Wednesday, May 30, 2007

a liberaliar fairy tale--president barbie and the socialists

It never ceases to amaze me how disconnected from reality most liberals are. I guess that reveals me to be a slow learner, because we see evidence of this disconnect each and every day all around us, yet I am still surprised. How can supposedly intelligent human beings be so intentionally blind and deaf to truth? In the words of that great philosopher, Harry Carey, "I just can't figure it out!"

The above column from socialist writer Anna Quindlen is a perfect example. Let's go through her column together and expose all of the liberal lies she apparently believes.

The first couple of paragraphs talk about how Hillary Clinton doesn't fit the image that feminist socialists like Quindlen had in mind when they envisioned "The First Female President." Apparently, they envisioned a "President Barbie in her jaunty tricolor accent scarf in the aisles of Evolved Toys" (Quindlen's words, not mine) who would change the world of politics into a kinder, gentler world. You have got to be kidding me! There is so much wrong with that view that I don't know where to start. Maybe the place to start is with the obvious double-standard. If a conservative made such an idiotic statement, liberals would be absolutely hysterical about the obvious gender bigotry displayed by the remark. Here, though, is a good socialist like Anna Quindlen, part of the left wing intelligentsia, who has no qualms whatsoever in saying that her fellow liberals were looking for a "Barbie Girl" as the first woman president. Good grief! That statement speaks volumes about the liberal thought process (or lack thereof). And then to say that there is some disappointment among liberals because Hillary isn't a"Barbie?" Imagine Bill's disappointment! (I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!)

In the first Republican presidential debate, moderator Chris Matthews asked the contenders how they would feel about having Bill Clinton back in the White House. In a single sentence he turned the Democratic front runner into the Little Woman, a mere adjunct to her husband.

Now, here is something I can agree with. This is the only nugget of truth in Quindlen's whole fairy tale. Chris Matthews asked a really stupid question with the intention of ridiculing Republicans, but the question revealed far more about the ridiculous thought processes of liberals. Memo to Matthews, and all other liberaliars who though his question was clever: Bill Clinton isn't running for President. Hillary is. Brush up on your current events, or go home.

And of course there is that immovable group who have long hated Hillary Clinton for reasons too psychologically complex to be deconstructed, the people who wouldn't vote for her if she were running against Osama bin Laden.

Of course, Quindlen is referring to conservative voters, like myself, who wouldn't vote for Hillary for dog catcher. Memo to Quindlen: There isn't anything "psychologically complex" about why we don't like Hillary. We aren't like all of you liberaliars who hate Pres. Bush with a white-hot hatred so all-consuming that it it borders on the pathological. You hate Pres. Bush with every fiber of your being just because he exists, and that is scary! No, conservatives aren't like that. Principled Reagan conservatives, like myself, would never vote for Hillary because she is a socialist. It's just that simple. Read the following:

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies." (From

Memo to Hillary: A free market economy with "rules that promote our values, protect our workers, and give all people a chance to succeed" and with the "right government policies" isn't a free market economy. It's called socialism, and principled, clear-thinking conservatives say "no thanks." Question for Quindlen: Is that still too complex for you? If you don't understand that, I can't help you.

Recent elections suggest that Americans are often interested in something quite different in a candidate than they ultimately require in a president. That's how the country wound up with a commander in chief chosen because he was the kind of guy people wanted to have a beer with, a Dude Prez who finds it appropriate to give the female German chancellor a surprise shoulder massage in the middle of a world summit.

Liberals just don't get it, do they? George Bush won the last two elections because the American people trust him more than either Al Gore or John Kerry to protect our national security. The American people also don't like the idea of government confiscating more of our hard-earned money in order to redistribute it to the various liberal-anointed "special victim groups." It's just that simple! Quindlen sure doesn't seem to have much respect for the intelligence of the average American, does she? That is so typical of the average liberal. They are so arrogant, condescending, and completely certain of their own intellectual superiority, yet so amazingly clueless at the same time, that it just boggles the mind.

Senator Clinton has been described so often as a transitional figure that she must be sick to death of the term. But perhaps that is what she will inevitably be in this race. Since the first Democratic debate her poll numbers have slowly risen. It may be that voters are more convinced of her opposition to the war in Iraq. It may be that Barack Obama seems slightly less magical than his early showing suggested. Or it may be that all those women who dreamed of Ms. President are realizing that there was always going to be a way station between guy politics as usual and a new female style of leadership. The public Hillary Clinton may always seem more presidential than approachable. But perhaps this time around, no matter who runs and who wins, Americans will figure out that they are electing a president, not a drinking buddy.

The final paragraph, and it's just chock-full of fantasy. Hillary is a transitional figure? Transitional to what---a "Barbie President?" OK, that's really ignorant! Barck Obama "seems less magical?" There's another liberal reference to "Barack The Magic Negro!" Let's have no more criticism of El Rushbo for simply mocking liberal bigotry. "The public Hillary Clinton may always seem more presidential than approachable"? No, Ms. Quindlen, the "public Hillary Clinton" seems plastic and phony. The public Hillary seems cold, calculating and conniving. The public Hillary continually shape-shifts like one of those groovy aliens from the 60's TV show Star Trek so that nobody really trusts the "public Hillary" to be at all authentic. The public looks at Hillary and sees just one more liberaliar that can't be trusted to preserve the constitutional republic created, with God's guidance, by our Founding Fathers. And by the way--America isn't looking for a "drinking buddy" for president. America is looking for someone who isn't a raving left wing lunatic who can be a trusted Commander-In-Chief and a responsible steward of the economy. That's a fact. Now go ahead and ignore that reality to your heart's content, liberaliars.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Free Counter