During the “low point” of the Republican Party in the last century, there was still an awfully good chance that after the November elections, a republican would be once again elected president. Just in the past 28 years alone, only 8 of those were years in which a democrat was president, a president who never earned a majority vote.
Why is this?
My thought, and see if you don’t agree, is that the reason is simply because democrats can’t stand the white-hot heat of inspection.
I mean, look at New York. Eliot Spitzer gets elected. He gets caught up in a prostitution ring breakup, and is forced to resign. The lieutenant governor takes over, and in an effort to perhaps prevent a similar break down, admits to extending extra-marital affairs. But at least he didn’t have to pay with his own money—he had his campaign committee cover the bill.
Up until his appointment to the governorship, Patterson was a relatively obscure character. Now that he is in the spotlight, he seems to be melting. It is a matter of time, I fear, before New York will be governed by a governor that was never elected.
What does this say about the democratic party? Are these just two bad apples out of the bunch, or is the whole bunch rotten and these were just two examples?
Here’s another example: Barack Obama. At first, he seemed like some kind of savior for the Democratic Party. He had been in politics for such a short time he hadn’t earned the scars that people like Ted Kennedy have earned. So it seemed the democrats could finally put forward a candidate that could pass the smell test.
Except it was not to be so. Even while Obama is trying to refute his support of a radical, racist hate-monger for a preacher (giving all of Christianity a bad name, I might add), he is plagued by other nutjobs on his campaign. I won’t divulge the secrets yet, but if you are a strong Obama supporter, imagine all the crazies that show up at the anti-war rallies, except on Obama’s staff.
When Al Gore was put forward, he couldn’t pass the smell test. I mean, he was completely incapable of connecting with the people, and he couldn’t even give a speech without putting to sleep half the audience. Then came John Kerry, who Rush colorfully adds every time his name is mentioned “who served in Vietnam”. Except John Kerry’s service was hardly what he made it out to be. Combined with the Winter Soldier fraud and scam, as well as, “I threw the medals over the fence before I didn’t throw them, and here they are right now because they were really my friend’s medals who couldn’t make it because he was sick”, and you get a collapsed campaign. I mean, wasn’t President Bush Hitler himself? How can you lose against him?
But now we are heading into 2008, with the republicans having nominated not their first choice, or even their second or third choice, but a distant fourth or fifth choice. I mean, this guy is so old even he admits that he probable won’t run for a second term. This is a guy who admitted that he doesn’t know much about economics, and that is precisely the issue we are facing right now.
But John McCain, in poll after poll, is making Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama look like second-rate candidates. I mean, even John Kerry at this point four years ago was looking pretty good, but these two challengers are already losing.
More than just the scandals, the parts of a candidate that don’t directly cause concern but imply secondary infidelities that do cause concern, there is the fundamental fact of the democrat’s agenda. This agenda is simply more government, all of the time. It is less human freedom, more government oppression. It is the anti-America, the exact thing America was founded in opposition to. Let alone the question of whether they are right or wrong—they want to make that decision for you, and that in itself is the wrong way.
And America, naturally, understands that this is in opposition to itself, and rightly rejects it.
That’s what I think.