|
Shhhh. Don't breath a word of this. It's just between you and me, okay? Promise me you'll dump your cache and reboot your computer the minute you finish reading this. And for God's sake, don't email this piece to anyone! Promise? Okay.
I found the secret Republicon victory plan. I wasn't supposed to see it, I can assure you of that. It was stashed away in a special place where liberals fear to tread, Men's News Daily. MND is every bit as conservative as Town Hall, but without the big words and sentence structure. And without the fear that women are evil destructive creatures who have denigrated men into second class citizens and want to suck out their souls. But I snuck in, and look at what I found.
The Passion of the Christ: The Key to a Republican Landslide.
The piece is by Bruce Walker. He's one of those think tank guys. I'm pretty sure. I mean it shows up in his cynical brilliance of his plan.
John Kerry looks strong now; George W. Bush looks weak. What are the chances that John Kerry could actually win the 2004 Election? What are the chances that Democrats could win a broadly based victory in November? Not good. America is not divided into two relatively equal ideological camps. America is conservative - overwhelmingly conservative. The highly respected, bipartisan Battleground Poll in the September 2003 reveals that 59% of the American people describe themselves as conservative (42%) or very conservative (17%) and 35% of Americans describe themselves as liberal (25%) or very liberal (10%).
He's facing the facts - things don't look good for Bush. But wait. Take a look at those numbers! Somebody buy me a cheeseburger.
The September 2003 Battleground Poll results are not an anomaly. The two previous Battleground Poll results show an almost identical ideological breakdown. Even if those who identify themselves as moderate or who do not express an opinion regarding ideology are included as actually liberal, Americans conservatives constitute a far greater percentage of the electorate than those other groups combined. So how does President Bush begin to draw the ideological line in the sand?...
I can see this. I can actually visualize Bush on the beach, trouser cuffs rolled up, scowl on his face and a large pointy stick in his hand. "I'm gonna draw me a line'," he says, furrowing his brow. "I'm gonna draw me an ideological line".
There are several different approaches, and there is no reason not to take each approach slowly and consistently beginning now. President Bush begin the refrain "I am a conservative and my opponent is a liberal."
How does Kerry respond to that?
Damn! How would he respond to that? There's a good chance that he might be left speechless. Or he could say 'I'm a skin and my opponents a shirt'.
If he acknowledges that statement is true, then he has placed himself firmly in the camp of the minority ideology. If he denies that statement or equivocates, then he opens the door to a pandora's box of past statements and votes. If he ignores the statement, then he allows President Bush to define that issue completely.
Kerry is pretty much cornered at this point, damned if he do and damned if he don't. Whew. Powerful stuff. I wonder if there's anything else they could possibly throw at him?
But there is a stronger demarcation in American society today, and that vast chasm appears most clear in the success of The Passion of Christ, despite all the Leftist hatred of Mel Gibson and his film. President Bush should fight this campaign on religious faith, and he should fight it in a way that shows just how intolerant and bigoted Leftists are about religion. The Passion of Christ is excruciatingly vivid, but Hollywood has been churning out excruciatingly vivid films with graphic violence, explicit sex and often perverse sex scenes and highly offensive dialogue and images for years. It is the message of The Passion of Christ that infuriates Leftists.
How did Bruce know this about us? The man is positively psychic. Sure, it's public knowledge that we bigoted, intolerant leftists are wild about our explicit, perverse sex. And we like our graphic violence as much as we love muskrat pie. But how did he know how much we hate the message of Christ? Oops. Scratch that. The message of 'The Passion of Christ'. That would be the message of Mel. See, Bruce, when you forget the quotes, you get all of us small-brained liberals confused. Just go on with your plan.
Americans overwhelmingly believe that Jesus was crucified for the sake of mankind. Mel Gibson has done nothing more than restate and defend what the American people believe. President Bush should do the same, but he should restate and defend even more generally held religious American beliefs. How? The Republican Platform ask for a constitutional amendment that requires the words "Under God" be included in the Pledge of Allegiance, that the phrase "In God We Trust" be on all American currency and coins, and that the existing references to God in our national anthem remain... [blah...blah...blah]
The platform provision, endorsed by President Bush, should also make it quite clear that preserving these three formal and long held demonstrations of the religious faith in our federal government are the only demands that religious people will make upon the American government recognizing the importance of God in our public life. President Bush should endorse this amendment and point out that the amendment threatens only the agenda of those people who wish to remove all symbols of God from our existing federal government. This is an amendment, like the Bill of Rights itself, intended to preserve those values which the Founding Fathers considered so obvious that these rights were not included in the original Constitution. What would John Kerry say about this proposed amendment?
Okay, John-boy. We done got you cornered. You been asking for a fight, and we aim to give it to you. You against the imaginary bill of rights we're talking about? The one with all the obvious stuff left out?
Kerry could ignore the issue, and appear weak and craven. Kerry could say that the amendment "is not important," and then hear President Bush explain to him that moral values are at the very heart of our national and even our global problems.
"John, let me explain something to you right here and now, somethin that 59% of the American people already understand. Now hold on, I know the question was about Pakistan, and I'm gettin to that. But I want to tell Senator Kerry that moral values are a heck of a lot more important than some piece of real estate that has helped us real good with the war on evil. You know why Pakistan helped us? Cause they got good moral values, and they think Mel Gibson is right on. What you got to say about that? Come on, botox-face, answer the darn question."
Kerry could warn that such an amendment would open the door to a national religion, but because the amendment would only preserve the existing and because the amendment process itself is so arduous, Kerry would look silly.
What the hell sort of an answer was that, boy? You trying to be a comedian? Cause that's just silly. All we're trying to do is amend the constitution to read the way that our founding fathers wanted it. Like the part about marrying fags. That was just obvious to 'em on the face of it. Cutting out God - you a God-hater, Senator Flipflop?
Kerry could... [blah...blah...blah]
Here we go through the other 47 scenarios which Kerry could follow, each of which would end up making him look darn ridiculous. Then we get to the part where he talks about what a good thing it would be if his idea further divided America - cause then we could get around to separating the wheat from the chaff. And the chaff would be so embarrassed that it would just blow away. Let's drop back in when Bruce gets to his big wrap-up.
Leftists love to whine about wedge issues, even as they create wedge issues all the time. Their real concern is when conservatives fight back. It is time to fight back. It is time to ask Americans if they want a government based upon their sovereignty and their faith in a Blessed Creator or if they want a government based upon the sovereignty of judges and other bureaucrats and their faith in atheism. If the question is asked, the good guys - that's us - will win. Let's ask.
It's true. I do love to whine about silly issues like this, whenever I'm not busy oppressing conservatives, that is. The poor things just don't know how to fight back without passing a new law or amendment. Seriously, have you ever heard of a contentious conservative - it's an oxymoron. But let me give credit where credit's due: that's a heck of a battle plan, Bruce. Bush would be a fool not to follow your advice. Best of luck to all you good guys. And sorry about the wedgies. | 
