Left Behind

Two excellent pieces today (at least!): the first from the Telegraph, Why the liberals have been left behind:

Democracy is suitable only for the enlightened - which is to say for people who accept the assumptions of the Guardian/BBC world view. If you cannot produce the right result in an election - even after you have been told very clearly by everybody from Robert Redford to Michael Moore what to think - then you are beneath contempt, and we are licensed by the household gods of liberal ideology to call you names. (On Radio 4's News Quiz last week, Jeremy Hardy described Bush and his followers as "stupid, crazy, ignorant, bellicose Christian fundamentalists". Presumably, by BBC logic, this does not constitute bigotry but wit.)

The second one is from Dennis Prager, Why Democrats are tagged as the party without values:

According to The New York Times, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, reflecting on her party's recent losses in the presidential, Senate and House elections, asked: "How did a party that is filled with people with values -- and I am a person with values -- get tagged as the party without values?"

As one who was raised a Democrat and became a Republican only 10 years ago, I would like to answer Gov. Napolitano's question as honestly as she posed it.

Gov. Napolitano, your party does indeed have very many people with values in it. But the Democratic Party is no more representative of the average Democrat's values than the National Council of Churches is of the average Protestant's values. Both are far to the left of their membership.

Both are worthy reads!

The reasons for the dramatic dem loss are legion, but as the Maha Rushie illustrated so eloquently last nite in his speech at the Heritage Foundation and today on his program, the election wasn't so much about the dems losing; rather, it was about the fact that the republicans won and convincingly so.