As we begin to take stock of the recent election, our native optimism and cheery disposition is beginning to return.
And we can't help but point out the difference in response between the losing conservatives of this election and the losing Angy Left of the 2000 and 2004 elections. Where the leftists filled blogs with expletives and run on screams about election stealing, conservatives and conservative candidates recognize close elections notwithstanding, the election was lost fair and square. After all, that's democracy, right?
Conservatives must just be more optimistic than liberals.
We're especially pleased to note that, well, Bush is still President. Some headlines seem to think that Democratic control of the House and Senate meant the President would roll over and play dead, allowing liberals to completely reverse course on everything from Iraq, to lower taxes and conservative Supreme Court nominees.
As we pointed out yesterday, this election was not a rejection of the war in Iraq. More voters listed corruption and scandal as affecting their vote than Iraq. And that's fair. In many cases we supported Republican candidates despite the corruption and scandal but because of their support for the war in Iraq. That preference doesn't mean we weren't frustrated and disgusted with the Abramoff and Foley scandals.
The Lieberman win over Lamont is proof positive that the Angry Left's opposition to the war in Iraq is not a majority position. If they couldn't win with a liberal anti-war candidate in one of the most liberal states in the Union, it wont win anywhere. The win of moderate Democrats like Heath Shuler (hat tip: Morgan) further evinces this position. Hopefully Democratic control of the House and the Senate will invest Democrats in the war in a way that has not yet happened; hopefully they will take some ownership of it.
In fact, this election gives us hope that perhaps the Democratic party isn't trending as far left as Lamont's primary win over Lieberman seemed to indicate. We hope that the influx of good, moderate Democrats like Mr. Shuler helps to keep Democrats more centrist.
Again, the key will be how the large number of moderate Democratic freshmen interact with their stridently liberal committee chairmen. Speaker Pelosi may have been elected by the angryleftwingnuts in her San Francisco district, but she's Speaker because of independent voters in places like Iowa and North Carolina.
And finally, a high priority for liberals--maybe now the world will like us better!--that's what we're all shooting for, right?
If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
2 comments:
Jake, do you realize that your ranting and raving about the "Angry Left" makes you come across as the angry one? And I'm sorry man, but you just sound silly trying to spin the decisive crushing of the neocon agenda. "We" had a good laugh watching Sean Hannity try and paint a rosy picture for conservatives following the loss of both chambers of Congress, and when his guest Tom Delay lent his credibility to the debate and claimed Democrats are in big trouble in 08. You're better than this crap Jake, I know you are.
Let me just scan through this last post and see if there are any ideas or thoughts worth commenting on:
Conservative handle defeat better than the angry left bloggers- gripping, but I'll pass.
Conservatives are more optimistic than liberals- umm, you mean the ones that didn't show up to vote or the ones that voted Democrat?
Pleased to note that Bush is still President- wow, take stock in something that wasn't even in play. That's some quick thinking Jake.
Glad that scandals and corruption were the issues and not Iraq- Am I dealing with a child here? Weren't you the one that wanted Iraq to be the key voting issue? "Phew, at least we lost the entire legislative branch over scandals and corruption and not Iraq." Good spin buddy, but stupid still the same.
Lieberman victory over Lamont is proof positive that the anti-war position is not a majority position- Or does it just mean that Americans accept the disaster the neocons put us in and we understand the need to have a successful resolution? It certainly wasn't a vote of confidence for the Republicans, was it?
Maybe now the Democrats will take ownership of the war- Exactly, that's why Americans kicked the Republicans out and sent the Democrats in to hopefully clean up the mess. If we are successful now, it won't be because the Republicans changed the course. Now you're starting to get it!
The Democratic party isn't trending as far left as you feared and hopefully moderates will keep things centrist- Duh. Americans in general aren't leftists. And they aren't fascists either, as evidenced by the rejection of the neocon agenda that eventually bore its ugly fruit. Jake, why aren't you ever alarmed at things trending "rightist"? Maybe because you are a wacky right wing nutjob? Oh, it doesn't go both ways? Sorry, but it does.
Pelosi is a wacky left wing nutjob who was elected by the same but she is speaker because of middle america independents- So? Chirp chirp chirp.
Sarcastic- Now the world will like us better- I don't think liberals care if the world likes us. They care how our foreign actions affect us. The Iraq war created a rallying point for extremists and made America less safe. Don't take my word for it. Just read our own intelligence estimates. It is better to be feared than to be loved. But the worst is to be hated and not feared, which our adventure in Iraq has made us.
Wow, I guess I actually did have something to say about that pile of partisan garbage pretending to be optimism.
maybe instead of saying angry left you should start saying angry majority. just a thought
Post a Comment