberal twits can look down on anyone they choose to. They can sit around and, as a matter of policy, attack the stupidity of anyone they choose and get away with it. They are never called on the carpet for it. Imagine if somebody did the same kind of piece, imagine if a Krauthammer or me or anybody on the right, wrote a piece about how absolutely stupid some of the people who vote for Democrats are, and we could name some names. How stupid must you labor union people be? How stupid must you African Americans be? How stupid, how literally stupid must some of you women be? Can you imagine? And did it every day and had it as a general operational thesis that the people that vote for you are stupid and we made that something that was part of our staple presentation. Do you think we'd get away with it? Well, no. But these people, because they have the entitlement of superiority, the entitlement of elitism, she's simply echoing what they think at ABC, CBS, CNN anyway -- well, maybe not CNN (laughing) -- but they are echoing throughout the intelligentsia, throughout academia. They're echoing what everybody there thinks. So Smiley, she's probably being applauded today in the Citadels of learning that populate the left.

END TRANSCRIPT"

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110504/content/rush_is_right_2.member.html