Tuesday, January 6, 2009

The Democrat Comic Opera

By Alan Caruba

The Democrats have lusted for total power for eight long years since the departure of Bill (the meaning of 'is') Clinton, disbarred lawyer, adulterer, and former President of the United States. Since 2000 they passed their time blaming everything on George W. Bush, including acts of God such as Hurricane Katrina.

By 2006, President Bush had exhausted whatever political capital he thought he had and the Democrats grabbed a thin margin in Congress, but enough to elevate geniuses like Barney Frank, an Elmer Fudd impersonator and, like Sergeant Schultz in “Hogan’s Heroes”, someone who saw nothing going terribly wrong at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Also rising to power were Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House. For two years they and their fellow Democrats have accomplished…what?

By 2008, the messiah in the person of Sen. Barack Obama smiled upon them and, along with lots of other Democrats, laid claim to both the White House and Congress. Reid and Pelosi embraced, everyone broke open the champagne, and then things began to go horribly wrong.

The economy tanked. Furious efforts ensued to throw billions at the credit liquidity problems brought on by Democrat “social justice” programs that actually required banks and lending institutions to make bad loans to people who could not pay them. The Detroit auto makers came to Washington, D.C., to beg for a loan that everyone knew was a waste of taxpayer’s money. Labor unions, one of the mainstays of the Democrat Party, glowered at any thought of not paying members not to work.

Then the Governor of Illinois, a State in which the Chicago political machine is located, was arrested for allegedly trying to sell Sen. Obama’s seat for political advantage. Caught on tape, he denied everything and appointed an Afro-American, Roland Burris, to the seat. This caught the Democrat Party off guard because “Blago” was actually doing something legal. Harry Reid’s first instinct was to deny Burris a seat in the Senate, thus alienating countless Afro-Americans who voted for Obama and other Democrats.

If the Chicago shenanigans weren’t sufficient, there was the prospect of a comedian—would I kid you—Al Franken being “elected” under the most dubious circumstances to the Senate as, of course, a Democrat. Having essentially failed at all previous pursuits, Franken naturally aspired to politics. His status remains in limbo because of all the votes that suddenly occurred after the election which his opponent won. In Minnesota votes found at the bottom of wells and under piles of leaves count if they are cast for a Democrat.

It is well to pause and note that EVERYBODY knows that the Democrats are attempting to STEAL the Minnesota Senate seat. Just as EVERYBODY knows that the appointment of Burris is Blago’s way of sticking it to his fellow Democrats, some of whom are suggesting that there should be a “black” seat in the Senate. There are, of course, many Afro-Americans in Congress and many have managed to disgrace themselves with the same alacrity as their white counterparts.

If matters could not get much worse (and they will) for the Democrats, New Mexico Governor Richardson, a designee for an Obama cabinet post, withdrew himself from consideration due to an investigation of alleged pay-for-play tactics. So far, Obama’s choices have proven less than stellar. Most are drawn from the former Clinton administration, including the wife of the former President.

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano has no apparent credentials to head up the Homeland Security Department, suggesting that the war on terror is not a top priority for the incoming Obama administration. This perception is heightened by the designation of Leon Panetta, the former chief of staff for Clinton, selected to head the Central Intelligence Agency.

Given the fact that the CIA has operated as a stealth agent for the Democrat Party throughout the course of the Bush administration, Panetta’s selection makes perfectly good sense. It was the Agency that consistently leaked “news” to The New York Times and anyone else that could rush into print to decry the horror of actually waging a war on Islamic terrorism. It is hard to criticize the appointment, however, given that Bush41 was once a CIA director and their headquarters is actually named for him.

The most recent news is that the President-elect wants to deal in part with the unemployment problem by hiring hundreds of people to serve in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That way Americans can feel even safer in a nation that threatens to become a police state where we will all have to carry a government-issued ID card in order to drive a car, board an airplane, do any banking, et cetera.

Other bizarre ideas include taxing every cow, goat, horse, and chicken in America for the crime of emitting greenhouse gases.

The Great Obama Anti-Recession Plan is likely to end up looking like the failed FDR plan of the 1930s. The government will become the employer of last resort and, with any luck, absolutely nothing will get done. Even the disgraced former New York Governor, Elliot Spitzer, attacked it!

I suspect that few Americans will be laughing much by the next elections in 2010. That is not good news for Democrats.

7 comments:

Guy said...

Well, that pretty much sums it up Alan, and I share your sentiment. As I've said in many of my writings of late, it IS comical, but sadly, I'm not laughing, and I doubt many other people are. What's really concerning me is the fact that, despite how OUTRAGEOUS some of these situations have gotten, people are still just sitting idly by, as if none of this is anything out of the ordinary. They talk about "Chicago Politics" as if greed, corruption, and flagrant abuse of the powers of public office are the norm. I know people who, despite his adultry and subsequent disbarrment for perjury, still think Bill Clinton was great, and would vote for him in a second if he was on the ballot...

People on the left wonder why those of us on the right are so obsessed with morals, rules, and such, and this is why. Without some sort of societal structure to guide us, we'd be living in a state of total anarchy. Nobody is perfect, and we all struggle with the daily challenges and dilemmas that life throws at us. Some of us turn to our religion for guidance, and some of us rely on our upbringing, but we ALL look to our leaders for strength, courage, and the moral fortitude to live our lives in a way that allows us to coexist in a safe and peaceful way. Somewhere along the way though, the rules have been corrupted. It seems it's no longer necessary to hold yourself to a higher standard in order to be a public servant. We've become a product of the "I'm OK, You're OK" generation, where we've been told that it's OK to be bad ... everyone is bad .... and now nobody seems to see anything wrong with a corrupt leader.

Well, the moral rules we live by have been hammered out over the years for good reasons, and when we allow those rules to break down, the fabric of society breaks down, and chaos will follow. It's happened before, and it will happen again if we stand by and let it. I'm all for some comedy and lightheartedness in my life, but there's a time and a place for everything, and our government is no place for a comedy act. It's time we stand up and start holding our leaders to a higher standard, for the sake of our society, our future, and our childrens' future.

Alan Caruba said...

Morals? Moral behavior? Rule of law? Guy, you must be one of those awful conservatives I keep hearing about. :)

Guy said...

Yeah, you got me there. I'm certainly no liberal. However, I'm not your stereotypical conservative either. Liberals would have us believe that if you're a conservative, you're some sort of "holier-than-thou", bible thumping zealot, quick to judge and quicker to punish. They leave little room for us "normal" conservatives. Why can't they understand that you don't have to be a zealot, or even a churchgoer, to believe in the basic rules of life that have been handed down to us through the many religions that make up our society? Abandoning ALL the rules just because one or two of them cause occasional discomfort is pretty much like throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. I'm all for tolerance and understanding of our faults and shortcomings. We all have them. But this decent into immorality that we're faced with MUST be met with fair, but firm resistance if we are to survive as a nation ... in my humble opinion.

ZZMike said...

Al Franken in the Senate just goes to emphasize Mark Twain's observation: Anytime they make a law, it's a joke; and anytime they make a joke, it's a law.

"... hiring hundreds of people to serve in the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

I missed that one. I'm sure they'll hire devoted, intelligent people, just as they have for the TSA:

71-year-old bullied by TSA agent

Rich Kozlovich said...

It always amazes me how “conservatives” insist on having caveats regarding who and what they are. I would be interested in know what exactly is a "stereotypical conservative" anyway? I would like to know exactly what a “normal” conservative is also. I doubt that any such thing exists; except in the minds of the mass media and the left wing Moonbats, and they don’t believe that conservatives are normal whether they are religiously inclined or not. If we have any doubt all we have to do it to look to see who they depict as “moderates”.

Using the phrase, "holier-than-thou", bible thumping zealot, quick to judge and quicker to punish”, is exactly the stereotype that these people tout in order to create a pariah mentality among the general population regarding conservatives; and when “conservatives” make a point of telling everyone that they are not one of them it plays right into this false picture.

It also implies that those who have strong religious views are all crazy….and that is the only reason that they are conservatives. The reality is that there are as many "holier-than-thou", bible thumping zealot, quick to judge and quicker to punish”, on the liberal side as there are on the conservative side! And they are just like their leftist secular brethren when it comes to being quick to judge and punish! Actually quicker, because their secular brethren always believe that they are on the high moral ground and they should be “judging” and passing regulations to “punish”. However the left and their allies in the media call these "holier-than-thou", bible thumping zealot, quick to judge and quicker to punish”, “enlightened”.

Another thing that I wish everyone would get straight is where the terms “left” and “right” came from. When the socialist movements were developing in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, (Germany was the focal point geologically) they were divided between the Leninist communists and the Mussolini fascists. At one of their conferences the fascists were seated at the right of the table and the communists were seated at the left, and that is where the terms originated, but they were all socialists….none of them were conservative….they were merely different sides of the same coin.

There was no conservative movement as we know it at that time. Conservatism as we know it today was what was being practiced as a societal paradigm. They didn’t need a descriptive term….they just lived by those principles of the "holier-than-thou", bible thumping zealot, quick to judge and quicker to punish” population.

Furthermore it might be noted that the socialist movement in this nation was originally called Progressivism and promoted by a great many prominent Americans, including Teddy Roosevelt who gave it authority and personality. What was the binding force behind it? Believe it or not the binding force was religion. Prominent preachers and priests in the late 19th early 20th centuries were the promoters of what became the left in America today and they were "holier-than-thou", bible thumping zealot, quick to judge and quicker to punish” leftists Moonbats then just as they are now. They believe then, just as the “progressive” religionists believe today, that socialism is the proper expression of Judaic-Christian teachings and principles.

So then, what is a conservative? And do you really care what else they believe as long as they support life, liberty, and a right to pursue a happy life peacefully? These ad hominem attacks from the left are to be expected, but when they are from conservatives they are counter-productive!

After the Raid on Entebbe they asked Golda Meir (if memory serves me correctly I believe it was her) how Israel could take military support from a racist society such as South Africa? She commented that Israel wasn’t like the U.S. She said that Israel didn’t have so many friends that they could pick and choose.

Neither do conservatives.

Rich Kozlovich said...

It always amazes me how “conservatives” insist on having caveats regarding who and what they are. I would be interested in know what exactly is a "stereotypical conservative" anyway? I would like to know exactly what a “normal” conservative is also. I doubt that any such thing exists; except in the minds of the mass media and the left wing Moonbats, and they don’t believe that conservatives are normal whether they are religiously inclined or not. If we have any doubt all we have to do it to look to see who they depict as “moderates”.

Using the phrase, "holier-than-thou", bible thumping zealot, quick to judge and quicker to punish”, is exactly the stereotype that these people tout in order to create a pariah mentality among the general population regarding conservatives; and when “conservatives” make a point of telling everyone that they are not one of them it plays right into this false picture.

It also implies that those who have strong religious views are all crazy….and that is the only reason that they are conservatives. The reality is that there are as many "holier-than-thou", bible thumping zealot, quick to judge and quicker to punish”, on the liberal side as there are on the conservative side! And they are just like their leftist secular brethren when it comes to being quick to judge and punish! Actually quicker, because their secular brethren always believe that they are on the high moral ground and they should be “judging” and passing regulations to “punish”. However the left and their allies in the media call these "holier-than-thou", bible thumping zealot, quick to judge and quicker to punish”, “enlightened”.

Another thing that I wish everyone would get straight is where the terms “left” and “right” came from. When the socialist movements were developing in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, (Germany was the focal point geologically) they were divided between the Leninist communists and the Mussolini fascists. At one of their conferences the fascists were seated at the right of the table and the communists were seated at the left, and that is where the terms originated, but they were all socialists….none of them were conservative….they were merely different sides of the same coin.

There was no conservative movement as we know it at that time. Conservatism as we know it today was what was being practiced as a societal paradigm. They didn’t need a descriptive term….they just lived by those principles of the "holier-than-thou", bible thumping zealot, quick to judge and quicker to punish” population.

Furthermore it might be noted that the socialist movement in this nation was originally called Progressivism and promoted by a great many prominent Americans, including Teddy Roosevelt who gave it authority and personality. What was the binding force behind it? Believe it or not the binding force was religion. Prominent preachers and priests in the late 19th early 20th centuries were the promoters of what became the left in America today and they were "holier-than-thou", bible thumping zealot, quick to judge and quicker to punish” leftists Moonbats then just as they are now. They believe then, just as the “progressive” religionists believe today, that socialism is the proper expression of Judaic-Christian teachings and principles.

So then, what is a conservative? And do you really care what else they believe as long as they support life, liberty, and a right to pursue a happy life peacefully? These ad hominem attacks from the left are to be expected, but when they are from conservatives they are counter-productive!

After the Raid on Entebbe they asked Golda Meir (if memory serves me correctly I believe it was her) how Israel could take military support from a racist society such as South Africa? She commented that Israel wasn’t like the U.S. She said that Israel didn’t have so many friends that they could pick and choose.

Neither do conservatives.

Guy said...

Rich, I guess what I meant by "normal" conservative, when I described myself was that I do "support life, liberty, and a right to pursue a happy life peacefully .... " just as you said, without making my religion an integral part of it. I certainly didn't mean to attack anyone based on their religion or lack thereof. I guess I was just trying to voice my own displeasure with the way the media portrays ALL conservatives, regardless of their true convictions. I also wanted to help other readers of this blog get a feel for who I am, and express my disdain for the corruption that's sweeping through our society. Life, liberty, and freedom are great until someone starts defining freedom as their right to take my rights, freedom and property away from me ....