Table of Contents





Democrats Used to Be Mature

--Kobayashi Maru


Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, JFK...

Whether one agreed with their policies or not, what does one think of upon hearing those names? What do they have in common?

Well, for one thing, they were serious men dealing seriously with serious issues during times of serious crisis and war. They weren't plagued by the kind of post-modernist cynicism, self-doubt, petty back-biting, vague guilt and self hatred that has burrowed its way into the Democrat party and many of our other civic institutions like flesh-eating bacteria.

In a word, they were mature.

What those great Democrat presidents (and their Congressional counterparts) did not do was to waste time on resolutions condemning radio talk show hosts. Why? Because they're radio talk show hosts, for goodness sakes!!!

This Congress, by contrast, thinks that condemning a man (Rush Limbaugh) after the fact, for stating his controversial opinion [the substance of which, it turns out, has nothing to do with what the Democrats said it did--i.e., they lied] is the same thing as accusing, by chickens**t proxy and prior to his ever opening his mouth, the man (Gen. David Petraeus) they themselves unanimously chartered just months earlier, in the course of their solemn professional duties, with the gravest of high-stakes tasks--leading U.S. troops on the field of battle--of being a liar and traitor.

The two are not even in the same universe.

I'm reminded of how children's squabbles escalate, wherein one party--clearly in the wrong and knowing it--looks to distract attention and deflect blame by mirroring the original accusation as loudly as possible on the theory that even if it is seen as transparent, it takes heat off for awhile.

Given all this, I'm beginning to think afresh about the 2008 campaign and to be increasingly optimistic about it. The she-devil, despite her formidable powers and the sympathetic backing of the media, is in many respects, her own worst enemy. She is just too eager to share her 'great' ideas (with the emphasis on her) with her base, forgetting to check the calendar (it's the 21st century, lady.)

It was noted today, for instance, that the last presidential candidate to propose a baby bond was (wait for it)... George McGovern. Yes, that George McGovern. He offered $1,000 per head (this from the Dennis Prager show this afternoon--no link.)

Anything in the current climate remind you of that time? Yeah, the country has changed, but not enough to completely reverse the outcome of that one-sided contest. Take your pick of the Republican contenders: any one is far more popular than Nixon. (For the record, I was a huge McGovern supporter in 1972. In my defense, I offer the following: 1) I was living in Massachusetts and didn't want to make waves, 2) I was nine years old and 3) I was a fool.)

The Dems' own bitter divisiveness vis-a-vis the she-devil (see David Geffen on Obama for example), the fact that Hillary, in winning the nomination, will inevitably upset some folks who were supporting him for the wrong reasons (i.e., race) to the point of not voting, the fact that Hillary is a uniting factor among Republicans, and the fact that none of them is a personal lightning rod on the left to nearly the degree that George Bush is, or that the she-devil is on the right all argue for Hillary's stock going south like the dot.com-heavy, post-bubble NASDAQ circa 2000/2001.

None of which is reason for complacency by Republicans, who still have their hurdles to clear. They are nothing in comparison to the Dems' hurdles and the petty immaturity of anti-Rush resolutions only proves it. If they'd ever actually listened to the show, they would realize that condemning him in this petty fashion (using taxpayer time to do it) will rally fewer votes in their base than it will solidify votes in his.

--Kobayashi Maru (Blogger-extraordinaire)
October 1, 2007


Comment:

The appalling thing to me, really a little scary, if you let it get to you, is that they are condemning Limbaugh for something that he did not say, with at least twenty million listeners who know that he did not say it. What do you do about liars who tell lies that could so easily be shown to be lies, and are not even slightly afraid of being found out?

Rush Limbaugh did indeed talk about a fake soldier, who washed out of boot camp, then claimed to be an Army Ranger, who had witnessed numerous atrocities in Iraq, where he never was. Media Mattters and other Leftists insist that Limbaugh called soldiers who disagree with US policy fake soldiers, the very opposite of what happened. How do we deal with such brazen, shameless lies?

--Michael Adams



Response:

Against such lies there is no defense but the faith that in the fullness of creation, they will be found out. An angel rides in the whirlwind and directs the storm. Even if Hillary is elected on such a maggot-infested foundation, she will (Saul-like) be serving God's purposes--though not, perhaps, in the way she envisions.

--Kobayashi Maru