Can it really be that the Dems will elect Howard Dean the Chairman of the DNC? Dick Morris thinks so. He theorizes that with moderates having flocked to the GOP, all the Dems have left are the far-lefties, who are exerting their influence. It's not entirely clear to me that that's true . . .
To me, the problem is that the Dems have misdiagnosed the reason for their defeat last November. They seem to have concluded that they lost not because of their ideas, but because John Kerry didn't explain their ideas well enough (George Soros, for example, subscribes to this theory).
How could they actually believe such a patently obvious falsehood? Again, it emphasizes the disadvantage Democrats face by virtue of their domination of the MSM and the culture: Because they live in enclaves and echo chambers, bolstered by what used to be considered "mainstream" (but have now been increasingly revealed as left-tilting) news outlets, it's much harder for them to obtain a "reality check" and get into the mind of the opposition. In their minds, Rather/Jennings and Dowd/Brownstein and The New York Times are just received wisdom. Anything to the right of that is "conservative" and therefore out of this supposed mainstream.
They can avoid Fox News and talk radio. Conservatives can't avoid The New York Times and the major networks and the universities. As a consequence, we have a much better read on them than they have on us . . . and as a result, (hopefully) we can be a little more realistic about what the values and priorities of the American people are.
To me, the problem is that the Dems have misdiagnosed the reason for their defeat last November. They seem to have concluded that they lost not because of their ideas, but because John Kerry didn't explain their ideas well enough (George Soros, for example, subscribes to this theory).
How could they actually believe such a patently obvious falsehood? Again, it emphasizes the disadvantage Democrats face by virtue of their domination of the MSM and the culture: Because they live in enclaves and echo chambers, bolstered by what used to be considered "mainstream" (but have now been increasingly revealed as left-tilting) news outlets, it's much harder for them to obtain a "reality check" and get into the mind of the opposition. In their minds, Rather/Jennings and Dowd/Brownstein and The New York Times are just received wisdom. Anything to the right of that is "conservative" and therefore out of this supposed mainstream.
They can avoid Fox News and talk radio. Conservatives can't avoid The New York Times and the major networks and the universities. As a consequence, we have a much better read on them than they have on us . . . and as a result, (hopefully) we can be a little more realistic about what the values and priorities of the American people are.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:22 AM
2 Comments:
Great blog! I am so sick of liberals who don't understand the mission in Iraq is about LIBERATION.
We have liberated iraqis from the electricity and water. We are liberating Marines from their arms and legs.
Keep up the good work!
Hey south(west)paw,
I remember during Slick Willie's term how well things worked. We had Marines dying then as well just sitting around in their barracks. And them Iraqi's were just loving the fun of living under Sadam. You're right, dude. That sounds a whole lot better than dying for a cause like freedom and self-rule.
Post a Comment
<< Home