Why the Dems will Lose (Hilarious self-parody from the NRO)

[geek tragedy]

http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200407300829.asp

<snip>
In 2004, I see six reasons why the Democratic goose is cooked:

1. No one — neither his colleagues nor his wife nor his supporters nor he himself — has anything good to say about John Kerry except that he served bravely in Vietnam. The nearly 30 years since then have generated few boasts on his part, few commendations from others, few successes anyone can seem to remember.
2. The Democratic elite sitting in convention cannot present themselves as they are to the American people, but must stifle their deepest feelings, be silent about their most passionate aims, and hide their turbulent loathing of George Bush Republicans (lest it frighten independents with its ferocity). The Democratic elite is saying as little as possible about same-sex marriage. And guns. And very little about abortion. And not a word about total withdrawal of American troops from Iraq — quite the opposite. Democratic elites do not want the people to know what they really think. On that ground, they fear they will lose.
3. Democrats must hide from the public what they truly think about evangelicals, fundamentalists, and Catholics. They express these thoughts mostly among themselves.
4. John Kerry looks sillier in the pale blue NASA rabbit suit than Michael Dukakis did in a tank.
5. The months of April, May, and June were so heavy with bad news for George Bush — the huge Sorosian expenditures on anti-Bush ads came at him in torrents — and still he held even with Kerry in the polls. It is hard not to believe that there will be at least a slight change in the roaring winds. When it comes (and the change is already underway), it is bound to push Bush's sails steadily ahead as the weeks roll on.
6. The worst lies told by the Democrats about Bush — those of Joe Wilson, Michael Moore, and others, saying that Bush lied about Iraq — have already been proven wrong by the 9/11 Commission (which was supposed to blow Bush out of the water just before the election, but ended up destroying his worst calumniators). These lies were also proven wrong by the British inquiry. Even the Kerry Convention in Boston ended up taking the Bush strategic line in Iraq, except for one thing: Kerry is wistful about the probability of persuading France and Germany to bear some burden on behalf of liberty in Iraq. Good luck! God knows, Bush and Colin Powell tried.

Finally, there is the matter of faith, even of the sort Tom Paine showed in 1776. Paine was no Christian, but he did believe that God had created this vast and splendid universe in order to share His friendship with free women and free men, and for this reason the Creator put freedom at the core of things. Tom Paine had no tolerance for the Bible, and less for Biblical fundamentalists, but he was not so much an atheist, he wrote, as to believe that the Almighty Who made the universe for liberty would allow the cause of people willing to die for it to come to naught. Paine couldn't bring himself to believe that God would favor George III.

In that same spirit, I find it hard to believe that the Creator who gave us liberty will ignore President Bush's willingness to sacrifice his own presidency for the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq — their 50 million citizens, and perhaps their progeny for ages to come.
<snip>

[benfranklin1776]

1. The only part of this drivel I agree with.....

"Paine couldn't bring himself to believe that God would favor George III."

I echo Mr. Paine's sentiments and believe that neither God nor the electorate will now favor this would be King George.

[ps1074]

2. you forgot to mention who wrote this crap

none other but Bob Novak

[geek tragedy]

3. Actually, it's Michael Novak

Bob Novak is way too cynical to drink this koolaid.

[ps1074]

4. oops, my bad

I read it 20 minutes ago and was so mad that I only saw the Novak name.

anyway, this is pure crap and I really really hope the repukes keep being so cocky. They see a light in the tunnel but they have no idea what is going to hit them soon.

[Cats Against Frist]

5. You should read this guy's biography

http://www.michaelnovak.net/Module/Site/Biography.aspx

He's a true Christian Reconstructionist -- a Catholic, which I would argue, in the extra-zealous variety are even more dangerous than the Evangelicals. Right up there with his Christian scholarship -- blammo -- Milton Friedman. He's of the "Rand finds God," stripe -- an amalgam of fucked-up philosophy and revisionist history that just pretends that Rousseau and the Bill of Rights and the Enlightenment and Thomas Jefferson never existed, and somehow classic liberalism includes theocracy.

These are the extremists in the GOP -- the core of what the GOP really is -- people with a complete disrespect for the Constitution and secular humanism. For anyone to have attributed "small government" to these whack jobs is totally insane. They have HUGE "social engineering" plans that go much further into eroding free thought and civil liberties than "wealth redistribution" could ever possibly have.

When they rail about "big government," you can easily substitute that with "Godless Institution of Rational, Self-Evident Government," -- because that's what they're so pissed off about -- it has a hell of a lot less to do with money and freedom as it does with ideology.

These people scare the bumblebees out of me.

*edited for spelling

[Merlin]

6. They are classic anti-Enlightenment zealots.

It is astonishing that these true believers have never stumbled upon the fact that the America, democracy and freedom they keep praising are products of the very Enlightenment which taught people to think out of the box of traditional revealed religious strictures.

He uses Paine, of all people, to stake out a contention that the Almighty will intervene on behalf of Bush. Paine was not Christian, true. Neither was he an atheiest. But Paine, like most Deists, had no time for the conceit of an interventionist God.

Deists believe the Creator's most extraordinary characteristic--and greatest gift to humans--is the eminent faculty of reason; a capacity sorely lacking in this misadministration.

[struggle4progress]

7. I thought the forum "Bush, Conservatives, and Conservatism" was ...

... the appropriate place to post wingnut bilge for debunking fun.

... sigh ...

1. I heard lots of people say good things about Kerry this week. Did Novak actually cover the convention or did him simply sit down before the tube, bottle in hand, and tune in Fox? Many of us admire Kerry for not boasting, especially given his multiple careers. If Novak is having memory problems, he should perhaps see a doctor.

2. The Democratic conventioneers did present themselves as they are. Impassioned cheers throughout the convention were evidence of deep feelings and conviction. I cannot decipher whether Novak failed to notice the enthusiasm because he was raptly engaged by Fox's noncoverage, because he had passed out, or because he really can't remember what happened and is hence reduced to reciting Rove's talking points. There is indeed a strong disdain of George Bush's policies, and many Americans will recognize that the disdain has patriotic origins: contempt for secret government, for imprisonment without trial, for proposals to delay elections if convenient to the ruling party, for efforts to rule by fear, for reliance on ideology rather than realism, for corrupt cronyism, and for a variety of other policy blunders of monumental proportion. At a time when too many Republicans have become excited by the notion that America could become a one party state, the Democratic Party continues to believe in political pluralism. Nothing prevents Republicans from campaigning in simplistic soundbites around same-sex marriage, guns, abortion, and an eternal Iraqi conflict -- but many Democratic Party supporters want more substantive approaches to these and other difficult issues.

3. Many Democratic Party supporters are religious, and many are evangelical or Catholic. Carter's insistence on following his evangelical conscience, with respect to the issuers of his time, earned him our enduring love -- and the contempt of so-called "conservatives" like Novak. Kerry, of course, represents a long and honorable Catholic political tradition, appealing to many party members.

4. I myself will not be casting my vote for President based on how candidates look in pale blue NASA suits. If Novak really believes that Americans should consider fashion before going to the polls, then he should encourage Bush to don such a NASA suit so the citizens of this great nation can compare the sartorial charms of Bush and Kerry.

5. After decades of billing themselves as the party of responsibility, Republicans might want to accept some responsibility for problems they have recently created. The bad news from Abu Ghraib, for example, had nothing whatsoever to do with any spending by Soros: it flowed from the Administration's long-term efforts to abandon long-standing treaty obligations and to avoid transparency. We unfortunately already know that Novak and his cronies intend to fill Bush's sails with a "roaring wind" of fear through the Fall months, and it is our belief that men and women of good-will and courage will not succumb.

6. What "lies" have been exposed by recent reports? Despite Administration claims, Iraq had no WMDs, and even Kay has become weary of constant claims to the contrary. Despite Administration claims, there was no substantive link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. The Administration, in fact, has spun so many yarns that the fables are mutually inconsistent: no one of sound mind can claim that we went to Iraq to bring democracy and simultaneously to create a chaotic vacuum into which regional terrorists would be inexorably drawn, since democracy cannot exist in the helter-skelter of continual urban warfare. Whatever Butler says regarding Wilson, the IAEA exposed the only documents provided as forgeries. In response, Novak may, of course, say "Yes,but" as often as he choose, but not everyone else is infinitely credulous.