Red Meat Blog: Where Is ‘Quincy, ME’ Now That The Democrats Need Him?

Where Is ‘Quincy, ME’ Now That The Democrats Need Him?

Now that the election has been over for a few days and the liberals have had a chance to get over the shock of the erroneous exit polls, they have begun their post-mortem dissection of John Kerry’s loss. Talking heads have actually kept me quite amused by the number of different reasons they think Kerry lost. The solutions to their problems are sometimes laugh-out-loud hilarious.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball thinks that the media should start sending correspondents to the red states just like they do foreign countries in an effort to try to figure out what makes middle America tick.

The NY Times’ liberal bomb thrower Maureen Dowd doesn’t necessarily believe that it was what Kerry did or did not do, but instead credits the “brilliant” Carl Rove for the Bush victory. Carl Rove, she states matter of factly, “mined intolerance and ignorance and tailored it to the 4 million extra evangelicals he wanted.”

Senator Hillary ‘The Anointed One’ Clinton opined in a speech at Tufts University: “I don’t think you can win an election or even run a successful campaign if you don’t acknowledge what is important to people...We don't have to agree with them. But being ignored is a sign of such disrespect. We should talk about all the issues.”

Others speculate that the problem was more geographical and the fact that Kerry was an elitist liberal from the north east was the reason for his demise. Liberal candidates, it was argued, like the last two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both came from the south and were more appealing, perhaps because they seemed more like common folk. The hicks from the sticks just aren’t bright enough to understand all the nuances that made Kerry such an appealing alternative to Bush.

The funniest argument was made by a couple of the pundits on Brit Hume’s show on the Fox News channel when they said they thought it would be a good idea for the Democrats to go to church. Kerry, who claims to be a good Catholic but disagrees with the church on abortion, campaigned in every black church he could find. Some of the most memorable photo-ops during the Clinton administration came with Bill And Hill leaving the church on Sunday, Bible in hand. Jimmy Carter, who was an almost god-like figure to the MSM while in the White House, was a God-fearing good ol’ boy although he did admit to sinning in a Playboy interview by ‘lusting in his heart.’ John Kennedy was the first Catholic elected to the presidency. It appears to me that the Democrats are already going to church. Could it be that they are just praying for the wrong things?

Chris Matthews also chimed in on the religious front, with perhaps the tackiest comment on the subject. Paraphrasing Mr. Mathews comments, it seems the problem with people of faith is that they all believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis including the fact that God created the universe in 6 days, resting on the seventh. Reading between the lines, one could interpret the comment as ‘Those darn red states are full of narrow-minded country bumpkins too stupid to believe in evolution.’

Now here is some food for thought, a little redmeat if you will, for: 1) all the intellectual elites in the MSM and NPR; 2) the Ivy League lefties; 3) Michael Moore and George Soros; and 4) the Hollywood swells who want to move to France to live with Jacques 'What Have You Done For Me Lately' Cherac now that Bush has won the election by a margin of over 3 million votes:

Is it possible that the Democrats nominated someone who:
1) exaggerated his exploits in combat in a effort to promote himself as a Vietnam ‘war hero’;
2) exaggerated his combat inflicted wounds in order to get out of combat, leaving behind his beloved ‘band-of-brothers’ to deal with the enemy without his invaluable services;
3) thought so much of his service to his country that he discarded the medals/ribbons given to him by his country;
4) thought so much of himself that he took the initiative, as a junior grade officer with no official capacity as a negotiator, to meet with the Viet Cong in Paris effectively giving aid and comfort to the enemy, while the battle still raged in Vietnam and fellow countrymen were tortured in their POW cells;
5) accomplished virtually nothing in his 20 years in the Senate;
6) supported virtually no efforts to upgrade the military while in the Senate;
7) tried to strip funding for the intelligence agencies he was overseeing as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee;
8) got a new crystal ball for Christmas and was now able to foresee just how to run the war in Iraq without any glitches;
9) had 'a plan' to do everything the President was doing, just better, anointing himself as the biggest and best Monday-morning quarterback of all time;
10) could not make a decision of any importance without trying to hedge his bet;
11) showed his tacky side, for whatever reason, by bringing the Vice-President’s lesbian daughter into both the Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates, and allowing his campaign manager to say that it was ‘fair-game’:
12) was a bad candidate who did not deserve to be elected.

Prior to the election it was oft’ repeated in MSM interviews with potential Kerry voters that they were not voting for Kerry but against Bush - they just hated Bush, hence the mantra ‘anybody but Bush’.

Is it possible that at least 4 million people who were completely ignored by the MSM ultimately decided that they were going to vote for ‘anybody but Kerry’?

Posted by Rick | November 27, 2004 05:28 PM