Posts Tagged ‘DNC’

Democrats Flooding Presidential Field

Sunday, January 13th, 2019

The latest Democrat to announce she’ll throw her hat into the ring is Hawaiian Representative Tulsi Gabbard.  The 37-year-old combat veteran joins a growing list of Democrats with short résumés crowding the field.  Of course, among Democrats, such a politician stands some chance of winning the nomination, if only because Democrats seem to seek out electoral phenomena rather than qualified leaders.  In some rare cases, like in 2008, they’re able to prevail.  Across America, there are dozens of female Democrat politicians who want to be the first female president.  It’s not to say there aren’t any in the Republican party, but Republican women generally seek to make their own résumés stronger, knowing that while the media will give popular Democrats a pass on qualifications, there’s no chance a Republican will ever be treated that way.  Young and relatively attractive, Gabbard has been cultivating an image as a “moderate” in her party, but it’s all show.  In the end, she’s another leftist, and she will advance the interests of the state.  Even twenty years ago, I’d have said she’s nuts.  Nowadays, given the direction of the Democrat Party, that seeks power at the expense of all else, anything is possible.  In a rational civilization, none of these people would have a chance, and that’s a problem for Democrats.

Gabbard is writing a memoir, which is another laughable notion, in my view.  I’m sixteen years her senior, and I don’t warrant a memoir.  In fact, I don’t want to read a person’s autobiography or memoir until they’re at least sixty years old, and then, they’d better have something compelling to say.   At thirty-seven years of age, the last four spent in Congress, what exactly has she done that is so memorable?  I don’t wish to belittle her combat experience, as she did her duty and did it honorably by all reports, but it wasn’t exactly like Audie Murphy’s. It’s also useful to note that she was a legislative aid to long-time Hawaiian Senator Daniel Akaka, a mostly useless legislator but reliable vote for the Democrats.  I don’t know that this is the source of her qualification.  By the time the 2020 campaign begins in earnest later this year, she’ll have roughly five years in the House of Representatives.  For the same reason I don’t think Robert Francis “BETO” O’Rourke is qualified on the basis of his congressional service, neither is she.

To report it bluntly, this is a problem that face most of the younger Democrats who plan on running for the Presidency: They’re not really an accomplished lot, all in all.  That doesn’t mean they can’t win, but it does mean they have serious credibility problems with a huge proportion of voters.  The most likely nominee is probably former Vice President Joe Biden, who despite his age, has plenty of pull within the Democrat Party establishment.  If Gabbard and some of the other younger Democrats are shrewd, they know this and will try to hitch themselves to Biden as the Vice Presidential candidate, and that could be Gabbard’s play here.  She doesn’t have the name recognition even within her own party yet, but if she plays her cards right, she might elevate herself in this way.

Part of the problem for Democrats is that they have either old tired bulls like Biden and a completely damaged old socialist like Bernie Sanders(I-VT,) or crazy, damaged moon-bats like Elizabeth Warren(D-MA). This leaves the inexperienced youngsters like Gabbard.  That’s not a solid path to the presidency, and if President Trump decides to seek a second term, his list of accomplishments to date will make him formidable for re-election.  Never forget that the power of incumbency is huge.  Few sitting presidents are ever defeated, and it takes a truly terrible performance for the people who elected a President to reverse their previous vote.

What I think candidates like Gabbard indicate is the frailty of the Democrat Party.  She would make a formidable candidate if she first spent some time as Governor, or something along those lines, but at present, she’s not ready.  This is the case for many Democrats in this rapidly expanding field.  There’s almost no chance they’ll be elected, but rank-and-file Democrats under forty tend to vote on emotion, so one can never say “never.”  During his two terms, Barack Obama did very little to grow the next generation of Democrat politicians.  They have some youngsters with promise, but they need more experience.  One might consider the laughable young New York Congressional member, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and it’s easy to see how Democrats can become so enthusiastic about her.  She’s raising unholy Hell at the moment, but it’s only a matter of time until leadership in the party reins her in.

Democrats face a serious problem in 2020.  Their surplus of viable candidates is mostly illusory, as demonstrated by Gabbard.  Strictly, she’s apparently a natural born citizen who has obtained the age of 35 years, but apart from military service and a few terms in Congress, I don’t see any accomplishments in her history that imply a significant or compelling qualification.  There is no record of having accomplished anything.  Where is the legislative record?  It’s pretty thin.  All in all, this is what most of the Democrats must confront.  Their old bulls have serious weaknesses.  If the Democrats run Clinton again, they’ll be beaten even worse than in 2016.  If Bernie runs, it will be a catastrophe of competing grievances against him.  He’s too damaged now to win the Presidency, and it’s now getting worse daily with the latest revelations about his 2016 campaign.  Biden certainly has a chance at winning the nomination, and with a younger, vibrant Vice Presidential running mate, perhaps like Gabbard, he might be able to pull it off.  The truth is, however, that despite their apparent electoral advantages, Democrats have a serious problem: They’re mostly not likable, by and large, and in their party, that emotional pull is a prerequisite, but even where they meet it, they’re desperately inexperienced.  As they flood in to fill the field, they should take care not to leave their few viable contenders in the position of lifeguards surrounded by a desperate crowd of drowning people.  Those who find themselves drowning may drag the stronger swimmers under with them.

Advertisements

Obama and the Convention of Zero

Saturday, September 8th, 2012

Joining the Collective

In mathematics, it’s known as the empty set.  It’s a grouping with no constituent parts, and if the Democrat National Convention proved anything, it was that this is a party with no heart, no soul, and no intellect.  One of my concerns has long been that the Republicans seem determined to follow in the footsteps of the Democrats, and it is clear that the GOP establishment has its tendencies in the direction of the void, but this week, the whole world was treated to the meaning of what it is to be a Democrat in 2012, and it is horrifying.  One might feel badly having watched the grotesque spectacle of a clear majority of the delegates screaming their contempt for the State of Israel, never mind their dismissal of faith.  Among the sea of screeching voices, there were some who voted for the platform amendments at issue, and it is for them we might have a small measure of pity.  They succeeded strictly because it had been commanded from the top, but you could see it in their faces:  They knew they had lost to at least a simple majority of the delegates.  This is the fruit of three generations of Democrats who have sold their souls to an unerringly anti-American, anti-existence faction that is now an irreducible majority of their party.  Barack Obama stands now as the spokesman for a dead ideology that is both massive and empty at once.

In physics, a singularity is an object of infinite density, exerting a force of gravity from which there can be no escape. One may be pulled into a black hole, one’s very atoms being accreted onto its mass and subsumed into the whole, but one can never escape, and having arrived there, is reduced to approximately nothing.  Nothing escapes.  It is impossible to discern anything about a singularity, because we can’t see them. In this sense, they are nothing.  Not matter, in any form we know. No energy exists there, save for that generated by its gravitational attraction.  No light can escape its grasp, and nothing new is born there.  It is a place to which energy and matter disappear, never to be seen again.  This is the Democrat party, and those faces looking bewildered before the cameras as they realized that despite winning “in the opinion of the chair,” the majority of their party had condemned them to the blackness of their ideological singularity, thus pulling them in.  Those who still wanted Israel’s capital at Jerusalem to be recognized as such were confronted by a mass of people who did not.  Those who still wanted the simple but significant three-letter word “God” to appear in the platform realized they were a minority.  Like the stellar flotsam and jetsam whirling about the event horizon of a singularity, it was too late, and the look on their faces revealed the horror of their situation: The Democrat Party has become a party of death, destruction, and depravity, and drawn in too close, there can be no escape.

Bill Clinton was fetched-in to mount a defense of the indefensible.  As ever, Clinton did what he always does: Lie. Perhaps the more mortifying part of it in this instance is that he too had become part of the flotsam and jetsam, and while he offered one distortion after the next on behalf of a President who he doesn’t like, and who has ravaged the country by design, with malice aforethought, Bill Clinton waggled his finger at the American people just as he did when he said infamously: “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”  As he lied then, so too did Bill Clinton prevaricate with vigor at the convention.  He attempted with the feigned sincerity of  the ages to tell the American people that they are better off today than they had been four years ago.  Ladies and gentlemen, there can be no forgiveness for this.  There can be no rationalizations.  When a former President of the United States tells a whopper of this scale, what can possibly redeem him?  Naturally, the media loved him, but that had been a predictable result based on an ideology they share.  Once subsumed within the singularity, there is no escape.

Michelle Obama told us she loves her husband.  Forgive me, but I think she lied.  I think Mrs. Obama loves the idea of her husband, but what love is expressed in such a manner?  The entire focus of this speech was to answer Ann Romney, but if she held that as her goal, she failed.  She concocted stories of the early poverty of the couple, but those tales of woe do not match the record.  To say Mrs. Obama had fibbed to the convention, and to the American people would be a gross injustice.  She lied, and under the harsh lights of the convention stage, she did so with practiced, perfected gusto.Again, the media extolled her virtues, couching much of their praise in terms of the quality of her delivery, but seldom noticing the first thing about the shoddy set of alleged facts she presented.  We knew this would happen too, because once inside, there is no return path.

Not to be outdone, President Obama spoke about the things in which Democrats believe.  He lauded Bill Clinton, but he did not mention that Clinton had been on a path to a disaster similar to his own until the Gingrich revolution of 1994. He did not explain how more of the same would save the nation.  He did not offer an excuse so much as he begged for more time.  He appeared like the man whose car is being repossessed, begging the repo crew for more time, for one more extension, and for one last chance to make it right.  He might plead with the lenders, but they are tired of his excuses and want no more of them.  They simply wish to be made whole, or to minimize their losses.  They are not in the mood to offer more time, believing it has expired, and they have begun to suspect that to extend more patience will be rewarded only with more broken promises and a longer list of unrealized deliverables.

The President made more promises, vows about continuing a change begun with his election, but nevertheless being a change that has been disastrous for the country. The truth of Barack Obama’s “change” is akin to the spaghettification one would undergo on the way into a black hole: It might be change, but it won’t be pleasant, and it’s not what had been imagined. The “hope” also abounds, but it is baseless: There can be no escape and no coming back from this singularity.  These last four years, we have been fortunate in one respect, and one respect only: We have defied physics because we have been able to catch a glimpse what lies beyond the event horizon, and the American people, driven by self-preservation, simply do not wish to go there, knowing now in full what it will mean.

Clint Eastwood’s empty chair is an apt symbol of the emptiness of the President Obama, but it is also an expression of the fundamental problem of the ideology of the left.  The only source of their power is the gravity of their aggregated mass, but they have no energy, they create nothing new, and they offer nothing but death as an answer to all problems.  Consider the litany of issues in which Democrats and their cohorts offer solutions, and it is always in the direction of the zero.  Unwanted pregnancies?  Abortions. (Kill them!)  Profits?  Taxes. (Kill them!)  Increased longevity?  Death Panels. (Kill them!)  Civilization? Environmental regulations. (Kill it!)  Population growth?  Contraception. (Prevent them from living!)  Everything about the root ideology of the left is leveraged in favor of death, destruction, and depravity.  This is the hallmark of their message, but whether they succeed or fail is entirely your choice.  You have now been dragged to the edge of their event horizon, but unlike so many of their past victims, you know what lies beyond it.  You know that it’s a gargantuan, relentless, and crushing emptiness.  This election may very well be your last chance at escape.

Six billion subsumed voices await you inside.  After all, misery loves company.

DNC Anti-Gingrich Ad Backfires!

Sunday, December 11th, 2011

Political Backfire of the Year?

I am sure that Newt Gingrich is laughing, wherever he may be.  The Democrat National Committee has just released an anti-Gingrich ad that Newt should have to count as an “independent expenditure” under FEC rules.  The ad starts out with the premise that Newt is the “Original Tea Partier,” and goes on to highlight how he wanted to reform Medicare, or even replace it by giving senior citizens a better choice, and then on to his proposals for slashing capital gains taxes and corporate income taxes.  The ad is clearly aimed at rallying the Democrats’ base, but it’s having a different effect.  Call it the “unintended consequences.”  Instead of hurting Gingrich, this ad is actually helping him, not necessarily with Democrats, the intended audience, but with Tea Party folk.

You can watch the ad for yourself:

This ad, rather than hurting Gingrich, may actually help him among independents and Tea Party folk, as well as conservatives who worry that the former speaker is too progressive for their tastes.  It actually highlights some of Gingrich’s more conservative positions over time, and certainly his current economic proposals.  In spite of what Democrats had hoped in putting this ad out there, they may have actually succeeded in giving Gingrich a boost after a debate in which his fellow Republicans tried to undermine his conservative credentials.  You can bet Mitt Romney won’t like this ad, because it succeeds in making the case to those from whom Romney must win support.

How long do you suppose it will be before the DNC announces they meant to do this, since, they will tell us, they’d rather face Gingrich in 2012?