The Day That Changed America
On November 7th of 2000, America went to the polls to elect a president. Al Gore, heavily favored by the media, appeared, according to exit polling data, to lead the race for much of the day. The media was delighted, Candidate Gore was in high spirits. But over-confidence and irregularities in exit polling data set the stage for everything that followed. Had Candidate Gore simply won his own state, America would be whole.
The problems began at 7:48 pm EST when Major Media called the race for Florida and its 25 electoral votes. With much of the heavily republican panhandle still voting-- The state of Florida spans two time zones, a fact everyone in media seemed to be unaware of [most of the panhandle is CST] --enough confusion and despondency was created by Media's early call to keep an estimated 15,000 voters from the polls, creating an air of acrimony, and outright hatred that has followed George W. Bush since taking his first oath of office on January 20, 2001.
A lot has been said over the weekend about 9-11 being the day that changed America. I must, however, disagree. November 7, 2000 is the day that changed America. 9-11 merely crystallized, in the minds of those desirous of such things, the importance of power and party ascendancy, and of the importance of holding the reins of government, that government might be focused on striking back, or turning the other cheek. It was an ideology that attacked America on 9-11, and both Democrats & Republicans knew it would take an ideology to lead America through the crisis. --it is unclear as to whether President Gore would have struck back, after all, his former boss President Clinton, chose either to not strike back at terrorists [1st world trade bombing, embassy bombings, USS Cole] at all, or strike back ineffectually [which is not to be criticized, he at least made an effort, albeit 'ineffectual'] or disengage when the going got tough [Mogadishu, & Somalia].
It's impossible to say with any certainty whether Gore or Bush, Democrat or Republican would have done the better job. The point is now moot, but the events of just 10 months earlier, I believe, serve as a truer representation of when and what changed America. Democrats have never been able to view President Bush as legitimately elected, thanks, in most part, to the Florida recount debacle/quagmire/fiasco. Had Gore simply won his own state... but again, the point is moot.
The press too, perhaps out of a particular guilt for botching the election for their candidate, has made it their mission in life to bring down a second U.S. President. Never mind the fact that if they had simply held back their call, Candidate Gore would have been spared the public perception of being a "Sore Loser", ensuring his viability as a presidential candidate in the next round[s] of elections. Had the press simply waited Bush might well have won the state by a margin beyond any controversy, as it now appears would have been the case.
Since that election it has been one of major media's prime objectives to hurt, malign, and possibly bring down the American President. Dan Rather of CBS-- smarter than anyone gives him credit --wanted his "gotcha!" memo's to be legitimate. He believed to the bottom of his soul that President Bush was derelict in his duties while a member of the Texas Air National Guard. He believed it so much he staked his reputation on those memo's. And lost.
Amazingly, the same story had popped up several times in the past to no effect. Simply put, it was a dog that wouldn't run, all holes and no bread. Ann Richards tried to use the Air National Guard story to discredit her then opponent for the governorship of Texas, but the story had about as much get up and go as a one-legged dog. The issue was again raised by the media during the 2000 presidential campaign. Again, a year into his presidency, and finally by Dan Rather and Mary map's [It took the professional embarrassment of CBS and Rather to final lay to rest that non-story]. President Bush was beginning to look like a cat with nine lives. What could possibly be done or said about the man that would stick... And stink?
How about the Iraq War? Abu Graff? Guantanamo Bay?
The left has been so blinded by their hatred of Bush, they have done themselves a disservice, allowing Fox News to outshine, out-perform, and garner higher ratings than many of the Left's outlets, combined. The left has lost another presidential election, and lost more seats to Republicans in both houses of Congress.
Their hatred has now metastasized. The Left is so crippled their disease manifests itself in every word of invective and insult they level at the President. In frustration? Undoubtedly. But now the Left-- to include much of the media elite --has managed to divide the country down the middle... Blue against Red, Democrat against Republican, Liberal against Conservative, Black against White [to what extent remains to be seen], Poor against Rich, American against American.
This is demonstrated perfectly in the lies and distortions, and outright omissions coming from the Left surrounding the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. But it has been demonstrated, on many occasions, that if you "say it often enough, the public will believe you."
"The Federal Government reacted too slowly."
Never mind the fact that the Federal Government has always moved too slowly; it's a bureaucratic animal that feeds on red tape, in triplicate, and plenty of it.
"Evacuation and Relief efforts would have arrived sooner if the victims in New Orleans had been overwhelmingly white."
Never mind the fact that the population of New Orleans [was] overwhelmingly black, so naturally, the victims were overwhelmingly black.
"Bush hates Black people..."
A statement too ignorant to dignify with a response.
"FEMA failed miserably because the Bush administration folded the department into Homeland Security."
Never mind the fact that Congress folded FEMA into Homeland Security. Bush merely signed the bill.
"The hurricane was so devastating because Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty allowing rampant global warming to whip up Katrina and destroy hundreds of lives."
a] there's no proof that Global Warming even exists, and...
b] it's preposterous to think that a mere 2 years since Kyoto, fuel emissions and American greed could contribute to global warming to the extent that "Mother Nature" would spin out a killer hurricane. Never mind the fact that established scientific fact shows that strength of hurricanes comes in decades-long cycles
"Bush cut funding for the levees."
Never mind the fact that Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like, vetoing not a one since taking office! Never mind the fact that Congress approves and appropriates funding for states, cities, etc., not the President. Never mind the fact that one levee board in Orleans Parish spent 20 million of its funding to build a casino!
But again... Say it often enough and the people will believe. The Left has no interest in the truth, only in destroying Bush. They cook polls, twist truths, fabricate facts, all to one end: To destroy Bush, and America in the process-- though they don't see it as such.
What must our enemies think of us? Do we honestly believe Osama bin Laden is blind to the fact that America has turned on herself? Is the insurgency in Iraq truly ignorant of what's going on in the Great Satan, America?
What's to keep our enemies from slipping a knife between America's ribs while we're busy bickering amongst ourselves? Absolutely nothing. If anything, Katrina has exposed some glaring holes in our defense and response capabilities. Is it the fault of one man? Hardly, we live in a representative democracy, a republic, with a balance of powers; no one branch can work without the others and still maintain the fabric that makes America what she is. Can anyone honestly believe that we could make important decisions [like folding FEMA into Homeland Security] and trust that we've considered every eventuality, every possible consequence? No mistakes whatsoever? Do I really have to answer that?
Don't look to 9-11 for any sign of change. It's not there. It won't be there tomorrow. And we've yet to learn anything constructive, except how to shoot ourselves in the foot and stab ourselves in the back, doing the work of the enemy for them. We need to step back, tend to our wounds, bury our dead, mourn together, and stand united once more, or Katrina may be the least of our worries. America, and her people can't afford Washington D.C. going up in a mushroom cloud. And don't think it can't happen or that Washington is not a target. Where would this nation be without leadership? Stumbling, initially ineffectual leadership at that? America would not survive. Believe it or not, that's where we're headed.
The recognition that terrorists could strike at us here on our own soil is not when America changed. It wasn't 9-11 that got us here. It was an election. And it's unclear what, if anything, will get us out of the hole we've dug for ourselves.
The problems began at 7:48 pm EST when Major Media called the race for Florida and its 25 electoral votes. With much of the heavily republican panhandle still voting-- The state of Florida spans two time zones, a fact everyone in media seemed to be unaware of [most of the panhandle is CST] --enough confusion and despondency was created by Media's early call to keep an estimated 15,000 voters from the polls, creating an air of acrimony, and outright hatred that has followed George W. Bush since taking his first oath of office on January 20, 2001.
A lot has been said over the weekend about 9-11 being the day that changed America. I must, however, disagree. November 7, 2000 is the day that changed America. 9-11 merely crystallized, in the minds of those desirous of such things, the importance of power and party ascendancy, and of the importance of holding the reins of government, that government might be focused on striking back, or turning the other cheek. It was an ideology that attacked America on 9-11, and both Democrats & Republicans knew it would take an ideology to lead America through the crisis. --it is unclear as to whether President Gore would have struck back, after all, his former boss President Clinton, chose either to not strike back at terrorists [1st world trade bombing, embassy bombings, USS Cole] at all, or strike back ineffectually [which is not to be criticized, he at least made an effort, albeit 'ineffectual'] or disengage when the going got tough [Mogadishu, & Somalia].
It's impossible to say with any certainty whether Gore or Bush, Democrat or Republican would have done the better job. The point is now moot, but the events of just 10 months earlier, I believe, serve as a truer representation of when and what changed America. Democrats have never been able to view President Bush as legitimately elected, thanks, in most part, to the Florida recount debacle/quagmire/fiasco. Had Gore simply won his own state... but again, the point is moot.
The press too, perhaps out of a particular guilt for botching the election for their candidate, has made it their mission in life to bring down a second U.S. President. Never mind the fact that if they had simply held back their call, Candidate Gore would have been spared the public perception of being a "Sore Loser", ensuring his viability as a presidential candidate in the next round[s] of elections. Had the press simply waited Bush might well have won the state by a margin beyond any controversy, as it now appears would have been the case.
Since that election it has been one of major media's prime objectives to hurt, malign, and possibly bring down the American President. Dan Rather of CBS-- smarter than anyone gives him credit --wanted his "gotcha!" memo's to be legitimate. He believed to the bottom of his soul that President Bush was derelict in his duties while a member of the Texas Air National Guard. He believed it so much he staked his reputation on those memo's. And lost.
Amazingly, the same story had popped up several times in the past to no effect. Simply put, it was a dog that wouldn't run, all holes and no bread. Ann Richards tried to use the Air National Guard story to discredit her then opponent for the governorship of Texas, but the story had about as much get up and go as a one-legged dog. The issue was again raised by the media during the 2000 presidential campaign. Again, a year into his presidency, and finally by Dan Rather and Mary map's [It took the professional embarrassment of CBS and Rather to final lay to rest that non-story]. President Bush was beginning to look like a cat with nine lives. What could possibly be done or said about the man that would stick... And stink?
How about the Iraq War? Abu Graff? Guantanamo Bay?
The left has been so blinded by their hatred of Bush, they have done themselves a disservice, allowing Fox News to outshine, out-perform, and garner higher ratings than many of the Left's outlets, combined. The left has lost another presidential election, and lost more seats to Republicans in both houses of Congress.
Their hatred has now metastasized. The Left is so crippled their disease manifests itself in every word of invective and insult they level at the President. In frustration? Undoubtedly. But now the Left-- to include much of the media elite --has managed to divide the country down the middle... Blue against Red, Democrat against Republican, Liberal against Conservative, Black against White [to what extent remains to be seen], Poor against Rich, American against American.
This is demonstrated perfectly in the lies and distortions, and outright omissions coming from the Left surrounding the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. But it has been demonstrated, on many occasions, that if you "say it often enough, the public will believe you."
"The Federal Government reacted too slowly."
Never mind the fact that the Federal Government has always moved too slowly; it's a bureaucratic animal that feeds on red tape, in triplicate, and plenty of it.
"Evacuation and Relief efforts would have arrived sooner if the victims in New Orleans had been overwhelmingly white."
Never mind the fact that the population of New Orleans [was] overwhelmingly black, so naturally, the victims were overwhelmingly black.
"Bush hates Black people..."
A statement too ignorant to dignify with a response.
"FEMA failed miserably because the Bush administration folded the department into Homeland Security."
Never mind the fact that Congress folded FEMA into Homeland Security. Bush merely signed the bill.
"The hurricane was so devastating because Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty allowing rampant global warming to whip up Katrina and destroy hundreds of lives."
a] there's no proof that Global Warming even exists, and...
b] it's preposterous to think that a mere 2 years since Kyoto, fuel emissions and American greed could contribute to global warming to the extent that "Mother Nature" would spin out a killer hurricane. Never mind the fact that established scientific fact shows that strength of hurricanes comes in decades-long cycles
"Bush cut funding for the levees."
Never mind the fact that Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like, vetoing not a one since taking office! Never mind the fact that Congress approves and appropriates funding for states, cities, etc., not the President. Never mind the fact that one levee board in Orleans Parish spent 20 million of its funding to build a casino!
But again... Say it often enough and the people will believe. The Left has no interest in the truth, only in destroying Bush. They cook polls, twist truths, fabricate facts, all to one end: To destroy Bush, and America in the process-- though they don't see it as such.
What must our enemies think of us? Do we honestly believe Osama bin Laden is blind to the fact that America has turned on herself? Is the insurgency in Iraq truly ignorant of what's going on in the Great Satan, America?
What's to keep our enemies from slipping a knife between America's ribs while we're busy bickering amongst ourselves? Absolutely nothing. If anything, Katrina has exposed some glaring holes in our defense and response capabilities. Is it the fault of one man? Hardly, we live in a representative democracy, a republic, with a balance of powers; no one branch can work without the others and still maintain the fabric that makes America what she is. Can anyone honestly believe that we could make important decisions [like folding FEMA into Homeland Security] and trust that we've considered every eventuality, every possible consequence? No mistakes whatsoever? Do I really have to answer that?
Don't look to 9-11 for any sign of change. It's not there. It won't be there tomorrow. And we've yet to learn anything constructive, except how to shoot ourselves in the foot and stab ourselves in the back, doing the work of the enemy for them. We need to step back, tend to our wounds, bury our dead, mourn together, and stand united once more, or Katrina may be the least of our worries. America, and her people can't afford Washington D.C. going up in a mushroom cloud. And don't think it can't happen or that Washington is not a target. Where would this nation be without leadership? Stumbling, initially ineffectual leadership at that? America would not survive. Believe it or not, that's where we're headed.
The recognition that terrorists could strike at us here on our own soil is not when America changed. It wasn't 9-11 that got us here. It was an election. And it's unclear what, if anything, will get us out of the hole we've dug for ourselves.
from the mind of... Eric | 5:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home