Sunday, November 07, 2004

Apologies for continuing to focus on the election but I think this was the election that will ensure that the Anglosphere wins the world war it is presently engaged in so I think that is kind-of important


I touched on this yesterday but I hope to sink it altogether today. For a start, I do NOT intend to dignify with any counter-argument the sickening denigrations of American Christians that have been spewing from Leftists in recent days -- describing these good people as "hicks", "ignorant", "jihadists" etc. I think the reality is too plain to need any defence from me. And how the sad souls of the Left think such language will help them win the Christian votes that they will need if ever they are to win power again entirely escapes me. So why should I do anything to stop American Leftists from destroying their own future? They are, in fact, an excellent example of the self-destructive nature of hate. How much better off Christians are with the wisdom of Matthew chapter 5 to guide them. I am an atheist and it still inspires me! Leftists claim to be idealists but they don't know what idealism is until they have read those words.

As I pointed out yesterday, the vote for GWB was a clear vote for solid conservatism so it is of great interest to see which demographic groups swung in that direction. I noted yesterday that Hispanics were one such group but have a look through the statistics listed here and you will see that the swings were just about the opposite of what the haters on the Left claim. The swing to Bush actually occurred in almost ALL large demographic groups, including Africans, Hispanics, Jews, Catholics and women -- with a notable EXCEPTION being Protestant Christians! (Down from 63% in 2000 to 59% in 2004). Polysigh has arrived at similar conclusions.

And so has David Brooks: "Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them. In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top. This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.... The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums."

And the Leftists call conservatives stupid! If conservatives are stupid, Leftists are fact-free! Not that that's any news.

Leftists have of course tried to console themselves in various other ways for their loss but one of the most amusing such efforts is the frequent claim that Bush's margin over Kerry was small (What's 3 million people to a Leftist? A mere bagatelle. It's the THEORY that matters, stupid!) and that America is still therefore roughly 50/50 divided between Left and Right. The Leftist talent for self-deception is legendary but that one takes the cake. It overlooks their candidate's ENTIRE campaign! Kerry presented himself as being simply a more skillful version of Bush. His proclaimed policies were virtually the same as Bush's. Only his history -- e.g. his Senate voting record -- identified him as the far-Leftist he is. So lots of people would have bought that bill of goods and voted for Kerry simply as an alternative conservative candidate. Lots of Kerry votes were therefore "stolen" conservative votes -- won by deception! The real Leftist candidate was "screamer" Dean and the Dems didn't dare run HIM against Bush. If they had run Dean, they would have seen that the Left/Right divide among Americans was MUCH more extreme than 50/50!



The media lost: "Sen. John Kerry has gotten the white-glove treatment from the press, garnering more praise from journalists than any other presidential candidate in the last quarter-century, according to a new analysis of almost 500 news stories released today by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "It's not just that John Kerry has gotten better press than President Bush before this election, he's gotten better press than anyone else since 1980. That's significant," said Bob Lichter, director of the D.C.-based nonpartisan research group. "Kerry also got better press than anyone else in the days before the primaries as well," Mr. Lichter added. In October alone, Mr. Kerry had a "record-breaking 77 percent positive press evaluations," compared with 34 percent positive for Mr. Bush... But Mr. Bush didn't get the absolute worst press on record. With only 9 percent positive stories in 1984, President Reagan got the most negative treatment by news outlets on record, the study says."

The elitism never stops: "When President Bush's poll numbers surged in April after a press conference where his performance was derided by the press and the chattering classes, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry was baffled ... He said with a sigh to one top staffer, 'I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot.'"

Even the Leftist Nation says it: "The Democratic elite are out of touch, as Republicans claim. They have lost reliable connections to ordinary people, including some long loyal constituencies".

Jeff Jacoby: "Hatred lost. For four years, Americans watched and listened as President Bush was demonized with a savagery unprecedented in modern American politics. For four years, they saw him likened to Hitler and Goebbels, heard his supporters called brownshirts and racists, his administration dubbed "the 43rd Reich." For four years they took it all in: "Bush" spelled with a swastika instead of an 's', the depictions of the president as a drooling moron or a homicidal liar, the poisonous insults aimed at anyone who might consider voting for him. And then on Tuesday they turned out to vote, and handed the haters a crushing repudiation."

Anti-illegal immigration win: "Arizonans have voted heavily for the ballot initiative that aims to stop illegal aliens from receiving involuntary taxpayer subsidies, voting in elections etc. Proposition 200's grassroots triumph in the teeth of the united opposition of the entire political establishment and its media mouthpieces is, as with California's similar Proposition 187 ten years ago, a further illustration of the extraordinary power of the immigration issue."

Democrats up against it: "Of all the hard facts Democrats have to consider today, the mass mobilization of evangelical Christians must certainly be the most painful. It's easy enough for the party to produce GOP-clone positions on issues ranging from Iraq to education to "saving" Social Security. But the Democrats will never be able to turn out the anti-gay marriage vote (even as they lack the conviction to field a strong pro-gay marriage candidate). It's getting harder to see just what the Democrats can turn out. The party remains in thrall to unattractive special interests that don't matter anymore: unions, teachers, trial lawyers, and so on"

The Guardian loses: "Thank you, Lady Antonia Fraser! In 2000, Clark County, Ohio went to Al Gore. This time round, after the local citizenry were targeted by the Guardian to be the beneficiaries of Lady Antonia's voting advice, and John le Carr‚'s and Richard Dawkins's and many others, Clark County went to ...George W. Bush!"

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here


That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the Kerry campaign. They have put up a man whose policies seem to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though they have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftists are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions

Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


No comments: