( ... as long as President Bush doesn't have anything to do with it.)
 

Oregon, USA -- I don't know who first said it, though I have heard Rush Limbaugh make reference to it on occasion. I don't even know the exact wording.  Here is a paraphrase.  "When the debate is about issues, liberals lose elections."

(For those who don't understand, this means that to win elections, liberals have to shift the discussion from issues (national defense, for example) to things like scandals.)

Oregon has its share of liberals.  Most of them think our present President Bush grabbed the steering wheel from Teddy on that Chapaquiddick bridge, and caused the car to dive off into the bay, killing Mary Jo.

Massachusetts is a place Oregonians move to so as to find a less liberal place to live.

Liberals support a missle defense system?  Only in my birth place (particularly the urban parts of ) Oregon or Massachusetts could you find people so stupid as to believe that.  Only in these two geographic extremes could you locate people who do not know that the term Star Wars was a liberal satirical swipe applied to Ronald Reagan's missile defense system by  the liberal-controlled mainstream media of that day, and this.

As their present attempt to avoid debating issues -- the Foley Congressional Page email scandal -- slowly sinks into the West, and once more the debate begins to turn toward national defense, the liberals are saying they are for a national missle defense system?  After all those years of trumpeting the exact opposite, in God's Name, why?

North Korea, of course.  Bill Clinton and Ms. Albright's North Korea.  The North Korea they helped get both the bomb and the missle technology to deliver it.  You hadn't heard that they did that?  The Democrats for which you vote say that such charges are conservative lies?  You still don't get it?  Teddy kills a secretary and holds a press conference.  Other Democrat homosexuals run gay brothels in their basement, and are re-elected as if nothing has happened.  Clinton and Albright hand over nuclear and missle technology to a maniac socialist dictator and because CBS, the New York Times and the Portland Oregonian didn't mention it, you think it didn't happen?  

Speaking of the years that Democrats held the Foley messages before shopping them to the Mainstream Media, why is Hastert, who hadn't heard about them until last week, being told to resign as Speaker of the House?

Liberals in support of a national missile anti-missile defense system?

The political insanity of the Sixties, which was enhanced during the Seventies, was confronted during the Eighties by Reagan, who was elected by what were then called "Reagan Democrats."  People who were traditional union supporters of the D's, but who by way of support for "traditional values" had turned on their own Party.

It is the opinion of some here at Oregon Magazine that this rejection of the Sixties is a living force, today in America.  A living and growing force.  What else, we ask, could force liberals to suddenly reverse decades of virulent opposition to missle defense technology?  Even if they're not serious, and wouldn't build such a system if they got into power (which is exactly how things would go), what else but a recognition that national defense matters to the electorate could cause them to speak such total liberal heresy?

Liberals speaking in defense of a missle defense system?

What's next?  Liberals speaking positively about profit?

(LL)

© 2006 Oregon Magazine