Adeimantus RSS Feed
Subscribe to Adeimantus RSS Feed Add Adeimantus RSS Feed to Your My Yahoo Page
Add Adeimantus RSS Feed to Your MSN Page Subscribe to Adeimantus RSS Feed in NewsGator Online


Conservative Political Commentary

Quote of the Day

Lady Liberty

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Friday, June 18, 2004

Reagan's Other Legacy
posted by Tom

He revived the American economy and the American spirit after the disasters of Viet Nam, Watergate, and Jimmy Carter. He brought the GOP back from the dead after Nixon. Oh, and he defeated the Soviet Union. As remarkable as Ronald Reagan’s accomplishments were in life, one can’t help but appreciate an equally remarkable accomplishment, one that assures conservative Republicans' occupation of the White House and Congress for a good long time if they have the guts to take the baton he passed to them in the race to save the country from the left.

Or maybe I'm the only one in awe of Reagan’s ability, even in death, to completely unhinge liberals and liberal media.

An attack launched by internet columnist, cartoon(ist), and leftist Ted Rall before the ink on Reagan’s obituary was dry is representative. Rall’s ‘crispy brown' Reagan-in-hell comment in a typical moronic rant he calls a column achieved the short-term goal (the only goal Democrats ever set) of getting his weenie self on TV, but also completely exposed him as a brainwashed liberal pissant. He’s 40 years old now, meaning he was around 15 or 16 when Reagan was elected the first time in 1980 and (if my math is correct, never a certainty) 23 or 24 when Reagan left office in 1988. Okay, I admit that my overriding concern between the ages of 16 and 24 was getting laid, but far be it from me to assume that Ted Rall was (for want of a better term) normal. (I’m seven years older than Rall, by the way). Perhaps he was a precocious liberal intellectual buried in public policy in 1980, concluding that four more years of Jimmy Carter, and the gas lines, double-digit inflation and interest rates, Soviet expansionism, and selling out of Israel that were the hallmarks of that sniveling, Jew hating windbag's administration, were infinitely preferable to a Reagan presidency.

Rall would have voted for Carter, too, if he had been old enough. At 15 or 16, Rall probably didn’t own a car (and if he drove at all, mom and dad paid for his gas), wasn’t applying for a mortgage, and was probably learning about the joys of Marxism in high school, where he also learned that Israel, since it was a Middle Eastern democracy run by white people, just had to be evil. After Carter’s defeat, this wunderkind decided to forsake all of the pleasures of youth to follow the Reagan presidency in minute detail. For eight years he surrendered to his obsession, until he achieved total Nirvana at the ripe old age of 23 watching the Democrats raise grandstanding and demagoguery to a high art during the Iran-Contra hearings.

Perhaps this explains why he is now rattling off the most asinine opinions he can come up with: He gets himself on national TV and uses that to pick up the chicks he ignored 20 years ago.

At first glance, his stint on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes the very day his anti-Reagan diatribe appeared on the web provided this idiot with an altar from which to preach to the loony left faithful. There was one problem: The loony left faithful don’t watch Fox News Channel, at least not in any great numbers. Surely Rall is aware of this, so his appearance on Hannity & Colmes could only be a narcissistic exercise. Unless he seriously thought he was going to convince the Reagan-loving conservatives who are the network’s primary audience that the man who brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union belongs in hell, in which case therapeutic drugs need to be prescribed. In truth, I think Rall was totally unaware that he was part of the long-term strategy conservatives are able to implement now that, thanks to Reagan, they have a stronger media voice: Casting the spotlight on raving left-wing idiots and exposing them as the true face of the Democratic Party.

Would Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the hundreds (if not more) of conservative internet news and commentary sites have been thinkable before 1980? Reagan proved there was a conservative majority out there; they voted for him in overwhelming numbers in two elections. It's with this audience that today’s media conservatives connect. The political burden has been on post-Reagan establishment Republicans to fan the flame of passionate opposition to liberalism – what it has done to the country and what it hopes to do. Unfortunately, they’ve been somewhat spastic in this regard. Sure, they got a little bit of their spunk back when Newt Gingrich engineered the takeover of Congress in 1992, but then they backed down to Bill Clinton over the government shutdown in 1994 and ever since have been trying to portray themselves as “moderate” (more about that later). It is conservative media that has kept the Reaganites fired up by using the divide and conquer strategy that resulted in Reagan's two landslide victories and his departure from office with the highest approval rating of any American president despite the Democrat and liberal media co-production of Watergate II (i.e., Iran/Contra).

If only the damn Republican Party would help them out.

To any audience outside a university TV lounge, where undergraduates rant and rave against capitalism during the commercial breaks on MTV, Ted Rall, Michael Moore, and others of that ilk come across as lunatics. Congressional Republicans and George Bush should be having a field day with the appearance of these twitchy flakes on highly rated political talk shows like Hannity & Colmes, The O'Reilly Factor, etc. They're better than reruns of Ted Kennedy explaining why it took him so long to report the accident in Chappaquiddick or Black race hucksters telling us OJ was framed. Emphasizing their support for John Kerry, preferably by getting them to emphasize it, would be worth about six RNC campaign commercials. While it’s probably true that guys like Rall are Deaniacs who believe Kerry’s only notable accomplishment as a Democrat is becoming the first embalmed corpse to get the Party’s nomination, they’re still “anyone-but-Bush” androids. Used wisely, one can tar any Democratic candidate with their paranoid, over-the-top rhetoric and demonstrate that the Democratic Party asks only one thing of its members: Solemnly swear you're a left wing whack job.

The liberal media understand this and do their best to keep these guys in the closet – so to speak. Or, when they do interview them, they feign a toughness you never see with so-called mainstream Democrats. A recent example of this is Matt Lauer’s interview with left wing basket case Michael Moore on the DNC’s - I mean, NBC’s “Today Show.” Lauer imitated an intrepid reporter badgering Moore about withholding evidence of Iraqi prisoner “abuse” used in his latest fantasy film, "Fahrenheit 9-11". Apparently, Moore had video and/or photos of naked Iraqis in his possession well before the story broke on the DNC’s - (damn) I mean, CBS’s “60 Minutes”. Granted, the subtext of Lauer’s questioning was: “Why didn’t you try to help Democrats by releasing that material and embarrassing the Bush Administration sooner?” Still, flakes like Moore always get the “treatment” on liberal Democrat chat shows in order to distance them from the Party. And they play along, as Moore did by responding to Lauer’s question as to why he didn’t give the evidence to "Today": “I don’t trust big media.” Moore's implication, of course, is that Democratic PR operatives like Lauer and his brilliant and eclectic co-host, Skipper, are part of the “right-wing” media. Sure, Mike. And I bet you really look like Tom Cruise under the make-up.

Basically, this whole stupid game started when Reagan shellacked Carter and Mondale by capturing conservative Democrats in 1980 and ’84, respectively. The liberal media couldn’t acknowledge that it was a question of conservative trouncing liberal lest they admit that the majority of Americans don’t dig abortion on demand, homosexuality as the norm, socialist government in every aspect of their lives, etc. So, they created the myth of the “independent” voter, who was either disaffected with his own Party or belonged to no Party and voted depending on which way the wind blew on Election Day.

(Of course, everyone knows the only true independents are the aforementioned MTV-addicted undergraduates. They are really liberal Democrats that think the term "independent" connotes "rebel", so they spout all of the liberal Democrat clichés, but the only way to get them to vote is to book Britney Spears at the polling place.)

The independent voter invented by the only media players back then – the Big Three networks, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. – chose Reagan over Carter and Mondale because, depending on what the reporters and anchors were drinking or smoking on a given day, Reagan was either a brilliant manipulator of an angry and greedy electorate that simply didn’t accept the Utopian vision of the Socialist Party’s candidates, or he was a dimwit charming other dimwits. (Read all of their current retrospectives on Reagan and you come to the conclusion they still don’t know what the hell they believed.) For the eight years of his presidency, liberal media wet dreams produced the fantasy that a Reagan voter was either a white trailer trash redneck whose only desire in life is to drink beer, attend NASCAR races, and shoot Blacks on sight, or a rich Republican who likes to watch poor kids starve. Pre-Fox, pre-talk radio, pre-internet liberal media used this absurdity to assuage the fears of the left wing Democrat constituency comprising the minority underclass, hysterical feminists, gays, the elderly that really and truly believe The New Deal ended the Great Depression (who would in 2000 have trouble reading a ballot that didn’t have a big red arrow pointing to the name of the Democrat they were supposed to vote for), union thugs, teachers, and trial lawyers. But no matter how often and arrogantly left-wing networks, newspapers, and magazines mischaracterized the gold mine Reagan had tapped into as the racist/sexist/homophobic “independent” vote, they knew in their hearts there was a conservative majority ripe for Republican picking. Reagan had the (to put it delicately) guts to tell the American people that radical left-wing Democrat is a redundancy and sailed into office. What if the Republican Party as a whole did the same thing?

Today’s liberal media still refer to the “independent” voter, but the late 20th century image of persons easily charmed by an “amiable dunce” who taps into their greed and deeply rooted racist hate doesn’t work with the sophisticated 21st century voter with more choices when it comes to political viewpoints. More popular now is the liberal media's Platonic “moderate” voter, an ideal all good citizens should aspire to, one who abhors “extreme positions”, which are defined as any conservative Republican challenges to Socialism, buggery, infanticide, etc, and despises anyone whose views are out of the “mainstream”, which can be defined as liberal Democrats committed to Socialism, buggery, infanticide, etc. This new myth’s effectiveness depends upon hiding true mainstream Democrats – i.e., raving left-wing lunatics – in a secret room with the rest of the family’s inbred deformities. It was easy pre-cable, pre-Fox News Channel, and pre-talk radio, when the Big Three and the major dailies and weeklies controlled whose ideas were heard and to what end. Thus, the Democratic Party could offer up liberal loonies like Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis, and the liberal media would present their half-assed world views to the people, because these guys knew how to dress it up for the public. Those who would betray the Democratic Party’s true face were relegated to the pages of The Nation, Rolling Stone, NPR, etc. No more. With the rise of cable, Democrat flakes get as much face time as the Party’s smarmy candidates trying to come across as level-headed politicians of the people; conservative talk radio repeats their paranoid stupidity over and over again; conservative internet sites publish, republish, and dissect their manifestos. Conservatives remind everyone that these people are Democrats, and the Democratic Party’s reluctance to explicitly condemn these clowns for their excesses is so conspicuous that it can mean only one thing: These are the voices of the Democratic Party.

Okay, so what the hell is a “moderate” exactly? What the liberal media call a “moderate” Republican is simply one who is uncomfortable with some – repeat, some – of his Party’s positions. For example, they deem a Republican who thinks the federal government should not outlaw abortion and who thinks that gays shouldn’t be discriminated against when it comes to housing, employment, etc. a “moderate.” They will of course ignore that he also believes doctors who perform partial-birth abortions are murderers; that he’d rather have nails driven through his eyes than see homosexual relationships afforded equal status with heterosexual marriage; that he despises the welfare state; that while he may not think Ted Kennedy should have died in jail (as Ted Rall wished on Reagan), he believes Teddy should be just coming up for parole; that he thinks the IRS makes the old Soviet KGB look committed to democratic principles. In other words, because he doesn’t toe the Republican line on one, at most two issues, liberal media zero in on the disagreements and try to claim this person is not, you know, really conservative. This is absolute nonsense. Would anyone, especially in liberal media, call Black Democrats, the majority of whom are against abortion and gay marriage, but are frothing-at-the-mouth supporters of racial quotas in hiring and college admissions, who believe the federal government should pay for everything from the birth of their children to their own funerals, who wouldn’t have required the insanity defense to find John Hinckley, Jr. not guilty, and who think Jews own America and “keep them down” moderates?


These “moderates” still vote for conservative and liberal candidates, respectively, because their discomfort with some aspects of their respective Parties is infinitely surpassed by the general repulsiveness of the other side. I may not eat chicken, but I’m still a meat eater. The thought of becoming a vegetarian makes me ill.

Reagan proved that conservatives in both parties outnumber liberals. Or, to put it in terms the cockamamie liberal media would understand, he proved there are far less “moderates” among Democrats, and that a “moderate” Democrat is a liberal Democrat and a liberal Democrat is a leftwing Socialist anti-American kook – basically. Ever since establishing this fact – twice – liberal media have been trying like hell to sweep it under the carpet, but the conservative media that sprang up post-Reagan and came into their own after George H.W. Bush squandered every political advantage Reagan had bequeathed him, have kept their foot on that rug. They continue to highlight the fact the Democratic Party doesn’t merely include the Ted Ralls, the Michael Moores, the zany Hollywood left, and various others who remind one of Rodney Dangerfield's "Caddyshack" line: “Now I know why tigers eat their young.” They demonstrate that there would be no Democratic party without these goofs.

Had the conservative media of today existed in the 1980s, we would have needed a new term to describe Reagan’s victories - “landslide” wouldn't have cut it. The Republican Party today has media Reagan could only dream of, but what it needs is another Reagan who knows how to use them. Some would argue that the 2002 elections giving Republicans control of the Presidency, House, and Senate for the first time in almost half a century reflected their ability to follow Reagan’s lead. Perhaps, but they shouldn’t need 3000+ dead Americans and a memorial service for a dead liberal Democrat that turns into a Nuremberg Rally to gain seats. This election year will test whether or not the Party really knows what Reaganism was all about.

posted by Tom | 6/18/2004 07:30:00 AM
Email this link to a friend