Post-Armageddon Stuff & Nonsense

Well, it's two days after the Election and the world is still turning, despite Dubya getting re-elected. Looks like all the fear-mongering of the Left was just so much baloney after all.

Duh.

While life moves on, there's some aftermath details that need to be noted and, as usual, we're on the case here.

Starting things off is Peggy Noonan's piece at OpinionJournal which includes this:

Who was the biggest loser of the 2004 election? It is easy to say Mr. Kerry: he was a poor candidate with a poor campaign. But I do think the biggest loser was the mainstream media, the famous MSM, the initials that became popular in this election cycle. Every time the big networks and big broadsheet national newspapers tried to pull off a bit of pro-liberal mischief--CBS and the fabricated Bush National Guard documents, the New York Times and bombgate, CBS's "60 Minutes" attempting to coordinate the breaking of bombgate on the Sunday before the election--the yeomen of the blogosphere and AM radio and the Internet took them down. It was to me a great historical development in the history of politics in America. It was Agincourt. It was the yeomen of King Harry taking down the French aristocracy with new technology and rough guts. God bless the pajama-clad yeomen of America. Some day, when America is hit again, and lines go down, and media are hard to get, these bloggers and site runners and independent Internetters of all sorts will find a way to file, and get their word out, and it will be part of the saving of our country.

Damn right! That's why the Left is so frothingly mad over the rise of the blogosphere: They no longer have the monopoly on the flow of information and it's a lot harder to brainwash the sheep.

Wah. Suck on it.

All over the Interweb, a lot of people are regurgitating their ideological masters' talking points and being generally sore losers. The central theme of most of their arguments is that the people who voted for Dubya - all 59+ million of them - are nothing more than stupid, Jesus freak rubes. When one poster tossed up the cannard of "Even if you like Bush I don't see how you would want a leader who divides the country so intensely.", I fired back with:

BUZZ!!! WRONG ANSWER!!!

It wasn't Bush who divided the country, it was the whiny, spoiled liberals who thought they were entitled to perpetual rule and couldn't accept that they lost a close race in 2000. It's like if they were the Yankees who after winning the previous two World Series lost Game 7 by a score of 1-0 and decided that rather than shrugging it off, embarked on a 24/7 propaganda campaign to say that the entire National League was populated with inbred Nazi child molesters with bad fashion sense and can't dance.

It was impossible for Bush to repeat his "uniter, not divider" strategy from his Texas days when the entire liberal media/Democrat apparatus had declared jihad for the last 4 years, because for him to win again and retain control of Congress would mean the end of liberal control of government for another generation and liberals don't have anything useful to offer society other than ladling out government grift.

Look at the hateful rhetoric you guys are spewing. Are you planning on spending the next 4 years b!tching about Bush and the "stupid, Rube State, Jesus freak, homophobic, morons" who voted for him, as if a vote for Kerry is proof positive of superior intellect, whiter teeth and a shinier coat, while a vote for Bush means you probably don't know how to tie your shoes, use indoor plumbing or count to 21 without taking off your clothes?

And BUSH is the one dividing the country?!?!?!?

Other threads pointed to Kerry's strength in urban areas as proof that Republicans are dumb hicks who don't care about urban problems, cuz they've got theirs. Others have rebutted such nonsense and pointed out that most cities are too expensive for the poor to live in and it's the RICH who live downtown while the poor live in the outlying areas. (Not that the liberals are listening.)

Hmmm....I just checked back and this was posted below me, but in response to another point:

The difference between liberals like myself and the rest of the liberal crowd is that I have a firm grip on reality. Liberals like myself would rather unite, with no need to conquer, while twits like Moford want to drive the wege into the existing ideological chasm even deeper - pandering to the elite and arrogance twits who seemingly believe they are so much more cultured and highly bred than everyone else. He and others like him would lead people to believe that this is a battle. WTF? A battle against ourselves? People like him fearmonger by casually tossing the word "fascism" about like a frisbee yet, ironically enough, they appear to be setting themselves apart as the new Arayan liberals. Think of a Hitler salute with a latte grasped firmly in hand.

Just as Muslims need to reclaim their faith from the jihadists, it's time for the non-tinfoiled liberals to cut the Moores, Soroses and Deans loose. (Yeah, that'll happen.)