- The Washington Times - Friday, November 8, 2002

Bush's best friends
He might not have done it without them. And I don't mean the national Democrats, whose negativism and vacuity finally did them in. I mean the national liberal media who, for two long years, still don't get the reasons for President Bush's popularity, and played spectacularly into his hands during the campaign. I'm a broken record about the New York Times, the most influential pillar of the slowly collapsing liberal media establishment. But they matter. And when you think of their version of Mr. Bush, you see why they had no idea what was about to hit them. He was a reckless, fatuous, immature "boy emperor," according to the increasingly unhinged Maureen Dowd.
This week, in contrast, voters overwhelmingly gave their support to the commander in chief, whom they consider neither a child nor an imperialist, at a time of war. Dowdism, the voters saw, was part of the problem. Mr. Bush, for all his faults, was part of the solution. Or, take the notion of Mr. Bush as an ally of the corporate and corrupt, the J. Edgar Hoover of the new millennium, and the blatant liar portrayed by the Times' Paul Krugman.
The voters, in contrast, didn't blame Mr. Bush for the economy's weaknesses, they don't believe he is interchangeable with Ken Lay, and they don't buy class warfare as an economic policy. They voted for him as a challenger during the end of an economic boom in 2000; they voted for him as an incumbent during an economic trough in 2002. The economic cycle, in fact, obscured his strength as a candidate. Can you imagine how big his victory would have been without the slump? This, then, was a big vote for his economic management, although, of course, it is not devoid of concern and qualifications.
The deeper point is that the liberal media's incessant charge that Mr. Bush is a moron, a cowboy, a boy, a liar, a fraud, and an evildoer just never took root. People don't believe it. And the more the left-liberals who occupy such a high perch in our media culture especially in New York, Boston and Los Angeles keep blasting away at their nemesis in this shrill and bitter fashion, they will avoid the real work that real opposition entails. They keep believing that their sour, negative hate-mongering is right and effective. As long as they do, the Democrats will be protected from the truth, and Mr. Bush will continue to win.

How the left wins
Yes, they did have some victories. In Massachusetts, the English immersion proposal forcing Latino kids into English-only classes may have won with a huge margin, but in Colorado, it lost big. Why? Because the anti-English crowd deployed a weapon from Pat Buchanan's arsenal. They ran scare ads, attempting to frighten white parents into believing that an English immersion policy would force their children into the same classes as ill-educated Latinos and so, slow their kids' education progress. In other words, the left played the immigration and race card, in order to protect their special-interest groups, like teachers' unions and Latino "leaders." That's what it's come to in a few places. Gay-baiting in Montana and South Carolina, immigrant-scares in Nevada. And they call themselves "progressive."

Gay victories

The news stories played it as a surprise: while Republicans did really well across the country, so did openly gay candidates and pro-gay initiatives. There was one exception: Nevada approved a constitutional amendment to ban equal marriage rights to gay citizens. (I'll forgo the irony here: A state renowned for letting heterosexuals marry multiple times and divorce multiple times, won't even let gays marry once for fear of social collapse.) But elsewhere, from Ypsilanti, Mich., to Sarasota, Fla., initiatives to protect gays from discrimination passed by solid margins. A gay mayor was elected in Providence, Rhode Island, with 84 percent of the vote, and all three openly gay U.S. congressional incumbents won re-election.
One gay spokesman argued: "When we win in such environments, it shows that there is a national bipartisan consensus emerging where discrimination based on sexual orientation is considered unacceptable." Exactly. It's a shame we have no idea how gay citizens actually voted this time around because of the lack of exit polls, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there wasn't a major uptick in gay support for the GOP, especially in the Northeast. More evidence that gay and Republican isn't an oxymoron. Now, if only Mr. Bush would realize he could make major gains if he supports a law against workplace discrimination against homosexuals.

Begala nominee
"Only the filibuster now stands between the nation and the unchecked rule of the most right-wing, xenophobic and belligerent administration in the nation's history."
Harold Meyerson, the American Prospect.
They still don't get it, do they?

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide