The only thing stranger than fiction is fact, and the only thing funnier than a liberal in power is a liberal losing power.

Introduction

In months preceding the 2000 presidential election I began a series of email exchanges with several Liberals that lasted until 2005.  Some of these people were friends of mine.  Others were folks who came in and out of various conversations from time to time.  They represented a fairly broad cross-section of education, occupation and economic status, and even included people from other countries. But as different as they were from one another, they all had at least one characteristic in common. Each was a proud, dyed-in-the-wool, unrepentant Liberal, which meant they were crazier than a loon most of the time, and just a little bit frightening when they were not.

The subjects we discussed ranged from the upcoming presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, to the war on terror, the Middle East, nuclear war, race, religion, and other social and political issues that were driven by the news of the day.  My conservative friends who followed these discussions, and at times participated in them, encouraged me to bundle them together and publish them as a book since they provide an amazing insight into the workings of the Liberal mind. 

I took their advice, but instead of a book I’m going to post them as a series of essays.  The names of these Liberals have been changed or disguised since it is not my intention to ridicule them personally, but rather ridicule their ideas (for which they provide ample ammunition!).  Other than cleaning up their statements to remove occasional misspellings, correct grammar, and fill in certain phrases that were part of the larger email stream from which these bits were excised, I took care not to alter the meaning of their words or make them appear any sillier than they otherwise were.  The grammar and misspellings signify nothing, since email is just a quick, easy, and informal way to write a letter.  But because it’s the next closest thing to a free-flow of consciousness, it also has the added advantage of being a perfect window into the soul.   What you say is often what you really mean, without the nicety of flowery language to cushion the impact.

Conversely, I did not add to my answers with knowledge about the events I possess today — but did not have at the time the exchange took place.  Any contemporary side comments are identified as such either directly, or in context. I did expound upon some of my answers by combining thoughts from several different emails on the same subject, and condensed other passages that were a little long or redundant.  No one wants to read 500 pages of email traffic, so I sought to preserve the essence of my answers without all the unnecessary repetition. 

One substantive change I did make to these emails (mine and theirs) was to eliminate or downplay the occasional flow of profanity in some of them.  A lot of these remarks were funny, and a few of them were rather pointed jibes between friends, but all stopped short of using personal attack as a substitute for a reasoned response.   I think it’s important to point out that with the exception of a few outsiders copied on these emails who worked their way into the conversation with particularly inflammatory language — which I had no trouble responding to in kind — none of these comments were gratuitous insults.  Growing up with four brothers, and having a number of close male friends over the years, as any person with a similar life experience will tell you, friends pull no punches when it comes to the free exchange of ideas.  In this regard my friends could give as well as they got, but I will lay claim to using the greatest number of lurid descriptions to make my points when I got frustrated with what I perceived to be an evasive response to the points we were discussing.  

As the Clinton era came to an end, these email exchanges transformed from polite conversation to a vigorous debate, then to political diatribes by the Left, and then as Bush was re-elected into something close to near lunacy as the far-Left crazies lost all contact with reality.  Despite — or in fact because of this — the world owes a debt to my Loony Liberal friends whose words and thoughts are reflected in these essays.  Without them, I’d be accused of making up everything you are about to read just to embarrass the Democratic Party and their supporters on the Left. 

The only thing stranger than fiction is fact, and the only thing funnier than a liberal in power is a liberal losing power. 

So let the games begin.

Chapter 1: Liberalism: The Other White Meat

I think it was Rush Limbaugh who said that, “Liberalism is the most gutless choice a person can make.”   Instead of addressing hard problems with real solutions, today’s Liberals spew forth a stream of self-serving, high-minded platitudes and slogans designed to make them appear loving, caring, generous (with other people’s money), and above all enlightened.  It’s better to be seen as Progressive in the face of a failed policy than support a program that actually works, but diverges from Liberal orthodoxy. 

I’m not exactly certain where modern day Liberalism got off track.  The Democratic Party, the home of 21st century Liberalism and repository to the heritage of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy (three presidents who interned American citizens in holding camps without due process during a time of war; dropped an atomic bomb on enemy civilians to end a war; and proposed tax cuts instead of higher taxes to stimulate the economy), can now lay claim to Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Robert “KKK” Byrd, and countless other politicians and like-minded supporters who never met a civil liberty they couldn’t transform into a partisan political agenda.
 
Rather than continue my soliloquy about the amoral, a-historical corruption of American Liberalism and its most prominent spokespeople, I’ll let the exchange with my Liberal friends tell that story.  In one sense the rot at the top of the Liberal hierarchy can be understood in purely political terms.  A party consisting of single-issue constituencies based on race, religion (or to be more accurate, the absence of God and religion as a legitimate factor in political discourse . . . unless of course it’s a black church or a Buddhist temple where money and votes are to be collected), unrestricted and unlimited abortion, and the myriad of other transgender, transsexual, redistributionist, or generally out-of-the-mainstream ideas, can hardly be expected to serve up a leadership of statesmen. 

But it’s the attitude of the “Average Joe,” to borrow a phrase from my pacifist Brazilian friend who you’ll read about later, that really intrigues me. I can understand why a guy who drove off a bridge and left a young woman trapped in his car to fend for herself would sacrifice honesty and integrity for political advantage.  I can even understand why a former member of the Ku Klux Klan can be regarded as an elder statesman of the Democratic Party.  I can recognize and appreciate why Michael Moore is at home among these people.  But what I could never grasp, and still don’t to this day, is how decent, “average” people can overlook the demonstrated harm liberals in general, and the Democratic Party in particular, have done — and are still doing — to this nation.

So, it’s with this in mind that I introduce you to “Harry,” a Jewish businessman I’ve known for many years.  Harry is a devoutly religious man who conducts himself with the greatest integrity in all his personal and professional dealings.  Our conversation began in June of 2000 as we both eagerly anticipated the outcome of the November presidential election.  I was certain that after 8 years of Clinton, the country was ready for a change.  Harry, as one might expect, held the completely opposite opinion.  The opening shot in this salvo came in an email from Harry accusing then-governor Bush of “waffling” on the death penalty, which Harry saw as his “Elian Gonzales” moment where “the right wing of the Republican Party may be alienated by Bush’s sudden show of compassion.”
 
I’ll leave the particulars of that exchange for another time, other than to focus on certain comments in my answer that pertain to the matter at hand.  Harry, at this point, was not sure if he could, or would, support Gore, who was not his first choice as a candidate.  I knew otherwise. 

Note:  Harry’s actual words aren’t as critical here as they became later, so you’re mostly going to see my response below rather than his original questions or observations.  We were discussing the nature of the two parties' political philosophies, and Harry’s viewpoint comes across clearly in the content of my remarks.  We both followed politics closely, and held strong positions about our individual beliefs.  The Superbowl of American politics — the November election — was still a few months away, so neither of us were getting too exorcised at the moment about the other person’s position.

Phil: I think, down deep, when it comes time to pull the lever, you’ll vote for Gore because he’s a liberal.  And I think almost all liberals (Jews and Christians) will do the same. That’s the real difference between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals will find a way to excuse or ignore bad behavior [lying under oath, misusing FBI files, accepting illegal campaign contributions, etc.].  Conservatives will not.

I think you know this too, because even though you’re wrong about GW “waffling” on the death penalty issue, you’re right that conservatives like me will abandon him in a heartbeat if he violates his core beliefs.  You were incensed when Clinton ordered Elian Gonzales to be taken from his home and forcibly returned to Cuba.  But now that the passion of the raid on Elian’s home has diminished, do you still feel that our basic rights have been threatened by the Clinton-Gore administration, or have you found a way to ignore, diminish, or excuse it yet so you can vote Democratic in November?

I exchanged emails with Harry in August 2002, touching on the theme of the moral bankruptcy of American liberalism.

Phil: I’ve continued to ask you why you support Gore in light of the things he’s done to facilitate Clinton’s abuse of office by refusing to condemn it, as well as in light of the positions he himself has taken (or refused to take).  I’ve also asked you why you support Lieberman, who has changed or modified almost every core position he’s held since he became Gore’s running mate; not just by toning things down around the edges, but by the outright repudiation of his former positions.  I’ve asked you why you support him, other than the fact that you’re both Jews.  I don’t support a candidate — or any person for that matter — who’s a Christian, simply because they’re a Christian.

I’m still waiting to hear from you. I want to see how far your candidate can go before you withdraw support, like Republicans have done with members of their own party (Nixon, Gingrich, etc.)  My distinct impression is that Liberals/Democrats believe that the end justifies the means.  Republicans must be stopped at all counts.  The worst lying, manipulative Democratic candidate is, by definition, better than the best, most virtuous Republican candidate. 

I point out that that this type of logic far transcends politics. Here in the South I’ve been told by some people that the worst Christian (who nevertheless believes that Jesus is his Savior) will undoubtedly go to heaven, while the most pious Jew will rot in hell because he does not accept Jesus in the same way.  I find it interesting that we can all condemn this ignorance when it comes to religion, but your party’s Liberals use it to justify embracing Gore-Lieberman over any Republican candidate.  It makes no difference whether Gore is sleazy or not, or Lieberman now rejects the same policies he once forcefully advocated.  They’re not Republicans, so you and your fellow Liberal Democrats will vote for them.  

[I contrast this with conservatives] like myself.  I defended Nixon until it was clear that he lied about his involvement in the Watergate cover-up. There was no formal admission by Nixon, no court of law judgment establishing this fact, just a common sense look at the evidence on the table.  At that moment I withdrew my support, like the over-whelming majority of our party.  Nixon had violated a core principle, and was no longer deserving of our support.  Fast forward to Newt and his problems, and once again the base deserted him.  If Bush does even half of what Clinton did, his base will march too, and me along with it.

Why the difference between the two parties/political philosophies?  Liberals portray conservatives as heartless, cruel and mean-spirited, not because we actually are, but because we chose a different means to reach the same objective you do. Ours doesn’t automatically involve a strong, centralized effort to improve life for all Americans; we prefer to act through private means first (charities and churches, to name only two).  If these resources are not available, then we support highly targeted government programs.
 
On the other hand, Liberals see value only in expansive, big government programs.  They insist that government take an active role in addressing all of society’s problems, and this active role demands that government take the lead position as well.  Government decides what to do, how to do it, and when and where it will be done, using our money as it sees fit, whether we like the “solution” or not.  Personally opposed to abortion and prefer adoption instead?  Too bad!  If government thinks that the mass distribution of the morning after pill is the best way to address the problem of unwanted pregnancy, then they’ll take your money and spend it that way, and you have nothing to say about it.
 
Normally, I’d chalk this up to the normal and expected fight over policy options that’s part of any political system.  Only here, under the Liberal-think paradigm, there’s only one option –theirs.  Conservative options aren’t options at all. They’re expressions of selfishness and greed, or worse — religious bigotry.  Funny how the only times Liberals acknowledge God and religion in public policy debates is to imply that conservatives are the devil who wants to poison the air, starve little children, and take away old people’s social security checks.
 
But we both know the real reason why Liberals react so vehemently against conservative philosophy.  If limited government, and personal-responsibility ideas were to succeed, it would remove an important weapon from the Liberal arsenal.  Big government doesn’t just “help” people, it helps politicians perpetuate their power.  From Tammany Hall to the Chicago political machine, Liberal Democrats have recognized that those receiving benefits from the public trough are likely to reward their benefactors with their vote at election time.  The Republican philosophy is vilified not because these Liberals think it will produce bad results, but because it threatens their political power base.

I guess my analysis struck a raw nerve, because I received an email the next day from Harry illustrating the supposed differences between a Democrat and Republican.  The actual email in question was a response to a response to a response, so reproducing it exactly as it was written could be a little confusing.  It was one of those “your party believes this, so you’re an idiot” emails that pop up every election year, where the list-maker takes a Republican or Democrat position, misstates it or takes it out of context, then replies with the “correct” policy (or instead with a snide remark about the other party’s mental capabilities).

This particular list was started by a Republican sympathizer who sought to frame the Democratic Party’s social and political policies in an unflattering (but, I believe, essentially correct) light.  Answering him/her was an anonymous Democratic Party flack (not Harry, who just passed it along), so their point of view goes second.  Never shy about expressing my opinions, I decided to respond to each misstatement with a little analysis of my own, so my words are listed third. 

A sampling of the exchange can be found below, which I’ve narrowed down into a “top ten.”  As you read these exchanges, notice how the liberal reply rarely addresses the substance of an issue, relying instead on smears, platitudes, and innuendo to make their point.

1. To be a Good Democrat, you have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

Liberal reply: How about some federal funding to research a cure, even awareness on how AIDS is contracted and not misinform such as homosexual conduct?   Does the writer care about slowing down the spread and finding a cure?

Phil: Republicans aren’t opposed to research. They just think that there are other priorities that deserve more research — like cancer, juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, etc.  Unlike AIDS, which can be minimized by changes in social behavior, my wife’s cancer was beyond her control.  Call me old fashioned, but I’d like to see more of society’s resources devoted to curing diseases beyond our control, than pouring massive amounts of money into removing the consequences of recreational sex.  Oh, I forgot, you said that homosexual activity doesn’t contribute to AIDS, so there’s no need to focus on this group at all. 

2. To be a Good Democrat, you have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese communists.

Liberal reply: Is this the same law-abiding Americans who have taught their children how to hate, or that it’s okay to seek revenge through violence and give them access to guns in such places as Columbine?  Wait, I was wrong.  Columbine doesn’t count because it was the law abiding dealers who sold the guns to children.

Phil: “Taught them how to hate . . ..”  I love Liberal sophistry.  Teach a person how to properly handle a gun (which, by the way, is legal to own), and you automatically teach them how to “hate.” Target-shooting is “hate.” Sports hunting is “hate.”  Protecting your home against an intruder is “hate.”  A couple of demented neo-Nazis acquire a gun legally and kill a bunch of innocent people, and whose fault is it?  Theirs?  No. Their parents?  No. It’s the National Rifle Association’s!  But give or sell illegal drugs that result in someone’s death, and there is nothing more at play here than simple childhood experimentation and youthful rebelliousness against authority.

3. To be a Good Democrat, you have to believe that there was no Art before Federal funding.

Liberal reply: Give children guns, teach them how to shoot under the guise of hunting for sport, but don’t teach them about the beauty in Art or give them greater access to Art.  Hmmm, this makes sense how?  I bet federal funding for gun appreciation would be okay.

Phil: Excuse me while I take a piss in this glass, drop in a religious icon, and call it “Art.”  No, better yet, it can’t be “Art” unless you give me some of your tax money to buy the glass and enough beer to get that mellow, rich glow to my urine.  I completely understand now.  The “beauty” in Art can only be recognized if the government makes someone else pay for it.  And no one has the right to question whether my glass of piss or canvas full of cow turds is Art.  Is this a great country, or what?

By the way, just to set the record straight, we do have federal funding for gun appreciation.  It’s called “basic training,” and every U.S. soldier who defends your right to be a complete and total ass takes the course.

4. To be a Good Democrat, you have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth’s climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.
 
Liberal reply: Does this mean that yuppies driving SUV’s or anyone driving a car does not have a documented affect on the Earth’s climate?  The reasoning here is that one person doesn’t count, so all of them don’t count.  Let’s get rid of all the clean air acts then, and go back to leaded gasoline.  Yes, yuppies driving SUV’s with leaded gas, now that’s the solution.

Phil [Contemporary comment]:  There is just so much wrong with this knee-jerk reaction that I have to pause for a moment and point a couple of things out.  The Republican characterization of Democratic ideas has always centered around a policy issue: the amount of funding for AIDS research; the sale of sensitive technology to China by the Clinton administration; the natural cycle of Earth’s weather as it relates to global temperatures, etc.  The Liberal response never addresses these points, but instead talks about the insensitivity of Republicans to finding a cure for AIDS; how gun ownership equals “teaching hate;” and how questioning Liberal orthodoxy about the cause-effect relationship of global warming translates into a desire to see more leaded gasoline sales.

Even under the best of circumstances, it’s difficult to respond to such dishonesty in an argument about policy options.  My original reply cited a New York Times article from 2000 that said 19,000 years ago about 10% of the earth’s ice melted in just a few hundred years.  My question was, how is this possible, since to the best of my knowledge there were no factories, SUVs, or yuppies looking for leaded gasoline driving around back then?

I also mentioned that I was old enough to remember that global cooling, not global warming, was the catastrophe we faced because of man-made pollution.  I had the temerity to suggest that perhaps the compelling evidence to support this proposition was not actually there, and that honest people could come to honest, but different, conclusions.
 
I would add to this answer today by pointing out that scientists have measured an increase in global warming on Mars in recent years.  I don’t think that Ford, GM or Toyota have figured out how to build a SUV big enough yet to pollute Mars as well as Earth, so I apply simple reasoning and conclude that perhaps there are other elements at work here.  Like the Earth, the sun is not a static body.  It rotates, vibrates, and goes through cycles.  In addition to the 11-year sunspot cycle we’ve all become familiar with, the sun actually burns hotter and cooler from time to time.  Measured in centuries, if not eons (not simply weeks and days), the fact that the sun and Earth go through changes is often lost on the casual observer.  Thanks to the underlying political agenda of certain radical environmentalists, we’ve been led to believe that if it was 37 degrees in Minneapolis on December 22nd last year, it should be 37 degrees on December 22nd next year, and the year after, and the year after that.  Any deviation is a clear example of man’s poisoning of the environment, and calls for immediate ratification of the Kyoto treaty.

My heart-felt lament in this environmental debate is that I sincerely believe that man’s actions do indeed affect the earth’s climate in some way, but not necessarily the way the agenda-driven environmentalists claim.  The mere fact that concrete cities exist will change wind patterns and heat flow, which in turn can affect the weather.  But what I am not prepared to accept is that everything man does is harmful to the environment.  Some things could be beneficial, or just plain inconsequential.  I cringe every time I hear that warmer than expected weather in January is a result of global warming, or cooler than expected weather in January is a result of global warming, or that increased hurricane activity under Republican administrations is a result of global warming, and so on, and so on. Too hot today? Must be global warming. Too cold?  Global warming.  Too windy?  Global warming.  Car won’t start?  Oatmeal too lumpy?  Boss yelled at you?  Got to be global warming.

[Note:  I developed this position more comprehensively in my Intellectual Conservative essay.]

I have come to innately distrust every categorical pronouncement about how this and that affects that and this, and how the only solution is to pass an environmental treaty that restricts the United States and other western nations but exempts developing countries and the Peoples Republic of China.  Like the self-deluding dieter who believes that “calories don’t count” if the cake is eaten on a special occasion, we’re somehow supposed to believe that pollution kills when it comes from a U.S. factory, but it doesn’t really matter if it was Chairman Mao who designed the smokestack.

In short, I have come to believe that the debate over the environment has been hijacked by liberal deep-thinkers who profess to know what’s best for all of us, even if the facts at hand don’t quite support their conclusions.  According to Ted Danson the oceans died from neglect about 15 years ago because we didn’t make radical changes to protect it. Earth hangs in the balance according to Al Gore, and only the Kyoto treaty (which his administration refused to support) can save us all from extinction.  Well, it’s no-Kyoto plus 10 years, and we’re still here — unless you toss in Hurricane Katrina which Bush caused to cover up the hole he personally dynamited in the New Orleans levees. 

Maybe some day someone from the Left will state honestly what is fact, and what is opinion, about such things as the world’s climate, the limitations and expectations of embryonic stem cell research, and a host of other politicized issues liberals have used to promote their private, personal agendas under the guise of objective science.  Until then I’ll remain skeptical, and keep my eyes on the melting ice caps of the red planet for further signs of SUVs driving along the Martian highways.

5. To be a Good Democrat, you have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.

Liberal reply: The majority of people are against capital punishment, not just Democrats. This Democrat, in particular, believes that setting one’s self up to make the decision to kill a human being is wrong, but a woman’s right over her own body is not wrong, even if that decision means ending the “creation” of a human being before it is a human being.

Phil: There is not one shred of evidence — one poll, one national election, one anything — that supports your contention that the “majority of people” in the United States are completely, totally, and unmitigatedly against capital punishment.  You can’t just make up facts to support your position. 
 
As for your comments about a woman’s right to end the so-called creation of a human being before it becomes one, when exactly does “it” become human?  I realize that this is only a small detail, but I’d still like to know. 

Liberals say that conservatives simply want to keep women pregnant and deny them control over their own bodies.  The fact that they might be killing a human being by exercising this “control” is, well, just a smokescreen to perpetuate male domination over women.  Well, I have a solution.  Educate us on the clear-cut distinction between “human” and an “undifferentiated tissue mass,” and the whole subject will go away.
 
Think of the social, not just political implications of doing this.  Not only would it stop the debate about abortion entirely in its tracks and deny the Republicans a weapon to continue suppressing women’s rights, it could spawn a whole new standup comedy routine!  “Hey, did you hear the one about the 240-day-old undifferentiated tissue mass that was pulled partially out of the womb so its brains could be sucked out?  People actually thought it was a baby!”

6. To be a Good Democrat, you have to believe that hunters don’t care about nature, but loony activists who’ve never been outside the city limits of Seattle do.

Liberal reply: It’s not nature that some hunters don’t care about, but the animals they kill for sport.

Phil: Maybe we should just call them post-natal abortions, then everybody would be happy.

7. To be a Good Democrat, you have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

Liberal reply: You have to believe that a marriage penalty tax relief bill should benefit all married wage earners and not just the ones in higher tax brackets.

Phil: Somebody needs to explain the difference to you between a percentage, and an actual dollar amount.  To condemn conservative tax philosophy by saying that a man who makes $200,000 a year and pays $60,000 in taxes will get an unfair tax break because he’ll receive back more cash than a man who makes $30,000 a year and pays $3,000 in taxes is deliberately deceitful. 

Believing that those who pay more taxes should get more money back when their taxes are cut doesn’t automatically translate into screw the little guy! 

8. To be a Good Democrat, you have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee, or Thomas Edison.

Liberal reply: You can’t believe they are all important?  I suppose women are supposed to submit to their husbands and not have any rights over their own bodies, including the right to equal pay for equal work?  How can you say that these women are not important and a southern general fighting for slavery is important?  He is certainly an important figure in history, but not one to be respected for his beliefs.  I’m surprised that Susan B. Anthony wasn’t included.  Let’s take away a woman’s right to vote while we’re at it.

Phil [Contemporary comment]:  Now, I’m sure you had as much trouble following the logic of this liberal response as I did.  Every political party has its share of idiots, so we can’t lay blame for this awesome display of ignorance solely at the footstep of Liberal Democrats.  But where we can legitimately criticize the liberal response is over their complete, unmitigated, refusal to understand even the slightest facts about American history before they launch into a tirade about southern generals fighting to protect slavery, and women’s rights as they pertain to equal wages and abortion.

I admit I’m not the average guy who responds to this kind of dribble from the Left.  I happen to have been exposed to all variants of Marxist ideology (yes, there’s more than one) along with traditional liberal and conservative views on politics and the economy, so I know a little about wages, and taxes, and things like equal pay and living wage calculations (which, by the way, always start with an ideological assumption before you get to the math part of coming up with the numbers).  I’ve also lived in the South as a transplanted northerner, so I’ve learned about the Civil War from both sides of the table.  To say that Lee’s only interest in fighting for the South was to perpetuate slavery is to over-simplify one of the most important events in American history to the point of meaninglessness.

But it wasn’t time to give this anonymous, self-described Liberal Democrat a history lesson, or teach her what the ownership and control of the means of production really meant, so I fell back on the main strategy I’ve found most effective in communicating complex ideas to simple minds.  I answered her questions with the same tortured logic that she herself used in framing the issue:

Phil: I disagree that Gloria Steinem is “as important” to our nation’s history as George Washington, therefore I must want to take away a woman’s right to vote.  I love the Liberal Credo:  We cannot disagree on policy matters or other issues I deem important.  Either you support my position, or you are a sexist, racist, homophobe, Fascist, Nazi, murderer, or (pick another slur). 

PS: “Not as important” doesn’t mean “not respected”.  These are two different concepts.

9. To be a Good Democrat, you have to believe that conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.

Liberal reply: A man who takes advantage of someone offering oral sex is a sex offender?  A man who possibly makes sexual advances toward women, whether they are proven, accepted, acted upon or not, is a sex offender?  Does that mean that most men belong in jail, or just on the Supreme Court?  I don’t think a man’s political leanings cause him to act out his sexual fantasies.

Phil: Huh?  I thought we were talking about Bill Clinton having non-sex sex with Monica Lewinsky, not the sexual fantasies of Republicans vs. Democrats.  I also thought that the Women’s Movement (you remember Gloria Steinem, that person who rivals George Washington in the annals of American history) taught us that powerful men engaging in sexual acts with women in inferior positions of authority were, by definition, acting in a coercive manner.  It didn’t matter whether the sex was consensual or not, because the power differences between the two made the woman unable to exercise her free will equally.  But this was the mantra before Clinton got his Lewinsky in the Oval Office.  Remember Republican Senator Bob Packwood who kissed a few women (but nothing more than that)?  The National Organization for Women was first in line to demand his resignation for sexual harassment.  And he didn’t even use a cigar!
 
What’s more, I thought that lying under oath was wrong, even about sex.  Before you tell me that it’s “only about sex,” let me remind you that rape and pedophilia are “sex” too.  Is it okay to lie about that?  Your convoluted apologies for Clinton’s bad behavior (which wouldn’t have been tolerated for a millisecond if a Republican was president) has not only exposed the shameful partisan underpinnings of your so-called “women’s rights” philosophy, but you and the rest of Clinton’s female defenders have single-handedly managed to set the cause of women’s rights back at least 50 years.
 
Pardon me while I, a middle-aged business executive, put the moves on my young secretary and maneuver her into bed.  The fact that I’m thirty years older than her, have greater wealth and power than she does, and hold her career in my hands is irrelevant.  The sex is obviously consensual.  Then, when I’m brought up on charges for this reprehensible action, I’ll perjure myself when I’m asked about it in court. Why? Because it;s okay to lie about sex. And when I’m thoroughly condemned by others for this action and threatened with jail for lying, I can expect you, NOW, and Progressive women everywhere to rush to my defense — as long as I’m a Democrat.

Oh, by the way, we can also thank you for your support of Clinton’s actions for the Kathleen Willey “one free feel” rule.  Clinton was applauded by the feminists for understanding that “no means no” when he removed his hand from Kathleen Willey’s breast, which he placed there without her consent.  Roughly half the country is made up of women, so that’s close to 300 million breasts (give or take a boob or two) just waiting to be groped.  Thanks to Big Bill and the ladies at NOW, we all get at least one free feel.  As long as we stop when the woman objects to our unwanted molestation, we’re models of propriety.

10. To be a Good Democrat, you have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.  
Liberal Reply: Does this mean the gun lobby and the tobacco lobby and their funding is in the best interest of the United States?  Maybe to be a good Democrat you have to believe that there needs to be campaign reform, the same reforms that are being shot down by a Republican Congress and a Republican Senate.

Phil: Last time I looked, it was legal to own guns and smoke tobacco in the U.S., and legal for these groups to lobby the government, just like it’s legal for the Sierra Club, NOW, and hundreds of Liberal organizations to do so. By contrast, campaign contributions from any foreign government to any U.S. political party are illegal, whether the country is friendly to the United States or not.
 
The problem you Liberal Democrats have is that you don’t have the guts to say what you mean, and do what you say.  Congress and the States had a chance to outlaw tobacco a few years back, but chose instead to extort additional revenue from the tobacco industry.  That poisonous, harmful, evil habit is allowed to remain legal and turn our children into walking cancer time-bombs, but the States get a few billion dollars in additional revenue, so what the hey!  If tobacco is as bad as you say it is, then let’s make it illegal, not just turn it into an off-budget revenue item. 

The same with guns.  We’ve amended the Constitution a couple dozen times, so do it again if you think the NRA should be put out of business.  But until then it’s legal, so stop whining.  I think NOW has done more to harm women through their duplicitous support for Clinton’s obvious bad behavior than the NRA, but I’m not calling for Congress to outlaw their lobbying. 

The true Fascists in this country aren’t conservatives, but “good” Liberals like you who smear your opponents with a broad brush and practice the worst kind of moral relativism.  I once took a ream of paper from my office, so technically I stole.  Joe Blow down the street embezzled $300,000 from his employer.  We’re both thieves, so there’s no difference between us.

But there is a difference.  I’ll meet your challenges with facts, not slurs.  I won’t substitute convoluted, ad hoc logic to diminish or explain away important issues that I’d be screaming bloody murder about if the opposing party was doing the same exact thing.  Your silly, superficial replies represent the worst aspects of politics today, as practiced by Liberals in general, and the Democrats in particular.  There is nothing you won’t say, do, or support to win, even if it means sacrificing your own core principles, which sadly appear to have dwindled to almost none.

Oh, by the way, at the Democratic convention the tobacco lobby underwrote the expense of putting on “Mardi Gras in Hollywood Night” for the convention delegates.  The Republicans aren’t the only one who accept money from this legal lobbying group.  But the Democrats are the only party that takes money from the Chinese government, and therein lies the true distinction.

* * *

About a month later that tried and true, distinctly American ritual of the “Presidential Debates” was in full force, giving my friend Harry and me another opportunity to exchange emails.  Ever since Kennedy defeated Nixon on TV (although many pundits claimed that Nixon won the “radio” debate, where the emphasis was on words, not five o’clock shadows), Liberal Democrats like my friend Harry salivated at the thought of their guy mopping up the floor with their Neanderthal Republican opponent.  Debate performance, not the content of one’s answer, was seen as the determining factor.

I have to admit there’s a lot of truth in this position.  The debates aren’t debates at all, but highly staged question and answer periods. Telegenic candidates like Clinton are more at ease in front of the camera than stiff, awkward guys like Bob Dole, who my brother Dan used to refer to as “our Chernenko” — a reference to the monthly change of former Soviet dictators as each aging Bolshevik was given a stint at holding power because it was his turn to lead the country before he died.  But I can’t blame Dole, decent guy that he was, for this problem. Republicans knew what the rules were in advance of the game, and they understood how important image was (and still is) to getting elected.  It’s no substitute for substance, but unfortunately without a good media presence, the substance will never be heard.  So advantage Clinton in the debates, and no hard feelings about it.

But where I do fault the Republicans is in choosing an absolute dolt as Dole’s running mate.  You don’t have to be a rocket scientist (or invent the Internet) to have the “gravitas” the media demand of Republicans but excuse when lacking in Democrats.  But you do have to recognize a sucker punch when you see one coming, and respond accordingly.  Jack Kemp took one-too-many hits to the upper torso, I’m afraid, from his playing days with the Buffalo Bills, and let Vice Presidential candidate Al Gore clobber him with a beautifully executed haymaker that Kemp not only didn’t see coming, but ran directly into.  It sucked the wind out of any effort Kemp was making to explain the worth of conservative policies, and effectively ended the Dole-Kemp campaign in my opinion.

No, it wasn’t the Lloyd Bentsen “I knew Jack Kennedy” cheap shot moment, or the Gerald Ford self-inflicted wound about Poland not coming under Soviet domination.  Bentsen was calculating and vicious, and Dan Quayle fought back to his credit.  But the media had already labeled him a dunderhead, and this was still the period of media domination by the big three eastern networks, so Quayle had no real opportunity to respond.  As for Ford, a kindly man who was in way over his head, all I could see was Chevy Chase falling down in the Oval Office as he parodied Ford’s penchant for stumbling and falling — not-too-subtle parallels with his questionable mental process.

No, it was the worst kind of hit one could imagine; a compliment disguised as an insult, perceived as a compliment.  I’m sure the exact transcript of the debate is slightly different than the way I remember the event, but in my mind’s eye I still see it playing out just as it happened that night.  Gore turns to Kemp and says something to the effect that “you know Jack, that last answer of yours showed that you’re not as brazenly ignorant and mean-spirited as the rest of the Republican party, and I want to be the first to acknowledge that there’s at least one Republican alive today who doesn’t want to starve the poor, put blacks back into slavery, and rape the environment.”  (As I said, the exact words were a bit different, but the sentiment came across loud and clear).  To which Jack Kemp responded not with “you’re lecturing me about Republicans, you sleazy SOB who works for, and continues to support, an even more despicable character,” but with “why thank you Al, for those kind words about how great and good a guy I am.”

Game, set, match.

Like I said before, I knew Clinton was in for another four years the moment I heard that answer, but the image continued to stick in my mind as Harry and I debated the 2000 election.  George Bush was my governor, so I knew he was not a slobbering idiot, contrary to Liberal press reports.  I saw that as an advantage, because to borrow from a popular phrase, the political streets are littered with people who have “misunderestimated” Dubya’s intelligence and political skills. 

I also knew that Cheney was no Kemp.  Though the comment was made by Don Imus four years later in 2004 after the vice presidential debate between Cheney and Edwards, in retrospect it applied equally to Cheney-Lieberman in 2000.  Said Imus after viewing Cheney’s performance, he thought Lieberman was so out-classed, he feared that “Cheney might eat him.”

With this as background, I commented on the press coverage (read: Liberal media bias) of the past presidential debates in a September 2000 email.

Phil: Here’s my view on how Liberals and the mainstream press view the debates, going back to Carter and Reagan.

1980:  Reagan was a dolt.  Carter was a “nuclear engineer.”

1984:  Reagan was a lucky dolt, who was getting senile.  Mondale was a deep thinker, and he picked a woman as his running mate, so he is a deep thinker who really cares about people.

1988:  G.H.W. Bush was a guy who couldn’t keep a job (“Mr. Resume” — too many different positions to gain any real substance).   Dukakis was a brilliant technocrat in a time when the country needed a brilliant technocrat.

1992:  G.H.W. Bush was out of touch with the American people. Clinton liked to touch a lot of the American people (especially women), but his wife forgave him and he promised never to do it again, so it’s okay, and besides we need a Democrat in power after 12 years of the worst economy in 50 years.

1996: Clinton was masterful in his ability to spin a situation to his advantage; a skill truly to be admired.  Dole was old and looked mean.

And now we come to 2000, with the smartest and most powerful man to ever hold the office of Vice President (Al Gore), and that idiot from Texas who only got elected governor because his daddy was president, and unfairly beat John McCain in the Republican primaries who was the better candidate because he’s not stupid like Bush.

So here’s how I see things sizing up for the upcoming presidential debates.  Thanks to the media bias against Bush, which was supposed to produce the opposite effect, he’s already won the debates.  Why?  Because according to the talking heads, Gore is the “master debater” and expectations are that he will slaughter Bush.  Anything less than a KO in round one makes Gore a loser.  Meanwhile, thanks to our friends in the press, all GW has to do is show up, remember his name (and how to pronounce “subliminal”), not drool when he gives an answer, and he wins.

Remember, this is American politics.  Being right, or having the facts and actually making sense when you speak, are not the criteria for judging debate performance.  Rather, it’s:

1. Are you a boy being mean to a girl (the Lazio/Hillary debate when Lazio confronted her on stage).

2. Are you a Democrat or Republican?  According to the mainstream press, Democrats — by the very nature of being Democrats — are always right on the issues, regardless of contrary facts, changing positions, and/or logical inconsistencies in their positions.

3. Do you invoke the name of God?  This is bad if you’re Bush referencing Jesus as a philosopher; very bad if you’re Pat Robertson talking about God and the Bible; but very good if you’re Holy Joe Lieberman invoking all the biblical scriptures of Orthodox Judaism.  Actually, this anomaly is explained away by Lieberman’s repudiation of every core belief he held before joining the Gore ticket, so what he says about religion (or the entertainment industry) doesn’t necessarily reflect how he will act in office.  Therefore, mentioning God as a driving force in his life is okay, because unlike the Republicans, he really doesn’t mean it, and won’t act upon those principles if he is elected to national office, wink wink.

4.   And finally, the most important media consideration in judging who wins the debate, and therefore the election, is which candidate kissed Oprah?

I intend to say more about the 2000 election at a later point, but I included this passage here to underscore my previous points about the way liberals and conservatives approach issues and state their philosophies.  This spills over into the mainstream media which contrary to their assertions, takes sides in the national debate.  The way a question is framed, the decision to cover a story or bury it, even the private political opinions of the journalists covering a story, all contribute to a distinct view that is neither neutral nor objective. 

News outlets on the Right are just as guilty of this as those on the Left, so it’s not a matter of bias vs. objectivity, but of whether (a) there is an honest attempt to interject differing opinions into a story (not just crackpots from the other side, or one line buried in the last paragraph of a 3 page story), and (b) whether the news outlet acknowledges that there is any bias at all. The once-proud New York Times, though Liberal, was at least more balanced in previous years when it tried to live up to its slogan of “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” Today, in the era of manufactured stories and front page editorials disguised as news, the slogan is better seen as “All the News that Fits, We Print.” 

Critics complain about Fox News’ “Fair and Balanced” tagline, but I contend that while obviously more conservative-oriented than liberal, they at least allow the other side to express its views. It’s not like CNN with four liberals and one neo-fascist mental asylum escapee to represent the Right, unless one is willing to apply this tag to General Wesley Clark, Bob Beckel, Susan Estrich, Martin Frost, Juan Williams, and a host of other liberal commentators who regularly appear on Fox. I’ve actually worked with Bob Beckel when he and I were at the same firm in Washington, and know Martin Frost from my days as a senior vice president at the Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce.  I think they’re both wrong in their political opinions, but I would hardly characterize them as fringe players among liberals and the Democratic Party.

Political debate can spur the country to even greater heights if it is honest debate.  But there’s no honesty in substituting personal smears for forthright analysis.  This is why conservative philosophy has been surging ahead in America, as witnessed by the 2002 mid-term and 2004 national elections, and the changing viewing habits of the American public. And it’s why liberalism, once exposed for what it really is, has no chance of success in the world as it exists today, and will continue to exist well into the foreseeable future.

Look for the next chapter coming soon — “Morality in Politics:  The Ox and the Moron.”