One of the most excruciating things that the current political season holds for the American voter is the fog of dishonest election rhetoric that is wafting about, mostly coming from the Democratic Party — as revealed in the vacuous pronouncements of Democratic candidates on the stump and in debates, with the counterpoint of divisive, mean-spirited invectives coming from their supporters on leftist Web sites.
To a man, the Democrats are not running on issues, but are running against George W. Bush. But since Bush will not be on the ballot in 2008, one wonders if this strategy is worth the expenditure of time and energy challenging a chimera.
Boiled down to its essence, the Democratic plan is two-fold: one, to rev the engines of Bush-haters everywhere, and those of independents who have soured on Bush’s war initiatives; and two, to strike fear into the hearts of Americans that things are basically terrible and will not improve until the country has predominantly Democratic leaders.
This past year, Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi tried to move this agenda forward in the Congress with ill-considered anti-war legislation to shackle President Bush, or vast, new entitlement programs that are either voted down or trigger a presidential veto. Other Democratic-led congressional committees waste taxpayer dollars with myriad investigations in efforts to dredge up dirt on the Bush administration.
Democratic candidates lament the plight of the healthcare uninsured, and squeal about the imminent dangers of global warming, oil company price gouging, income inequality, lack of “comprehensive” immigration reform (read: amnesty for illegals), a supposed attack on Social Security (which they refer to as “pensions”) by Republicans, Katrina response and other Chicken Little outrages — leaving the implication that if only they were president, these “problems” would disappear.
For their part, the Republicans tend to talk about the present and future dangers of Islamic terrorism, strategies to prevent unfettered immigration, and (unlike softball questions posed by debate moderators for Democrats) where they personally stand on social issues like abortion on demand and gay marriage.
Although one may disagree with a Republican candidate’s crystal ball gazing about Middle East embroglios, the Democratic vision is nothing other than withdrawal of U.S. forces in favor of “negotiation” (read: appeasement).
Except for UFO watcher Dennis Kucinich, Democratic candidates are purposefully vague about what they would do. Their primary standard bearer Hillary Clinton — a woman to whom honesty, openness, and forthrightness are strangers — studiously avoids direct answers to questions, preferring instead the comfort of scripted platitudes, dissembling, planted questions and feigned umbrage when blindsided by unprepared-for challenges.
As in the Democratic take-over of Congress in 2006, the Dems assume that a capture of the executive branch in 2008 would mean a mandate for their party. Thus a repudiation of George W. Bush policies will be interpreted, incorrectly, as a free rein for change and a reversal of Republican values and policies.
In thrall to their far-left special interest blocs — unions, lawyers, gays, feminists, minorities, George Soros activists, or any group with grievances, entitlement attitudes and bushelsful of votes to be tabulated — Democrats make no secret of their goal to increase government size and power.
They try to accomplish this by trumpeting perceived national failures, giving Americans a bad feeling about their country and its leadership, so they can drag the nation once again into higher taxes and redistributionist programs reminiscent of the heydays of Lyndon Johnson. In other words, stealing from one group of people and giving it to another.
Champing at the bit until they can really exercise power, congressional Democrats are already tipping their hands. Charles Rangel, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, for example, is licking his lips over a huge tax increase that will fall primarily on the middle class.
Another staple in the Democratic playbook is universal government-run healthcare coverage. Hillary Clinton, with European socialist blood coursing through her veins, is eager to pick up the fallen banner from her debacle of 1994 and tilt once again at mandatory coverage and centralized regulation, if given the chance.
Repeal of the Bush tax cuts and never-ending, manipulative social experimentation are also action items.
It is a great pity that, according to national testing, while American students are quite knowledgeable about the latest iPod devices, the sex lives of celebrities and self-gratification, they are uniformly ignorant about civics and history, and have no profound understanding about the values inherent in the founding of their country,
For if they did, they would not mindlessly let blatherings from the current crop of Democratic candidates remain unchallenged, nor would they blindly accept the overbearing Democratic collectivist and regulatory model of government.
In its zeal to regain executive power, the Democratic Party gives short shrift to the real threats the country faces — a global Islamist enemy, masses of illegal immigrants, short-sighted energy policies and counter-productive taxation —whistling past the graveyard towards Pennsylvania Avenue.
* * *
Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications. He may be reached at kalellis@hotmail.com.
© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
|
