Lou Kiefer – 11/9/04

This page was last updated on November 9, 2004.

Intolerance as a moral value; Lou Kiefer; Beaver County Times; November 9, 2004.

Mr. Kiefer is one in a long line of Democrats trying to come up with a “silver bullet” reason for President Bush’s victory that allows Kerry supporters to feel morally superior. Mr. Kiefer wants us to believe over 59 million Americans voted for President Bush because they are intolerant and/or were fooled.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Strategists in both parties believe U.S. Sen. John Kerry and his supporters were stumped by the voters’ ‘emotional bond’ with the president.

“The strength of that bond trumped concerns of job export, burgeoning debt, reduced real earnings, Iraq and a foreign policy fraught with blunders President George Bush was unwilling to admit and that seriously aggravate and worry the rest of the world.”

[RWC] This incorrect conclusion is based partly on Mr. Kiefer’s acceptance of Democrat talking points as fact. I’ve demonstrated the lies in these talking points many times during the past few months so I’m not going to do it again. Just review my previous critiques.

“The bond prevailed as sacred in the eyes of many, for it energized what the pundits describe as hot social issues couched in ‘moral values.’

“This troubled me. A lifelong Democrat, I’ve lived not necessarily to be ‘saved’ but to do God’s work accordingly. A family of Bible believers and ardent churchgoers, we lived the articles of faith, to love one another and know that ‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.’

“So, how could the values of religious and conscientious people who turned this election for Bush be any different than mine? Before I could manage an answer, my eldest son, a bilingual educator who teaches young students with special needs, called to ask:”

[RWC] How is the occupation of Mr. Kiefer’s son relevant? Would his son’s question have been less valid were he an investment banker?

“‘Dad, since when did intolerance become a moral value?’”

[RWC] Intolerance of what? That said, society’s rules are essentially lists of behaviors we choose not to tolerate. Aren’t we intolerant of liars? What about thieves? What about polygamy? You get the idea. Not all intolerance is “bad.”

“The answers came easy then for both of us:

“* Since the president’s handlers snuffed out that inviolate line between church and state and mobilized deep moral energies to divide us from one another.”

[RWC] What “inviolate line between church and state?” What are some examples of this behavior?

“* Since Fox TV’s and Clear Channel’s echo chamber distorted our values in a boiling cauldron of distrust and damnation.”

[RWC] What a hoot! FNC and Clear Channel – not all programs on CC are conservative – are dwarfed by the old media such as ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and on and on. For example, the viewership of news on ABC, CBS, and NBC ranges from nine to 12 million viewers for each network. Though FNC is the runaway leader on cable, its viewership is a little less than 700,000 while CNN’s is over 400,000 as of April 2004.

“* Since letter writers, religious leaders and extreme fundamentalists of all denominations made up God’s will and his word to their own liking.”

[RWC] Letter writers? Is Mr. Kiefer kidding? Since April 2004 I critiqued over 220 anti-Bush editorials, letters, and opinion columns from the Beaver County Times alone. I didn’t count the pro-Bush/anti-Kerry letters during this period, but I’d be surprised if they totaled much more than 25.

“* And since the president just disclosed that he earned political capital with this election, and now he intends to spend it.”

[RWC] The capital to which President Bush referred was the support demonstrated for President Bush’s platform. How is it intolerant to follow through on the vision you campaigned on? Aren’t we supposed to complain when candidates don’t do what they said they would do?