Insufficiently Left

Despite all the advances we have made over the years, despite the advances in media in oh-so-many-forms, despite having taken off the gloves and actually engaged the Left in more of a bare-knuckled fight (when we had the balls to fight, that is), we as Conservatives still, in my opinion, do not clearly understand the Left -- and do not understand how the Left views what we view.

A bit of necessary background:

The Left has historically ruled the media on most every level.

It was only when the history-making Rush Limbaugh forged forward with his conservative radio program in the 80's (I met him briefly when we both worked for KFBK in Sacramento, very early in his career, very late in mine) that the Right seemed to have found its voice. Say what you will about Limbaugh, his were the formative and very important first steps on the Right.

From that point on, conservatives ruled talk radio. That rule translated to our voices being heard on the internet, into networks via Fox News and, at the same time, the instigated diminishing of the Left's importance in print media.

Is it, then, no coincidence that the Left became LOUDER and more STRIDENT and more LEFT as they perceived a greater challenge to their former AUTHORITY and DOMINANCE over all forms of the media? Is it, then, no coincidence that they clawed their bloody and demented talons more firmly into EDUCATION on all its levels, and into recognition that control of two very salient aspects of American life would ensure their competition and success, to wit:

1. ALL forms of education
2. ALL the courts of the land
   

The more the Left was challenged, the more TO the Left they moved.

Read, then, and please try to understand the implications thereof, from The Smirking Chimp:

President Bush on Saturday further cemented his legacy of fighting for strong executive powers, using his veto to shut down a Congressional effort to limit the Central Intelligence Agency’s latitude to subject terrorism suspects to harsh interrogation techniques. New York Times, 3/9/08

President Bush vetoed a bill that would have outlawed torture.

Ten words. Ten straightforward words as opposed to the thirty-eight in the above opening sentence to the New York Times story. There’s a reason why the Times uses triple the verbiage required. Journalists today are doing their best to edge around a truth too ugly for our media to confront directly. The writing must instead be carefully unfocussed so that it’s not about torture but about Bush’s “legacy,” about “strong executive power,” nice, bloodless terms that help stretch the sentence out and further dilute its actual meaning.

As far as the current Left are concerned, the New York Times is a Conservative Mouthpiece for the Right.

Did you get that? The New York Times is a Conservative Mouthpiece for the Right.

It isn't just a slight fringe believing this anymore; it's the bulk of the party.

Wrap your mind around that concept.

Today, people like Scoop Jackson, Jack Kennedy, Zell Miller -- they wouldn't even get into the Demorat party. And why Joe Lieberman had to leave.

BZ