Embarrassing

OK, if you are a professional race baiter, a community organizer, union boss, felon or univ “genders study” prof, we can understand the Democrat party registration. Why would anyone else bother? It’s a wonder.

If subjected to scrutiny, how can these types define themselves as patriots? By reverting to the “old party” values, those of Truman and Kennedy? Sorry. No such party or values exist any longer, at least not in the national organization of the party.

Do you even know my good lefty friends anything whatsoever about what your party has become? We doubt it.

American Muslims have been fairly criticized for their lack of zeal in looking to cast out those members who profess violence. Why have not American Democrats been taken to task for their lack of zeal in looking to exile the extremists of their party; that is, the group now in control? Are these folk content, or just embarrassed?

Where do we begin? Embarrassing is it not that so many still look, zombie-like, to blame Bush when Bush is long gone. Did Bush force BO to borrow $3 trillion? Did Bush force BO to nationalize health care? Did Bush force BO to scare the daylights out of every employer with talk of burden after burden - income, FICA, health tax increases, all the rest? Did Bush force BO to protect those responsible for the crash? As Vic Hansen reminds us, Bush did not daily blame Clinton for Clinton’s appeasing of radical Islam, as Bush went about his business of taking on the Taliban and passing the Patriot Act after 9-11.

This applies to our lefty pals in Marin as it does to BO - “Nothing so diminished a president as the trait of scapegoating a predecessor, nothing so erodes his stature as the teen-age habit of blaming someone else for one’s self-inflicted problems,” notes Hansen.

Embarrassing to Democrats is it not that the party with a dark racial past lays blame of racism on that party founded on anti-slavery, when in fact the left craftily lever the black community by convincing the same of a handicap? Embarrassing is it not, the slanderous claim that a protestor called John Lewis the N-word 15 times turns out to be a lie, “but is promoted endlessly by teary-eyed reporters, most of whom cannot count to 15,” as Ann Coulter notes.

Obama plays right along. Two big-time lefties (but both honorable gents, rare) note that, “Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture.” Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Carter and Clinton respectively, continue: “Obama has also cynically divided the country on class lines. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and corporations behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda.”

This is embarrassing stuff for any Democrat, even our nursery pals.

Embarrassing is it not that violence resides primarily with the left, the left’s proclivity for the same documented in the form of mountains of arrest records. “Liberal protesters at the 2008 Republican National Convention were arrested for smashing police cars, slashing tires, breaking store windows, and for possessing Molotov cocktails, napalm bombs and assorted firearms. (If only they could muster up that kind of fighting spirit on foreign battlefields.) There
were no arrests of conservatives at Democratic conventions,” notes Coulter.

Embarrassing is in not that in the fall of 2008 Obama supporters mace'd elderly volunteers in a McCain campaign office in Galax, Va. In separate attacks, a half-dozen liberals threw Molotov cocktails at McCain signs on families' front yards in and around Portland, Ore. One Obama supporter broke a McCain sign being held by a small middle-aged woman in midtown Manhattan before hitting her in the face with the stick.

Do you party types identify with this stuff?

On a broader scope, embarrassing is it not that most registered Democrats are ignorant of history. Not just a tad unaware. Ignorant. And that they still believe in, or go along with central planning when most of us know it can only lead to dictatorship (because it always has)? As our friend Thomas Sowell notes, “What is remarkable is that, after a few decades of experience with central planning in some countries, or a few generations in others, even Communists and socialists began to repudiate this approach. As liberals replaced central planning with more reliance on markets, their countries’ economic-growth rates almost invariably increased, often dramatically. In the largest and most recent examples — China and India — people by the millions have risen above these countries’ official poverty rates, after they freed their economies from many of their suffocating government controls.”

We’re tired and going to bed. It’s endless.

Robert Craven