Liberals seem like poor losers

Tue, 10/18/2005 - 4:58pm
By: Letters to the ...

It seems to me that liberals are poor losers. Recently, I have heard many prominent spokespersons from that camp proclaim, with dire tones, that our nation is in danger of becoming a pseudo-fascist state. Walter Cronkite, flag-bearer for liberal journalists, warned that the electorate of the U.S. has gotten just plain stupid, as evidenced by its election of George Bush and majorities of Republicans in the Congress. Kurt Vonnegut is basically saying that the world has come to an end and that the only hope any self-respecting liberal has is to form little “gangs” of like-minded people to fight off the impending doom.

My theory on this constant nay-saying and whining by liberal politicians, journalists, and actors is that they doing so not out of any real understanding of today’s politics, but rather because they are in the uncomfortable and unfamiliar position of the loser.

Since FDR and New Deal, liberals have basically been in the driver’s seat. They have dominated politics, government, education, entertainment, journalism, and culture. There have been a few “conservative” moments, such as the election of Ronald Reagan or the “unfortunate” campaign for abstinence among teenagers, but by and large, liberals have set the agenda.

Now, that is beginning to change. Due in large part to the confluence of conservative talk radio and the Internet, the liberal voice is not the only one to be heard any longer. Their stranglehold on the media is no more, and when they try to foist one over on the people, such as Dan Rather’s attempts to sully President Bush’s National Guard service, the “people” no longer take it lying down.

What is the liberal reaction? Complain, complain, complain. Instead of actually engaging in debate, they whine incessantly about the existence of Fox News, as if it were entirely unfair to have one major news outlet out of five with a conservative slant.

The celebrities, especially, rant and rail about their not being “allowed” to voice their “dissent.” They complain incessantly about “polarization” and a stifling of debate. They act as if because George Bush is in the White House, we have an effective police state in the U.S. where no one can voice criticism of the President.

And, in a last-ditch effort to scare people back into their pens, George Cloony has made a movie about the “heroic” Edward R. Murrow and his scrape with Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Already the liberal pundits are salivating about this movie and how its theme so perfectly echoes the dark times we are now in. Please.

This is what liberals always do. When they are losing an argument, they throw out word bombs like “McCarthy!” or “Watergate!” or “Hitler!”

McCarthy, for all is faults, was simply asked to investigate the presence of Communists in the military and State Department. He found many and later Kremlin records prove he was right about their existence.

Since history isn’t taught very well in this country, perhaps most people don’t realize that this was a real problem.

It was a Communist sympathizer working at Los Alamos that leaked our nuclear bomb technology to the Soviets and helped to usher in the Cold War. Records from the KGB show that Alger Hiss and other key officials in the State Department and military were indeed funneling secrets to the USSR. This was a real, true threat.

Most Americans, again, poorly schooled in history, believe McCarthy was the head of the House Un-American Activities Committee, or HUAC. When the libs shout out their word bombs, they usually associate the two. However, one must keep in mind the very simple fact that McCarthy was a SENATOR, and the HUAC was a House committee.

Be that as it may, our liberal journalist establishment proceeded to lambast McCarthy and accuse him of being homosexual, crazy, and just mean. It worked. The heavy criticism and constant pressure pushed McCarthy into hard drinking, which eventually killed him.

This is what liberals do: character assassination. And, ironically, what they accuse conservatives of doing. Remember Clinton? When Paula Jones came forth, his people proceeded to cut down the woman and make her into a tramp. But somehow, it’s the conservatives who are portrayed as mean-spirited and name-calling.

That’s even harder to believe when you have such distinguished pols as Sen. Ted Kennedy calling the president a liar, and Rep. Charles Rangel comparing Bush to Bull Connor because of his supposed lack of compassion for the victims in New Orleans.

Yet, we are supposed to believe that dissent is quelled in this country? Please.

What has been quelled is the liberal domination of the national debate. They can’t stand it and refuse to debate the issues, so they have resorted almost exclusively to name-calling. The whole Cindy Sheehan debacle was a perfect example.

I don’t think anyone questioned her right to criticize the war or the president. What turned people off was when she called him evil and said he didn’t care about the soldiers and went to war solely for profit. Such charges are imbecilic, frankly, and do not merit a serious response.

What is lacking in this country is a true debate about the issues. There are plenty of reasonable, legitimate criticisms of Bush and the war, but rarely do I hear them emanating from liberal or Democratic mouths.

So, I am asking you liberals out there: stop the stupid name-calling, the silly paranoia, and put up a decent, reasoned debate based on facts and solid logic. If your arguments don’t seem to hold up, instead of throwing a hissy fit, you might want to consider that maybe your arguments were wrong all along.

Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments