The Left-Wing Blues

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
The Left-Wing Blues

by Bill O'Reilly
Posted Jan 28, 2006
With all the problems the Bush administration is having in Iraq with surging oil prices and the media hammering the president 24/7 on just about everything, you would think liberalism would be getting some traction in North America. But apparently it's not.

Polls show that Americans support conservative judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court by a wide margin, Canada just elected a conservative prime minister after 13 years of liberal rule, and the president's terror warrior poll numbers dwarf those of any Democrat, despite all the controversies over eavesdropping and interrogation.

So what's going on?

The answer to that question can be best summed up by a new Gallup poll that says that 51 percent of Americans will not vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton under any circumstances should she secure the Democrat nomination for president.

So, evidently, it doesn't matter what Mr. Bush is doing, most Americans don't want the most well-known liberal Democrat in the country sitting in the White House.

That's a tough situation for the left. All the Bush-bashing in the world does not seem to be making liberal candidates more attractive. And the bashing might just be the problem.

For example, the four Bush-hating columnists at The New York Times, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Frank Rich, have written an astounding 148 anti-Bush op-ed pieces in the past 13 months. That represents 47 percent of their total work output. I mean, how much loathing do you need? Why doesn't the Times just put a "We Hate Bush!" banner on its op-ed page and have everybody take a long lunch?

This kind of overreaction to a sitting president actually creates some sympathy for him among fair-minded Americans. After a while, the cacophony of hatred from the left is just numbing.

And it's also mean. American women, particularly, do not respond well to nastiness. Do you think Ted Kennedy's attacks on Samuel Alito and the subsequent tears from his wife helped the Democrats? Do you?

To be fair, Republicans made the same mistake with all the Clinton bashing. After a while, it just became boring.

But that was then, and this is now. We are living in a much more dangerous time. All the polls show that Americans remain uneasy about terrorism and their own personal security. And in this area, the Democrats poll far below the Republicans.

That's because the Dems do not put forth concrete solutions to vexing problems. What's the liberal solution to the chaotic illegal immigration situation and the porous southern border? How would the left handle Iran if it continues to develop nukes? And on Iraq, the Democrat message is mixed. Hillary wants to win it; Howard Dean says we can't achieve victory. When it comes to cohesion, the Democrat Party rivals the Balkans.

Finally, the left-wing media unknowingly hurts the Democrats, the very party it wants to promote. By making celebrities of loons like Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte, the press spotlights the radicalism on display on the fringes of the Democrat Party.

Republicans and conservatives hoot down Ms. Sheehan and Mr. Belafonte all day long, but liberals are largely silent. Believe me, that silence does not go unnoticed by independent-minded Americans.

And the Democrats have little chance to regain power in America without a substantial number of independents shifting to their cause. But right now, that is not happening, and I see no liberal strategy on the horizon to change the situation.

At this point, the champions of the blue states are, indeed, singing the blues.
 

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
scouser1 said:
of course you like a piece by that astounding intellectual O'Reilly, arclighter you dont have to tell us :D
O'Reilly is a blowhard that gets it right every once in a while. But if your agenda requires me to like him, then so be it.
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,288
10
38
Toronto
I gotta admit that O'Reilly does crack me up when I see him. He's got entertainment value at least, unlike that other crazy nut Coulter who is just annoying
 

Cinema Face

New member
Mar 1, 2003
3,636
3
0
The Middle Kingdom
I saw that Bill O'Rielly piece and I think he's on the money with that one.

The Bush bashing is completely over the top to the point that it's almost comical if it wasn't so pathetic. I have yet to hear any better ideas coming from the left.

Mrs. Buba won't win in 2008, because the US won't elect a dyke to the Presidency. A woman, maybe but a dyke, no.

Hill-billary is the dems best chance because their talent pool is so shallow. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost that is...
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,486
12
38
Cinema Face said:
I saw that Bill O'Rielly piece and I think he's on the money with that one.

The Bush bashing is completely over the top to the point that it's almost comical if it wasn't so pathetic. I have yet to hear any better ideas coming from the left.

Mrs. Buba won't win in 2008, because the US won't elect a dyke to the Presidency. A woman, maybe but a dyke, no.

Hill-billary is the dems best chance because their talent pool is so shallow. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost that is...
The sheer force of intellect in your post. Breathtaking!

Although you did leave the words "left" and "dems" unmodified by insulting ajectives, there may still be time to edit, if you hurry.
 

maxweber

Active member
Oct 12, 2005
1,296
1
36
..pesky things

Cinema Face said:
Mrs. Buba won't win in 2008, because the US won't elect a dyke to the Presidency. A woman, maybe but a dyke, no.
But that scarcely matters--because any woman who runs for Democrats is a dyke by definition, right? I mean, it's not as if you monkeys need anything like proof, is it? (I devoutly hope she sees some neo-con filthbag post this, and sues them into the middle of the next millenium.)

MW
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,288
10
38
Toronto
maxweber said:
But that scarcely matters--because any woman who runs for Democrats is a dyke by definition, right? I mean, it's not as if you monkeys need anything like proof, is it? (I devoutly hope she sees some neo-con filthbag post this, and sues them into the middle of the next millenium.)

MW
On the flip side any woman or minority who runs for the GOP are branded traitors or sell-outs by the left (ex. Rice, Powell)
 
May 3, 2004
1,686
0
0
Don said:
On the flip side any woman or minority who runs for the GOP are branded traitors or sell-outs by the left (ex. Rice, Powell)
Beautiful exposure of the neo-lib, elitist, immoral-hypocrisy.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,486
12
38
Don said:
On the flip side any woman or minority who runs for the GOP are branded traitors or sell-outs by the left (ex. Rice, Powell)
Please illustrate by example. Choose with care, lest you further tar yourself w/ you own brush. You're trying to appear better than the left, remember. The defence of "they do it too" is already a weak one.
 
May 3, 2004
1,686
0
0
oldjones said:
Please illustrate by example. Choose with care, lest you further tar yourself w/ you own brush. You're trying to appear better than the left, remember. The defence of "they do it too" is already a weak one.
Yes, I agree oj. It's very apparent that the neo-lib, elitists should be able fling characterization, labels and libel with impunity.
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,288
10
38
Toronto

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,288
10
38
Toronto
oldjones said:
Please illustrate by example. Choose with care, lest you further tar yourself w/ you own brush. You're trying to appear better than the left, remember. The defence of "they do it too" is already a weak one.
Yup I agree. I slam both sides for hypocracy. The only rational place is the middle. A place you are certainly not judging from your past posts
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,288
10
38
Toronto
Carcharias said:
Maybe I missed something here - that's happened before - but at what point did people actually start listening to this O'Reilly character?

It's an act, people. It's no different than someone dressing up in a monkey suit and playing King Kong or whatever. Same with Limbaugh, Coulter et. al. They're characters. Not meant to be taken seriously.
O'Reilly is on a "news" (yeah...news... good one...) program that called themselves "fair and balanced". They need to be held to a higher standard than some shmo with his own radio show or blog.
 

The Mugger

Guest
Sep 27, 2005
592
0
0
You know pretty much both serious people on the left or the right have long discounted BOR rants. Too often he likes to bitch about people taking shots at conservatives without for moment believing that Republicans have mastered the smear and blame game. BOR plays this game so badly and this article is nothing more of the same. For instance we have the typical rant against columnist who disagree with the Conservative cause without any constructive critic of what was written. We have the gratuitous Ted Kennedy slime and the rest is babble from a man who's intellect has been terribly damaged from the fumes of all those years his head has been rammed up Rupert Murdoch's ass.
 

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
Carcharias said:
Maybe I missed something here - that's happened before - but at what point did people actually start listening to this O'Reilly character?
You really did miss something. O'Reilly has had the number one rated news show for some time now. Apparently quite a few people are listening to him.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
Which makes quoting his rantings relevant how? What will you have for us next, the Best of Rush?
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Asterix said:
Which makes quoting his rantings relevant how? What will you for us next, the Best of Rush?
Some would enjoy Rush and other would like Stern.

Myself I would rather listen to BLUES:D
 

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
Asterix said:
Which makes quoting his rantings relevant how? What will you have for us next, the Best of Rush?
Didn't you read what I was responding to? I wasn't making a case for the relevancy of his article. I will be more than happy to defend the relevancy of this thread if you desire.

I don't automatically discount anyone's “ranting” without giving it at least a cursory review (except blog boy’s). Is it possible that O’Reilly (or Rush, or Medved, or any conservative) might have something worthwhile to offer every once in a while? I have agreed with articles written by Hitchens, as well as Sullivan and sometimes even Michael Kinsley.

This is a political discussion forum. Conservatives will quote conservative sources, and liberals will quote liberal sources. If you dismiss out of hand every conservative source, this won’t be much of a forum. Remember, the fun is in the fisking!
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts