Originally posted by aelyn
Out of curiosity, how representative do you *actually* think these people are of the way the democrats run their party as a whole? It seems to me to be mostly a bunch of young college and 20-somethings-who-have-internet-access, so how big of a slice is that?
Unfortunately, that site is just the tip of the iceberg.

The degree to which the far left is denigrating the votes made by the majority of our country is just appalling.

It threatens to drive our country even further to the right which would be a very damaging turn of events. When one set of beliefs gains that kind of power, nothing good can come of it.

For example:



The New York Times:

Today, Bob Herbert wrote that people "who voted for President Bush are simply dumb."

That's very mature there, Bob.

On November 4, Maureen Dowd wrote:

The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.

W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
So nobody chose to vote for him because they believe in things like low taxes or fighting terrorism aggressively. They voted for him because they were herded like cattle by having their bigotry appealed to?

That's an "open minded" liberal speaking?

He's creating the sort of "democracy" he likes. One party controls all power in the country. One network serves as state TV. One nation dominates the world as a hyperpower. One firm controls contracts in Iraq.
Actually Maureen, the far left dominated democratic party is doing that (you're helping) and that's what ticks me off.

The far left media is driving people to what few sources there are that maintain standards of objectivity.

The far left that controls the democratic party is rotting it out from within and letting the other party run roughshod each election.

One nation does dominate, but I'm sure you're doing your best to fix that.

On November 7, she wrote:

Just how much did Karl Rove hate not being one of the cool guys in high school in the 60's? Enough to hatch schemes to marshal the forces of darkness to take over the country?

Oh, yeah.
That disgusting personal attack is what she opened with. They actually keep her on the payroll.

But this White House's frontier is not a place of infinite progress and expansion, stretching society's boundaries. It doesn't battle primitivism; it courts primitivism.

W.'s presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge, more premodern than postmodern. Instead of leading America to an exciting new reality, the Bushies cocoon in a scary, paranoid, regressive reality. Their new health care plan will probably be a return to leeches.
Absolutely amazing. That is journalism?

Then there is Paul Krugman.

On November 5th he wrote:

President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is.
Aha. President Bush hates America. By extension, anyone who voted for him must hate America too, right?

Get in the game, Paul.



Slate magazine has been publishing some gems lately as well.

Why Americans Hate Democrats - A Dialogue

The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. (Well, almost 58 million—my relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority.)
Aha. So if you didn't vote for Kerry, you are either stupid or greedy.

Pathetic.

Progressives have only one course of action now: React quickly to every outrage—red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time.
It is amazing that they published this tripe.

Michael Kinsley, writer for Slate and editorial page editor for the LA Times wrote:

"We on my side of the great divide don't, for the most part, believe that our values are direct orders from God. We are if anything, crippled by reason and open-mindedness, by a desire to persuade rather than insist."
I get it. Only lefties are open minded and reasonable.

These people wonder why they keep getting crushed and dominated?



Britain's Daily Mirror wrote:

How Can 59,054,087 People Be So DUMB?


A few more beauties from TV:

Though Bush was the first President since 1988 to win a majority of the vote, on CBS's Late Show, Al Franken downgraded the Bush victory by emphasizing how "Bush won this election by a smaller percentage than any incumbent President who was re-elected, I believe, in history." Franken, attempting some humor, dismissed the swath of red on the U.S. state map by insisting that "a lot of the red is desert. And there's, like, no people there" and "the electoral college favors people who vote in the desert."

When asked how his Air America radio show is going, Franken took a shot at Rush Limbaugh: "We're doing incredibly well. We were beating Rush in many cities, Rush Limbaugh, big fat idiot, a drug addict."

Franken's Air America Web page features, "COMEDY BIT: THE BUSH-SATAN CONNECTION: From Friday's The Al Franken Show, Al and Katherine discuss the possible connection between Bush...and SATAN. DUN dun dun."
Bush won thanks to "voter fraud," actress Susan Sarandon contended to HBO's Bill Maher. When Maher maintained that Kerry "lost, by a lot," Sarandon countered: "Wait a minute. You better tune in to some of the other channels." She cited "this black box thing," a mis-reported vote total in one Ohio town, "and the hanging chads and the provisional votes -- this was not the way the voting's supposed to work." Quite serious, she reported that "Ralph Nader's very close to filing something about what went on in New Hampshire." Plus, "lots and lots of problems in Florida. And in New Mexico. It's all coming in now."
Lawrence O'Donnell predicted on the McLaughlin Group that there will be "a serious discussion of secession over the next twenty years" since "the segment on the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don't pay for the federal government."


And then there is the evidence that the Democratic Party is going to go the WRONG WAY and push our country even MORE to the right:

1) Hillary in 2008.

2) Choosing Howard Dean to be the next DNC Chairman.

3) Paul Krugman again: "One faction of the party is already calling for the Democrats to blur the differences between themselves and the Republicans. Or at least that's what I think Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council means when he says, "We've got to close the cultural gap." But that's a losing proposition."

No Paul, that's the only WINNING proposition. The idea of getting even more radically left is the losing proposition that will eliminate all hope of some balance in our parties.
  • Drop the class warfare.
  • Drop the disdain for people with different political opinions.
  • Drop the belief that the world's opinion takes priority over taking care of ourselves.
  • Drop it before our already abysmal two-party system turns into a one-party system.