Wednesday, November 10, 2004

They just don't get it...and never will

The libs are dumbfoundedly clueless as to why they lost this election. All this talk about moral values is such a red herring, I want to chop down the largest tree in the forest with it (nod to Monty Python fans).

First off, look at the numbers. Twenty-two percent cited moral values as the main reason they voted one way or the other. Now, simple riffmatic demonstrates that, while the Left is carping on and on about Jesusland and waxing apocalyptic about separation of church and state, they are ignoring a full 78 percent of the voters that voted for reasons other than "moral values." Could it be that nearly 8 out of 10 voted as a referendum on the war and economy, like the mainstream press told us they would?!! Of course the MSM cannot cede this point, as to do so would be to admit that they were wrong: people really do approve of Bush's first four years in the White House.

Continuing with the numbers game, a full 20 percent of those that voted based on moral values voted for Kerry. Is that a large percentage? Either it is or it isn't. But it seems to me that if 20 percent is a small margin in this context, it must also be a small margin in the context of the 20 percent of voters in general who voted based on moral values in the first place.

Lastly (on numbers), isn't it conceivable that 20 percent of the electorate ALWAYS votes according to moral values? The numbers show that evangelicals voted in no greater numbers/proportions than they did in 2000. Those of us who don't hail from Jesusland...can't they, too, vote based on moral values? I happen to be the furthest thing from a born-again Christian, but I happen to believe that my moral values play a part in nearly every significant decision I make. Can't "moral values" also be trust, faith (not necessarily religious faith), honor, integrity...all of the virtues we hope our leaders will personify? Cannot "moral values" also be: Who do I believe has the right values to win this war against terror? Can't protecting one's family from murderous Islamists be a "moral value" of a sort?

Now, if Kerry had won, all we would be hearing now is how the election was a referendum on the war in Iraq. But, he loses, and the MSM trips over themselves trying to find excuses, rather than seeing the forest for the mandate-setting trees: "Protect us, W.," was the cry I heard on election day. "We trust you to wage this war; we don't trust your opponent."

Pride is preventing the Left from seeing things as they really are. It is evident to me that all the Left needs to do to be a credible party again is to come back to the middle a bit. Think and govern like Clinton pretended to think and govern for most of his presidency, and you will be a legitimate party once again, one worthy of being taken seriously.

But what WILL happen is the Left will screech uncontrollably farther to the left, the hate will become more pronounced, the hate-SPEECH will become increasing vitriolic, and the Michael Moores and George Sore-ass-Losers of the world -- those who should be villified for costing the Democrats this election -- will once again be canonized and proudly paraded out as the party's saviors.

And once again, liberals will be relegated to the realm of irrelevance, obscurity and mockdom. Meanwhile, we in the Red States will be thumping our Bibles and discharging our least as seen through the condascending, moral superior, rose(neck)-colored glasses of the righteous liberal elite.

Carry on, my wayward sons!



Post a Comment

<< Home