I'm struck by the irony of the liberal pundirty warning REpublicans not to interpret their seeeping victories as a mandate because such "arrogance" could lead to a voter backlash.
In the very process of obsessing over what republicans might do and become in the future, liberals are blinding themselves to what they have already done and become. they are lecturing Republicans about copping an arrogant attitiude when they are so steeped in one themselves they can't accurately interpret their own reflection in the election mirror.
The objective fact is that President Bush and Republicans won decisively. the lesson most reasonable people would take from such a victory is not that they were doing something wrong and they better back off from it. While I agree that winners shouldn't become highhanded, neither should they act as losers.
Why should President Bush voluntarily surrender his just affirmed political capitol by capitulating to the demands of Democrats? Wouldn't that be as much of a slap in the face to voters, who just endorsed his agenda, as becoming cocky? According to this liberal logic, Republicans should act like losers when they lose, and act like losers when they win.
The Chicago Tribune article quotes a Rutgers political science professor as saying:
In pressing for partial Social Security privatization and overhauling the tax system, Bush is taking a major risk. These are controversial matters that might drive some Republicans to become Democrats.
Such brilliance. It's like saying Republicans should forfeit their agenda now or else they might have to in the future. They should give up a bird in the hand for none in the bush. Either way, no conservative agenda. How convenient for liberals. In their minds eye the election results were all about political strategy and packaging rather than the merits of the issues--about form over substance.
Isn't it a rank form of patronizing to treat the voters as the programmed robots of Karl Rove rather than mostly intelligent cretures with independent views who presently align more closely with the Republican message?
But this concept doesn't compute with liberal elites whose conceit prevents them from considering the possibility that voters, if exposed to their naked ideas, will flat out reject them.
www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/printdl20041130.shtml
In the very process of obsessing over what republicans might do and become in the future, liberals are blinding themselves to what they have already done and become. they are lecturing Republicans about copping an arrogant attitiude when they are so steeped in one themselves they can't accurately interpret their own reflection in the election mirror.
The objective fact is that President Bush and Republicans won decisively. the lesson most reasonable people would take from such a victory is not that they were doing something wrong and they better back off from it. While I agree that winners shouldn't become highhanded, neither should they act as losers.
Why should President Bush voluntarily surrender his just affirmed political capitol by capitulating to the demands of Democrats? Wouldn't that be as much of a slap in the face to voters, who just endorsed his agenda, as becoming cocky? According to this liberal logic, Republicans should act like losers when they lose, and act like losers when they win.
The Chicago Tribune article quotes a Rutgers political science professor as saying:
In pressing for partial Social Security privatization and overhauling the tax system, Bush is taking a major risk. These are controversial matters that might drive some Republicans to become Democrats.
Such brilliance. It's like saying Republicans should forfeit their agenda now or else they might have to in the future. They should give up a bird in the hand for none in the bush. Either way, no conservative agenda. How convenient for liberals. In their minds eye the election results were all about political strategy and packaging rather than the merits of the issues--about form over substance.
Isn't it a rank form of patronizing to treat the voters as the programmed robots of Karl Rove rather than mostly intelligent cretures with independent views who presently align more closely with the Republican message?
But this concept doesn't compute with liberal elites whose conceit prevents them from considering the possibility that voters, if exposed to their naked ideas, will flat out reject them.
www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/printdl20041130.shtml
