June 11, 2008

A 2008 Democrat Presidential Win. Why Not? Because…

…the majority on the Hill, as we well know, and therefore “leadership” of Congress, belongs to the Democrats.

Thirty two years ago was less than four years before I became a Republican (thank Jimmy Carter for that change in my personal political views!), but even if I had been a Republican at the time I wouldn’t have been nearly as concerned as I am now about a Democrat majority in Washington, D.C. The folks on the left side of the aisle still, for the most part, were either conservative Democrats or at least maintained a semblance of responsibility to the Constitution, the document that had, since the beginnings of the United States of America, defined their jobs in the House and the Senate among many other things. There was only so far they might have gone.

Since then, particularly since the Clinton years, the latter has changed.

Today’s Democrats have sold out completely to the far left, to the hardcore socialists and America haters, the multiculturalists and the mongers of political correctness who have no use not only for the Constitution, but for our nation’s moral and religious values, the laws that protect our sovereignty and our liberty, our market-based economy or our role as a global peacekeeper and protector of the freedom of other, weaker countries under attack by predatory neighbors intent on crushing them under the boot of oppressive governance.

It never ceases to amaze me how many Americans, born and raised in this greatest of nations, so easily support those politicians who, dancing to the music of their portside masters, advocate agendas whose fruition would run counter to every principle that has made America what it is.

Are these people simply naïve, or do they truly want to lose the liberties they’ve been able to take for granted since they were very young? Do they really want to pay thousands of extra dollars in taxes a year so that ever-expanding federal bureaucracies can inefficiently manage their health care long before it becomes a serious issue for them, along with numerous other aspects of their lives? Do they really want big government to have the authority to micromanage their more important personal affairs, or to be able to rule on issues that run contrary to the beliefs of their own communities?

I was approached on the street by a poll taker of some sort the other day who wanted to know my opinion on homosexual rights.

I replied truthfully that like abortion, medical marijuana and other issues that don’t effect the running of our country as the Constitution specifies, I believe that same sex relationship agendas belong under the heading of States’ Rights and should not be made a federal issue.

She appeared neither happy with nor understanding of my reply, but that’s the way it is. She received an honest answer, which, by the way, I didn’t see her record on the clipboard she was carrying. Oh, well, must’ve been one o’ them thar one-way polls.

But…the reason for this post is actually to do with what is probably the prime reason for not electing a Democrat, any Democrat, let alone a serious left-winger like Obama, to the White House this time out.

As I noted above, the current crop of Democrats in Congress are more marionettes for the extreme left than they are statesmen (or stateswomen) of any kind. They espouse a number of agendas, including those I mentioned earlier in this post, as well as amnesty for criminal aliens, adoption of U.N. and E.U. policies that challenge our own sovereignty and form of government; destructive regulation of the marketplace; adherence to accords, based on the anthropogenic global warming myth, that would deal a crippling blow to our economy; bombardments of new taxation that would not only create hardships for the average American family, but would also target corporations whose only practical responses would be massive layoffs and curtailment of expansion; Unrestrained pork barrel waste of our taxes…I could probably go on and on, but I think I’ve made my point thus far.


Imagine where this far left Democrat majority, especially if they gain more seats this November, could take us with an even farther left (B. Hussein Obama, anyone?) Democrat in the Oval Office – no worries of the dreaded “veto pen” standing in their way as they spend our money, regulate our economy and tax us to death at their whim – a completely socialist America, down to the finest detail, within four years.

Meanwhile, there’s Obama’s ridiculously naïve foreign policy, complete with his intention to legitimize enemies of America whose only want, need and ambition is to see us dead by establishing “friendly” diplomatic ties with them, to think about…

by @ 10:36 am. Filed under Election 2008
Trackback URL for this post:

23 Responses to “A 2008 Democrat Presidential Win. Why Not? Because…”

  1. BB-Idaho Says:

    “create hardships for the average American family,”
    “only practical responses would be massive layoffs and curtailment of expansion;” ..we already got that..
    you think more tax cuts for George Soros will really help?

  2. Seth Says:

    BB –

    People like George Soros make their own tax cuts, they just don’t want anyone else to have the same luxury (unless they’re fellow travellers in the Socialize America Club).

  3. The Gray Monk Says:

    Only the very wealthy can afford socialism - the rest of us just pay for their ‘generosity’ and feel-good factor. Socialism is a bureaucrats dream - restrictions on personal freedom and power in the hands of those in government.

  4. NH Meri Wido Says:

    It’s sad when you paint Democrats with the broad brush you refer to as “ALL.” Democrats come in many different shades of the political spectrum. I AM A DEMOCRAT! and I happen to be very much ‘middle of the road’…however, when it comes to fiscal issues I bend more to the conservative side. Please specify which particular group of Dems (liberal, moderate, or conservative) you are spotlighting in your observations. Failing to do so legitimizes the Dems broad brush as it paints “ALL” REPUBLICANS as Bible thumping fanatics that are intollerant of everyone other than WASPS and those that agree with themselves 100%….(and we all know that such is not the case). Nuff said about those distinctions…Otherwise your observations are pretty valid and I agree with them in the majority….just so that you know, I’m one Democrat that is scared to death of both Obama and Clinton…in fact, even though McCain wouldn’t be my first choice, he’s going to have this Dems vote come election.

  5. Always On Watch Says:

    If BHO gets elected, we are “in for it.”

    I’m sure you’ve seen this quote:

    From THE AUDACITY Of HOPE: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

    I’m going to find out what page those words are on!

  6. Seth Says:

    Gray Monk –

    This is a concept many people cannot seem to understand; That the price of socialism falls on the backs of all tax-paying citizens, not just those of rich leftists who push it on everyone else.

    NH MW –

    Where have I painted all Democrats with any sort of “brush”?

    My references above were to the Democrats in Congress who, for the most part, have definitely been bought by the far left — look at the multicultural, PC, socialist legislation they are forever attempting to push through.

    I know John McCain will be getting several million votes from conservative and sane Democrats — see, LOL!? I even acknowledged that there are sane Democrats! :-)

    AOW –

    I must confess that I’ve never read The Audacity Of Hope — just the quotes I’ve seen from it are enough to let me know that reading the entire book would be little more than an emetic.

    There’s no way we could trust Obama with the Presidency, and to judge by his statements and religious past (the real one, not the one he lies about having), making him Commander-In-Chief would be like making Jeff Daumer the director of an insane asylum — leave it to corrupt liberal wingnuts in Illinois to even trust the mutt with a Senate seat.

  7. NH Meri Wido Says:

    Guess reading your BLOG when I’m tired causes me to misunderstand…I’m sorry! As to your comment regardidng the Very Liberal Congress is on point…though sometimes it’s difficult to determine where those that promise, and then take their oaths of office, have the nerve to look voters in the eye…I’ve been checking general voting records on issues that cocncern me…like S3101. Dems that should have voted NOT to cut Medicare payments to doctors voted against it. On the other hand, there were a few Republicans that did in fact keep true to those that voted for them and voted in favor of the people they serve. More and more doctors are refusing to take Medicare patients since our government is not only slow in paying thier fair share, but now is going to cut back on even that small amount.

  8. BB-Idaho Says:

    “leave it to corrupt liberal wingnuts” C’mon don’t confuse me…you guys is wingnuts-us guys is moonbats.
    As I understand the terms, a ‘liberal wingnut’ would be like Ann Coulter pushing universal ice cream for all…and the converse, a ‘conservative moonbat’ would be like Dennis Kucinich invading Luxemburg? :)

  9. Seth Says:

    NH MW –

    The Medicaid bill in question had no trouble passing in the House, it is the Senate Democrats who are giving it trouble. You’ll note that there are two Republicans in the Senate who are co-sponsoring it there along with that Rock feller.

    The ass-dragging on the part of Medicaid to compensate doctors is nowhere near a new issue — I recall a doc friend in L.A. some three decades ago who was lamenting the same problem, and along with several colleagues was talking about refusing any new Medicare patients.

    BB –

    I’ll have to get out my Polibloggers’ Dictionary and check: I’ve always thought that wingnuts and moonbats both applied aptly to those on the extreme left (also to those in thrall of Ron Paul, especially the 9/11 conspiracy theorists).

    My favorite example was some bonehead who appeared at DU a couple of years or so ago, who had conducted an experiment with chicken wire and kerosene that proved conclusively, according to him, that Bush and Cheney had been responsible for the demise of the Twin Towers. What followed was a long comment thread of yeas and nays, LOL, debating the pros and cons of the experiment’s results.

  10. Old Soldier Says:

    Seth, I’m not so sure that today’s Democratic pols are marionettes of the far left - I believe the far left has been extremely successful at infultrating the Democratic party and getting their ilk elected - in essence taking over the party of JFK, Zel Miller and the like.

    In a musing comment I made over at Gayle’s, I suggested that conservatives employ the liberal model and restore conservative principles from within the GOP versus splitting away and forming yet another third party.

    I believe the MSM has been the supporting fires (like heavy artillery to an infantry assault) that has enabled far left liberals to gain office. They are even having an effect on the GOP (can anyone spell McCain?). The balance is shifting too far to the left for my liking. I’m afraid the whole country will slide into the Pacific if we don’t restore some semblence of balance.

  11. Angel Says:

    oiy no more Obamaaaaaaaaa please!..HAPPY FATHERS DAY TO YA! :)

  12. Always On Watch Says:

    Recent article at Politico.com. Excerpt:

    One week into the general election, the polls show a dead heat. But many presidential scholars doubt that John McCain stands much of a chance, if any.

    Historians belonging to both parties offered a litany of historical comparisons that give little hope to the Republican. Several saw Barack Obama’s prospects as the most promising for a Democrat since Roosevelt trounced Hoover in 1932.

    “This should be an overwhelming Democratic victory,” said Allan Lichtman, an American University presidential historian who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary in 2006. Lichtman, whose forecasting model has correctly predicted the last six presidential popular vote winners, predicts that this year, “Republicans face what have always been insurmountable historical odds.” His system gives McCain a score on par with Jimmy Carter’s in 1980.


    “I can’t think of an upset where the underdog faced quite the odds that McCain faces in this election,” said Sidney Milkis, a professor of presidential politics at the University of Virginia. Even “Truman didn’t face as difficult a political context as McCain.”

    Beating the drumbeat of defeat.

    We’re going to hear more of the same right up to Election Day. The msm are determined to push the Dem candidate into the Oval Office. I just hope that the voters have better sense than that.

  13. Gayle Says:

    I wouldn’t count on the voters having any sense whatsoever, at least a great majority of them. That’s what scares me, Seth! So many people seem to be so uninformed that it’s scary. I don’t believe that most Democrats (not all, but far too many) even understand how the politics of the Democratic Party have changed. I truly doubt they are interested enough in politics to do their homework. They are busy raising kids, making a living, and voting Democrat because their parents did. *sigh* If liberal socialism ruins this country it’s going to be because of apathy and ignorance.

  14. Seth Says:

    Old Soldier –

    Given the plethora of seats taken over by Democrats in the mid-terms and those that were won in 2004, I would have to agree. However, it seems that even the longer serving Democrats in Congress, those one would think would have more sense, are following the party line as well.

    We are definitely on the same page re the MSM — they have long been abusing the public trust in them as providers of fair, balanced information by way of distorting facts, delivering unconfirmed reports and video footage (as long as said reports and footage showed the Bush Administration, et al in a bad light), creating their own statistics, spinning events, ignoring candidates who were too conservative for their “progressive” sensibilities and printing only that which they consider positive “news” about their own preferred candidates, ignoring every negative they can (witness their “messiah”, B. Hussein Obama, the twits!) and generally promoting, exclusively, far left points of view.

    I like the idea of another conservative party, perhaps one to the extreme right, to draw GOP politicians to the right the way ultra-liberals draw the Democrats to the extreme left. :-)

    Angel –

    Hope you treated hubby well yesterday! :-)

    “No more Obama” would be the ultimate dream come true at this point, as long as Hillary can’t jump in to fill the void. From here on in, the general election campaign will see the far left as the minority it is, and as I said, we must hope America votes in a sane direction come November.

    I believe the majority of us will, enough to get McCain both the majority and electoral votes.

  15. Seth Says:

    AOW –

    Campbell still casts McCain as the underdog. But he said McCain might have more appeal to moderates than Obama if the electorate decides McCain is “center right” while Obama is “far left.” Democrats have been repeatedly undone when their nominee was viewed as too liberal, and even as polls show a rise in the number of self-identified Democrats, there has been no corresponding increase in the number of self-identified liberals.

    I think the above Campbell quote from the article you linked is on-point. I also believe that once the debating and more serious campaigning (the closer we get to November) are in full swing, Obama will be shown, despite the best efforts of the MSM, to be that far left liberal while McCain will prove closer to center right, though he’ll need to rethink such policies as those he holds on immigration and campaign finance reform, both of which cater more to port than to starboard.

    Side note: It was great to see that even with the “ways around McCain-Feingold” violations with which she got away scott free, Hillary didn’t survive the far-left dominated Democratic primaries.

    Look at it this way — Hussein Obama really doesn’t have anything tangible on which to base his candidacy, there’s no way he’ll be able to acceptably define his promises of “change” to the voting public. McCain is far more experienced at the campaign game, and he’ll demand specifics that Obama won’t be able to supply.

    Gayle –

    O ye of totally understandable little faith! :-)

    I know exactly where you’re coming from, the fact that Obama has been allowed to come this far is pretty scary, one has to wonder what the average voter is thinking — but remember, most of this is due to the media going hell-bent-for-leather to get him into the general election and far-left “super”delegates preferring him over Hillary.

    What a pair, what a choice! What a bunch of imbeciles!

    However, there are still a little over four and a half months left for Obama to show his true (or untrue) colors before America pulls the levers for him or McCain, and I think that by that time, no matter how tenacious his MSM “disciples” are, the voting public will know that the mutt is anything but the man for the job of POTUS.

    I saw a black guy here in Manhattan this morning who was wearing an “Islam is the only way” button right over an “Obama for President” button and thought, “How fitting”, LOL. If that’s any indication of his constituency, well…

  16. Shoprat Says:

    I don’t know if my “hood” is typical or not but Obama might get a quarter of the vote here at the most.

  17. Seth Says:

    Shoprat –

    In N.Y. there seem to be large quantities of Obama supporters, but that could also be that I have seen no indicators like buttons, caps or shirts for McCain and heard mostly Obama support. I’m hoping that there’s a large silent majority here…

  18. MariesTwoCents Says:

    Ecellent Post Seth,

    There isnt much more that I could add to that.

    But it does baffle me why on earth anyone would possibly vote for a party that clearly states “We are going to take things away from you, you are going to pay for it, and we are going to tax you all to death”!!

  19. Tom Says:

    Marie stole my thunder…

    If everyone really sat down an looked at the details of what BHO and company really want to do and how they were going to pay for it, they would not only be defeated in the elections but run out of the country as well…

  20. Seth Says:

    Marie –

    But it does baffle me why on earth anyone would possibly vote for a party that clearly states “We are going to take things away from you, you are going to pay for it, and we are going to tax you all to death”!!

    Me, too!

    It’s as though either mass insanity or an outbreak of chronic masochism has pervaded the country. :-(

    Tom –

    If the intentions and spirit of our founding fathers still prevailed, not only would they be whomped in the elections and run out of the country, but they would do so on wooden rails, in tar and feathers.

  21. Gayle Says:

    In reference to your answer to my first comment, Seth, I sincerely hope that you are right. I pray that you are right!

    Now… don’t you think it may be time for a new post? Just asking. :)

  22. Seth Says:

    Gayle –

    Me, too!

    Sorry I haven’t done any new posts lately, but I’ve been really swamped not only with settling in N.Y. in general, but also with a work project for which I’m leaving the country first thing tomorrow for several days. During that time, I may not have Internet access where I’ll be.

    I plan to post on that, briefly, right now.

    Once I’ve returned, I intend to commence posting more regularly. :-)

  23. Obama Broken Promise #4: No Windfall Tax on Big Oil, Exxon Despite Record Profits « But As for Me! Says:

    [...] Hard Astarboard ” Blog Archive ” A 2008 Democrat Presidential Win. Why … [...]