'Regrouping?'
By Ari Kaufman (12/04/08)
About a month before the election, I signed up for the Democrat party's mass email list. I expected to be disappointed (after all, their party's site ignores 1850-1900 purposely due to their pro-slavery roots), but have been appalled to the highest extent.
Mind you, this is not supposedly some left wing hate blog, but the official Democrat party's news list. That said, at least 90% of the emails and press releases I receive daily are about impeaching Bush, seeking failure in Iraq, excusing terrorism, bashing Christians, global warming alarmism, supporting heinous causes and the like. It's as if Keith Olbermann is the minister of propaganda here -- and just maybe he is?
Bottom line, this shows how far left that party is and who is in control: Soros, the media, the Obamas, Pelosi, Dean (for now), et al. Just look at the Commitee Chairs in Congress for proof.
All this established, and yet the soundbytes -- from both sides -- are that the GOP must come up with new ideas, move to the center, and regroup? You know, we tried this with "centrist" Senator McCain and yet lost due to the timing, "historic nature" of this election, media bias and voter ignorance. So, "regrouping," as most reading this will concur, actually involves sticking to the basics of good conservative government, like the old ideas of balanced budgets, low taxes, a strong national defense, honest politicians, patriotism and letting the private sector do most things. Even the media still grants us that this is a center-right nation, thus this is the plan moving forward, whether the far left embraces it or not.
In terms of 2008 though, again I know that, historically speaking, this outcome is what was destined to occur (just like blaming the party in power for a bad economy even though it was more the fault of the opposition party), it is still incredibly frustrating that at a time when one party just triumphed with a radical with NO experience, we Republicans -- and our war hero candidate during a time of war -- are told we must go back to the drawing board? Yes, there is prima facie for electoral losers to rethink what works, but consensus is that "extremes on both ends are bad," thus which side has the extremists running their party and now the country? Not us.
We can only hope that Obama's moderate and dare-some-say "hawkish" cabinet appointees are a sign of things to come: that he realizes his far left past and radical/naive campaign rhetoric, especially in the primaries, must be discarded. The National Review's Rick Lowry is more confident than I in terms of Obama's first "president elect" days:
"Just when it seemed that the hawkish Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party was dead forever, a jerry-built version of it is making a comeback via the impending administration of a man championed by anti-war zealots. Yes, God does have a sense of humor."
Lastly and related, I know I've said it many times to my friends and family, and it will take years to come about, but I cannot wait until President Bush's legacy places him in the top 15 of our presidents, perhaps closer to 11 or 12.
Like James Madison, Martin Van Buren, Chester Arthur, Harry S. Truman, Dwight David Eisenhower and even Ronald Reagan, historians like myself understand that Bush will indeed emerge from the presidency with low marks from a biased, irresponsible media. And like the aforementioned others, this president will be remembered fondly decades down the proverbial road. There can be no doubt of this, especially considering cyclical economies and Just Wars, not to mention spoiled Americans being kept safe for 88 months following the worst terror attack on US soil in our history.
It's just too bad the president's detractors are too narrow-minded and historically ignorant to realize such obvious facts. Many of the reasonable criticisms levied at President Bush are akin to those hurled at President Lincoln (number one or two on most all-time presidential ranking lists): tactical errors in the battlefields, overstepping constitutional powers during the wartime, cabinet turnover (including his VP), and lack of communication. President Roosevelt, top five on many lists, was accused of the former two constantly -- never mind that whole Japanese internment matter plus many other questionable moves. Meanwhile Bush, facing a much more dangerous enemy among us, sings the politically correct praises of “moderate” Islam, and is convivial and contrite with the elite press who seeks to expose him at every turn.
Other criticism of Pres. Bush comes from conservatives who feel this president abandoned conservative principles with his big federal spending and apathy toward the immigration issue. Needless to say, the leftis reticent to "praise" the "liberal" side of George W. Bush -- yet they want conservatives to "give Obama a chance" from Day One? "The Messiah" inherits the toughest job in America, and we wish him luck. Maybe now people will see how admirable a job the first post 9/11 president did.
Legacies take time, and anyone currently calling Bush "worst ever" is often as ignorant as my 25 year old playboy friends in New York and Los Angeles. It is history that always serves as the best tool to understand the world, especially America. No wonder left-leaning revisionist professors -- aka the most dangerous, sheltered and clueless people on earth aside from the media (same goals) -- seek to eradicate honest US history and replace it with their own prevarications.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ari Kaufman
