T Nation

Why Bush Won - From Corporate Mofo

Though this rated a read:

http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/041103whybushwon.htm

Particularly this part:

Say what you like - that at least Bush finally got elected, that the Red Sox swept the World Series because Kerry had to borrow the curse, that America deserves what it gets - but, in my humble opinion, this perceived American crisis of masculinity is the real cause of what happened November 2. Like watching action movies or professional sports, participating in the Bush victory was a psychic restorative, giving back some semblance of a sense of manly honor that has been stolen away by time clocks, Dr. Phil, and Zoloft. Bush’s message speaks directly to the heart of the emasculated modern man: stick with me, and we’ll stand tall, provide for our families, and kick terrorist ass.

We’ll teach the terrorists to try to mess with texas. We’ll teach em’ good.

What was that line? It is right on the tip of my tongue but I can’t…Oh, that’s right.

“Pride cometh before a fall”. While I hope that is not the case, the act of being humble wasn’t salted throughout the Bible for no reason. Before anyone relates that to Dr. Phil or some other equally estrogenic personality, I’ll end this with a “yee-haw!” a couple of “Y’all’s” and this coupon I found for a discount on hunting rifles.

How could you not include the last line?

“One thing’s for sure: If the Left wants to get back on its feet, it had better grow a pair?or at least start acting like it has.”

Makes perfect sense to me. It wouldn’t make sense to emasculated, culturally sensitive types.

The decline of masculinity and the virtues it embodies has been on a decline for some time.

Pro X,

“Pride cometh before a fall”. While I hope that is not the case, the act of being humble wasn’t salted throughout the Bible for no reason. Before anyone relates that to Dr. Phil or some other equally estrogenic personality, I’ll end this with a “yee-haw!” a couple of “Y’all’s” and this coupon I found for a discount on hunting rifles."

So interesting you warn that pride can bring a downfall, and yet be so arrogantly condescending to middle America, the heartland, and the South. Indeed pride can be a downfall, and the snerring elitism of the Left produced yet another electoral loss in American politics.

And there’s nothing quite puzzling as empty arrogance - plenty of attitude coupled with mediocre performance.

One question: since you hold masculinity in such disdain, why are you a frequenter of T-Nation?

I’m not suggesting you don’t have a right to be here - just surprised that you do.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious.
-Aristotle

[quote]chadman wrote:
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious.
-Aristotle[/quote]

And that’s all there is to say about that. Thunderbolt23, a disdain for masculinity? I know you get off on acting as if anyone who says anything negative about the current republican trend is “evil” or “condescending”, but where have I written, in as many posts that I have posted on this site in 4 years, that I am against masculinity? Oh, wait, Bush is the symbol for new age manhood therefore anyone not on the Bush train is feminine? Isn’t THAT condescending? It is amazing how you can pinpoint the character flaws of others with such surgical precision, but you are completely blind to your own. That seems to be a common theme lately.

Chadman gave you a great quote. I suggest you take time away from your idol worship to realize that a real man can think completely on his own without needing the majority vote to support his views.

Pro X,

“Oh, wait, Bush is the symbol for new age manhood therefore anyone not on the Bush train is feminine? Isn’t THAT condescending?”

Not sure if Bush is the new symbol of manhood, but one of the main themes of Bush critics was that the President was too macho and not sensitive enough.

My main point was that I agree with the original piece: “If the Left wants to get back on its feet, it had better grow a pair.”

“Chadman gave you a great quote. I suggest you take time away from your idol worship to realize that a real man can think completely on his own without needing the majority vote to support his views.”

Silliness. If you have read my stuff, you’d know that I am a qualified supporter of Bush - I had reasons not to vote for him. Moreover, I don’t take my talking points from anyone and I don’t need the empty reassurance of having the majority support me. This is a cheap, lazy claim.

As for the quote, it’s actually a good one, but it simply doesn’t apply. This hysterical rhetoric misses the point as usual. While the Left desperately hopes to paint Bush as a tyrant, akin to John Wilkes booth (“sic semper tyrannis!”), he is simply one more President in a long line of Presidents that expresses his devotion to a higher power, especially in a time of national crisis: FDR, Lincoln, Kennedy, Washington, etc.

I’m still confused about the multiple comments on this board about “leftist elitism” and how that brought down support in the election. How much more elitist can you get than the Bush family? Not saying that the Heinz family isn’t either but man most die hard republicans I’ve met are pretty damn narrow-minded and elitist. Most die-hard democrats I’ve met are just narrow-minded.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Silliness. If you have read my stuff, you’d know that I am a qualified supporter of Bush - [/quote]

Does this mean there were several who voted for Bush who were not “qualified”?

Pro X,

I should clarify.

By being a ‘qualified’ supporter, I didn’t mean ‘proper’ or ‘competent’ or ‘authoritative’.

I meant ‘qualified’ in the sense my support was qualified with some reservations - I had some problems with Bush and that I didn’t think he was a flawless candidate.

Sorry for the confusion. Not the best choice of words.