more on the media
www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/the-whining-of-the-chattering-class/
This is a great article about the incurable liberalism of the media. The article makes a number of good points about the media, and I won't rehash them here, but the article did give me a thought on a different track.
I don't think the Democrats will win back the House or the Senate in November. Lord knows they should, as awful as the Republicans have been, but they won't, and I'll tell you why.
When voters go into the booth in November, they will ask themselves 3 questions:
1. Am I satisfied with the job the GOP has done?
2. What plan do the Democrats have to do a better job?
3. Will the Democrats safeguard our national security?
The answers to those questions, for most Americans, will be No, None, and Hell No! You see, don't you, that the Dems come out 1 for 3 on that scale, and that's not good enough to win back Congress.
This is a great article about the incurable liberalism of the media. The article makes a number of good points about the media, and I won't rehash them here, but the article did give me a thought on a different track.
I don't think the Democrats will win back the House or the Senate in November. Lord knows they should, as awful as the Republicans have been, but they won't, and I'll tell you why.
When voters go into the booth in November, they will ask themselves 3 questions:
1. Am I satisfied with the job the GOP has done?
2. What plan do the Democrats have to do a better job?
3. Will the Democrats safeguard our national security?
The answers to those questions, for most Americans, will be No, None, and Hell No! You see, don't you, that the Dems come out 1 for 3 on that scale, and that's not good enough to win back Congress.
posted by hondo at 12:31 AM
5 Comments:
I found your blog through a person who posted on mine.
I have been blogging on Chritianity and its power over our secular government here in America.
Apparently from your introduction [below]you and I are at opposite ends of the goal posts;
I am a 46 year old Christian Conservative from the Heartland who is deeply concerned about the direction of this great country of ours. We are doomed unless we turn back to God, and back to the guiding principles our Founding Fathers built this country on.
Most interestingly, I, too am one who is deeply concerned about the direction of this great country of ours.
Further, I also agree with what you said here: back to the guiding principles our Founding Fathers built this country on.
Where we disagree, strongly I might note, is the phraise which I left out: unless we turn back to God
From my perspective, the Christian conservative movement [read Pat Robertson, etc.] has weakened our nation to such an extent that it is vulnerable to falling apart from within, not from so-called 'terrorists' overseas.
I do not buy that Bush-Cheney fear-mongering about the terrorists over there as our enemy; rather, I see the Christian-right [read righteous] as more dangerous to what 'our Founding Fathers' had in mind when they created our wonderful experiment in self-rule.
The Christian right is devious and divisive, running amok theourghout our nation with Crusader's swords, attacking and slicing at the very fabric of our foundation: the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.
The Taliban of Afghanistan are closely related to the politicaly active Christian conservatives in our nation. They "know" what is best for the rest of the Afghans and rule their nation in a manner which agrees with their religious dogmas.
Sadly, the same is happening here except it is more subtle for now. No burtkas for women, no public hangings from soccer posts.
Yet.
But then, there is still time for that and our fingers here inAmerica are not yet washed from the lynchings of blacks and the cotton fields of Alabama.
Thank you for finding your way to my blog, and for posting a comment. I must admit, I always find it amazing when I hear or read of a modern liberal, a secular progressive, saying that they fear Christian conservatives more than they do Islamofacism. I have said many times that liberalism is a disease that renders a person unable to differentiate between right and wrong, good and evil, fact and fiction, or wisdom and folly. Your comments represent clear proof of my belief. Let me pose some questions for your consideration.
1. Christian conservatives believe that America was founded on the principles of the Bible, and that modern liberalism is trying to destroy that foundation. What have we Christian conservatives done in response to that perceived threat? How does that compare to the response of Islam to perceived threats to their religious beliefs?
2. Over the last 30 years, what has been the response of Christianity to Islam? Over that same time period, what has the Islam response to Christianity been?
3. You referred to Pat Robertson as a leader of Christian conservatism. I don't necessarily agree with that; most Christian conservatives that I know think the man is nuts. Regardless, consider this. Can you name one single time when Robertson has proposed any sort of public policy that violated part of the Constitution? If so, what was it and what part of the Constitution did he propose violating?
The reason I am posing these questions is because, if you answer them honestly, you will see that there is no threat to this nation from the Christian right, but that we are in grave danger due to the war declared on us by Islamofacism. Please, let me know how you answered these questions, and thank you for visiting my blog.
It's half time, so let's talk some more. You said that the Christian right is devious and divisive, attacking the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I've never read a more dishonest statement anywhere in my life. Let's take those one at a time.
Right to life--Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the Democrat "Death" Party that considers the right to murder unborn babies the most important right we have? Isn't it the Democrat Party, the secular progressives, that fought so hard to kill Terry Schiavo while Christian conservatives were trying to save her life? If you say that liberals fight for the right to life, while conservatives fight against it, you are a liar.
Right to liberty---Let me count the ways that the modern secular progressives have declared war on our personal liberty. Liberals say that Washington can regulate who a business can and cannot hire. Liberals say that Washington can decide the time, manner and place Americans may practice their religious beliefs. Liberals say that Washington may restrict our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Liberals say that Washington can dictate to us the time, manner, and place Americans may express their political views and contribute to political candidates. Liberals say that, while it's OK to exercise the "choice" to murder your unborn baby, it's not OK to exercise your "choice" to leave a failing school and attend a good school. Don't ever use the words "liberal" and "right to liberty" in the same sentence; to do so is dishonest.
Right to pursuit of happiness--If you read your history and your constitutional law, you will see that the Founding Fathers understood this to mean "right to property." I have just 3 words for you-- Kelo v. New London. Liberals don't believe in property rights.
Let's summarize. Christian conservatives believe that our basic human rights come from God, that governments are created to safeguard those basic rights, that a written constitution is necessary to limit the power of that government, and that the written constitution must be followed to the letter so that government, for the most part, leaves us alone. The modern liberal believes that whatever rights we posess come from the government, that God is irrelevent, that inconvenient life can and should be terminated, and that the constitution is a "living document" that means whatever a liberal activist judge says it means.
At least liberal_dem has a screen name that honestly states what he believes!
That is, if "liberal" is taken in its modern sense.
I wonder if there will be a third party spoiler in the 2008 presidential election. Perot did wonders for both Clinton races.
If it comes down to a Clinton vs Julianni race, I fully suspect a repeat of 1968. If you will recall, George Wallace took the deep south. Interestingly, South Carolina went Republican following its recent defection out of the "solid south" in 1964. Before that, reconstruction era 1876 was the the last Republican victory for SC.
And only native son Strom Thurmand had received the nod as a 3rd party candidate (still "democrat") to break the string of Democratic victories until then.
I think it had something to do with the Welfare State of LBJ. We couldn't stomach that. We still can't.
I know a lot of people think 2008 will be a Clinton/Giulianni race, but I just can't see it. Hillary carries too much baggage. I think the Dems will end up going with Al Gore. He is a darling of the far-left fringe that now controls the Democrat Party, and he is one of only two Democrat presidential candidates to get more than 50% of the popular vote in an election in the last 50 years. As for the GOP--who knows! It could be Mayor Rudy, or Romney from Massachusettes, or George Allen, or even Newt Gingrich. The only thing I'm certain of there is that it absolutely won't be McCain! He is despised by the conservative base of the GOP.
Post a Comment
<< Home