Monday, November 08, 2004

Liberals Unhinged, Part 2

I wish these were funny, but they aren't. Some liberals are so filled with rage they have stepped over the line.

Prairie Home Companion author, Garrison Keillor unleashes outright bigotry:


The election was days ago. Days ago. Much has happened since then. We've practically forgotten about it here [laughter] in our rush to enter into new activities, new frontiers, new projects. I am now the chairman of a national campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians. [enthusiastic audience applause] Just a little project of mine. My feeling is that born-again people are citizens of heaven, that is where
there citizenship is, [laughter] is in heaven, it's not here among us in America.

I wish I could say whether or not I knew he was joking. (Hat tip: Power Line)

At the ever-unfunny New York Times we read a column by Dean Murphy:


"The Republicans are basically unchecked," Professor Wilentz said. "There is no check in the federal government and no check in the world. They have an unfettered playing field."

Until the next act of God, that is.

I cannot recall a time when, even in our most frothing day of loathing everything Bill Clinton stood for, a conservative ever wished for harm to befall the perjuring, draft-dodging, military-loathing liberal demagogue. The problem with liberals is that their disbelief in morality makes them incapable of shame and that's a shame.

Now we have College Republicans being physically attacked with the intent of using violence and intimidation to deprive them of their right to freedom of speech. FrontPage has the story, with pictures. The fact that the university administration has done nothing to asnction these brutes strikes me as a legally actionable offense.

QUERY: Republicans are called fascists, but which political faction has resorted to documentable acts of violence to express itself? Which faction is physically attempting to suppress the voice of its ooposition?

Meanwhile, among the not-so-threatening moonbat wing of the Loser Left it can be read in various and sundry places that Bush is not allowed to declare a mandate because 48% of the American people voted against him. What these people seem to forget is the fact that BUSH WAS RE-ELECTED.

If 48% is suposed to deny Bush his mandate than the 51% who voted against Kerry, means Kerry has a decided non-mandate. If 55 million votes against Bush means the President cannot speak too loudly than 59 million voters told Kerry, "Shut-up!"

Query: Kerry lost Ohio by 136,000 votes. A simple majority of fifty-one percent of 136,000 is 69,400. For wont of less than 70,000 votes Kerry lost this crucial battleground state and hence the election. However, Bush won the popular election by over 4 million votes. Now had Kerry won Ohio by this slim margin would these same disaffected Kerry supporters be standing around saying to themselves, "Alas, it is all for nought for we lost the popular vote by 51%, WE HAVE NO MANDATE!" Anyone willing to make a bet?

In USA Today, er, today (11/8/2004) a letter writer said that since Kerry had so many ideas about resolving Iraq and bringing peace to the Middle East, President Bush should create a position for Kerry within his adminstration so Kerry can enact his plans.

While this is funny enough to make you laugh so hard milk comes out your nose--even if you're not drinking milk--it is also absurd enough to make ordinarily calm bunnies start frothing. Again, reverse the scenario for a Kerry victory: would they allow Bush to finish prosecuting the War on Terror? No, because the election was meant to be a referendum on the war. Kerry lost because 59 million people didn't want to find out what Kerry's plans were. In fact, most of us were in abject terror at the thought of what Kerry would do to and with American foreign policy and its military. However, it's an intriguing thought to finally see what his plans would have been. I see the senator has stopped campaigning for his plans. Perhaps Kerry realized his plans weren't such a big deal after all, or perhaps he truly lacks principles after all. If Kerry truly believes his plans are so absolutely crucial and so certain to prevail then should he allow something such as the loss of an election stand in the way of this moral imperative. Or perhaps Kerry is a petulent child-boy in a man's body who has decided if he can't win the game he's taking his ball and going home--to his rich wife's house.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home