Wednesday, July 9, 2008

A party of one

What is it with the Democrats? Are these people just completely retarded? It’s no wonder Rush Limbaugh has made a fortune out of making fun of them all these years – they could screw up a two-car funeral. They’d certainly never agree to drive to the cemetery via the same route.

This November should be a cakewalk for the Dems but they seem determined to make a race of it. Democrats of every stripe are sniping at Obama now whenever his rhetoric fails to fulfill their personal vision of government.

Say what you want about the Republicans, but even though McCain was never the perfect GOP candidate, once it was clear that he had the nomination even the far-right of the party pretty much shut its mouth and got behind him as their best option.

But not the Dems. Oh no. The U.S. Army (oddly it seemed to me) used the tag line “An Army of One” in their recruiting efforts for some time. I always thought it should be the Dem’s tag line: “Join the Democratic Party and Be a Party of One.” Every man a Secretary of State. Every women the head of the EPA.
  • Don’t like that Obama is OK with executing child rapists? Then screw him. Don’t vote.
  • Don’t like the way Hillary is being positioned in the speaking line-up in Denver? You’ll show them – vote McCain!
  • Think Obama is not adhering strictly enough to the dictates of the Kyoto Protocol relative to permissible greenhouse gas emissions in 2030? Disband the party!

And God forbid that there would be any discretion in the Iraq timetable. Obama will be tarred and feathered if he doesn’t pull out immediately -- regardless of whether it is the intelligent thing to do, or not, in January 2009.

Really, why do they bother associating themselves with a party at all? Why doesn’t every Democrat just vote for him or herself for President? It would be the ultimate expression of political narcissism from the party that gave us Bill Clinton.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Infuriating isn't it. Democratic "activists", as a group (and even inividually for the most part) are some of the biggest a-holes I've had the misfortune of working with. They are self-important, condescending, and incredibly arrogant. Only slightly less contemptable than Republicans.

However, given all that, McCain is still going to lose and lose big. If Obama does even marginally well in the debates, people's comfort level will go up and they'll pull the lever for Obama.

Anonymous said...

Gee guys, I thought Democrat was the party that brought us social security and medicare. And isn't it the party that is about to give give us universal health insurance? Looks pretty successful to me on at least a few occasions.

Anonymous said...

The gop is not all that behind McCain, they just shut up about the problems with him.

His fundraising his way behind the dems for the first time in 30 years.

The supposed liberal press loves going after democrats. One of the media watchdog groups did a study of Bill Clinton's first year and said there were more negative stories about him than there were about Reagan 12 years before.

Many of the liberal groups will talk to the press at will about Obama's flaws. Gop groups don't go down that road with there guy.

Anonymous said...

I was brought up in a family of Democrats. As I age, I see how flawed the party is. However, so are Republicans. We can understand the mechanics of politics and see why they compromise their positions. In a way, extreme swings are dangerous. Bill Clinton did not have the luxury of his party in control of Congress. He was a populist, among other less flattering distinctions. His arrogance of power was inherited by GW Bush. If you can get past your own interests, where you have a prejudicial stake on one side, to being critical to both sides of a problem, you will see how both parties shoot themselves in their feet, given the circumstance. Obama's money has bought him a huge spotlight.

The public will let you down when they have enough rope to hang themselves. Look at the Supreme Court and their confidence in keeping the public in fire arms. Perhaps the public should have to take a test before they vote.

What amazes me is how we prevailed on the beaches of Normandy.

d'blank said...

Social Security and Medicare, let see, that was 1933 and 1964, right? Kind of a long time between major victories. UHC? We'll see. That would require consensus building. Not exactly a party strong suit.

"...supposed liberal press;" is that like "allegedly gay Key West?"

By bashing the Dems I'm not holding the GOP up as a model of anything to love -- but at least they know how to accept an election when it's dropped in their lap. Every little Democratic voter would rather be right than win -- and that's why to are such consistent losers.