Subscribe to BrookesNews’ Bulletin
Who are these Democrats?
Evan Right
Who is Barack Hussein Obama and why is he anything more than an afterthought in the Democrats' quest for power? The answer is, of course, that we have no idea. He hasn't even served one term in the United States Senate, a place where he is one of but one hundred voices. His legislative efforts as the junior Senator with no experience has equally been missing while on the campaign trail his great policy initiatives have been to utter meaningless words like "hope" and "change" always devoid of substance.
Who is Hillary Rodham Clinton that she should be the leading candidate for the Democrats' nomination in the fall? She's a one-term Senator, a carpetbagger who calculated that she would be a "lifelong Yankee fan" so long as she could get a stepping stone to personal power. Her claim to experience — the fact that she was married to a president — would be laughable except that, compared to Obama, she IS the more tested and learned. After all, at least she was sometimes within shouting distance when her narcissistic husband would orgasm with an intern.
This — again, one of one hundred, like Scott Baio sitting in on that game show — junior Senator from a far-leftists East Coast state, has put forth few policy initiatives, seeing the Senate not as a job but as a necessary line on the resume before instantly jumping into the Presidential sweepstakes.
Who is John Edwards? He's a one-term Senator — one in a hundred bodies to hide amongst as he accomplished nothing — who began running for President in 2002 — two years into his Senate term. His campaign is based on creating hatred for the boogeyman, "the rich," a group that only a very, very few belong to at the level of this man himself (can you say "self-hate"?).
In fact, of the three Democrats given a chance of winning the nomination, not one has served more than a single term, not one hasn't hidden amongst a hundred, as the junior senator from their state, and not one is saying anything of substance. It's not like the Democrats don't have candidates with executive experience. Bill Richardson was a governor. It's not like they don't have Senators with more than a few years experience, there's the elder "statesman," Joe Biden.
Yet these people are way back in the pack — also rans — to a bunch of Juniors. Why? Because the more the American people know about a Democrat the more they reject them as duplicitous and damaging. (Ever wonder why Hillary didn't run for Senate from her home state where they know her best?)
The Democrats with accountability (Richardson) or whose length of tenure gives him a "body-of-work"(Biden) cannot hide from their leftist beliefs and the failures of their leftist policies. Hillary can by changing her position every few days (or seconds as with drivers licenses for illegals) or by blaming others in the Senate. Who's to know where Hillary REALLY stands on anything because who knows what this former sex partner of a president (if) and one-term junior Senator really believes?
Obama can get away with muttering meaningless phrases for he cannot be challenged on his non-existent record. Really, what else is there for him to talk about?
Compare and contrast the leading candidates on the Republican side.
Leading the pack are three former executives — Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee — and a Republican elder statesman from the Senate, John McCain. Trailing in this race is the less experienced former Senator, Fred Thompson, and at the bottom are those who while having more experience than the three leading Democrats (sometimes combined) are just one in the crowd (Tancredo, Hunter, Paul). In other words, in stark comparison to the leftists, the leading Republican candidates are people of experience and accountability who address their real records and their real accomplishments.
For the Democrat, it is an advantage to be unknown and unaccountable. For the Republican it is an advantage to have led and to have a track-record.
Sayet Right:
All one needs to know to understand EVERYTHING about the Modern Liberal — the dominant force in today's Democrat Party — is that in order to eliminate the discrimination, the Modern Liberal opts to be utterly indiscriminate. Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead the ML to indiscriminateness of policy. Instead it leads the Modern Liberal to INVARIABLY and INEVITABLY side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.
Evan Sayet receives email at Sayet@Socal.RR.Com
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 31 December 2007