Monday, November 08, 2004

Now That the Election is Over....

Finally, it is over.

After months of campaigning, it is over.
After all the bitterness, it is over.
After all the lies and distortions by the politicians and the media, it is over.

And now, we are told that we, as a nation, need to begin a healing process.

Forgive me for my simplicity, but I didn’t know that we, as a nation, were bleeding.

For the past four years, I have had to listen to those on the Left wail and flail about at conservatives, ratcheting up their verbal attacks exponentially the closer we got to November 2, 2004. Each attack became more vapid and outlandish than the one before it.

At first, I just shrugged it off. However, it eventually became clear to me that there is an emptiness, a gnawing emptiness in the souls of those on the Left that is caused by the sight of America turning its back on what the Democratic Party has become.

We have heard reporters say ad nauseam that the country is "divided." This conjures up pictures of two groups of people, one on each bank of a river, divided by the water between them. If this is the case, then it begs the following questions:

What does all this talk of division really add up to?

Aren't reporters really just saying that they feel divided from the country they cover?

If the country is as divided as they eagerly assert, why don't the Democrats control half the branches of government?

Why did they lose, not gain, votes in Florida?

Why did Bush improve on his popular vote numbers so significantly?

The Left is acting like they speak for the people, but the people keep voting against them. They keep losing key elections. The "country-is-divided" mantra is not a journalistic report, but merely wishful thinking. It is the media's attempt to create the appearance of division so as to create division that could obstruct the progress of conservatism in the country.

The collective voice of 58 million people has spoken in favor of conservative values. It chafes the hide of reporters that the American people voted for George Bush not in spite of his faith but because of it. They work hard to conjure up a "divided" nation on moral and religious matters, but again this is more a reflection of their feelings than the country's. The American people don't have a problem with Bush's faith; the media do. The only division that exists in America is the division between the values of the media and the values of the American Majority.

By a historic majority America chose to stay the course in a new kind of war.

By a historic majority America chose traditional values over modern values.

By a historic majority America chose a man who talks TO God over a man who talks ABOUT God.

By a historic majority America chose not to be be bought by a billionaire or even five billionaires.

By a historic majority America chose the definition of Liberty put forth by our Founding Fathers, not the one put forth by John Kerry, who said "I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

By an overwhelming historic majority America chose a future that honors life, that exhalts truth, and embraces an optimism that believes, in the words of our President, "we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom. This is the everlasting dream of America."

The Voice of America spoke so loudly that even Paul Begala, liberal co-host of CNN’s "Crossfire" program said the following:

"I think that you got to give the president credit for that. He raised issues in the right way, he found those folks, he motivated them, he got them out to vote, and now's got, you know, now he has a real mandate. I spent four years saying that he wasn't fully legitimate. He's fully legitimate now. And he's got a majority of the vote in a high-turnout election. There's nothing more legitimating than that."

"They have a real majority, they have a real mandate. They have the House, they have the Senate, they have the White House, they have the Supreme Court, with perfect legitimacy."

If this is the result of division, maybe it isn’t so bad.

When Republicans lose, the media say, "Republicans need to become more liberal, more accommodating," and so on. But when Democrats lose, they say that the country is "bitterly divided" and that the Republican president has a solemn duty to adjust his agenda to the wishes of Democrats.

The media will of course demand that Bush bring more Democrats into his cabinet and make this or that compromise. Why should he listen to them? They don't represent the mainstream of the country.

If the President builds a bridge for the Liberals, will they cross it and bring true unity? Or will they stand there and say, as they did four years ago, "He’s not MY President."?

Thank you for reading. In the near future I will elaborate further on these issues.


Post a Comment

<< Home