Why The Left is Losing
Published on March 25, 2004 By Mr Right0313 In Politics
To All:

As a premier article for this wonderful, and I assume diverse community I thought I would write about something that seems so obvious to me, but perhaps not to all. That is of course the dominance of the Right, and the fading of the liberal left.

Now the upcoming presidential election is reigniting those leftist views that they can take down one of the greatest presidents of the last fifty years, and that is of course George W. Bush. Instead of simply stating what I see is the obvious, lets break it down.

Leadership: George W. Bush. Simply said he is a leader. This president has garnered some of the highest approval ratings in recent history. Now lets look at why this is of significance. First of all is 9/11. One of the worst acts in U.S. history comparable to Pearl Harbor. Nothing short of admirable was his leadership in these most difficult of times. Another very clear example: the War in Iraq. Now I will be the first to admit that this was not one of the most popular moves, and we have not quite found out what we fully expected in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall; but let me tell you this. It takes true leadership to follow your beliefs. I have no doubt that President Bush fully believed Hussein and Iraq to be deserving of Operation Iraqi Freedom. After seeing the horrors that that country endured for twenty plus years, how can anyone doubt the world is better off without him? We still have not found all that Hussein was up to, and you can believe that the Iraqi people will remember Bush with admiration. It takes guts and courage to follow through with what you believe in, and not cave to public and media pressure. George Bush is the unquestioned leader of not only the Republican Party, but of the Free World. When you look at the other side, where is their leadership? Who is it? John Kerry? Hillary Clinton? Bill? It's unclear not only who are their leaders, but where they stand.

Election 2004. George Bush vs. John Kerry. I am well aware that there have been some polls which show Kerry being able to win. But let me assure you this will not happen. Not only will John Kerry not be sworn in as President in 2005, he will not be close in the election in November. The biggest knock against Bush is an issue that the Democrats play to the public. Of course I'm speaking of the Economy. The democrats tell you that the economy is in a slump due to the President's actions. This is quite simply NOT THE CASE. The economy, as most people do not realize runs in cycles. It flows like water, sometimes it goes up, then others down. Clinton was very fortunate in having a high tide, and as the cycle runs, it began to slump during the early 2000s. This is not George Bush's fault, and it was equally not Clinton's brilliance. The economy flows, no President has that much control. Kerry is being painted (quite succesfully) as a flip-flopper who is distanced from the American people. This election is just beginning for the President who still has a treasure chest in fund raising, while John Kerry has emerged from a difficult Democratic Primary season worn. President Bush will win re-election.

Movement: Think of the past. There were certain places and people who were democratic, no questions asked. Look at the present. Republicans have made solid, and even extreme gains in nearly all of these areas. Think of California and Florida. Previous Democratic strongholds. Now both have Republican governors. Take my home state of Minnesota has a perfect example. For much of its history Minnesota was as democratic as could be. This is the home state of Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and Paul Wellstone. Now the current political all stars is Senator Norm Coleman (one of the highest profile freshmen senators in history), and our governor Tim Pawlenty. This is a state that the democrats won by just a few percentage points in 2000. Most indications point to this being a swing state, and a probable Bush state. The democrats are falling back in nearly all areas, with few promising points to brighten the way.

The State of the Union. Economy. Jobs. Taxes. Crime. Housing. Etc. There are numerous issues of concern in this nation. I will sum up the viewpoints quite quickly. Democrats feel that Americans are unreliable, but trustworthy. Its a little backwards. They create high taxes to implement their large amounts of social programs, but encourage early prison release, and easy social welfare programs. Yes I know a lot of this depends on the state, but democratic dogma is everywhere. Republicans on the other hand feel you need to be responsible for yourself. We'll give you tax breaks and see what you do with it. Welfare is mostly unneccesary; see who is on it and how responsible they are. Punishments should be severe. There are to many cases of repeate offenders to trust violent criminals. It seems pretty clear to me.

Media. Take a look at your average newspaper, newscast, or magazine. If you look close, and even more important listen close, you'll see (and yes, hear) how liberal they are. Their is such liberal spin on the media its ridiculous. It would require to much space to list here, but if you open your eyes and ears and listen to how things are worded, and how images are portrayed you'll notice the liberal spin on nearly everything. However when conservatives get a chance at the truth (or their truth if you wish) they thrive. Look at the current kings of the airwaves and bestseller lists. Guys like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and the king Rush Limbaugh are undisputed in their arenas. They motivate and inform the faithful and the unsure alike. On the other side are literal goofballs Al Franken, and the king of make believe Michael Moorer. People like that simply make fun of the right, and dish out half-truths to the eager audiences.

America and the World. John Kerry says that several world leaders have privately told him that they want him to beat President Bush in the election. When asked to name them by someone no lower than the Secretary of State Colin Powell he refused. Democrats tell you that America is hurting, and we need to worry about ourselves first. They tell you that we cannot fight Iraq, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, North Korea, etc and etc. They are wrong. This is not the world of the 1950's with your Cold War Dualism. This is an uprecedented era of a singular superiority: the U.S. And this is nothing to be ashamed of, we should be proud. We left the 20th century as the strongest political and military power the world has ever seen. We therefore have the duty to respond, we need to, if not be the world's police, monitor the actions of the world. I do not believe in this relativistic viewpoint greys, the world is often black and white. Wrong is wrong. President Bush understands the need for the U.S. to remain the world's superpower. The world is better off with a Republican in the White House. If we do not take action when we should (as opposed to when everybody thinks so, which is never) we run the risk of being to late. We must stop terror and despots when we can, not when everybody finally understands. War in the 21st century needs to be preemptive, lest we run the risk of another Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

The UN/World Allies. Why should we be so concerned with what France, Germany, and the United Nations thinks of our actions. Last I checked France and Germany are nearly socialist republics still to scarred from the horrors of World War II to understand the realities of the 21st century. There is a reason we stand dominant over them. Plus, believe me they have clear understanding of what they stand to gain and lose in every action of the U.S. They know they have no physical authority over the U.S., so they use their diplomatic means and the world stage to oppose us. For example, we all know France vehemently opposed the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, but did you know that France received over 70% of their oil from Iraq, and knew they would lose out on authority over the region. The Administration also has publicly stated they will consider leaving the UN if they continued to stand in our way. John Kerry and the democrats would have you believe this is a horrible, world-threatening, action. But President Bush, and I believe in fact quite the opposite. The world is better off with the U.S. in control. If you think about the early to mid 20th century when there were several world powers, there were two World Wars with dozens of millions killed. Ever since the U.S. took over in the late 20th century to today, there has been nothing even remarkably close. And do not try to convince me that the wars in Iraq can be compared.

In closing, I have gone on longer than I thought. But I felt that those people who most often called themselves democrats had few strong reasons for that. Most of those reasons being based on misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Please feel free to comment.

I will try to keep future commentaries more brief.

Yours Truly,

Mr. Right

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Mar 25, 2004
I've heard this being said since Bush was sworn in, and I see nothing to indicate that people are going to be silenced for their views. Melodrama does not help one's argument.


Really? You haven't heard anything the F.C.C. is doing? Now I was being extreme on purpose when I said that but, they do want to control all forms of media including the internet. This isn't some conspiracy theory "I" have come up with, it's in the news. Giving the government full control of what we are subjected may be fine for you but it's not good enough for me. Maybe going to Iraq under false pretences may be good enough for you but not for me. If you haven't seen one mistake that Bush has made since he was sworn in than he has done his job to sway you from your own will. Thanks for the back up steven
on Mar 25, 2004
psychx, we went to Kosovo under false pretenses too, remember that.
on Mar 25, 2004
I am not condoning that, are you? My main point is Bush is not flawless like many people make him out to be. Don't try to trap me I disagree with all mistakes that governments make not just republicans. Consequently I find myself disaggreeing with a lot of Bush's actions even more so than Clinton.
on Mar 25, 2004
"You haven't heard anything the F.C.C. is doing?"

The FCC or what Clear Channel is doing?

"Maybe going to Iraq under false pretences may be good enough for you but not for me"

We went ot war to enforce 12 U.N. resolutions and to disarm a country which Bill Clinton, John Kerry, George Bush, and Al Gore said had WMD.

on Mar 25, 2004
You haven't heard anything the F.C.C. is doing?"


Both, but I am more inclined to dislike what the F.C.C. is doing.

I mean I know being someone who likes to post blogs and I am giving you my assumption that you're intelligent, you have to disagree with the F.B.I. wanting to wire tap the internet. I mean don't you see that as just a little extreme?
on Mar 25, 2004
Nowhere in any reports of the F.C.C.'s actions do I see it doing anything that will hinder anybody's freedom of speech.
on Mar 26, 2004
island dog - Thanks for your response. I stand by my opinion that no one should be allowed to police the entire world. Your correct, the world is a very dangerous place, but how can you leave the responsibility of keeping it safe to just one nation? Who's to say that said nation would not make mistakes and have their actions go unchecked and create problems in the future. I don't like to think that the US would make terrorist like decisions, but in other countries eyes, their actions can be viewed in those terms. It's important that world decisions are made by a group of representatives that all have a say so that no one nations mistakes and agenda get in the way of world progress and peace.

As for Mr. O'Reilly, and his attack on the rap culture, I don't believe he has any figures or facts to suffeciently back up his claim. There are people that listen to all types of music who commit crimes of violence. I just don't think it's a correct clasification. I think he his spotlighting a culture that he does not understand or try to. It's unfair for him to justify his claims without evidence. Just because there are songs with strong subject matter does not mean they are a root cause of violence. O'Reilly's views on the subject leave him looking ignorant in my eyes.
on Mar 26, 2004
Though I do not agree with everything you have written, I do say it is well written, and you used valid examples to back up each point. I am more left, but I do agree we do not have a strong canidate right now.
I think many look at Kerry as "the lesser of two evils".
on Mar 26, 2004
"As a premier article for this wonderful, and I assume diverse community I thought I would write about something that seems so obvious to me, but perhaps not to all. That is of course the dominance of the Right, and the fading of the liberal left."

Liberalism is far from dead. Referring to Sams post with the literal definition, I would say that it is ingrained in our countries constitution. Over recent times we have seen some shifting to the right as far as certain public offices go, but things always tend to shift back to an equalibrium over time. The biggest change I see is that more than 40% of the registered voters are independent of party affiliation. This is the fastest growing segment of the voter population. It's quite a diverse group so I'll let you do the research on how it breaks down. In general you find quite a few fiscal conservatives who do not buy into the rest of the Republican platform. Or put simply a lot of people who will vote between parties lines to make sure the legislature and executive branches are controlled by different parties. So don't be so sure GW is the sure thing.


"When you look at the other side, where is their leadership? Who is it? John Kerry? Hillary Clinton? Bill? It's unclear not only who are their leaders, but where they stand."

If it is unclear to you who these people are you must be living under a rock. As a member of any party or independent of any party affiliation, I would be ashamed of myself to admit that I didn't understand who the last president of my country was. Not to mention probably the most visible first ladies in history. Whether you believe in their politics or not. A bit more understandable about John Kerry, but for starters he was the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations. His voting record, public speeches, and notes are public record. If you truly want to know the difference between both candidates I suggest you read a bit. Best to look past the commercials and soundbytes since they are simply 30 second spots trying to sell you something.

"Election 2004. George Bush vs. John Kerry. I am well aware that there have been some polls which show Kerry being able to win."

Imagine that. Someone who most of the country knew very little about only a few months ago.



Media.

There are both liberal and conservative media outlets. And both sides dish-out half truths. But if you do your homework you will realize where both parties are similar and where they are different. Americans are not as polarized as the pundits try to make them appear.



"This is an uprecedented era of a singular superiority: the U.S. The UN/World Allies. Why should we be so concerned with what France, Germany, and the United Nations thinks of our actions. Last I checked France and Germany are nearly socialist republics still to scarred from the horrors of World War II to understand the realities of the 21st century. There is a reason we stand dominant over them."

This is not even close to anything the republican party even stands for. If this is how Bush's politics make things appear then maybe I now more fully understand why some of my republican friends have said they won't vote for GW again.


on Mar 26, 2004
Island dog: You are dodging my point. You keep hammering us Europeans being big appeasers of dictators, however you fail to recognize that America has a very full history of dealing with dictators as friends and installing a couple of them as well. Pakistan is a prime example at the moment, one you are conveniently ignoring. Now I realise that in a realistic world, compromises are sometimes inevitable and you have to chose who the lesser evil is, however it is a bit funny you stick with your black & white when at the same time ferociously defending GWB. You can't have it both ways mr. Dog, which is a fact lost on you and your current governement alike.

As for your claim we have always been appeasing terrorists, I would love to see you cite some examples. We have the IRA in Great Britain, ETA in Spain, we had the RAF in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, we have terrorists in Greece, terrorists in France almost every country in Europe has (had) its' share. And we have been fighting them always and everywhere, claiming the opposite is completely ludicrous. You are living in a country that until recently has had little trouble with terrorism so who are you to talk? Ok, so now Bin Laden is on your case. Are you blaming Europe for Bin Laden? That would be an even better joke on your part.

You want facts? It is American money that has been fueling the conflict in the Middle-East, that has made it the breedingground of terrorism it is today. You have been getting your share but as horrible as 9/11 was, you've only received a small share when compared to the decades of terror that the rest of the world has been going through.

A question for you: If 9/11 had happened in any other country but the US, would you still be fighting this oh so righteous war on terrorism or would you have continued your completely uncaring and indifferent stance that you have shown in all those decades before September 11th 2001?

Please drop the attitude of misplaced superiority, it really doesn't become you very well.
on Mar 26, 2004
To All:

For one I greatly appreciate all those that took time to read my article. This being the first time I have had a chance to get back on the net, I was amazed at some of the controversy and discussions it has brought up. I hope that future discussions can be addressed with the same level of intensity. Now I never assumed that everyone would agree with me, but I'll do my best to respond to some general comments:

Black and White: This comment it appeared seemed to anger the most. I never meant to imply that the entire world, and all it contained was black and white. What I intended was that there are certain situations where right is right and wrong is wrong. The 60s/70s era of relativism has created a society in this country where there is no wrong, and everybody should respect other peoples/socieites/feelings/opinions, etc. However there is evil and wrongdoing in this world. It is my opinion that this feeling is the time of attitude that lets criminals out of jail early because they had a bad childhood, or acted proper in prison for a while. And this is the attitude that says "who are we?" If we do not get involved in certain situations, who will. It was Europe (and yes the U.S. to some extent) that refused to open their eyes to the holocaust. That if nothing else proves that world powers need to get involved when they can. It is my belief that the Democrats are children of 60's/70's relativistic era. Bush and most of the Republicans believe they have the duty to involve the U.S. and use their power justly.

-Of course all media is skewed one way or the other, you will never get the STRAIGHT facts

-I never meant to disrespect Paul Wellstone. Although I didn't agree with him politically, he was one of the few politicians who I truly respected because of his hardwork and dedication. His loss is a tragedy.

-I still am not convinced we need to concern ourselves with France and Germany. I am not saying we need to completely disregard them at any issue, but we need to do what we think is best, not was Europe thinks.

-I concede a few points: 1) I used Liberalism in connection with the Democratic party, I understand/stood that there is more than one meaning. 2)The bulk of my article did lean more towards the positives of the Republic party then why the Left is losing, my apologies

-Yes the War on Terror will be difficult, however not impossible. Should we stop or runaway from things that are difficult?

Once again thank you for your feedback. Most of the responses were intelligent and coherent.

Yours Truly,

Mr. Right
on Mar 26, 2004
:: sighs::

Another insightful comment from Nazgul... Sorry, just taking a lesson from Ronald Reagan and his debates with Jimmy Carter. The U.S. likes to believe that we are upholders of liberty and justice. However, in brief, I will provide some examples as to why that is an incorrect view.

Cuba, we supported a morally corrupt psuedo-dictatorship up until the people rose up during the Cuban Revolution.
Nicarauga, we supported both sides at various points, neither of which were terribly "democratic"
Iran, we supported the Shah, a brutal monarchy, we also sold weapons to the Ayatollah
The Philippines, we kept in no less than three different corrupt and non-democratic governments
South Korea, not a democracy until long after the Korean War
Vietnam, we supported a number of corrupt governments in the south during the war
Iraq, we helped install Suddam Hussein
Afghanistan, we helped install the Taliban
China, we supported the Nationalists, a non-democratic, dictatorial regime
Taiwan, also not a democracy until fairly recently
Most of Africa
Most of Central and South America
Nearly all the pacific Islands
Nearly all the Carribean Islands
Etc.

If you want specfics dig up any history text on the country in question and you'll find examples.

Cheers
on Mar 26, 2004
"Your correct, the world is a very dangerous place, but how can you leave the responsibility of keeping it safe to just one nation?"

Good point, but who else is going to do it? France, Germany?

"I don't like to think that the US would make terrorist like decisions, but in other countries eyes, their actions can be viewed in those terms. It's important that world decisions are made by a group of representatives that all have a say so that no one nations mistakes and agenda get in the way of world progress and peace. "

The people viewing it in those terms are the terrorists and the terrorist supporters. People dislike the U.S. because we are fighting terrorism....other countries would rather appease them and "try no to make the terrorists mad". I guess the closest thing to "world decisions" would be made by the U.N. The U.N. is a failed organization that has anti-American bias and can clearly be corrupt by programs like oil-for-food.

"As for Mr. O'Reilly, and his attack on the rap culture, I don't believe he has any figures or facts to suffeciently back up his claim."

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you understand the point that O'Reilly try to makes. I never heard him say rap is the cause of violence. His problem with rap is that it glorifies violence. Which that is a fact. He also points out how rap is marketed towards kids, and that is where the problem is.

"You keep hammering us Europeans being big appeasers of dictators, however you fail to recognize that America has a very full history of dealing with dictators as friends and installing a couple of them as well. Pakistan is a prime example at the moment, one you are conveniently ignoring"

We can go back into history and find all kids of things that the U.S. has done that wasn't right. I'm not saying that never happened. Some of those things were mistakes, some were necessary. I am talking about the euro appeasement right now. The latest case is with the terrorist Yassin. The EU wasted no time condeming the killing of a terrorist and remains silent about terrorists blowing up buses. Pakistan is a good example. The U.S. has pushed Pakistan into becoming an ally and will continue to help Pakistan hopefully turn into a democratic society.

"As for your claim we have always been appeasing terrorists, I would love to see you cite some examples."

The kiling of the terrorist Yassin.......the EU would rather "not make hamas mad".
The bombings in Madrid........another case of appeasement after the bombing.

That's just in the past couple of weeks. The fact is that if the war on terror were left up to the euro's, there would be no war on terror. Of course you want to go into the "blame America" for everything in the middle east, so it's obvious where you stand. I

I don't know what would be happening if a Sept. 11 type event happened in another coutntry. I do know there will be more if we follow the course of appeasement.





on Mar 26, 2004
Back to the original post: which I have just re-read, as I think we are getting a little off track here. Its easy to keep on about terrorism.

"America and the World. John Kerry says that several world leaders have privately told him that they want him to beat President Bush in the election. When asked to name them by someone no lower than the Secretary of State Colin Powell he refused."

It seems obvious to me why a nation might say something like this in confidence to John Kerry. Perhaps after the election, if Kerry wins, we will find out which countries they were. America is big business for many countries, and we all know what happened to French businesses in the states recently. Those were normal people, who lost out big time. The ethics behind boycotting French produce was complete madness, and to blame ordinary french people for not wanting to go to war... Crazy and totally wrong.

Also, and this is related... Your points about the media - I would really like to know more about the media in the states. I read in a Michael Moore book, something along the lines of most US states only having one or two media companies printing all of their newspapers. Most news TV channels are owned by the same companies, and it would be easy for them to push certain opinions on to the public.

I know a lot of republicans (and NRA members) don’t like Mike, but he does a good job of making people think about things... even if some of the things he says are untrue / biased. Is this really the case?

We are very lucky in the UK to have a rich, and diverse press, particularly in London. People complain about our "tabloid" press interfering in peoples lives, but when it comes to politicians and other "important" people, its great that practically all the press are trying to prove them wrong, or make them look bad. I suppose it’s very negative, but at least you get a picture of a worst-case scenario, rather than a pretty picture of how things might be.

It seems that America works slightly differently, and that they don’t want to read / know / hear anything negative - and as that’s what people want, that’s what the press give them. If this is how things are, then that is a big part of liberalism (and in a way, democracy) down the drain. Being open to change, and being open to criticism is part of that change. Remember media companies are out to make money, and boy, do they make a lot of it.
3 Pages1 2 3