How social liberalism elected George W. Bush

10 years ago, 537 votes in Florida sent George W. Bush into the White House and Al Gore in a downward spiral of madness from which he and his supporters never recovered.

I declared shortly after the 2008 election that January 20th, 2009, would be the death of the left. I was right.

The left needs a conservative to despise like the right needs oxygen to breathe. When the left failed at demonizing Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, they went after Sarah Palin. All that did was energize the right, and annoy the middle. None of the targets held any political office. The left was in trouble. They had to actually do something. They had to govern.

Naturally, they failed. Water is wet. The Sun rises in the East. Liberals can’t govern. They fight amongst themselves because they are a collection of beggars with no coherent uniting philosophy other than hating Republicans. They turn on each other when more “free” money is given to tri-racial Latino pygmys than transsexual black obese women.

Yet the right has made its share of mistakes, especially the social conservatives.

The social conservatives are flawed in that they insist on having principles and sticking to them.

The left never lets principles get in the way of winning. Cheating, lying, and stealing are allowed because the ends justify the means.

I am not as principled as many social conservatives.

(I blame them because it is easier to criticize others for getting things more right than me taking responsibility for my often totally inappropriate actions and even more heinous thoughts. That reminds me of a story about a college coed, some vaseline, and a mountain goat, but I will save that for another time.)

I say that for conservatives to dominate and build a lasting majority, they need to give the liberals exactly what they want.

Let’s start with abortion. Most of the people in this country having the abortions are liberals. Who is more likely to have an abortion, a bible attending social conservative obeying their faith or a man-hating NOW member more interested in asserting her feminist rage?

(Let’s say for the sake of argument that the NOW member actually had sex. It is a stretch, but some guys do get drunk and stoned, and some guys are deaf, rendering the anger directed at them less problematic.)

If 538 liberal women in 1973 had decided not to exercise their right to choose an abortion in Florida, Al Gore would be president.

Liberal ladies, keep choosing!

(Forgive me social conservatives. You are principled, and I will be burning in Hades for this.)

Now let’s talk gay rights.

I have always said in the past that I support the rights of all gay men and ugly gay women. Hot lesbians are evil. Jesus hates them. They are not thinking about my needs. Gay men reduce my competition for women, and ugly women…even they know nobody cares.

While there are plenty of gay Republicans in America (I count several members of the Log Cabin Republicans as my friends, and am honored and proud to do so. Being gay somehow did not prevent them from wanting to cut taxes and kill terrorists.), the majority of homosexuals in America are politically liberal.

Leave them alone. They can’t breed. They cannot bring new voters into the world to vote liberal.

Meanwhile, good religious families are having children. Religious Christians often have several children. Has anybody seen the Orthodox Jews? They rival bunny rabbits in terms of fertility, and their children are almost always sensible citizens. Apparently this belief in God stuff leads to a more moral life on many occasions.

(For those wanting to make remarks about priests and pedophilia, preaching about God and actually believing are not the same thing. Actual believers do usually lead moral lives, and are more charitable.)

Euthanasia is less of an issue because outside of Tony Randall and Anthony Quinn, most people over 70 are not breeding. However, maybe the left can reduce the euthanasia age to 20 from 80.

(Ok, fine. I even went too far for myself with that remark. It sounded better before I typed it.)

I am well aware that it is impossible to unite everybody on my side, but it is possible to lose everybody. The left will never support me, and the right has problems with my cold calculating desire to win elections at any and all cost to the greater social fabric.

I am an island. That does not make me wrong.

So I say the conservatives should keep living how they live, and the liberals should do the same provided that for once in their miserable rotten leftist lives they stop trying to force their world view on the rest of us.

On January 20, 2011, as I celebrate the decade since the election of the great President George W. Bush, I hope that the liberals keep doing what they can to reduce their own existence.

Democracy is wonderful.

Now if only I can persuade the billionaires on the left to redistribute wealth so that conservatives can live in safer neighborhoods with expensive security systems and guards. That way when illegal aliens come across the border, the few who commit crimes will only be attacking liberals.

So for those who say we cannot allow the liberals to destroy liberalism and lead to a more conservative future, I channel my inner vacuous liberal sloganeering and say…

Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!


5 Responses to “How social liberalism elected George W. Bush”

  1. Laree says:

    Eric I know you love humor. Check Out,

    Laura Ingraham on Imus In The Morning, VIDEO, reading excerpts from
    her new book “Obama Diaries” SNARK FEST. Laura reads entries from Vice President Joe Biden.

  2. Dav Lev says:

    Let me be frank, I deplore liberals. They get me sick.

    I may like an individual “social democrat” as one friend describes himself.
    (What the heck is a social democrat anyway?)

    What bothers me the most about them is their double talk, double think
    and just plain lies.

    Liberals want the US government to spend a lot of money, as long as it isn’t theirs.

    They keep asking me, “How do I stop paying income taxes, what deductions can I take to avoid them?”.

    One liberal told me a few days ago that he was upset at having to
    pay the 1.5% additional sales tax, even temporarily.
    He muttered that no one can afford to buy a home (interest rates
    are at an all time low guy), with a 20% requirement down.
    He used a couple earning minimum wages..(both). How can they
    put 60,000 down?

    My answer was for that couple to RENT. This country has a Bill of Rights
    but that does not include buying a home. It insures having a residence to live in.

    Years ago, permanent charity cases were disheartened when
    welfare become much harder to get. They had to at least try
    and get employment.

    Now, the welfare cases and the irresponsible can get extended unemployment insurance,
    if the GOVERNMENT cannot provide them with jobs paid for by you and me.

    Krugman of the NYTimes thinks the Fed should guarantee everyone
    a job by providing stimulus money (not ending it). His remedy, the Fed should buy bonds lowering the interest rates. BTW, he didn’t think the banks could be bailed out successfully and should be nationalized. He admits to being wrong. His mistakes would cost the US billions.

    I got a better idea, hows about arresting any illegal on a payroll,
    under the table or on it or next to is and doing whats legal in Mexico, a fine and
    jail (2 years minimally).

    I don’t mind legals having children on the dole, but illegals?

    Now, our President intends to file a lawsuit if profiling can be proven?
    The argument is that the children are affected if their parents
    are sent back to wherever. What about the grandchildren and future
    generatons of taxpayers?

    Gov Arnold wanted to please everyone and pleased no one.
    You cannot have it both ways Arnold. Someone is hurt
    by every decision and act of government. First it was the civil servants now it
    is every charity case.

    My advice, to municipal agencies..add a value added tax to purchases.
    The more you buy, the more taxes you pay. Its really easy.
    Slap a higher tax on the vices..tobacco, alcohol and gasoline (yes gasoline)
    Everyone can walk or use public tranportation.

    Today, I happen to be at the corner of Santa Monica and Western and noticed a veryfew people getting out of the subway. I reall when in NYCity
    I watched people getting off the subway stations. No comparison folks.

    To Eric: this is really all about money, who gets it and who pays for it.
    Its that simple.

    I am watching the movie, Green Zone. Its a view of the Iraqi War,
    still going on after 8 years.

    Some liberals believe It will be fine if Iran gets a nuclear deterrent
    rather than bomb the sites beforehand. Their argument is that
    Iran’s retaliation will be worse than allowing it to have nukes.

    BTW. a few Senators are displeased with the arms reduction
    stats..fewer US nukes and fewer Russian nukes (strategic), while
    tactical remain the same. (Russia will only have 10,000)

    I mean get real. One Hbomb over NYCity..well you get the message.
    What difference does it make.

    Pakistan sold nuke technology to Iran and No Korea, which
    Israel warned against 10 years ago. He also warned about
    suicide bombings. No one listened then.

    No one listened at the SEC before 60b was swindled by Madoff
    s ponzi. (Some to be paid back by the US Treasury).

    Oh me oh my?

    Tell me guys, if Iran has a nuke or two, will they try to
    break the Israeli blockade on Gaza, or just give the bomb
    to the Hamas, to use against Tel Aviv?

    Some Jews want every Jew to move to Israel..where they can be
    Jewish, or dead.

    Oy vey!

    In the Nov. elections, the Independents will decide the
    future of this country. The Democrats will want more taxes
    and the Republicans will want less. Thank G-d for the Independents.

  3. “Most of the people in this country having the abortions are liberals. Who is more likely to have an abortion, a bible attending social conservative obeying their faith or a man-hating NOW member more interested in asserting her feminist rage?”

    This is a pure assumption. No one knows the political affiliation of people who get abortions. That is because abortion is private medical procedure. Some conservative radicals have attempted to have abortion records made public, for purely poltical reasons, but thankfully have been unsuccessful.

    But back to the assumption, I seriously doubt that “man-hating NOW member(s)” (an adolescent slander on feminists) are getting a lot of abortions. They are too responsible. Sexually hung-up social conservatives, though, I’m sure have their fair share. How else do you hide sexual mistakes made when escaping stupid arbitrary sexual morays? It’s not like their going to buy condoms.

    From some studies we do know that poorer women have more abortions (and in fact much more poor women had abortions by ’08 than in 2000):

    Aside from poverty, little changed in the profile of women obtaining abortions between 2000 and 2008. A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions: Fifty-eight percent of abortion patients in 2008 were in their 20s; 45% were never-married and not living with a partner; 61% were already mothers; 42% were living below the federal poverty line; 36% were white; 59% had at least some college education; and 73% were religiously affiliated. But certain groups of women—those who were in their 20s, cohabiting, black or poor—were overrepresented among abortion patients.


  4. Micky 2 says:

    “No one knows the political affiliation of people who get abortions. ‘

    Yeah. God forbid you actually borrow some common sense.
    Try this one.
    Whos more likely to be a suicide bomber ?
    Those who condone it ?
    Or those who dont ?


  5. It appears to be a mixed bag, Micky. But it looks like a lot of people who do not “condone” it, get it. It’s a lot easier to pretend to be conservative than it is to actually live it.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.